Nikon Coolpix 8800 Experience

[wxcloud9xw]

I just got my Nikon 8800 about a month ago because I was looking to make the move from my 35mm SLR film camera to digital because of the convenience and no more film costs. I did not want to lay down a bunch of money right away and not be pleased. So after tons of reviews and researching I came to the conclusion that the Nikon 8800 takes as good of photos as an 8mp DSLR as long as your shooting at lower ISO settings in good lighting. It also did a better job than the canon 8mp in the same category in terms of photo quality. The only down side to the 8800 is that it is slow on taking RAW pictures, but this is to be expected with a non-DSLR. I don't have much use for taking lots of pictures rapidly in the first place. I mainly do portraits.
Now to the part that amazed me. I would like to mention that I was very skeptical at first to make the move to digital, because I know what kind of photos I can get from my very nice Nikon 35mm film SLR camera. After I got a grasp on all the controls of the 8800 and doing a manual whitebalance preset function I was ready to go. The first thing I noticed when I got the first set of pictures back on my desktop was the amount of detail this camera takes in. I didn't let the onscreen photos be the judge though. I edited my set of photos and had them developed at a professional print shop that has a 250,000 dollar digital printer. I miswell see the full potential of my photos when comparing them to my film photos. I did all of them in 8x10s so i could see all the detail the camera had to offer, which are basically the exact output of an 8mp camera without any interpolation at all(8.11x10.88 inches is the uncropped 8mp photo from the camera). The photos that I got back made me drop my jaws, because they actually looked like they came from a top of the line 35mm film SLR. There were a few of the pictures I took that looked even better than any of my film 8x10 prints. Those were the ones I did outdoors about an hour right before the sun set.
I've come to the conclusion that with the non-DSLRs(asuming you have a prosumer model with a large piece of glass and a good size CCD sensor), as long as you have good lighting the photos will look the same at low ISOs as DSLRs of the same MP. It's not until you get to the full frame DSLRs $8000 dollars that there is an image quality advantage at low isos in the same good lighting between the two. I am talking about the two Canon DSLRs the EOS 1ds and 1ds mark 2, which are 11 and 16.7 mp cameras with a full 35mm frame cmos sensor(I really want one!!).
I didn't just get my opinion between the film and 8mp nikon photos from myself. I took two 8x10 photos to a friend who shoots professional medium format film for a living. I handed her the two photos and asked her which one she thought had better photo quality and without hesitation she picked the 8800 photo. This is coming from a person that examines photos on a day to day basis and can easily see any little flaw or color issue. Oh, and she is not a digital fan either. When I told her that the photo she picked as being better was from my new digital camera she thought I was pulling her legg.
So if you don't mind the slower photo taking and lower ISO limitations, then you want need to spend the extra cash on a DSLR. Finally a digital camera that's affordable that can make photos of 35mm film quality...and sometimes better.

[kornhauser]

I would like to take the time to comment more on your post later, but would like to make one quick statement now. I also bought a Nikon 8800. I'm also amazed at the quality. I went with the Nikon for it's ease but creative manual controls. While I miss a lower f-stop and wish for a slightly higher shutter speed; I'm tickled with the purchase.

I've often said that the Nikon Coolpix 8800 is like shooting pictures with a beer can, because of it's odd look. But the functioning is so similar to a DSLR, that only the afixed lens makes it a point and shoot.

I'll comment more later!

[wxcloud9xw]

Sounds good..can't wait to hear from your experience with the 8800 also.

[Roxanne]

I also just purchased the 8800 and so far I love it ! I have taken some really nice photos and dont find the main drawback of "slowness" ( as reported by some reviews and some users ) to be so slow . I am just an amateur and mainly use auto , but am quite the shutterbug ....so I NEED to learn the manual functions because this camera offers so much more ! I enjoyed your post and am quite happy with your results . Stick around .....i may want to pick your brain

One of the things I am having problems with is taking pictures in a particular room of my house . The lighting is good ( large window that i open ) , but my pics are coming out with a goldish/yellow cast . someone mentioned the white balance could be off .....can you explain that and tell me what settings i should try ? You said you pre-set your white balance ?? if you could elaborate on where,how & what that would be awsome ! thanks !

