nikon 8700 for £300? good deal?

12/26/2005 04:51:04 PM · #1

Im but a poor student owning a fuji 5500. I bought it for Â£200 and I like it, its good. But I long for the top end cameras and one day Ill get one (hopefully) But to my surprise I just sound a nikon 8700 (whilst looking at mini tripods) for only Â£300, and thats a decent camera at 8mp and well reviewed. I think its a good deal for anyone in this price range, wanting a camera right now. What do you lot think, Worth the money?

//www.warehouseexpress.com/PHOTO/digicameras/Nikon.html#8700

12/26/2005 04:53:48 PM · #2

I thought you left?

Message edited by author 2005-12-26 16:54:29.

12/26/2005 04:58:20 PM · #3

its a funny forum this how people remember people isnt it, lol? Cant get away with nothing. I wonder what you originally wrote. Yeh I left, im just asking questions here because I know they get answered quick and correctly about hardware.

12/26/2005 04:59:50 PM · #4

Nope didn't remember right off. I looked at your profile.

12/26/2005 05:01:23 PM · #5

and then through all the topics? Not sure what I said to be honest. Not going to answer the question then I see

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/26/2005 05:02:50 PM · #6

LOL people replied loads to that joke picture I put on about the tardis. Hahaha. Some people even said its good 3d wise. Its horendous

LeeD

Canon EOS-30D

12/26/2005 05:05:30 PM · #7

Chit... good to see you back. I honestly can't give you an intelligent answer to your question... I just wanted to say welcome back!

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/26/2005 05:05:51 PM · #8

If it is a camera you want then get it. What does that convert to in US $?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/26/2005 05:05:53 PM · #9

The Nikon 8700, when all is said and done, is not much of an improvement over your Fuji. I made a similar shift, from Fuji 4900z to Nikon 5700, and frankly it was a waste of money. I LIKED the Nikon better, it feels more solid, but when it came to evaluating the images there was little or nothing to choose between them. Certainly not a large enough leap to justify the cost. The Mp doesn't really matter that much unless you are printing really big.

I'd say save the money, it's half the cost of a dSLR right there.

Robt.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/26/2005 05:06:32 PM · #10

Originally posted by rex:

If it is a camera you want then get it. What does that convert to in US $?

$520, give or take...

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/26/2005 05:16:29 PM · #11

Interesting. I guess mp is all about printing mostly or maybe you need big digital images.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/26/2005 05:23:31 PM · #12

It's all about the size you view the images at. At thumbnail size, you can't tellt he difference between a dSLR and a 1.2 Mp camera. And to a large extent more Mp is only useful if combined with a larger sensor, which isn't the case here. When you cram more pixels into the same size sensor they get crowded closer together and are physically smaller, and there are tradeoffs to this. I print mostly at 11x14 size, and I couldn't tellt he difference between the Fuji and the Nikon; both were adequate. When I tested a 300D, WOWZA! The step up was only from 5 Mp (Nikon) to 6 Mp (300D) but there was no comparing the quality. And the 20D is a quantum leap ahead of the 300D, expecially at higher ISO. The 20D at ISO 1600 has MUCH less noise than the Nikon 5700 at ISO 100.

Robt.

fotomann_forever

12/26/2005 05:45:11 PM · #13

The Nikon 8700 is a huge step over the 5700 in many aspects beyond MP's. Having used the 8700 for a while, I'd say it's well worth the price he listed. The 8700 is the best P&S (that acts like an SLR) camera on the market, well minus it's predecessor the 8800, but that's a different story.

12/26/2005 05:53:02 PM · #14

Originally posted by bear_music:

Thats quite interesting

(edited as put wrong quote in)

Message edited by author 2005-12-26 17:54:22.