NIKON P7000 REVIEW

Let me make it clear: this is a real-world review, based on my personal opinions (right or wrong) and on visual evaluations of the files. No test charts involved here, no MTF measurements. As for the photographs, they are out-of-camera jpgs (I don't shoot RAW anymore, so I'm not interested) viewed on a calibrated LaCie 321 monitor. This review only refers to the specimen in my possession.

Keep in mind that my approach to the P7000 is deeply biased by my two-years positive experience with the Canon G10. Therefore as soon as I unboxed the Nikon I could't help noticing that it weighs less than it looks. I was expecting a sturdy and rugged unit like the Canon. As a matter of fact most authoritative experts and reviewers have pointed up in the last weeks that the P7000 is almost a clone of its rival Canon G11, since both share the same sensor and size, as well as most features and specifications. Somebody even ironically calls it "Powershot P7000".
The lesser weight is easily explained: whereas the top and the front plates are metal made, the bottom and the back are pure plastic. I know, it should be called "polycarbonate", but I'm totally allergic to all those press-release-style euphemisms, like "globalization" instead of exploitation, "new economy" instead of piecework, "creative finance" instead of fraud or "outsourcing" instead of subcontract. Fact is that despite its semipro-compact ambitions, the P7000 feels slightly plasticky. The three knobs on the top don't click firmly enough and tend to get inadvertently rotated, the wheelpad on the back is flimsier than in a $ 200 point&shoot and the battery/card compartment cover is simply shameful. Briefly a very good design, both ergonomically and aesthetically (the camera is indeed goodlooking), spoilt by inadequate materials and manufacturing. Paradoxically, the P7000 lacks the gorgeous ruggedness of the Nikon pro and semipro DSLRs, and inherits the poor and unreassuring tactile experience of the Canon semipro and entry-level ones.
As soon as the "on" button is pressed, the unit is ready to shoot. And the 921.000 dots lcd monitor is a real treat: big, clear and crisp enough to venture a picture evaluation. Menus are well organized and easily understood, as usual at Nikon's. Nothing to do with the insane and obscure literature found in Canon's G series. The viewfinder is definitely more accurate than the one of my G10, but the latter is bigger and slightly clearer. The three control knobs are clever and very well positioned. Especially the exposure compensation dial: your forefinger and thumb naturally "fall" on it, making the expose-to-the-right job an easy task. By the way, whereas the istogram remains visible after focusing, the (very welcome) electronic spirit level inexplicably disappears. I don't know about you, but I definitely don't have a steady hand, so I'd find a permanent level really helpful. I hope this issue will be addressed in an upcoming firmware update.
Speaking of focus, the P7000 has big troubles in focusing on bright sunny surfaces, even when they are well textured. In my one-day test, I experienced at least one focus failure over eight attempts. Three times the LCD screen got gray and a warning appeared to advice me that the lens was getting re-initialized. I have never seen anything like that before. It's a fault that Nikon MUST take care of. All the more so because, this shortcoming apart, the P7000 would be a fast and reactive camera, very suitable for street photography.
What about picture quality? A camera is all about taking photographs, after all. Well, the Nikon P7000 delivers too contrasty images with a low noise level. In my opinion (I'm not an engineer) the overcontrast is due to an inherent lack of dynamic range. I noticed that the exposure meter has serious troubles in keeping the highlights within the clipping threshold. In other words, to avoid highlights burning, I had to underexpose (up to 1 IL and more) most of the shots I took during the test, whereas the G10 easily managed the same shots with no tweaking. Of course the underexposure caused a severe darkening of the lowlights. As I said, noise is low enough, and has that pleasant Nikon "feeling": it's more luminance than chroma, and looks like film grain. The (optional) geometric distortion in-camera correction is nothing less than effective, and the lateral chromatic aberration is superbly controlled (G10's LCA is inexcusable). The corners too obviously lack crispness.
My conclusion: at its pre-Photokina introduction the P7000 looked very promising to me. Does it match those expectations? Frankly, no. Despite its being two years behind the competition, it's an unaccomplished product. And an overpriced one, too. If a Canon G11 is sold for $ 460, the P7000 is worth no more than $ 350. Too bad for Nikon and, most of all, too bad for buyers.

Comments

[Martin Wengelaar]

Hello to you Gianni,

Nice and good review of the P7000.
Your right in everything you say !

Next week i'm going to NY, i thought i take this camera with me. But...no. I will take my good and safety D3 with me !

[Miserere]

So are you going to return it, Gianni?

[Gianni Galassi]

Miserere,

no, I sold it to somebody who wanted it notwithstanding my criticism.

[Allan Edwards]

The main feature of the P7000 is that it will do 28-200mm AND do ISO 800. I have a Ricoh GX-100 which can match both of these two cameras (G11 and P7000) at 28-72mm (below ISO 200), as will a host of simular sized cameras . The Nikon P7000 fits the bill as a smallish camera with 1 lens - able to do wide angle to 200mm and has a good small sensor. Nothing else on the market does what it can - so it’s better than the Canon for its price.

