Coolpix S4 review extremely unfair

[el_paesan]

Hello all,

I have been reading Jeff's reviews for some time now, and I have come to respect his opinions in photographic matters. However, his review of the Nikon Coolpix S4 seems to me very unfair (I am making an effort to avoid the word "biased"). I understand that his (re)views are stated as subjective, but I have never sensed so strong dislike for a camera in any of his other reviews.

It is my opinion that Jeff chose to compare the S4 with cameras that are not its competitors. Firstly, with the Coolpix 900 series cameras of the past. The new S4 camera cannot be compared with those for many reasons. Most importantly, because those cameras are not available for purchase anymore! But also because they were bigger and much more expensive* than the S4, with lower resolutions and narrow(er) zoom ranges. Secondly, he chose to compare it with cameras with full manual controls. The S4 clearly is not designed to compete with those either.

In my humble opinion, the S4 is only competing with the current "ultra-zoom" cameras and also with the current point-and-shoot (automatic) cameras. It easily outperforms EVERY SINGLE ultra zoom camera out there in PORTABILITY. Its size alone places the S4 in a league of its own, and this fact is definitely understated in the review. What good is IS and manual controls if you have left your camera at home, because it simply is too heavy or will not fit in your coat/jacket pocket or purse?

Here are some parts of the review where I think the reviewer is being unfairly negative regarding the S4:


"The Coolpix S4 is a plastic camera with the swivel-design body that Nikon made famous with the Coolpix 900 back in 1998"
...
"The Coolpix S4's build quality is about average. It's made out of a mix of plastic and metal and it doesn't feel quite as sturdy as the old 900-series cameras"

NO. I was extremely surprised to read the above lines. The S4 build quality is very high (it is not "about average", and it is not only above average). It is HIGH. It also feels VERY sturdy, especially when compared to the other CURRENT ultra-zoom or point and shoot cameras in its class. Remember: the 900 series cameras were selling for double (even triple) the price of the S4 -the above comparison is definitely unfair!


"Ultimately the Coolpix S4 is an average camera in a sea of excellent ones."

WRONG. This should read: "The Coolpix S4 offers average image quality while there is a sea of competing cameras offering better image quality. HOWEVER, the S4 is also an EXTRAORDINARY camera in a sea of ORDINARY ones" (cameras that offer better image quality but are not as portable or versatile).

"For those who value the S4's form over its features, it's worth a look."

This is even mean! The S4's form IS ITS BEST FEATURE! You can not rule this feature out and claim that you are fairly reviewing the camera.


Final notes.

Having read so many reviews in DCRC I am truly disappointed in this one. I was used to reading fairly objective comments on the reviewed cameras. For the S4, I was expecting to hear that e.g. "it has above average barrel distortion" or that "noise levels are higher than normal" (also, where is the ISO comparison in this review???)

Instead, what we get in the review is the week points of the camera being highlighted and the good ones extremely understated.

--------------
* The price of the 900 series cameras would be comparable to DSLR camera prices of today.

[Rex914]

I feel like I've been playing the part of Public Relations for this site, responding to yet another "I found this review unfair" inquiry.

So here we go again. Just to say in advance, your comments are appreciated, and I will try to be as civil as possible in confirming some of them or shooting them down. ;)

---------------------------------------------------

A glance at what other reviewers say...

Before we even talk about specifics, let's pull some of the reviews from around the map.

CNET (6.6/10) - "The Nikon Coolpix S4 resurrects the company's classic swivel-lens design with modern touches, including lots of scene modes and in-camera fixes for common problems. Image quality and performance seem a bit old-fashioned, however."

PC Magazine (2.5/5) - "The Nikon Coolpix S4 has a great zoom range in a portable package, but the image quality leaves a lot to be desired."

It's rare for everybody to agree on whether a camera is good, bad, or average, and I think that while CNET and PCMag aren't the best sources out there, when you see that Jeff agrees with them, don't you think that there's something wrong with the camera?

The Swivel Design

I don't care how you look at it and how much you argue about this. The swivel design is uniquely Nikon's, and it is only fair to at least compare the camera to the 900 series as it's the only point of reference. If anything, I would find any reviewer of the S4 uninformed and unqualified if he/she didn't at least mention the CP900 series in passing.

To hammer my point home, in Nikon's own press release, they say:

The S4 features a new interpretation of the popular and innovative swivel body design, first unveiled in the award-winning Coolpix 900 series cameras.

It was Nikon's silly choice to take out manual controls on this camera, and taking them out doesn't suddenly place this camera in a lower class. At $400, manual controls are to be expected in an ultrazoom like every other ultrazoom has barring Kodak. Is this really too much to ask? Olympus made a similar product last year in a somewhat similar form factor for the record.

The Build Quality

As I usually say, no consumer who rants about Jeff's reviews is really qualified to comment on build quality. You know that Jeff has handled hundreds and hundreds of cameras. He's certainly felt and held more cameras than anyone else here, and he would know where a camera falls on the build quality scale.

I don't want to diss you, but with all the shouting in your post, you seem to be relying more upon emotions and a love for your camera rather than backing it up with facts.

Competition

"especially when compared to the other CURRENT ultra-zoom or point and shoot cameras in its class"

On one hand, you place the camera in a class of its own, and then now you try and compare it. What ultrazooms are you comparing it to? If you're trying to compare it to the FZ series, H1, or even the S2 IS, that's ludicrous. If it's uncomparable to anything, how can you compare it? :D

And if you're comparing it to point and shoot cameras, which ones? To be fair, you should only be comparing it to cameras in the $350-$400 range, and definitely not cameras in the sub $300 range. The cameras that it goes up against are the Oly SP series (unreviewed) and the Canon A620. I can't think of any others in this range that aren't ultrazoom or ultracompact (which are metal bodied anyways...).

