The Nikon Coolpix L29 had won shortlisted. Now I have returned - my reasons are as follows:
16 megapixels? I actually thought the resolution would now 4 x better than in my review, or even 4 x sharper. Unfortunately, far from it. The Nikon gets (no matter which mode) simply not clever edge sharpness back - even outside, in good Sonnenausleutung and clear weather! Everything is always slightly blurred, at least if you zoom even a little in the picture (such as when one scans old paper photos and purely zooms: grainy and frayed).
It is positive that the camera possessing a very good residual light utilization. But that is again a real disadvantage because it so logically the shutter stays open quite long - since then already enough "wobbles" in the half-millimeter range to spoil the picture - possibly on a tripod or not just held in the hand, are it as, at best, only the aforementioned sharpness problems. That would be detrimental for a quick snapshot.
Nikon Camera should also mention "Apache" or "Comanche" because Indians could supposedly detect and shoot down no moving targets. What is probably more of a popular myth in Western, is in the Coolpix L29 unfortunately reality. Those who do not photographed as the 19th century (when there was the photographer Extra headrests, so that people did not move during the exposure), who has no pleasure in the pictures - very streaky even slight movements.
In Video mode, "HD" was not at first set, suddenly the option was then available (software error) - the film footage are displayed clearly, already at a 15-inch screen is of "HD" nothing left - as it then acts Image and tonmäßig as recording with one of the first camera phone - but good for videos you buy indeed no camera, but it should be mentioned.
The sculpture seems to thin and cheap, but that has almost all developed in the last 10 years. Especially when the battery cover I have my doubts that this with its hinge mechanism which tilts like, if you do not press down the batteries when you close hand, survived the warranty period.
Another huge negative point is (for me anyway) the following: The USB connection is down at the bottom of the camera !! Taking pictures to the computer (which is very very Lahmar ..... happens), you have to store them either on the lens, or (inevitable scratches) on the display, or they are kept floating in the hand and makes the cable through your fingers hanging - extremely bad solved. My Old Revue had been the outcome on the side.
Conclusion: The camera takes worse pictures than a (then cheap) 9 year old 4-megapixel camera source. The plastic is thin and feel cheap. Poor edge and depth of field in the recordings. Very bad placed USB output.
Those who have no direct comparison, the poor picture quality notes may not be as fast, but in the product description I would have expected a bit more, even in the lower price segment, just because I thought, "Well now, could at least not be worse than my old camera. "
This assumption was impressively refuted by Nikon. Sometimes less frippery and for better coordination and balancing of simpler technology are the better alternative. Apparently one must now grab twice as deep into their pockets to get the same image quality as a decade ago - but hey: mainly the Coolpix has a "Cheshire-recognition" - which also has not worked for me in self-experiments, but only because to me the smile stuck in the moderate image quality in the throat ...