EDITED TO SHOW YOU THESE 2 PICS ....THE FIRST I TOOK WITH MY OLD DIGICAM ...OLYMPUS c700....the 2nd with my 8800 ......This was when i first got it so my IMG Settings werent set right , but i am still getting this off color in this room . I am just having problems not knowing what settings to shoot at . This room has alot of natural light , i took this on auto and the flash popped up , but as you can see the color is horrible . i need to use some of the other modes ....but which ones ?? help !

[wxcloud9xw]

Whitebalance Solution for you and your pictures. I was also new to the digital realm of features and how they work on digital cameras versus Film. Here are two options for you:

The first (better) option for a natural lighting look is to flip the top rotational dial that has your functions on it to "WB", which is whitebalance. This will bring up a screen and will have the default "Auto" selected most likely according to what you mentioned. Now use your direction arrows next to the LCD picture display and select "preset white balance" and hit the slect button in the middle of the arrows when you highlight preset. It will bring you to a screen with a small visible square in the middle to the camera with the options cancel and measure. Take an all (White) card or sheet of paper and go to the area of the house you plan of shooting in. Hold the white card or paper in the lighting of where your dogs or subject is in(so that the light is hiting the paper where your shooting). Now hold your camera to where the piece of paper fills the LCD viewfinder square on the screen(generally a foot + or - ) and now select the "measure" function and hold the camera still for a few moments until it has done its weird little measurements. now it should i believe go back to the white balance screen with all the options of "auto", speedlight, and etc. you'll notice the "preset" function is highlighted. Now turn your dial at the top to "P" for programmed mode, which will use the preset whitebalance function you selected earlier for your shot instead of auto. Now at the top digital display hit the flash button that looks like a Lightning bolt until the top screen shows flash is off(looks like a lightning bolt with a no smoking symbol over it). No you are ready to shoot the naturally well lit room without a yellowish tint to it.
The second option is to select in "WB" the Speedlight whitebalance, which is for a room not well lit or where the shots just aren't turning out right even with preset whitebalance set. When you select speedlight function make sure you turn your flash back on at the top of the camera. For people and animals with"eyes" of course I use the flash with the eye shown in the display for red eye reduction. I would recommend not using "auto" so much. I've found I get the best results(trial and error) from always doing the preset whitebalance funtion when I'm not using the flash. I have yet to try the preset function outdoors in direct sunlight, because last time i took shots outside I didn't know much about the camera and I just selected "Directsunlight" for the whitebalance. The guy at the place where I get my digital prints developed said to always use the preset whiteblance funtion when not using flash if I can. I have done some tests indoors with using "auto", "the actuall lighting in the room", and "presetwb" function. The most accurate colors came when i slected the preset function and did it manually. So auto is ok for unimportant shots in a hurry, but not great for high quality photos.
Another note is to use the "P" programmed mode because it uses the presetWb and u can adjust the image quality or ISo to whatever you want. What i do is leave the "ISO" on the top dial to Auto, I don't know what kind of photo editing computer program u have, but I always put my image quality on "RAW", yes its large and takes longer for you to take the next picture, but you can do a lot of editing like (post whitebalance adjustments, exposure adjustments, and more) Not to mention having a larger 12bit file allows you to edit a lot without loosing much picture information.
Heres what happens: From what I have herd all print labs and photo printers can only print in 8-bit color mode, which is as high as Jpeg file type can go. A RAW file is 12-bits of color information. To edit a RAW file you will need either "Nikon Capture 4.0+" or "Photoshop elements 3.0" or "photoshop CS". For starting out I would reccomend having both Nikon Capture 4.0 for RAW editing and then save it as a TIFF file and edit it in photoshop elements 3.0. RAW like I said is good for editing whitebalance and exposure after you've taken the picture. After you've edited the picture in the RAW format you can then save the file as a TIFF file. A TIFF file is uncompressed like the RAW file, but is 16-bit(kind of like putting a 12 gallon barrel into a 16 gallon barrel). In a nutshell what i'm saying is for important pictures select the RAW or TIFF mode(in TIFF mode you cannot edit whitebalance or exposure after its has been taken) so that you can do more editing without loosing color information. (Editing an file is like the barrel scenario if you have an 8 gallon barrel and you mold it into a more desirable shape you are going to loose some water out of it, which leaves you when your done editing with less than 8 gallons of water in the barrel. When you edit in 12-16bits if you loose some "water" you still end up with more than 8 gallons/bits of information left over. Then you can save the file back to 8-bit color mode and Jpeg max quality for printing at a photo developer. shooting in jpeg at Extra quality is fine if you don't plan on doing hardly any editing to the photo and you know the lighting is good/color balance will be good.

