View Full Version : Amazing deal on Nikon digital camera

04-01-2003, 02:58 PM
Heads up.. Nikon Coolpix 4500 for only $278 after rebates. This is a really great \"prosumer\" camera.

Buy it here: http://www.ephotoclub.com (\"http://www.ephotoclub.com\")
Then get your rebate here: http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_rebates/coolpix.jsp (\"http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_rebates/coolpix.jsp\")

Enjoy! Mine\'s in the mail.. images/icons/wink.gif

04-02-2003, 07:34 PM
No prob

by the way, don\'t let them try to screw you like they did with me. Tell them you want the camera with the PROPER UPC that\'s eligible for the rebate!! And don\'t let them charge you an extra $100 for it. Argue and tell them that that\'s false advertising, that the price is $478. they should drop the added \"fee\" to around $50 or so. This is still a very very good deal, so don\'t refuse it. images/icons/smile.gif

Good luck

04-02-2003, 09:38 PM

I own the 990 too.. or DID, before I sold it on eBay to cover the costs of the new 4500 images/icons/grin.gif I didn\'t know the 990 had a red-eye correction feature. I don\'t have the 4500 yet, so I can\'t tell you how good that feature is. I hear the flash is better though. Panorama assist is a totally killer feature I look forward to: take a shot, then you can show the left/right/top/bottom third of the photo you just shot on the LCD so you can easily line up the next part of the panorama.

Check Amazon for reviews on the 4500, maybe one of those reviews can answer your questions better than I can.

Nick Batzdorf
04-02-2003, 09:47 PM
That\'s the problem with point-and-shoot cameras in general: the built-in flash is for ****. I first bought a Canon (forget model number) and hated the indoor people pictures so much that I had to return it and get the G2, which lets you use an external flash.

The built-in flashes would be fine if you could tilt/swivel them and bounce the light, or at least use a diffusing thingy (whatever they\'re called - a softening lampshade). But they\'re too weak, and people don\'t seem to care.

That right there is what separates real photographs from someone\'s holiday snaps.

04-02-2003, 10:13 PM
I never use the built-in flash unless it\'s, as you hit it on the nail, a \"holiday shot\" images/icons/smile.gif If it\'s a portrait of someone or something else, I try to use existing light, because flash is evil.

Nick Batzdorf
04-02-2003, 10:26 PM
The problem is that these digital cameras seem to be programmed to be using the flash indoors. They have a tendency to get pretty grainy if you don\'t have enough light. So I\'m resigned to carrying around a flash that\'s bigger than the camera!

My feeling is that built-in flash is evil, but bounced or even diffused flash (with one of those covers you can use on dedicated flash units) is often a good thing. The problem is that those things are right next to the lens, so the light is harsh, the shadows are obvious, and everyone looks like a demon because of the red-eye. Again, I\'m surprised they don\'t make small cameras with stronger flashes that tilt and swivel.

I haven\'t shot a roll of film in my good camera since getting the digital one just because of the incredible convenience, but I have to say that I\'m starting to miss it. Maybe I\'ll be a total convert when the cameras that can take my good lenses come down to the $ few hundred dollar range...

04-03-2003, 12:16 AM
Hey Sam, thanks for the tip.
This camera recently came out as a winner in a test for digital cameras.

Bruce A. Richardson
04-03-2003, 09:58 AM
This is EXACTLY why I still have not invested. I have two Canon F1 bodies, an AE1 body, lots of nice Canon glass, a flawless Rollie, and have seen no committment from these companies to support the gear I own (read: great lenses). I finally broke down and bought a GL-1, just because I wanted something that shot decent DV without dropping too big a load (it was about $2200 when I bought).

I\'m looking to use all the great glass I already own. Of course, I can spend just buttloads of cash and achieve it, but this was never an issue with film cameras. It seems the marketing for digital cameras has really bypassed actual photographers for the most part.

Agreed that shooting with on-camera flash is just a convenience for snapshots. Anyone wanting to shoot real photographs must light them professionally. The camera is nothing. The light is everything.

04-03-2003, 01:25 PM
Thanks a ton, Lee.. very helpful articles!

Nick Batzdorf
04-03-2003, 08:20 PM
Bruce, the higher-end Canon cameras actually do work with their lenses. I forget the models of lenses I have, but they\'re the ones that can be auto-focused, and they fit all their bodies: Rebel, Elan (which is what I have), AE1 (is that the right number?), etc.

The digital cameras I\'m talking about are the D10, D60, etc. - again, if I have the model numbers right. But they\'re still $1500; the original Elan body I have sells for $ a couple of hundred if that, and it has all kinds of astounding features that make serious wannabees like me look good. Predictive autofocus, for example, which measures how fast an object is moving and sets the focus for where it\'s going to be when the curtain opens!

What\'s not clear to me is whether we\'re having the same argument everyone was having about digital recording eight or nine years ago!

04-03-2003, 10:00 PM
Digital cameras are becoming more and more impressive. It will be a while before we can ditch film though. Digitals still have problems like noise at slow shutter speeds, chromatic aberration, highlight clipping, etc. Not sure if these exist in high-end pro digitals that cost $3000, but my new Coolpix 4500 still has a bit of those problems. They\'ve actually done a fine job in this one getting rid of the chromatic aberration (purple fringing at the edges of bright areas), and noise reduction.