Nikon Coolpix A Compact Camera with APS-C Sensor Announced

We were most surprised by the launch of Nikkor 80-400mm lens, but surprised in a very good way. The first thought I had was – “Finally!” And not just because it’s a long awaited lens, but because it was a lens in the first place and not yet another mildly refreshed camera. I admit that, at first, I didn’t really pay much attention to other products Nikon announced. Perhaps I should have (let me tell you a secret – I’m just trying not to be judgmental in advance). Say hello to Nikon’s first APS-C compact camera, the Coolpix A.

Nikon Coolpix A

Nikon is, obviously, not exactly the first to launch a compact camera with such a large sensor. Sigma have their DP1 with slightly smaller sensors, Leica has its luxurious X1 and X2 and Sony had a go with a full-frame RX-1. And then, of course, there’s the equally loved as it is hated, Fujifilm with X100 and, more recently, X100s. In other words, Coolpix A has no room for mistakes if it is to beat all that competition led by Fujifilm’s excellent cameras. So what exactly does the Nikon offer? Well, it kicks off with a 16.2 megapixel APS-C sensor with ISO range of 100-6400 and 1080p Full HD video. Judging by the specs, it is likely the same unit used in Nikon D7000 camera, as well as some Sony SLT and Pentax cameras. Now, if D7000 is of any indication, that sensor is amazing. It may be several years old and, today, at the lower resolution scale of current sensors of this size, but great high ISO performance and dynamic range are a given. More than that, let’s be fair, 16 megapixels is more than enough for most situations, especially in a compact camera you’re unlikely to use for work that requires large printing. The biggest plus point Coolpix A offers, however, is it’s minuscule size. Measuring 111x64x40mm, it’s not that much bigger than other higher-end compacts, and much smaller than Fujifilm X100s. Take a look at this comparison at – it really is tiny!

Interestingly, the Coolpix A has a fixed lens that’s a proper wide-angle with focal length of 18.5mm (28mm FF equivalent) and a reasonable aperture of f/2.8. The lens, as with most compact cameras, retracts into the body when the camera is turned off and makes it a very pocket-friendly piece of equipment indeed. Even when the camera is turned on, it’s very small and unassuming. Looking at the camera, you’d never guess it is capable of such a high technical image quality. In normal mode, the lens focuses down to rather uninspiring 50cm, but can do as close as 10cm in macro mode (much more like it). There’s a manual focus ring around the lens, too. Shutter speeds range from the usual 30s to a decent-for-a-compact 1/2000th of a second and continuous shooting of up to 4 fps is available. On the back of the Coolpix A, there’s a 3″ 921k dot LCD screen for shooting and reviewing images. 14 bit RAW files are supported, which more serious photo enthusiasts will appreciate. The camera weights in at as near as makes no difference 300g with the battery that’s good for approximately 230 shots.

Nikon Coolpix A Side View

Plenty of good points, then. I believe the Coolpix A has a chance of becoming a very good camera for street photographers – it packs a large sensor, a wide-angle lens and tiny body for candid situations. However, I fear not all is so well when you take in some of the negatives. Without further ado, let’s put the new Nikon APS-C compact camera against a competitor all current and future cameras in this class are inevitably going to be measured by, the Fujifilm X100s.

First and foremost, Coolpix A has no viewfinder. Fujifilm, on the other hand, monsters the Nikon with not one, but two – an optical one as well as current state-of-the-art EVF. I even dare say this alone will be worth the extra size and weight of Fujifilm’s venerable compact for many. I understand size is a factor, but really, Nikon, this is a flagship compact you’ve announced. Do they really want customers to pay extra for an optional viewfinder? I bet they do. Question is – will customers feel that’s fair? When Sony announced the $2800 RX-1, lack of an EVF instantly put me and many other photographers off. Nikon has just made that exact same mistake, unfortunately. Lack of a viewfinder is not all, though. There’s the contrast-based AF. It may be too early to judge, especially with Olympus OM-D putting up a very convincing fight against all the hybrid AF cameras out there, but both phase- and contrast-detect systems have generally proved to be both quicker and more reliable. More than that, Nikon was one of the first to implement such a system into their 1 series cameras. Why omit hybrid AF from their flagship compact camera that costs more?

