I've been looking at both Olympus 2000 and Nikon 950 as possible cameras to purchase. By looking at specs alone, I'd say that the Nikon wins. The only problem is that many images I've seen from the 950 (esp. taken from longer distances away) seem blurry. Is this just me? Does the olympus have better exposure and colour accuracy? Any comments would be appreciated. Than

-- Kim Dobson (crab@interlog.com), April 13, 1999

Answers

Here are the most recent comparison photos I saw, check this URL: http://www.dreamarts.co.jp/magazine/nishikawa/contents/990328/

-- benoit (foo@bar.com), April 13, 1999.

Looks to me as if the 950 pix could have used a bit of a push in the ISO department in comparison to the others. Aside from the difference in camera used, as the ISO goes up the colors are less washed out and contrast is better.

Ron

-- Ron Reznick (trapagon@earthlink.net), April 15, 1999.

i saw the new CP-950 gallery by phil askey. i'm now very happy with the CP-950 pictures. Peter

-- Peter Wattenhofer (peter@watt-is.ch), April 18, 1999.

I have the same impression, that the 950 pictures are blurry. Is there something I'm not seeing or does the emporer really not have any clothes?

-- Stan Pavey (StanPavey@Compuserve.com), April 18, 1999.

I have come to the conclusion that some coolpix 950 images are not actually blurry. They are just lacking strength in the highlights and shadows - esp. in bright outdoor images (autolevels in photoshop often fixes the problem). The camera actually captures more information by leaving the highlights and shadows weaker. I prefer to manipulate the images myself. The other day I ordered o

-- Kim Dobson (crab@interlog.com), April 18, 1999.

I own a CP900 and as of this week a CP950. Nikon solved many of my wish list items with the 950 but the biggest challenge I've noticed is the lack of sharp focus, especially with distance shots at infinite focus. I had expected an overall improvement in focus given the number of steps the 950 is capable of but it is clear now this new feature benefits macro focusing. I thought at first it may just be my 950 so I exchanged it for another with the same result. In looking at the images posted on the WEB I am still convinced that the 900 focus is sharper than the 950 on distance shots. Take a look for yourself at http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM - this same has review on the new Olympus 2Megapixel and slams them pretty hard about fuzzy images and lack of sharpening technology in the camera. Yet they don't say a word about the 950, they in fact state that the higher resolution is yielding sharper images than the 900. I just don't see it and am considering returning the 950 and sticking with my trusty 900 (sans the hot new features). In using the above site to compare a series of cameras I was most impressed with the sharpness of the Cannon PS Pro 70 (wow!). I have not yet seen other postings on the 950 fuzzy images until now. I am left wondering about the emperor myself.

-- Carl Gulledge (carlg@msn.com), May 06, 1999.

Your observations are correct but incomplete. The images are as sharp as any but at the lower contrast and with less sharpening with internal software, the images are not the best I've seen when downloaded directly from the camera. I find the canon Pro70 much better if you do not have after-market software to spif up your images. Low contrast and an absence ofsharpening, allows users a choice. For me thatis better.

Rinus

-- Rinus Borgsteede (RinusPhoto@cadvision.com), July 01, 1999.