what is the difference between Nikon CB-N2000SA and the Nikon CB-N1000SA?
1499393
Hello I think the difference is for which model the case is, look at the descriptions that Amazon gives: Nikon CB-N2000SA BK Black | Leather Body Case Set for Nikon 1 J1 Nikon CB-N1000SA Black Leather Body Case Set for Nikon 1 V1 You have one for the V1 and another case for the J1, just depend on which one you have. And by the way, it doesn't work with the 30-110 lens.
1159285
The mirrorless Sony a6000 is a smaller, more compact camera than the DSLR Nikon 3200. The sensor size and megapixels of the two cameras is similar, but the a6000 probably produces somewhat better images and it also has very rapid autofocus. I chose the a6000 because I didn't want to carry around a bulky, heavy SLR camera, but also wanted a camera with excellent image quality and rapid autofocus.
85339
The biggest difference is the new X-Trans sensor which removes the optical low pass filter (OLPF)... making pics much sharper than they were in the x10. Here's more from dpreview's review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x20/): At first glance, the X20 looks just like its predecessor (the X10), although it's now available in a very pretty silver-and-black finish, alongside the conventional all-black. But inside it offers a couple of very significant differences. The first is a brand-new sensor, a 2/3" type 'X-Trans CMOS' design that uses the same novel color filter array as Fujifilm's recent APS-C cameras. This sensor also has phase detect autofocus built right into it - not new to Fuji cameras, but a change from the X10. The second big change is an updated 'Advanced Optical Viewfinder' that includes a detailed information overlay, showing key exposure data and focus confirmation. This isn't the same as the hybrid viewfinder found in the company's X100/X100S and X-Pro1 models - there's no electronic viewfinder - but it's never been done before on a compact camera. The X20 is available in silver/black and all-black bodies Aside from this, the X20 retains most of the same features that made the X10 so appealing. It uses the same fast zoom lens, with a 28-112mm equivalent angle of view and F2.0-2.8 maximum aperture, which is operated by a mechanically-coupled zoom ring that also retracts the lens and turns the camera on and off. It has plenty of external controls, including an exposure compensation dial and two rear dials, and a hot shoe for external flash. One feature notable by its absence is a direct movie record button - the X20 is clearly designed for still photography first, and video second.
722138
Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell this on ebay and buy a SR100 for video and use my digital camera for stills. Frank KalkattawiParis, France(Moved) Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell... » Read More Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell this on ebay and buy a SR100 for video and use my digital camera for stills. Frank KalkattawiParis, France(Moved) « Show Less
1771703
I don't know if worth the difference, but I have the QX100 and the sensor quality is amazing. I decided for QX100 just because the sensor size and quality.
2091791
I'm a semi-professional photographer, I can't recommend either one. The 2600 is just the 1300 with a doubler. BUT the "Nikon" connector fell apart before I could even try it. It fell apart in such a way as to be irreparable. It is cheap for a reason, it's junk. The lens length and WEIGHT would make it embarrassing to use when anyone is around and I doubt the quality of the image would be acceptable. I didn't send it back because I put it on a shelf with my good lenses to remind that you don't get something for nothing. If you buy it and it works...great...but my money is on "Fail," Sorry!Larry Kelsey I'm a semi-professional photographer, I can't recommend either one. The 2600 is just the 1300 with a doubler. BUT the "Nikon" connector fell apart before I could even try it. It fell apart in such a way as to be irreparable. It is cheap for a reason, it's junk. The lens length and WEIGHT would make it embarrassing to use when anyone is around and I doubt the quality of the image would be acceptable. I didn't send it back because I put it on a shelf with my good lenses to remind that you don't get something for nothing. If you buy it and it works...great...but my money is on... » Read More I'm a semi-professional photographer, I can't recommend either one. The 2600 is just the 1300 with a doubler. BUT the "Nikon" connector fell apart before I could even try it. It fell apart in such a way as to be irreparable. It is cheap for a reason, it's junk. The lens length and WEIGHT would make it embarrassing to use when anyone is around and I doubt the quality of the image would be acceptable. I didn't send it back because I put it on a shelf with my good lenses to remind that you don't get something for nothing. If you buy it and it works...great...but my money is on "Fail," Sorry!Larry Kelsey « Show Less
1283832
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_Coolpix_S8000-vs-Nikon_Coolpix_S8100 http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1283918475.html http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/digital-cameras/nikon-coolpix-s8100/11326.html Seems the major upgrade is to the sensor, allowing for improved low-light pictures. I'm looking forward to getting this one as well.
214112
It's true. xxA2000 and xxA2020 are old models. The current models end with A3000.
1901594
The FZ200 has a 2.8 lens for the full range of the zoom, making it better for lower light photography. The 2.8 lens in more expensive to make. The FZ70 has a variable aperture lens. Both cameras are amazing!
1296628
Compare them and when you do, bear in mind that the Nikon was 50% more.http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/675|0/%28appareil2%29/680|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28brand2%29/Nikon
45606
the 200 has a way better cmos ccd, therefore way better video. go compare them at the store. the 2 lcds next to each other are like night and day.
748597
Thanks for the question! Yes, the NX1000 is an interchangeable lens camera, and there's a full line-up of NX lenses - from pancake to telephoto - several of which are now available in white as well as other colors.- Ms. Samsung
458493
The SX30 IS has been replaced by the SX 40 HS and I believe the FZ100 has been replaced by the FZ150. Both addressed problems with the previous models There is very little out about the Canaon yet, but the emerging consensus regarding the two is that the Canon has better image quality (very good quality for this kind of camera). The Panasonic's images while very good, do not match the Canon's and it doesn't have as much zoom (the Canon's and Nikon's zoom range is essentially the same), but it offers more features, including RAW, and significantly better LCD. Both have an articulating display far superior in operation to the Nikon. The SX30 IS has been replaced by the SX 40 HS and I believe the FZ100 has been replaced by the FZ150. Both addressed problems with the previous models There is very little out about the Canaon yet, but the emerging consensus regarding the two is that the Canon has better image quality (very good quality for this kind of camera). The Panasonic's images while very good, do not match the Canon's and it doesn't have as much zoom (the Canon's and Nikon's zoom range is essentially the same), but it offers more features, including RAW, and significantly better LCD. Both have an articulating... » Read More The SX30 IS has been replaced by the SX 40 HS and I believe the FZ100 has been replaced by the FZ150. Both addressed problems with the previous models There is very little out about the Canaon yet, but the emerging consensus regarding the two is that the Canon has better image quality (very good quality for this kind of camera). The Panasonic's images while very good, do not match the Canon's and it doesn't have as much zoom (the Canon's and Nikon's zoom range is essentially the same), but it offers more features, including RAW, and significantly better LCD. Both have an articulating display far superior in operation to the Nikon. « Show Less
2216177
It is a newer model but has a smaller screen I LIKE THE SX1000 IT HAS A 10.1 SCREEN
115305
They are not the same. Find the Nikon version. If you can't I have one i'll sell you. Tom@reynoldssales.com
1615788
The speed is more variable on the 1200 model. If you examine enlarged pictures of both, you'll see a dial on the 1200 that is not on the 1000.
1192315
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise.Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.