As I’ve mentioned, the 16.2 megapixel sensor used in this camera should be extremely good. But in all fairness, the 16 megapixel X-Trans unit found in Fujifilm’s X100s is probably a little better in terms of sharpness and high ISO noise, so technical quality is not a reason to choose the Coolpix. Fujifilm also seems to offer a little more direct control and is easier to operate because of that. Looking at the paper, there’s more reasons why Coolpix A causes doubt. The 18.5mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens is both a positive and a negative of the camera. While very suitable for street and indoors photography, it’s not the best choice as an all-rounder – simply too wide for that. Fujifilm’s 35mm equivalent lens with a faster maximum aperture of f/2 is much more versatile as far as prime lenses go, and will work well with a broader range of subjects. You can almost forgive the relative slowness of the Nikkor because of its small size, but that focal length can be a blessing as well as a curse.

Nikon Coolpix A Back View

Finally, we come to the price. Nikon Coolpix A will set you back around $1100. I did this with a Leica X2 before, I’m now going to do it with this Nikon. Which is not a Leica, hence forgiving such silliness is even harder. One thousand one hundred dollars for a fixed-lens compact camera that doesn’t have a viewfinder. Oh, you want a viewfinder? Well, there is an optional one. It’s optical, it’s called DF-CP1 and – mind you, I’m not joking – it will cost you a whopping (suggested, meaning it may be lower) $450. Forgive my lack of self-control, but Nikon is not Leica. What are they playing at? They even claim you can achieve shallow depth of field with the lens. Seriously? A complete novice may fall for that, but for someone who has more knowledge such a statement is a little optimistic given the wide-angle of view and focus distance needed to achieve shallow depth of field. Perhaps Nikon means shallow-er?

By no means am I saying this is a bad camera. No. It isn’t. I can tell even before I’ve had the chance to use it. But I have very serious doubts it’s $1100 good. To put that into perspective, the newly announced interchangeable Sony NEX-3N, which is almost identical in size without a lens and not unbearably bigger with one mounted, will cost you less than half that and pack a kit zoom lens with it. Of course, it doesn’t even have a mode dial. But then, price reflects that, not to mention you’d be buying into a versatile system. I therefore believe there’s nothing so expensive in the Nikon Coolpix A to justify that high price, not even exclusivity as far as the whole concept of such a camera goes. Hold on. Parts of Coolpix A are made of magnesium alloy. Could that be the reason for that frankly shocking price? Right. That’s me being ironic.

Even with all that in mind, I have strong belief it will prove to be rather popular. Perhaps more so among compact-camera users than enthusiasts, many of whom would probably prefer the X100s. Let’s not pretend, seriously. Fujifilm may be even more expensive than the Coolpix when it’s not paired with that preposterously priced viewfinder, but you also seem to get much more for your money and a much more attractive package overall.

Specifications and Pre-Order Information

Here are the main specifications of the Nikon Coolpix A compact camera:

  • 16.2 megapixel CMOS sensor
  • Native 100-6400 ISO range
  • Contrast-detect AF system
  • 4 frames per second continuous shooting
  • 3″ 921k dot LCD screen
  • 18.5mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens with 10cm minimum focus distance in macro mode
  • Battery good for around 230 shots
  • Body-only weight (with battery) 299g (0.66 lb/10.55 oz), and it’s tiny!
  • Priced at approximately $1100
Nikon Coolpix A Top View

As always, you can pre-order the new Coolpix A from our most trusted reseller, B&H, for $1,096.95 by following one these links: black, silver. But since I’ve started this rant, and I can’t believe I’m going to say this now about a Nikon compact, but if you actually buy this thing, you either have too much money on your hand, or too little sense. Given the price, this is a stupid camera.