[Gianni Galassi]

Allan,
I'm very far from being a brand worshipper, so Canon, Nikon or whatever the name is absolutely irrelevant to me.
Based on my real world experience I only can say that Nikon didn't manage to achieve a serious competitor in that segment, as the P7000, compared to Canon, is objectively poorly built and its lens doesn't deliver the same image quality. You could object that Nikon's is a 28-200 equivalent. Well, Canon G10's 28-140 equivalent is enormously better, despite having been designed in 2008 and being coupled with a higher resolution sensor of the same size. Three years later Nikon could have done better than that.

[Ver]

A super critical review and unwarranted to some extent. My experience with the new P7000 is much different from yours. Poorly made with poor optics? Wow, how different my test results. No need to go farther. I just don't view your test as something others should rely on. I would suggest they try the camera for themselves and make their own conclusions. I bet for many they would be a lot different. What my conclusion was after reading your article is that your biases are showing. I don't get the impression at all that you are not brand aware. I think it shows.

[Gianni Galassi]

Ver,
thank you for publicly objecting to my conclusions.
As I stated, my review only refers to the actual specimen I purchased. Perhaps I was unlucky and received one affected by early-production flaws that Nikon was going to address later on. What I can say is that my real-world test files strongly showed what I described, the autofocus problems has also been experienced by a friend photographer who bought one in the same days and build quality can be easily evaluated by simply holding the unit for a while (and this is something Nikon couldn't address).
As for my being brand aware, you are right: I must confess that I have a soft spot for Nikon, always had and, hopefully, will have (but this depends on Nikon, not me).

[Ed]

I think Nikon should stop trying to emulate Canon and carve itself a niche in the midrange and in the top end next to Leica. I think the P7000 is a camera designed and instigated by marketing professionals and not by engineers. Douglas Coupland calls these people "the Pollpots of marketing" (Microserves) and my experience as a software test professional lets me spot a market driven piece of crap within minutes. Same for Pana by the way, I do not believe that engineers where involved in the specs of the GF2. When I see that camera, all I hear in the back of my mind, is a marketing manager yelling..."why is our camera bigger than the Nex5, why doesn't it have FullHD, come up with a smaller camera ASAP and we don't care how you do it. And it has to be manufactured 20% cheaper then the GF1 so lose the knobs and switches". Technically you call that "repackaged technology", "old wine in new bottles" (as a Dutch proverb says). But a good product (like the GF1 or a Nikon F) has some soul put into it, that soul makes it into a trailblazer for a company, so changing it into something new and better takes time. It took Nikon 10 years to come up with the F2.....Pana came up with the GF2 in 14 month. These product cycles are simply too fast, the pressures on the design teams are simply too big, corners get cut, compromises get made, out comes a chimera GF1/G2 that I personally would not even consider buying. But that is Anglosaxon style management versus Rheinland style management. Therefore I like Leica's so much these days......they have their quircks and shortcomings, but when you pick one up you can see, feel and smell that this a camera build by engineers not by marketing execs.

[fouzi ahmad]

gianni...i'm havin same problem as you are

[Marcel T]

I'm on my 3rd P7000 and it left for repairs again yesterday.
Lens cover blades problems. The first 2 cameras were replaced as they were new and the last one gave up after a little over 4000 photos. I love the camera... but besides the blade problems which is a common issue, the slow NRW (RAW) which only works with a few softwares ( Lightroom 3, CS5, Thumbs 4 Plus,), the white balance that goes wild after a few picture (you have to work with NRW if your photos are important), the camera is not reliable and was put on the market without some real testing other than give away gifts to review writers. Trying to catch up to the G12?
I have a camera around my neck all day long except when I shower and go to bed and even then, when it's new and I love it I take it to bed with me like a new gift like when I was a kid. Today I'm sad and I'm seriously thinking about buying another one today after I finish this article. I have bought every imaginable accessories for that camera, (SB400, wide angle lens, 2 extra batteries, tube to use 52 mm filters, etc) and I prefer that instead of my 3 DSLRs. I should buy an extra one so I would have a chance of having one around my neck while the other is on it's way from or to to repairs. Nikon people in Toronto are very king, professional and understanding but without a P&S camera, I'm like a cab driver without his car. If you want a P7000, get a deal for 2 and cross your fingers.
Marcel
Quebec
Canada

I'm fit to be locked up ...just got my 4th P7000.
The 2 first ones bugged up in less than 2 weeks
Lens blades problems and were replaced by a new
ones, the third has left for repairs a week ago for
the same problems and they don't know when they'll
get the parts. Lens Blades issue, battery compartment,
white balance going off for no reasons. I bought the
4th one because I have invested in every imaginable
accessories, lens tube, wide angle lens, batteries,
SB400 flash (My SB600 and 900 were too big)
I'm close to 1,700.CN$ invested in 2 cameras in order
to have one (if I'm lucky) working while the other is
on it's way to or from repairs.
It’s unthinkable of selling, I would need to find a looser
to buy all the stuff if I don’t want to be one myself.
This morning I have received a "loaner" from Nikon. I'm glad because the one I bought last friday 4th one started acting up Sathurday, locked up open ...has to removed and replaced the battery to unlock.
This happened twinse in 15 min.
I'm waiting for the one in "repair" (no parts) Nikon as decided to give me one as a good will present and send it at the same time as my repair, the new one will leaver for repairs with the "loaner" so I'll 3 when they are all fixed in order to have ONE I hope will till one or 2 are at the repair shop. Good thing I'm not a race car driver.