I know this was probably really confusing, so if u have any questions just ask me.

Another note is that Adobe photoshop elements 3.0 has 16-bit support, but is want let you use the brush tools or blemish eraser tool in 16-bit. Only Photoshop CS has comprehensive 16-bit support with brushes. I like editing out blemishes and bumps on peoples faces in portraits is why I like the function so much and care for 16-bit support. I am currently using the free 30-day trial of Photoshop CS and plan on buying it from my college(student discount) as soon as I can. It normally retails for 640 dollars, but if you know a student or friend that has access to an on campus computer store they can purchase it for you at 300 dollars. there are also some online places selling the student discount edition of photoshop cs. I believe you need proof that your a student though. So maybe if you were serious about buying Photoshop CS you could find a Student to purchase it for you.

When I take pictures i generally want the best outcome and quality so I shoot in"P" programmed mode and RAW image quality so I can do more editing. I use Nikon Capture 4.0 for RAW editing and save it as 16-bit TIFF file and send it over to Photoshop. After I edit in photoshop to my liking I then convert it to 8-bit mode and save it as max quality jpeg for printing at the digital print lab. The only time I use print stations, which are lower quality prints than a professional place is for photos that aren't as important. There simply isn't an affordable photo printer that gets you the quality of a digital print lab. The place I use has a 250,000 dollar digital photo print machine. I use the online AGFA print service software and upload my pictures to the print lab and pick them up when they are done. You may be in an area that is supported by AGFA online. You can have them shipped to you or pick them up if you live close to a print lab partner of AGFA. The link to the website and download is: http://www.agfanet.com/en/ips/cont_download.php3


P.S. I would invest in a cheap full size tripod for like 40 dollars from somewhere local so that you can get sharp clear pictures without any blur. I use a tripod for more important shots like portraits. When you use a tripod you need to make sure you turn off the VibrationReduction switch on the side of the lens barrel. I don't understand why this is so, but it apprently makes a difference and is stated in the Nikon 8800 manual. If you use a tripod you will notice how much clearer and sharper you pictures turn out..I promise!

[Roxanne]

Thanks SO veryu Much for your detailed response ! LOVE IT ! I will try the things you mentioned and will LYK how it goes . I am looking forward to learning other tips and techniques from you and the others on this forum

[Roxanne]

About the Print lab ....

I have used Ofoto.com and so far my prints have come back GREAT . I am wondering if there is any difference here ? Is this the service that professional photographers use ? How expensive are their prints ? any other info is greatly appreciated !

[wxcloud9xw]

This is about as professional as you can get up to 11x14 size prints..they have a special machine that makes larger prints, but it's really expensive and is more intended for gallery quality prints. I would personally stick to or below the cameras output (8.11x10.88") when you go above this print size you will get lower quality prints because the software has to "interpolate"(guess) your 8x10 camera data and add to it to make it larger than the information thats really there, It's like trying to fill an 8 gallon drum with only 5 gallons of water. The other 3 gallons the software has to guess at for printing larger pics. You will get good prints larger than 8x10 on an
8 Megapixel camera like ours, but they want be "excellent" quality photo prints to that of 35mm film or better. In my experience recently I'm getting prints better than any 35mm film prints i've seen, which makes me really happy . I guess I personally like 8x10 prints for more important prints because it shows off all the detail from the camera. AGFA photo quality is probably even better than from where u get ur prints done. It's one of the very few online programs that allow you to get prints from professional developers and have them sent to you or pick them up. Another great thing is that they have both glossy and matte finish available in prints.(I prefer matte finish because it looks more professional, doesn't stick to the other pictures, doesn't show finger prints, and doesn't have a bad glare to it.

This is a very high quality really really expensive photo printer.
Price list for AGFA(matte and glossy finish cost the same)
4x5.5= .49 cents
4x6= .49
5x7= 3.30
8x10= 5.85
11x14= 12.20

[Roxanne]

Thanks ! i think i will give them a try the prices arent TOO BAD ..considering the quality !

[Roxanne]

ok , downloaded it .........which store do you use ??