  1. 1) HomoSapiensWannaBe
    March 6, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    This sensor has been tweaked to allow for a traditional WA lens design. Surely, it will perform well. Still, I wonder why Nikon didn’t use a 24mp sensor, which would give even better resolution and detail? Both the 5200 and 7100 DX cameras have them.

    I’d buy the Fuji X100s instead, which is a much better value for only $200 more. The main reason for me is the lack of a built-in viewfinder on the Coolpix A, and I’d prefer a 35mm/2.0 to a 28/2.8.

  2. 2) DavidL
    March 6, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    Hi guys,

    I’m sorry to ask this question in this space but I’m upgrading to Fx and seriously looking at the d600. I want to read all the comments/question but any before no. 345 are not on the report. Are these unavailable?


    • 2.1) DavidL
      March 6, 2013 at 6:38 pm

      The same happens with the d800 review. No comments/questions before no. 394

    • March 6, 2013 at 10:01 pm

      David, the D600 is a superb camera, as well as the D800. Both had their issues at launch, but I believe the issues are now more or less resolved.

      As for the comments, there is a link on the bottom of both reviews that says “Page 1, 2, etc”. Just click on the previous page and you will see all the comments.

      • 2.2.1) DavidL
        March 7, 2013 at 12:23 am

        Thanks Nasim,

        I can’t believe I didn’t see it before.

        Along with the thousands of others before, I wish to thank you for this fabulous and informative website.

  3. 3) Tony Padua
    March 6, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    Hi Roman,

    Thank you for that very well done review of the Nikon. I read the review carefully to make sure I saw the price of the Nikon is $1,100, so I can compare features with the upcoming Sony DSC-HX300, which will sell for less than half the Nikon.

    • March 6, 2013 at 10:08 pm

      Tony, you keep posting the same link to the Sony HX300. I already responded to your email. Please do not compare tiny sensors to APS-C…

  4. 4) StevenP
    March 6, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    Because there is no lens system there is no brand loyalty. At $1,100 it has a lot of competition for my $$. In our household we have Nikon Canon and Sony P&S cameras. With the P330 also announced that will shoot raw and with Sony offering Zeiss optics Nikon is in it tough.
    More excited by the 80-400mm lens announcement. How about the 300mm f4 VR to really make my week. Doubt this camera will be around too long.

    • March 6, 2013 at 10:09 pm

      Agreed, this camera will quickly end up in the rebate program, similar to what the Nikon 1 V1 went through. Poor Nikon management at its best. I don’t know what the hell Nikon is thinking – this camera sucks for a $1,100 price tag.

      • 4.1.1) Peter
        March 7, 2013 at 9:55 am

        I agree. This sure looks like a management problem.

        Nikon does not seem to have a game-changing/future-focused plan to deal with the competition. I’m beginning to smell the Kodak “reactive fumes” that appeared during the early Fujifilm entry into the film market. I wonder how inbred Nikon is?

        So too, the consumer can share some blame for this. I’d love to see Nikon’s very confidential market research analysis (FYEO) of its consumer base.

      • March 9, 2013 at 6:22 am

        I don’t think that there is a management problem here at all, in fact I think the exact opposite is true. I used to work for Nikon’s marketing engine not too long ago, so please don’t think this opinion is biased. What I saw when i worked for them was this, especially as of late: Nikon releases an awesome product (D7000). It wins awards, accolades, and such. Roughly around the same time they release another product (1 series) that caters to a completely different demographic, in this case mainly female enthusiasts. The product doesn’t do well at all, due to the price. In order to flush their inventory, Nikon cuts the price almost in half to make way for the updated product (J3).

        Now Nikon is left with an abundance of sensors that they over-ordered for D7000 sales. They got cheaper for Nikon to purchase over the years, so they figure you can’t have a camera without a sensor, right? They begin to build new camera models around the sensors themselves. Now comes the time to update the parent camera body for the same sensor, in this case the D7000. The D7100 is released, but Nikon still has a lot of the older sensors left over. So what do they do with them? The design a new camera that houses the old sensor that fits between the two demographics they were focusing on with the D7000 and Nikon 1 series. They keep the price high, so it doesn’t sell off immediately.

