2008's top three compact cameras

megapixels isn't the be all and end all

The title says it all really. Megapixels is a bit of a false scale when comparing compacts. The tiny size of their sensors mean that increasing the MP means smaller pixels, which means noisy images, which in turn means crap photos.

Considering that 6MP will produce a 10x8 inch print at photographic quality having a 14mp sensor on a compact is a bit like saying that this Robin Reliant has a Porche engine.

Fat lot of good it will do you...

I'd go for the ixus80, smaller sensor = less noise, and because it is DigicII you can play with the open source firmware upgrade giving you tons of options. Like shooting in RAW.

@Slartybardfast

Thanks for the link, could have done with it a week ago though ;)

Viewfinder differences

It's worth noting that only one of these cameras--Canon's Ixus 80 IS--has an optical viewfinder. The Nikon and Panasonic models, good cameras though they are, rely entirely on the LCD screen for composing pictures. That's a growing trend, for the understandable reason that it's cheaper to leave out the optical viewfinder. But it can be a problem if 1) you take pictures in bright sunlight, and 2) if you're over 40 or farsighted. That's why I chose the Canon, even though the others take just as good pictures. (Yes, there's noise with any camera this small... but that's what Noise Ninja is for.)

Sheesh

Thank you for reminding me of how technology is often pushed backwards because of consumer driven marketing, in this case with respect to digital cameras. Marketing so effective that it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to persuade many people that MP count is but one of many factors, one that takes a distant back seat to sensor size. I'm glad to see how many commenters here get that, but the general public never had a chance.

Raw images off my old 1.2 MP Canon a50 still have superior quality to contemporary cameras with many times the resolution, yielding superb 4x6 prints that are indistinguishable (in terms of resolution - even hard to see with a loop) from my 8 MP a630 or or even my DSLR. Typically, on 4x6, the a50 actually outperforms the a630!

Another misused concept is that of image stabilization. Some cameras with increased image gain amplification to "achieve" higher "ISO" ratings are being touted as having this feature, which is technically incorrect, alongside other cameras that have far more superior optical stabilization. Either way, consumers are led to believe that stabilization will magically eliminate blur from most if not all shots, even from subjects in motion within the frame, when in reality stabilization of any kind can at best only deliver a bit over 2 stops extra latitude before image motion overtakes shutter speed to an objectionable degree.

Decreasing pixel density (say 3-6 MP on a 1/1.8" sensor) would yield several stops better exposure, and when combined with current processing technology would make possible compacts that completely blow today's crap out of the water.

Advertising could just as easily center on quantifiable standards for overall image quality, perhaps something akin to Imatest's, that would still differentiate cameras in order to sell them, but also give the consumer a solid rule of thumb for guiding purchase decisions. But the damage has already been done, and gets worse with time, so that such standards may not ultimately be accepted by the general consumer at all, or at least without considerable effort.

What was that about RMS watts?

-bart

Re: viewfinder differences

However, if the Canon's anything like ours, the accuracy of the optical viewfinder leaves a lot to be desired (erring on the side of capturing a lot more picture than expected, which is the better way to be inaccurate but is a waste of those increasingly poor quality megapixels), and this seems a pretty common problem on digital compacts. Another reason for dropping the optical 'finder is that as zoom lengths chase the megapixels, it becomes increasingly difficult to reflect that in the preview. Bigger superzooms tend to use electronic viewfinders to get as close to the best of both words as possible, and should have exactly 100% coverage.

I bet the Canon has no power level indicator

Does this Ixus along with some or all of the other Ixus models also not have a battery level indicator? A small irritation which every reviewer strangely fails to mention, usually through incompetence. I had an Ixus 800 which I tossed after a few months because not knowing how much charge was left forced my to buy and carry around spares. I thought this was a one off oversight but a work colleague bought a recent model a few weeks ago and brought it in to play with. I asked did it have a power level indication and he was somewhat dismayed to find that it didn't. Again, you'll be hard pressed to find it mentioned in any reviews.

Would you buy a car without a petrol guage? So why do Canon think it's clever and desirable to omit a power level indicator? Bloody idiots.

Re: I bet the Canon has no power level indicator

The LCD screen shots on

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd1100is/page2.asp

clearly show a battery indicator, so should be nothing to worry about - though there's probably no alternative display should you choose to shoot with the LCD off, and it's not half as pretty as some of Samsung's.

By the way, the SD1100 and 80 are the same camera, just branded for different markets for reasons best known to Canon.