I am a professional portrait photographer looking to incorporate a digital camera into my high school senior pictures. This would be for "people montages". Manipulated multi-pose composites. Overall photo size would be 8x10" max. The digital camera would be to capture "elements" of the montage. Each element would be only 5" to 7" max. within the overall 8x10. I would be using my studio strobes. I have been scanning prints into Photoshop for creating these montages. I just thought a digital camera would save lots of hassle re: cleaning up the dust & debris during the scanning process. I was just about to buy the Kodak 260, when I discovered the Nikon Coolpix 950. On paper, the spec's seem to suggest the Nikon over the Kodak. But one big question I have is : Does the Nikon connect with external studio strobes...or just the dedicated Nikon flashes? Does anyone do similar work as my above discussion? Does anyone have any tips, advice, comments on my situation?

Please E-Mail me. Thanks! God bless, -david- <><

-- David Soderman (galatwo20@aol.com), May 10, 1999

Answers

The Kodak wins hands downs. It has a USB connection and the color and clarity of the pictures are unsurpassed. I used several digital cameras before selecting the 265 myself (including the Olympus 620, 400z, and others) and I use it with a Vivitar 285HV (with a Quantum Turbo battery for zero recycle time). The reason the USB connection is so important is that the software for the camera (which is running a PowerPC) can be easily UPGRADED as improvements are made. Kodak supplies updated software FREE at their site, and the 260 has had several software upgrades already (6, I think). Each one improved the performance of the camera. You can't do that with any other under-$2000 camera today. One caveat: when using an external flash, the CAMERA recycle time will limit burst shooting to about 0.5 fps, since it has to set up between each shot (that's with manual focus, no preview after the shot, etc.) You cannot use the camera's "burst" mode (which allows up to 3 fps) with an external flash because it disables the flash. So burst mode is really only useful in bright, outdoor situations. Apparently they didn't expect people to be using high powered flash units with the camera. But because of the USB connector, that shortcoming may be changed in future software updates. Think about it, would you buy a PC that you couldn't upgrade the software in? Digital cameras are, basically, specialized PCs. Buying one that that can't be upgraded is like buying an expensive paperweight, given how fast things change. Having a camera that can be upgraded through software is like buying an extension of it's useful life. I also expect Kodak to offer a true uncompressed mode as well in future updates. And the 1536x1024 format is already good enough for true 8x10 prints, and is even better for 5x7. Final note: I got my DC265 at computers4sure.com when the price was $829. I think it's still about that now. I've had it for about 3 weeks and have taken over 1500 pictures with it. The flexibility of digital photography allows me to take MANY more photos than I would have with film, since I can delete pictures I don't want, and never have to worry about the cost of developing.

-- Derek Weller (wrestler@worldnet.att.net), May 10, 1999.

I have had my Coolpix 950 for 10 days now. I have not had any experience with the Kodak. My background is that I am a serious amateur who began with 35 mm Nikon F in the mid 1960's and have since used 2 1/4 SLR (Kowa Super D) and Mamiya along with many 35 mm's (Nikon F, Nikkormat, Nikon FA, Canon, Olympus)

I have been extremely impressed with the Nikon. If you especially want to do specialized, trick kinds of photos using its incredible macro capabilities (down to about 1 ".) The zoom gives a fine range to work with (38mm - 115, in 35mm parlance) and especially for natural light, its results are fantastic. If I were doing available light people shots especially, this would be great.

The image quality is very, very good. I have printed out on my inkjet (Epson 850) extremely good 8X10's, (using glossy, photo paper) as close to 35mm from my other cameras.

I have used the flash for flash fill, with OK results. But I haven't used the external flash capability yet.

-- Richard Hum (humr@juno.com), May 10, 1999.

I recently sold my 8 month old Kodak DC260 and replaced it with the new Nikon CoolPix 950. The Nikon is a much superior camera when it comes to flexibility. The manual controls leave Kodak in the dust.

The Nikon 950 also allows for easy upgrades of software just like the Kodak 260 and 265. No advantage of one over another in this area. The older Nikon 900 model is another story. No user upgrades for it. It can only be done by the factory. Stick to the 950.

The Nikon already has an uncompressed TIFF mode. Kodak owners are still waiting. In my personal opinion, this is a way overrated feature. The difference in image quality between a 5.6MB TIFF image and a 700KB JPEG image is not detectable in most photos. But Nikon gives it to you if you want it.

I believe the Nikon 950 will probably work fine with your studio lights. However, I do not have personal experience in this area. I have only used mine with the internal flash and my SB-28 external flash.

So far as USB connectivity is concerned, no big deal. You're probably not going to want to fool with connecting a camera to the computer anyway. It is much easier (and faster) to remove the flash card and insert it into a card reader on the computer. The reader is more convienient, and is a drop in the bucket when compared to what the camera costs in the first place.

Comparing image quality between the two cameras is a coin toss. The Nikon has a slight edge in the numbers on paper. In the few weeks I've used the Nikon, I won't give any big edge to either camera over the other. They are both capable of superb images.

In your proposed usage, macro use will not be important to you. But if you do want to shoot close up shots, the clear winner is the Nikon. Incredibly close shots with no fiddling with adapters or accessory lenses.

Want a 2X telextender to take you to a 35mm equivlancy of a 230mm lens? (This is before you use the 2.5X digital magnification.) A wide angle attachment to take you to a 24mm equivalent lens? A 183 degree fish eye? Nikon has them all for $150-$200 each. I have all three and they are typical Nikon quality. Fantastic. I have no idea how they are selling these at such low prices. Kodak customers are left wanting again.

Both companies make a fine camera. But I certainly do not regret switching from Kodak to Nikon.

-- Steve (tuna-boat-captain@ibm.net), May 11, 1999.

I owned both cameras and the Nikon is far superior in image quality. I ended-up selling my Kodak. The focus on the Kodak is not very good and the images up close are filled with all sorts of artifacts. I don't know if these are due to the extra compression, but it seems to be more than just that. Plus, the Nikon is much more flexible with all its features.

I would never, ever, for an reason choose the Kodak over the Nikon. You should be comparing the Nikon 950 and the Olympus C2000Z--these are much closer in image quality, features, etc.

Good luck!

-- Rubio (jrubio2@ford.com), May 11, 1999.

I'd take a long, hard look at the Olympus 2000. The Nikon does have some defects that have been documented in several review articles. Regards, Howard

-- Howard (hposner1@swarthmore.edu), May 14, 1999.

Just buy Nikon Coolpix 950, don't buy Kodak. You will admire its pictures. I own a DC-265 and am very disappointed with its picture quality.

-- Alex (shop@origami.no), May 25, 1999.