        This attacks Nikon surplus from a few different angles. First, it rapidly gets rid of their in-house inventory of the 16.2 MP chips and puts them on the shelves. A chip in a warehouse without a camera body can’t sell, besides a lot of major resellers that are licensed to sell Nikon are, in fact, under contract to buy a specific quantity of new products when they are released. The Coolpix A is marketed to those who want a higher quality camera than the 1 Series, but don’t want a bulky DSLR. Hopefully with the few Coolpix A’s that sell at full price, it will cover the gap of loss over they newly discounted D7000.

        The major thing this price point does? Gets all the Nikon J1s, J2s, V1s, and V2s off the market, never to be seen on the shelves again. Once the majority of the inventory for the older Nikon 1 series has come down to an acceptable level, the Coolpix A will drop to about $750-800 around Christmas 2013.
        I expect it to drop around the $500 range by summer of 2015 before Nikon releases a new flagship compact. I’ve seen this with other models before, especially the D60 vs P7000 vs P7700 lineup.

        Sometimes Nikon produces cameras that they never intend to sell. They just use them to keep their name on the market and to fund other designs and current R&D. Remember, just because customers didn’t buy the camera, it doesn’t mean that Nikon didn’t make money from the retailer.

        • peter
          March 9, 2013 at 10:59 am

          Mind boggling explanation! I had to read it twice to make sure. I’m now, more than ever, convinced that Nikon has a management and a marketing problem.

          Their new motto should be: “Make money and screw the retailer.” Or, better yet, “We build cameras to meet our inventory needs not our customer needs.”

          If you’re right (and I hope you’re not) Nikon’s strategic plan is to build cameras based on bloated inventory and bad camera design. If Nikon needs to build crap cameras to maintain their “their name on the market” …as Dante would say” All hope is lost.”

          I worked for 3 Fortune 100 companies (international reach) over a 40 year period, and never heard a horror maketing strategy as you describe for Nikon.

          • D. Andrew McKibben
            March 14, 2013 at 5:12 am

            The retailer doesn’t get screwed. It brings them foot traffic, which in the case of Best Buy is hard to come by these days. With the boom of Amazon and other online retailers, companies like Best Buy have been struggling to keep their heads above water. As a major corporation, you can expect to buy a Coolpix A for about $300 USD in volume. Whenever the price drops you still make a decent amount of money from the sale. Also, bear in mind that Nikon never releases a product without some sort of market/customer base input. Just because a USA release of a product only fits 80% of the bill for the people who actively post on, doesn’t mean that it won’t suit the average photo enthusiast with a little bit of extra cash around tax season. The Coolpix A may have been well suited to the market in Japan or Europe, where it is expected to fly off the shelves because of the market data in those countries.
            I think the thing to keep in mind here about this model release (and subsequent releases that have followed this same path) is that this isn’t necessarily a “bad” design. Have you seen the S30? Awful. The only thing it touts is waterproofing, albeit a horrible image sensor, but they sell. Why? Because someone out there has a desire or need for it.
            The other thing to keep in mind is that consumer cameras aren’t the only thing that Nikon Corp is known for. The fact that we can go to the store and buy a camera with a Nikon label on is thanks to Nikon’s major industry: precision measuring equipment. As a large component of the Mitsubishi Group, Nikon produces multi-million dollar microscopes and steppers for integrated circuitry design. Their cameras are merely a large industry trickle-down from their much larger focus.
            What I described in my first post isn’t their marketing strategy for the entire company.

            • Peter
              March 18, 2013 at 2:53 pm

              Read Nasim’s latest article (nikon-quality assurance and marketing gone wrong) about Nikon’s QA and marketing lunacy, as I’ve stated also.

              I’ll side with Nasim on this. Case closed.

