Nikon Coolpix SQ - The Second To Last of the Swivel Heads

Pop quiz. You lust after a Leica DG 45mm f/2.8 macro lens. But you ain't got six Benjamins in your pocket. What do you do? What do you do?

Objectively speaking, this quiz is actually harder than the Kobayashi Maru Test. But, if Captain Kirk ever taught me anything, it is this: Bake your noodle a little, think outside the box, and a solution will eventually present itself.

After much contemplation, two possible solutions came to mind

1. Sell a few pints of blood to raise the necessary cash.
2. Get some antique hardware that functions more or less like the Leica DG.

Needless to say, door #2 is the more palatable option. So, I went online and bought myself a Nikon Coolpix SQ for the low, low price of $20. LG was right. Life's good.

The SQ is quite possibly the cutest looking digital camera ever made. It's a perfect square with a swivel head that you can twist around. The body is probably made of plastic, but it's thickly coated with a layer of metallic-feeling paint. It feels great in the hand, so long as that coat of paint don't scrape off.

The SQ isn't Nikon's first swivel head camera; it has no less than five progenitor before it. For those of you who care, it all started with the 900, which begat the 950. The 950 begat the 990. The 990 begat the 995. The 995 begat the 4500. And finally, there was the SQ. But wait! There's more! There is yet another swivel head camera that came after the SQ. But alas, that's another story for another time.

To get the spec out of the way, the SQ rocks a 3 megapixel 1/2.7" sensor, and the glass is a 37-111mm equivalent shooter with max aperture ranging from f/2.7 to f/4.8. All this is irrelevant, of course. In terms of image quality, even selfie cameras could easily slap the SQ around these days. No sir, the SQ's superpower lies not with its electronic bits, but with its ability to shoot close. Real close.

Due to their unique body design, Nikon's swivel head cameras have always excelled in macro photography, and the SQ continues that tradition. But, just how close is close? I'll let the pics speak for the camera.

That's right! This baby shoots as close as 4cm on 60mm equivalent focal length. I challenge anyone to find another $20 camera that could do better.

When it comes to everyday shooting, the SQ shows its age. Clearly, in 2003, Nikon was a long way off from being able to make the perfect compact shooter. Then again, the more jaded camera geek would argue that Nikon never got there, for it was Sony that reached the promised land with the RX100 back in 2012. But I digress.

The list of shortcomings is most definitely not short.

• 3 megapixel just isn't adequate by 2016 standard.
• Metering is overly aggressive. Exposure compensation needs to be dialed to -1 EV permanently
• Hopeless in low light. ISO tops out at 200, and the results look terrible.
• LCD is not bright enough for outdoor use. If the sun's out, you'll need shoot with The Force.
• There's no "sleep" mode; the camera is either on or off. Leave it on, and the battery dies quickly. Turned it off, and you'll have wait an eternity every time the camera re-starts.
• Very poor shot-to-shot time.
• Manual control is lacking, and that's putting it kindly.
• No RAW support

That said, there is one saving grace. A few weeks ago, I came across this fascinating documentary on Vivian Maier.

At the 18:25 mark, a pro photog explains why Maier chose to use a twin lens Rolleiflex for her work. Taking advantage of the the SQ's unique body design, you can shoot clandestinely, just like Maier did with her Rolleiflex. If you are into street photography, you might want to run out and get yourself a SQ right now.

I bought a Coolpix 990 in 2000, and I instantly became a Nikon fanboy. In 2004, Nikon cranked up their game and kicked off the DSLR revolution with the D70. Without question, they were THE top dog. Then a strange thing happened: Nikon continued to refine and evolve the DSLR line, but seemed to have forgotten all about the compact market. In the subsequent years, they rolled out a string of half-hearted Coolpix products that, for the lack of a better expression, SUCKED. Fanboys like myself started to grumble and wonder why Nikon couldn't make a compact that behaved more like a DSLR. Eventually, we all just gave up and moved on. I defected to Panasonic back in 2007; others went to Sony or Fuji.

Later, the iPhone came along, and the compact camera became a niche product. With a product line that's undergoing consolidation, you'd think Nikon would be able to focus its resources and come up with a high performance, high margin bad boy. That didn't happen. Nikon's product people were enjoying sucking on their thumbs too much to care. And so, the SQ represents a missed opportunity. It's not a great camera, but it could have been the ancestor of a great camera. If Nikon had done the work of steadily improving products that showed promise, it wouldn't be getting slapped around by Sony today.

Oh yeah, karma kinda blows.