Nikon Coolpix 3500? Good or Bad?
 

I was thinking about getting myself one of these. Good decision or Bad decision?

My question to you is what are you going to be using it for?

I don't know if this will help or not....
We have gone through 2 nikon digicams. They took great pictures. Cycle time between pics was annoying, as was the autofocus. It was actually maddening. But, the pics were nice and consistent. On the other hand, I just edited upwards of 700 pics of a model we took with a coolpix, and the redeye problem with those cameras was incredible.

Maybe this new one is different, but because of the redeye problem, I never bought another. We went through to Olympus, bought a Canon G2, and that is by far the best out of all of them.

If you can take that camera you want to buy home, and take some shots at night, see what the redeye is like. Hopefully nikon cameras are better then they used to be. The pictures of the old coolpix 900-995 are still great by todays standards. But the cycle time and redeye are a joke. :2 cents:

Any camera that has the flash that close to the lens can and will give you red-eye if you shoot images of people in a darkened room. You can get red-eye with a $5000 Nikon camera as easily as a cheaper point and shoot :thumbsup

The way to cure red-eye is to get the light away from the lens. This in itself presents a problem when your using a point-n-shoot type of camera. One option that you may try it by either only shooting in areas where you have plenty of light to shoot - instead of using your flash....or by bringing in some additional tungsten lighting, setting your white balance to tungsten/indoor lighting and using that light instead of using your on-camera flash. Either of those two situations will yield great results without red-eye.

Here's the low-down on red-eye. When you shoot a picture of someone in a darkened room, their pupils are opened 'way up' so as to let in light into the eye - so their eyes can focus. Just as...when we go outside in bright light, our pupils automatically get smaller - as to control the amount of light coming into the eye. OK - back to shooting indoors in a darkened room......because the pupil is opened up so much to let in more light into the eye, the back of the eyeball is easily accessed by your flash. And...the back of the eyeball happens to be RED. So, you aim your camera at a person in a darkened room - their pupils are very wide - you snap the pic and the light from the flash not only lights up your person but it also lights up the back of the eye - and that's where you get red-eye from...

That'll be $200 please :winkwink:

Dean*

I've been looking at one of those myself - I keep you posted should I pick it up this weekend :winkwink:


Dean*

My bad - I was looking at the coolpix 4300!

Dean*

all nikon product are good .... noone are bad ..
:thumbsup

How come we don't have a problem with our G2? 1000's of pics shot already, and I have yet to find one with redeye.....and that is without a strobe or external lighting. Is this gonna cost me another $200?

Well - I forgot to mention - if you hold your mouth just right - you can take pics in total darkness with a $5 camera and NEVER get red-eye :winkwink:

-Just kidding.....

I don't know why you are not getting red-eye. Most people ask me why they GET red-eye, not why they are NOT GETTING red-eye. If you have a forumla that works for you - that's great! But, after 13+ years of shooting experience.... I can tell you that red-eye has nothing to do with how much money you spend on a camera - it has to do with how close the flash is to the lens and how dark the environment in which you are shooting - as mentioned above.

:thumbsup

Dean*

Thanks! All I know is I went through two mid-range nikons, and they sucked ass for redeye, which is well documented all over the net. And I never said redeye had anything to do with the cost of the camera. I think it has to do with the engineering of the camera. And of course, the variables you mentioned.

You are correct - the closer the flash is mounted to the lens, the more *likely* you are to get red-eye in your pics....especially if you are shooting in a low-light situation.

Depending on how professional you want those pics to appear - using an on-camera flash typically results in a more amateur quality. If this is the effect that your going after that's fine. If your looking to make your pics just a little more polished and professional looking...I might suggest not using the on-camera flash and instead (when appropriate) go with one of the lighting setups I mentioned in a previous post above. You'll be surprised in how great your stuff will look with a little experimentation :thumbsup

Also, if your asa/iso is adjustable, go with something around the 400 range instead of 80 or 100. 400 asa/iso is perfect for indoor situations while 80 asa/iso is geared more towards shooting outside in available light. That alone could make a big difference in what your seeing.

Hit me up on ICQ if you have any questions - 127555062

later -

Dean*

http://crew.oliver-klozov.com/dean/dean_directing.jpg

More good advice from a pro. Thanks! :drinkup