  5. 5) Gerald
    March 6, 2013 at 11:02 pm

    I think you forgot to mention that the Sensor of the coolpix A has no AA-Filter, so this should increase sharpness and Resolution.
    We will have to wait for the First hands in Review, but i think the pics will be very Fine…

    Thx for all your excellent Reviews, makes your Site One of my most visited….

    Greetings from austria, Europe

  6. 6) Anders
    March 7, 2013 at 2:35 am

    Thanks for the review. Sorry but I think this statement is not very serious: “Given the price, this is a stupid camera”. I mean nobody forces you to buy the camera

  7. 7) Anders
    March 7, 2013 at 2:44 am

    Don’t know what happened, not all of my comment was sent.

    This is the smallest camera with this sensor size and as far as I can see there is no competition regarding IQ. This alone is enough for the premium price which I’m sure will go down after a few months.

    I’m also sure we will see that this camera has better DR and high ISO performance than the competition
    (x100, x2 and the Fujis, none of the 4/3’rds are in this game regarding those parameters).

    Not everybody likes this camera, but isn’t it nice we have so many choices these days

    • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin 7.1) Romanas Naryškin
      March 7, 2013 at 3:53 am

      Anders, put on the optional $450 viewfinder, and it costs quite a bit more than Fujifilm’s X100s, which is likely going to have superior image quality (that 16 megapixel X-Trans is epic) and a more versatile lens with the added advantage of f/2 aperture as well as tougher body and hybrid AF (yet to see if that one’s good). The Nikon is small, yes, but it also lacks direct control, the damn viewfinder, is good for fewer shots per battery and has a wide-angle lens that’s not exactly the most versatile choice. Sony NEX-3N is nearly as small, has a similar sensor and interchangeable lenses for the choice of versatility or compactness (with the pancake lenses), and costs more than twice less. TWICE.

      Coolpix A is a good camera. But not for that price. Nikon’s playing luxurious, but they’re not a Rolls Royce, they are not exclusive, Leica is. Nikon’s a Volkswagen, niche products aren’t their thing. Other than daring, there is absolutely no reason for it to be so expensive – none. You could almost forgive the price if Fuji never made the x100, but I highly doubt this camera is even worth looking at until that price is way under $1000.

      Choice is a good thing when a product is competitive. Coolpix A isn’t.

      • 7.1.1) Anders
        March 7, 2013 at 4:23 am

        Hi Romanas, I agree that the x100 viewfinder is in a class of its own, but if I were to buy the Nikon A, I would never buy the silly overpriced viewfinder anyway. I’m also sure that the X100s is great, but it is also bigger.

        I think the Nikon looks more like an Audi if you like to compare to cars

        • Anders
          March 7, 2013 at 4:24 am

          Strange – the missing words again?

          Hi Romanas, I agree that the x100 viewfinder is in a class of its own, but if I were to buy the Nikon A, I would never buy the silly overpriced viewfinder anyway. I’m also sure that the X100s is great, but it is also bigger.

          I think the Nikon looks more like an Audi if you like to compare to cars

          • Anders
            March 7, 2013 at 4:25 am

            Not sure what is happening. Some of my text is discarded when posting???

      • 7.1.2) Anders
        March 7, 2013 at 4:41 am

        Last try:

        Hi Romanas, sorry, but my reply was discarded partly. This was what I meant to write regarding the Nikon A:

        Hi Romanas, I agree that the x100 viewfinder is in a class of its own, but if I were to buy the Nikon A, I would never buy the silly overpriced viewfinder anyway. I’m also sure that the X100s is great, but it is also bigger.

        I think the Nikon looks more like an Audi if you like to compare to cars :-) and I would choose it any day over the x2 which looks great, but is more expensive and with an IQ that is closer to the x100 (not the X100s) than the A in my opinion.

        I’m probably not going to buy it anyway, but think it looks great, it is very pocketable and with great IQ, so I can’t see why it shouldn’t appeal to some people.

