A Picture-Perfect Pocket Camera
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ||
| ||||
![]() | ||||
| ||||
![]() | ||||
|
| ||||
![]() |
The Nikon Coolpix 2500 ($379), due in stores next month, is the first camera I've tested that fills the bill. Indeed, it's the first Nikon camera to be engineered around the design, rather than the other way around. It's about the size and weight of a smooth-edged deck of cards, and its sleek blue-and-brushed-metal look really sets it apart from the pack. Call it the iPod of digital cameras, a comparison it deserves, not just for form and looks but also for its admirable ease of use.
Most digital cameras have daunting dials and pictographs to "help" you use your camera. Select the wrong icon, and instead of viewing the picture you just took, you shoot a 15-sec. movie of your feet. The Coolpix forgoes dials for a simple slider with only three settings: TAKE PICTURE, VIEW PICTURE and OFF. You can even navigate by touch, ideal for those grizzly-on-the-run situations. All the other functions are on the back, including that 15-sec. video, an unprecedented 12 scene modes (party portrait, night landscape, fireworks show and so on) and a picture-in-picture setting that lets you view the last shot you took while you size up the next one.
Nikon's Coolpix 990 was lauded by critics as the best consumer digital camera. Now for about $500 less, the 2500 duplicates in a smaller package most of the 990's features, including the swivel lens that lets you take pictures of yourself while you look at the results on the LCD screen. (One improvement over the 990: that swivel lens is no longer exposed to the elements when you set the camera down; instead, it rests comfortably inside the casing.) The starter flash card stores 32 high-resolution images (as usual with digital cameras, it's best to buy more memory yourself). The battery should give you 800 shots before it needs recharging.
Some users may be shocked that Nikon chose to leave out a manual viewfinder. But in my outdoor tests, I didn't miss it. The screen is so bright that even in direct sunlight on the Golden Gate Bridge, I could see myself grinning into the camera. My only real criticism is that the 2500's resolution is 2.1 megapixels, when 3.5-megapixel cameras have broken through the $700 price barrier. Most amateurs will not spot the difference unless they want prints larger than 8 in. by 10 in. Until I turn pro, the Coolpix 2500 is everything my shirt pocket and I need. Now if only I can figure out how to get a bear to say cheese.
Snappy questions for Chris? E-mail him at cdt@well.com
Most Popular »
- And the Decade Goes To ...
- Israel vs. Hizballah: Drumbeats of War
- The Pentagon Prepares for a Missile Attack from 'Iran'
- Tiger Woods' Sponsors: Will Any Stick by Him?
- Yemen's Hidden War: Is Iran Causing Trouble?
- Super-Earth: Astronomers Find a Watery New Planet
- New Job for Ex-Soviet Pilots: Arms Trafficking
- China's New Domain-Name Limits: More Web Censorship?
- America's Most Wanted Teenage Bandit
- The Top 10 FAILs of 2009
- America's Most Wanted Teenage Bandit
- China's New Domain-Name Limits: More Web Censorship?
- Super-Earth: Astronomers Find a Watery New Planet
- New Job for Ex-Soviet Pilots: Arms Trafficking
- Behind the Murder of Honduras' Drug Czar
- Brits Get Some Holiday Cheer: No British Air Strike
- Yemen's Hidden War: Is Iran Causing Trouble?
- Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?
- Tax Reform Means Working Moms Do Less Housework
- Study: Sunshine States Are Happiest






RSS