Nikon Coolpix L330 Review
Mac users, we're pleased to announce Macphun's all-in-one photo editor Luminar is now available for purchase with special launch pricing. (Existing Macphun customers get a further discount.)
We rated Luminar as "Highly Recommended", and you can now visit the Luminar web site to try it for free.
Recommending the Nikon Coolpix L330 isn’t easy as it doesn’t excel in any one area, except possibly ergonomics; however that’s hardly a must-have feature on most people’s camera wish list.
Sure, it’s got a new 20.2-megapixel sensor which is more pixel-packed than many of its rivals, but so what? Overall image quality is still average at best, with no more detail than many 16-megapixel compact cameras.
The L330’s 26x lens is undeniably a strong aspect of the camera with its useful wide-angle capability, fairly wide maximum aperture and lack of distortion. Yet even it is hardly a match for the 50x focal length range that can be extracted from a camera of this size. It’s also rather let down by iffy autofocus performance and clumsy zoom controls.
Then there’s the issue of cost to consider. Yes, this is a keenly-priced camera, but it’s less easy on the pocket when you factor the extra expense of a set of rechargeable AA batteries. However, the killer blow for the L330 comes from its far smaller yet more feature-packed sibling, the Coolpix S9500. With its 22x zoom range you get almost as much flexibility as the L330, but crucially it’s wrapped up in a svelte, pocketable package and delivers better image quality to boot. But the real bonus is price. If you shop around the S9500 can be had for just a fraction more than the L330, and you won’t have to fork out for any batteries to go with it.
At the end of the day the Nikon Coolpix L330 is a thoroughly average camera without an obvious market. It’s a large bridge camera design but has no more functionality than a basic ultra-compact. It has a decent zoom range, yet not enough to compensate for lugging around its extra bulk over a travel-zoom compact. Finally, it is indeed relatively inexpensive, but it’s also bad value once you factor the battery outlay, woeful lack of features and the falling cost of better-specced, more portable and higher-performing rival cameras.
|Ratings (out of 5)|
|Value for money||3|