        Just my opinion ;-)

      • 7.1.3) Gerald
        March 12, 2013 at 12:47 pm

        I dont see why everybody is complaining….
        The price dropped allready 200 $.
        And you didn’t mention that the nikon A has no low-pass filter, like the d7100. So i think it is Not the Sensor from the 7000.
        but just my two cents ;)

        Greets gerald

  8. March 7, 2013 at 3:07 am

    A big fat minus is in my opinion that this camera has no wheels for choosing shutter speed and exposure correction and there is no digital viewfinder. Thats why I prefer Fuji’s X-Series.
    I’m a bit disappointed about Nikons compact cameras. Where are the semi- or pro-compact-cameras?

  9. 9) Sebastiano
    March 7, 2013 at 4:41 am

    I understand Nikon has just developed a line of dedicated lenses for 1 series but why they haven’t done what Fuji has done with X mount?

    Detachable lenses. And, for the price, also retractable lenses.
    3 prime fast lenses (18 f/2.8, 30 f/1.8 Vr, 60 f/2.8 macro Vr), 1 zoom (18 – 70 f/2.8 – 4 Vr) and one pancake 28 f/2, in a way similar to the range of XF Fujinon lenses.

    The camera should have EVF OLED viewfinder in the body (as you said) and an optional large hybrid viewfinder like the A is proposing (but larger, like an Fx view vinder). It doen’t use the shoe but through dedicated contacts on the top it acts like an hybrid telemeter + large OLED EVF.
    That is you can simply choose if you want to see through the glass (telemeter + camera info on int like in DSLR viefinders) or, disabling through a shutter to see though, seeing the OLED, useful with zoom or 60 f/2.8 macro).
    This also means you can use both any of the SB Nikon flashes and the large external hybrid VF, while the A cannot do.

    For a so special feature I suppose we could pay about 400€, that is the extra the A viewfinder is announced to cost in Italy.

  10. 10) EnPassant
    March 7, 2013 at 10:36 am

    Surprised by the AF-S 80-400? Why?
    I already December 30, on this site!, predicted this lens or a 300/4 VR would be released 2013!
    But maybe you didn’t pay attention to my post 101?:
    You should have as I also predicted the AF-S 18-35! ;)
    And in fact I predicted the lens on the Coolpix A as well!
    It just didn’t come with an F-mount but permanently attached to the smallest APS-C compact.

  11. 11) Iskandar T
    March 8, 2013 at 2:33 am

    What stupid here is that Nikon is selling the optional viewfinder for $450!!?? That’s is about 40% of the camera cost! Nikon is trying to sell add-on with crazy prices; the tripod collar on 70-200 f/4…

    Don’t really get Nikon overall marketing plan.

  12. 12) Dave
    March 10, 2013 at 9:09 am

    This camera is really growing on me. At first, I thought that it was too expensive and not very useful at all.

    Then I realized something. I really enjoy carrying around the V1 with a 10mm f2.8 lens (27mm equivalent)… and have a few great shots which I WISHED were 14bit RAW instead of 12bit RAW (for editing in Lightroom) and a little bit better sensor, and they would definitely framed and admired… by me anyway. :-)

    As I edit pictures with the D700 and the Nikon 1 V1, I often wish for the same ability to pull colors out of the shadows and highlights for the V1 at low ISO which I so much enjoy on the D700… and as many of the shots are on the 10mm lens for the V1, that’s THIS CAMERA! The retail price is not too far of from what I would have o pay for the V2 and a 10mm lens… so from that perspective, it’s a great camera. Now if I could sell my V1 gear to be able to afford it.

