xsunnysuex
Life is a horizontal fall.
Just bought one of these, complete with a case. £5 from someone on Shpock.
Know nothing about cameras. Is it any good?
Know nothing about cameras. Is it any good?
Nikon Coolpix 8700.
- Thread starter xsunnysuex
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
It's very old in digicam years - like 12 years - but you should get decent enough results for £5! Great zoom too.
Nikon Coolpix 8700 Review
xsunnysuex
Life is a horizontal fall.
mhendo
Aussie in San Francisco
Wow. A fiver for an 8 megapixel digital camera. Never would have believed that 12 years ago.
The most obvious drawbacks to these older cameras, compared to newer models, is that they perform much worse in low light situations, and if you want to focus on anything that's moving then you're probably out of luck because the autofocus systems on the early non-SLR digital cameras were slow and often inaccurate when it came to tracking movement.
The 8700 started to show visible noise at ISO100, and it went no higher than 400, at which point noise was pretty bad. By comparison, most recent digital cameras will show almost no noise until at least ISO1000, and some give outstanding images above 3200. That's a big difference, in terms of how much usable light you have to take pictures.
Still, you can get some nice images with a camera like that. My first digicam was the Minolta Dimage 7Hi, which came out earlier than the Nikon 8700, and competed with the Nikon 5700. The Minolta was 5 megapixels, and i rarely shot it at any ISO above 200, because image quality declined markedly after that point.
Here's a selection of images i took with the 7Hi. If it's still in working order, your 8700 should provide quality at least as good as those, and probably better with its higher resolution. Notice that most of the pictures are daytime shots, and there are very few moving objects to deal with. The autofocus on my Minolta was as slow as all getout.
The most obvious drawbacks to these older cameras, compared to newer models, is that they perform much worse in low light situations, and if you want to focus on anything that's moving then you're probably out of luck because the autofocus systems on the early non-SLR digital cameras were slow and often inaccurate when it came to tracking movement.
The 8700 started to show visible noise at ISO100, and it went no higher than 400, at which point noise was pretty bad. By comparison, most recent digital cameras will show almost no noise until at least ISO1000, and some give outstanding images above 3200. That's a big difference, in terms of how much usable light you have to take pictures.
Still, you can get some nice images with a camera like that. My first digicam was the Minolta Dimage 7Hi, which came out earlier than the Nikon 8700, and competed with the Nikon 5700. The Minolta was 5 megapixels, and i rarely shot it at any ISO above 200, because image quality declined markedly after that point.
Here's a selection of images i took with the 7Hi. If it's still in working order, your 8700 should provide quality at least as good as those, and probably better with its higher resolution. Notice that most of the pictures are daytime shots, and there are very few moving objects to deal with. The autofocus on my Minolta was as slow as all getout.
Last edited:
xsunnysuex
Life is a horizontal fall.
Some really lovely photos there. Yes the 8700 is in excellent condition. I couldn't believe I got both cameras for £10. And the cases were an added bonus.
Think I might bung the 8700 on ebay. Will probably get more back than I paid for it.
It's not really the sort of camera I go for. I just couldn't miss out on a bargain.
Think I might bung the 8700 on ebay. Will probably get more back than I paid for it.
It's not really the sort of camera I go for. I just couldn't miss out on a bargain.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I still have a 6mp Pentax K100 Dslr, but rarely use it with the kit lens it came with, because it's not just slow to focus, it's glacial! Great piece of kit still, with a manual lens stuck on, using hand-power to focus!
Last edited:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I used to think the way that film camera values depreciated was bad, but non-slr digi prices are sometimes ridiculously low!
mhendo
Aussie in San Francisco
Even the older, entry-level SLRs can be had really cheaply now. I have an old Nikon D50 body sitting in the back of my cupboard somewhere. If i tried to sell it, i'd be very surprised if i could get more than 50 bucks for it.
Similar threads
