Canon seems to release a new Digital Ixus camera every few months or so, but it has been more restrained when it comes to its PowerShot range. Take the PowerShot SX110 IS. It’s the successor to the PowerShot SX100 IS, which was launched back in autumn 2007. As the name suggests, the SX110 is more an evolutionary camera than a …
It appears to me....
I think it should appear to everyone, unless you've neglected to mention the function that makes it vanish?
It's a different way of doing things
I'm a happy user of the predecessor, the sx100is - and to be honest I've never found the lack of an optical viewfinder to be any sort of a problem, it's just a different way of doing things (like the first time you use Ubuntu after Windoze) and once you get used to it, it's completely intuitive.
In practice, the battery-life during the day (when you'll likely take most of your pictures) is plenty - I get about 250 from a pair of NiMh batteries - and the low-light capability is such that I regularly get away without the flash when people around me are forced to use theirs... the newer model has a larger sensor to cover the extra pixels without needing to shrink them so I'd expect that to be able to do the same.
The only niggle (and it's a small one) is I'd have liked seperate doors for the memory-card and batteries the way it's done on my wife's Kodak... unlike the reviewer I do like the recessed catch because you don't snag it by accident and drop the batteries the way you can with some cameras.
I'd happily recommend giving this new model a test-drive... if you're even half as happy with it as I am with this one, your money will be well spent.
And before anybody asks - no, I don't work for Canon.
I also have the 100IS, and it's a good camera. I think the review forgot to mention the scroll wheel -- which helps with those long menus -- or maybe it was there but I don't remember. It's my "everyday" camera, stays in my backpack all the time, and I sometimes even take it in the pocket of a jacket -- or loose jeans, although then you can't sit... :-) Good for when you don't need/want to lug around the DSLR and its lenses...
Anyway, the back of the new one looks much better indeed, without those four silly buttons just below the screen. The extra 1 Mpx, I don't care about. I do miss a viewfinder though, even if electronic like in my old Konica-Minolta Z3. Simple physics: it's much easier to stay steady and get a sharp shot using the long end of the zoom when you have your arms tucked close to you and the camera resting against your head... So when I have a "difficult" shot with the 100IS I compose the picture with the camera close to me and then put it on my face just before shooting, to get more stability. Not very comfortable or pleasant, but works.
I agree with your comments about the viewfinder, my other reason for wanting one is that in certain light conditions the screens are very difficult to use accurately.
I will stick with my Pana FZ-18 for these reasons, oh and the 28-500 Leica zoom is nice :)
Digital Cameras Should be *Digital*
Digital cameras should not introduce image noise at high(er) ISO numbers. AFAIK this is artificial not a feature of the CCD. So, I say digital cameras should should exploit the capability of CCDs to the limit, and not emulate the behaviour of film technology at high ISO number.
The real 'E'
Karl Marx is laughing his ass off!
This camera is great! Very easy to use and with lots of features. The best price I found was on ikit.net's website, they have the hole range of Sanyo camcorders: http://www.ikit.net/canon-powershot-sx110-is-black-p-3260.html
Re: Digital Cameras Should be *Digital*
No, it's not artificial, and is a feature of the sensor.
High ISO capability is achieved by amplification of the analogue output from the sensor. All sensors have a certain amount of inherent "noise", and when in low light conditions the output of the sensor has to be amplified in order to render an image signal worth processing, that noise is amplified too, and in extreme cases may exceed the image signal.
As sensor technology improves (in terms of photosite area and efficiency), the inherent signal to noise ratio improves, allowing more amplification to be possible before the output image excessively degrades - which in turn equates to higher and higher ISO capability of the cameras involved.
Of course, now high ISO has become almost as much of a marketing gimmick as megapixels, camera manufacturers are now cranking up the maximum ISO (i.e. sensor amplification) without actually improving the underlying sensor efficiency. Anyone can claim their camera has ISO of a million, but it doesn't mean the images won't be total mush.
I like the longer zoom
Two of my sprog have different models of their powershots that have the 4X optical zoom and my only real complaint has been that it's only 4 instead of 10X. That's a good thing to add, though I agree that their chintzy little sd card is a waste. Why not at least 2gb? they aren't that expensive now and there's no reason to look cheap (as opposed to inexpensive).
Paris, 'cos I would take tele piccys of her for sure
Thanks for the correction!
- +Comment Trips to Mars may be OFF: The SUN has changed in a way we've NEVER SEEN
- Vid Google opens Inbox – email for people too stupid to use email
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Is your home or office internet gateway one of '1.2 MILLION' wide open to hijacking?