    • 12.1) Jeffp3456
      April 17, 2013 at 1:12 am

      Now if only your V1 gear had kept a decent % of its value…

  13. 13) Alejandro
    March 10, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    Nasim and Romanas i Think you are very professional and do a very good job. But i remember that the first time i ran into this blog i was looking to buy a 300mm 2.8 and i loved that nasim was actually using the things he was talking about, after hearing about such things a weight handling etc.. from real usage i decided to buy it. Actually my main problem is that i wasn’t going to be able to get the newer version and i wanted to know how much i was loosing.
    Today i see a lot of posts about spec analisys, debate and specualtion. Fueling discussions by guys that seem to know every detail about how to run a company as nikon and to make successful business but mysteriously enough never made enough money to buy a 2.8 tele or a d4.
    Through the years a learnt i learnt that a sensor is not the only thing in a camera, i would never replace a d700 with a d7100 for example and i used to see those insights in your original posts. I’m not saying that commenting about a new release is something to be avoid, but judging something form the specs is just little substance.
    Go back to how you started and create comparisons where you said things like i felt much more confortable with the xyz than with the abc, if you can back it up with some data great but sharpness test in a lab really?
    For me hearing that last weekend you got more shot with lovely DOF, in focus and with great contrast is more interesting that a spec analisys, about specs that don’t tell the whole story.
    GO back to your field trips, go back to shotting and trying exercises with different equipment. Leave the blubbing to the homophobic chinese hater ken or to the successful valley wannaby thom and learn a little bit about the honesty and humility of jared

  14. March 11, 2013 at 11:59 pm

    There are a couple of points that have been lost in the noise around this camera’s release:

    1. The A will maintain brand continuity for Nikon SLR owners, which translates to continuity in color management and work flow. I’ve cycled through m4/3 bodies, and currently own the X100. While I really do enjoy the X100’s feature set, it renders different skin tones than what I get from my Nikon gear, and I prefer the Nikon look.

    2. Nikon accessories including flash, GPS, and remotes in my inventory can be put to work with this new camera. If I bought into a different brand I’d need to also buy that brand’s accessories, adding to the overall package cost.

    I’m not arguing that the A is fairly priced; it’s $200-300 too high. Yes the finder is also too expensive. And f/2.8 is slow. But if the imaging pipeline is solid and colors are consistent between my SLRs and the A, it could be a fantastic addition to my kit.

  15. 15) John Adams
    April 17, 2013 at 6:31 am


    I believe a product review should give all the information possible about a product in a fair and objective fashion. I don’t believe the reviewer should be injecting negative personal comments such as calling the product ‘stupid’. Let the consumers make their own decisions without being subjected to your personal bias.

    • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin 15.1) Romanas Naryškin
      April 17, 2013 at 6:45 am


      I believe every review should end with conclusions where the author can and should express his own opinion about the product. After all, that’s what we often want from those we trust – personal opinion. A product is not just a combination of specs and materials and price. In my opinion, author’s subjective commentary is as important as objective testing. That is how you choose whom to read, otherwise all reviews would be identical.

      With that said, I’m a fairly open-minded person and, more often than not, can understand several opinions and points of view. Coolpix A, however, is a stretch too far in my opinion for that ludicrous price. I want to put extra emphasis on words *my opinion*. The fact I express it doesn’t mean reader should think likewise. All I want is to give food for thought. And here’s some – the very recently announced Ricoh GR offers *everything* Coolpix A does, has just as much technical potential, looks as good, is as compact, has a similarly specified lens, similar resolution, and, brand-wise, is just as attractive, possibly even more than the Nikon (which is rather common as a brand among point-and-shoot cameras).

      As I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with the camera itself. It’s the price. Nikon’s no luxury manufacturer, but is trying to play one and is failing. Leica can get away with high prices, and even Fujifilm can put a small premium on. Coolpix A should have been priced at around $800. It’s a mistake Nikon made with the V1, which they soon realized, yet made it again with Coolpix A. I’m not being biased, John. It’s not that I don’t like Nikon as a brand – I use Nikon DSLRs myself. The conclusions I drew were quite objective and well weighted, well compared to competition. The fact I think pricing the A at $1100 is stupid, well, that’s the only bit where I’m being annoyed and subjective.

  16. October 27, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    Wonderful post! We are linking to this particularly great post on our website.
    Keep up the great writing.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *