Tweet
The only strong points the 8700 has over the competition are slightly longer zoom (280 vs. 200 on the Minolta and Canon, though this comes at the cost of not havning any real wide angle, 38 vs. 28 vor M and C), and better Macro, BUT (there is always a but 
):
You do not need that level of Macro and Zoom most of the time. 8mp are enough to allow you to crop A LOT (thus improving macro performance/zoom and decreasing resolution) and still having an image that's big enough to be printed A4, let alone smaller prints and computer screen sizes.
That long zoom is only useful when shooting in bright outdoor light, otherwise you will get an image with lots of blur from camera shake (can not really be corrected in photoshop) - the only solutions to this are to use a tripod/monopod/bag of beans/solid surface and self timer or cable release or a camera with stabilization (ONLY the Dimage A1 and A2 in this segment. VERY VERY VERY VERY useful. Really the thing I miss the most on my camera. Instead of needing 1/250 sec. for a long zoom shot you can use 1/64 or even 1/32 (!!), allowing for even low light and indoors shooting without a tripod.)
Also, you have to keep in mind distortion. When photographing flowers barrel distortion doesn't matter much, but when you are shooting macros of stuff with straight edges or right angles (almost anything made by man), stuff will look really strange with barrel distortion, bulging towards you. Photograph a cola can and it will look like it's about to explode
Also important is subject distance. Higher is better: You must not get too close to insects lest they fly away, and when shooting stationary stuff you can get lighting problems when you get too close, the lens itself and the camera and attached hands shadowing whatever lights you may have set up. Flash is useless at really close distances anyway, it's much too strong (unless you use a dedicated macro flash, which is expensive, and I don't know if it is even available for the Nikon).
Still, there's no talking away that the Nikon's macro performance is the best of the bunch. Take a look at the images I posted in this thread, they were shot with the Dimage 7i, a predecessor to the A2 which uses the same lens and has the same macro performance, with the difference that the A2 has 8mp and thus things are bigger.
A few general points about the 8mp prosumers: Image quality is not the same across the range, but generally quite good enough. DPreview is very picky about that (too picky for me), take a look at the sample galleries and decide for yourself. The Olympus has the best image quality, but the smallest zoom. The Canon has a zoom ring, which is much more useful and intuitive than a zoom lever (the oly may have this too, I don't know. The Nikon doesn't). The Minolta and Sony have manual zoom rings (Teh best! Precision, control and speed cannot be matched by any electric zoom.) and focus rings (intuitive and useful!). The Minolta is the only one with image stabilization, which is SOOOOOO useful in practical use (and dpreview doesn't talk about it enough, IMHO, because it has a lot bigger impact on practical use than almost any other feature). AF on the Nikon is slow, on the Canon mediocre, fast on the minolta and a tiny bit faster on the sony, dunno about the oly. Lots of acessories are available for nikon, canon and minolta. The Nikon has a frustrating menu system which you will need to use often. The sony and minolta have dedicated buttons for everything you need to change often.
Most important: Try them all out yourself, how they fit your hand etc. and keep in mind that handling is much more important than the last bit of image quality - the latter can be touched up if need be (though as I said, is generally good or better with all 8 mps), a pic you couldnt take because the cam's user interface held you back, or a pic with lots of shake - which is every indoor pic without flash or BRIGHT lighting, and flash makes people look ugly, and kills the lighting mood.
God I've written too much. Should probably get back to work now
AZ
):You do not need that level of Macro and Zoom most of the time. 8mp are enough to allow you to crop A LOT (thus improving macro performance/zoom and decreasing resolution) and still having an image that's big enough to be printed A4, let alone smaller prints and computer screen sizes.
That long zoom is only useful when shooting in bright outdoor light, otherwise you will get an image with lots of blur from camera shake (can not really be corrected in photoshop) - the only solutions to this are to use a tripod/monopod/bag of beans/solid surface and self timer or cable release or a camera with stabilization (ONLY the Dimage A1 and A2 in this segment. VERY VERY VERY VERY useful. Really the thing I miss the most on my camera. Instead of needing 1/250 sec. for a long zoom shot you can use 1/64 or even 1/32 (!!), allowing for even low light and indoors shooting without a tripod.)
Also, you have to keep in mind distortion. When photographing flowers barrel distortion doesn't matter much, but when you are shooting macros of stuff with straight edges or right angles (almost anything made by man), stuff will look really strange with barrel distortion, bulging towards you. Photograph a cola can and it will look like it's about to explode
Also important is subject distance. Higher is better: You must not get too close to insects lest they fly away, and when shooting stationary stuff you can get lighting problems when you get too close, the lens itself and the camera and attached hands shadowing whatever lights you may have set up. Flash is useless at really close distances anyway, it's much too strong (unless you use a dedicated macro flash, which is expensive, and I don't know if it is even available for the Nikon).
Still, there's no talking away that the Nikon's macro performance is the best of the bunch. Take a look at the images I posted in this thread, they were shot with the Dimage 7i, a predecessor to the A2 which uses the same lens and has the same macro performance, with the difference that the A2 has 8mp and thus things are bigger.
A few general points about the 8mp prosumers: Image quality is not the same across the range, but generally quite good enough. DPreview is very picky about that (too picky for me), take a look at the sample galleries and decide for yourself. The Olympus has the best image quality, but the smallest zoom. The Canon has a zoom ring, which is much more useful and intuitive than a zoom lever (the oly may have this too, I don't know. The Nikon doesn't). The Minolta and Sony have manual zoom rings (Teh best! Precision, control and speed cannot be matched by any electric zoom.) and focus rings (intuitive and useful!). The Minolta is the only one with image stabilization, which is SOOOOOO useful in practical use (and dpreview doesn't talk about it enough, IMHO, because it has a lot bigger impact on practical use than almost any other feature). AF on the Nikon is slow, on the Canon mediocre, fast on the minolta and a tiny bit faster on the sony, dunno about the oly. Lots of acessories are available for nikon, canon and minolta. The Nikon has a frustrating menu system which you will need to use often. The sony and minolta have dedicated buttons for everything you need to change often.
Most important: Try them all out yourself, how they fit your hand etc. and keep in mind that handling is much more important than the last bit of image quality - the latter can be touched up if need be (though as I said, is generally good or better with all 8 mps), a pic you couldnt take because the cam's user interface held you back, or a pic with lots of shake - which is every indoor pic without flash or BRIGHT lighting, and flash makes people look ugly, and kills the lighting mood.
God I've written too much. Should probably get back to work now
AZ
Comment