Nikon Coolpix 950

[Booter]

I've had this camera for 5 years. It's been great! It's fully manual and a tough machine. There are times when the pictures are blurry, then they are OK. I don't know why. I've been through the settings. Anyone else have this problem?

[smc1377]

Can you post a blurry pic for us to see? I'd like to see the EXIF data on it.

[Booter]

I've posted the photos for your consideration.

http://vearyvisual.com/nikon.html

[mattdm]

I had that camera too, and I agree -- very nice for its day with a really excellent form factor.

The second ("DSCN5001.JPG") image on your site is 404 not found. But from the blurry one you did post, it's easy to tell at least one serious problem: it's a 1/4 second exposure. It's hard to hold still enough for that long to avoid camera shake. (Even with modern "image stabilized" cameras.)

[Booter]

I don't think it's the exposure. It's set on auto. The shutter is at 1/60. I think there is another problem.

[mattdm]

There may well be another problem, but the shutter speed for the first image is really 1/4s. This doesn't mean auto mode is broken but rather that it can't go any faster because it's already at the max ISO (360 on this camera) and at the maximum aperture (a very respectable f/2.6 at wide angle). So for the first shot, more light really is needed.

The second two are at 1/60th, and so motion blur won't be that big of a factor and they're still pretty blurry. Did this just start?

It may be time to start looking for a new camera...

[Booter]

It may be time to start looking for a new camera...

Are you kidding?! I paid a lot of money for that camera. Would you throw you out your car if it had a flat?

[Jamesc359]

One of the problems here could be that there just isn't enough light for your camera to auto focus. From the looks of things I'd say you probably have one or two 75 watt bulbs for lighting? Most camera's need a lot more light than that and that's why some camera's have an auto focus light. If your camera doesn't have an auto focus light I'd suggest you try setting the focus manually or adding more light.

[mattdm]

Are you kidding?! I paid a lot of money for that camera. Would you throw you out your car if it had a flat?

Am I kidding? If the cost of repairing the flat exceeded the value of the car by several times, yes, I would indeed take it for scrap. And more likely, we're talking about a situation more analogous to "the transmission is wrecked".

This camera was announced in February 1999. It's almost a decade old. That's well beyond the normal expectation for a lifetime for a digital camera. In fact, it's approaching the normal lifetime for a car these days. :)

You didn't answer my question, though -- did it just start? I'm assuming this is a new problem for you since you make the "flat tire" reference.

[Booter]

it's approaching the normal lifetime for a car these days.

Let me tell you something, I have a Nikon FG in my closet. That's a film SLR made in 1982. (You may be a too young to remember.) It's 25 years old and it STILL WORKS FINE!!

So, if I go out and buy the Nikon D50, I should expect it to fall apart in 2013, five years from now? Is this the nature of digital cameras? If that's the case, I'm going to dust off my FG and go back to film.

To answer your other questions, the problem just started a few weeks ago.. and Jamesc, to respond to your post; the images are blurry in sunlight as well as in, indoor light.

I think I'm going to send it back Nikon and see what they have to say. It will be interesting to see what they have to say. I'll post a reply then.

[Jamesc359]

Sorry mate, but unless it's still on warranty odds are likely that if it's a malfunction (which it sounds like it is) it'd be far wiser to buy a newer model (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Coolpix-Digital-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000I1VJHO/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1197610869&sr=1-3) than it would be to have it repaired. That camera might have been pretty spendy when you bought it, but todays camera's have far surpassed the old ones in virtually all areas and cost a lot less. Heck, for the price you paid for the one you've got now (assuming you paid the original MSRP) you could easily get an entry level DSLR (Canon (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Rebel-XT-f3-5-5-6/dp/B0007QKN22/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1197610574&sr=8-1) | Nikon (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000KJQ1DG/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1197610728&sr=1-1))

That's just the way the electronics ball bounces.

[mattdm]

Let me tell you something, I have a Nikon FG in my closet. That's a film SLR made in 1982. (You may be a too young to remember.) It's 25 years old and it STILL WORKS FINE!!


That's nice. Do you still use film you bought in 1982?

Seriously, you can do the "I'm an old-timer and back in my day, things didn't fall apart" shtick if you want, but I've got to assume that you're partly exaggerating here. The rate of technology improvements in digital cameras at this point makes old models obsolete quickly.



So, if I go out and buy the Nikon D50, I should expect it to fall apart in 2013, five years from now? Is this the nature of digital cameras? If that's the case, I'm going to dust off my FG and go back to film.

Digital SLRs retain their value better than point and shoot cameras. But, over a decade? I know I paid about $900 for my Coolpix 950 in 1999. Now, I just got a quick quote from online camera reseller keh.com, and they'll buy a pristine-condition (no minor surface wear or anything) for $55. The Nikon D1 digital SLR body was announced the same year as the CoolPix 950 with a suggested retail price of $5,580. Keh will offer $215, if you happen to have one in likewise pristine condition.

So, if you buy a D50 now and it develops a severe problem in five years, you're probably best off taking it to an electronics recycler and buying something new. Of course, since it's a DSLR, you keep all of your lenses and flashes and other accessories so it's not quite as painful.

Have you used a more modern digital camera? Despite the marketing, improvements aren't just limited to the megapixel and superzoom hype. Today's cameras are much faster (way less shutter lag and time between shots), are able to operate at higher ISO equivalences, and if you shop carefully have much better lenses.


To answer your other questions, the problem just started a few weeks ago.. and Jamesc, to respond to your post; the images are blurry in sunlight as well as in, indoor light.

I think I'm going to send it back Nikon and see what they have to say. It will be interesting to see what they have to say. I'll post a reply then.

They may say "we don't repair those anymore". But more likely, they'll say "we can repair that for $100-$200". Then you have to consider that you could buy a replacement Coolpix 950 on eBay for $60. Or a brand-new Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 for $250. Or put that money towards the D50 you mention above.

[wulf]

It depends what the problem is and it would be worth consulting an experienced repairer. Even digital camera still have some mechanical components inside which can be fixed. However, if there is a strong chance that it is a part of the circuitry, repair is probably going to be limited to swapping out components if they are still available. It doesn't take long before labour and parts becomes more expensive than a replacement camera.

Having said that, if your film camera broke you might still find that it wouldn't take long before labour and parts came to more than the cost of a new camera.

However, while you might have to bite the bullet and upgrade, that doesn't mean you need to throw the old camera away. It might still have its uses. For example, you could then put the old ones in the hand of a young child who is likely to take pictures that suffer from motion blur anyway and may drop it; they still get a taste of photography without causing you any worry. Or you could try it for experiments like camera tossing, balloon pictures and the like.

Wulf

[Needles]

Hi, this was the first decent camera I bought, and it's still going fine. From looking at the images I'd have to say it's focusing issue, there's no motion blur, and the exposure isn't miles off, the only thing I would check is that you're not accidentaly hitting the macro button as thats what the images look like to me. If not then it's probably an internal focusing issue and there's not much you can do with it apart from possibly sending it away for service. Anyway I hope you sort it out soon, I took some great shots with this camera.

Neil.