This all sounds pretty marvellous, doesn't it? The details and the execution are another story, though. Yes, the Nikon can match and even beat most dSLRs for resolution, but of course it uses a much smaller sensor. Small sensors + big resolutions = noise. And the P6000's noise issues are bad enough to warrant some pretty obtrusive noise reduction even at the lowest ISOs. You don't have to look very hard to spot patches of smoothed-over vegetation or subtle textures turned into a milky haze. This isn't what you want to see when your wallet's £350 lighter.
The other thing about compacts is that they're just not as responsive as dSLRs. The AF is slower, the viewing system is weaker and files take longer to save. The P6000 does have an optical viewfinder, but it's so small and afflicted with so much barrel distortion and colour fringing it's barely worth having. Its maximum continuous shooting speed at full resolution is just 0.9fps, and those raw files take a couple of seconds to save, during which time the camera can't be used.
The GPS is an interesting feature, but surely only of use to a small number of people, and it's quite a fiddle to set up. The same applies to the cable-based LAN networking –- and why didn't Nikon include the Wi-Fi system used on the Coolpix S610c?
The P6000 looks like a cracker on paper but proves something of a damp squib. The biggest problem is the picture quality, which is pretty decent for the most part, but badly let down by excessive noise reduction. This Nikon may look like an ideal alternative to a dSLR, but picture quality, speed and overall responsiveness just aren't there.
Edited by Cristina Psomadakis