Other Nitpicky Points

There's no ISO comparison because the camera was only able to go up to a 2 second exposure. This is the case with a lot of point and shoot digicams.

How are the good points understated? He loves the design, and when he says "form over function" he does NOT mean style over substance. You're reading it wrong. He means that the great swivel function can override the average image quality for people who value the versatility over getting good quality shots. Looks like you are one of those people.

Whoever came up with that design should win an award, as it's very handy for shooting over people's heads, for self-portraits, or for ground-level shots of kids and pets.

If anything (and I apologize for being a fit frontal in all my comments), it appears that you are the one who's "reviewing the review" by slamming it into the ground and highlighting the negative. Jeff has praised the swivel design, the 10x zoom in that form factor, the AA batteries, the low red-eye, and Nikon's great macro. The negatives he mentions are mostly indisputable, like the design flaw where your thumb has to touch the screen to hold the camera. Low LCD resolution is another minus, but it's not something that will kill the camera.

Ultimately, despite all the plues and minuses, the image quality is what matters, and it came out average. It's admittedly a complicated design that compromises in that it tries to pack 10x zoom (sans VR) into such a small package. You own the camera. If you know anything about camera and lens design, there's a lot of compromise going on in there to fit a 35-350mm zoom in there.

I know how you feel about the camera's uniqueness, but uniqueness isn't enough. It still has to deliver the goods, and in this case, the image quality isn't up to snuff, and you agreed with that at the bottom of your post.

To end...

Your opinion is your own opinion that we all respect, but I just feel that you're reading far, far too much into Jeff's review. If you really have read many of Jeff's reviews (I personally have read nearly all of them starting from 2001 or so), you know how the format is and what he views as important. You know that image quality is what matters most, and while Jeff praised the camera's design, image quality is what really brought it down. Bottom line: Unique or not, a camera is still for taking pictures, and if it doesn't do that well, nothing will make up for it.

[el_paesan]

Thanks for reading through my original post, and for your thorough response.

If anything, this detailed response proves that I had a strong point when saying that the review -in whole- highlighted the weaknesses of the S4 while understating its advantages.

I truly believe that you have not canceled my argument(s) at all. In fact, highlighting once again (in your post) that "uniqueness isn't enough" and that "a camera is still for taking pictures, and if it doesn't do that well, nothing will make up for it" proves my point that the original review (and now its supporters) are being unfairly negative!

In a last note, I do not see a way to "back with facts" my opinion about build quality -the quality will be self evident for those who go to the store and try the camera.

[coldrain]

Thanks for reading through my original post, and for your thorough response.

If anything, this detailed response proves that I had a strong point when saying that the review -in whole- highlighted the weaknesses of the S4 while understating its advantages.

I truly believe that you have not canceled my argument(s) at all. In fact, highlighting once again (in your post) that "uniqueness isn't enough" and that "a camera is still for taking pictures, and if it doesn't do that well, nothing will make up for it" proves my point that the original review (and now its supporters) are being unfairly negative!

In a last note, I do not see a way to "back with facts" my opinion about build quality -the quality will be self evident for those who go to the store and try the camera.
Did you actually CARE to look at the posted photo samples? You would have seen how utter crap (in my humble opinion) the photo quality of this Nikon is! You will be hard pressed to find any camera from the last 2 or 3 years that produced this kind of quality (BAD). No matter if they are compact, or ultrazoom. A camera is there to make photos first and formost, how unique its design may be. And this camera is not at all good at that. Period. Call me biased too!
But it (again?) is a big disappointment from Nikon's compact camera crew. EWWW is a word that comes to mind. Ten-foot-pole is another.

Now tell us what Nikon fan-club-beer-goggles-rock you came from :eek:

(That was a bad joke)

Anyway, I found the review frank and indeed fair (we have a Dutch proverb... translated: "even if a monkey wears a golden ring, it is and stays an ugly thing".... this Nikon is that monkey).

[Rex914]

For the record, coldrain is referring to these photos in particular, the ones shot at the telephoto end which were particularly bad. Don't blame it on camera shake either because he shot these at sufficient shutter speeds (1/500 - 1/1000 s)

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/coolpix_s4-review/DSCN0068.JPG
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/coolpix_s4-review/DSCN0074.JPG
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/coolpix_s4-review/DSCN0081.JPG

We're not asking for DSLR quality, but these photos are irreparably fuzzy.

[el_paesan]

Ok, I realize that this is becoming a debate, and I don't want to be the cause of heated controversy. This would be borderline against the rules of the forum even, so I will try to make this post my last.

I now understand that his forum (actually DCRP in general) is followed mostly by people/photographers who value image quality above anything, when it comes to cameras. I respect that and I do consider it to be a valid choice -but not the only one nor the right one for everybody.

I too was in the past such a photographer: I was looking desperately for “the best” results. However, at this point in my life I value portability and versatility much more (you were right Rex) than image quality. This is why the S4 pleases me no end. I am definitely more pleased with it, than I was with cameras I have bought in the past based on image quality alone.

Do note that I never challenged any arguments about image quality not being optimal by todays standards. But I still think it is unfair to say that image quality is “bad” or “average” without at least referring to specific print sizes. Will there be any difference in 4x6, 5x7 or in larger prints? The review (including the above posts) does not answer that, only gives an overall negative conclusion.

[Duwenbasden]

Some people liked form factors; some others likes the image-quality, and I am pretty sure that's most people wanted. I played with the S4 @ Best Buy the other day and it is cool -- but purple fringing is out right horrible.