backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 26 comment(s) - last by s12033722.. on Jan 28 at 12:09 PM

Canon PowerShot A590 IS  (Source: Canon)

Canon ELPH SD1100 IS  (Source: Canon)
Canon adds four new inexpensive digital cameras in the entry level range

Canon announced several new digital cameras this week. The ELPH line has a new model called the SD1100 IS. The camera is available in five colors including blue, brown, gold, pink and silver. The SD1100 IS has an 8.0 megapixel sensor and features optical image stabilization.

The lens features a 3x optical zoom with 38 to 114mm equivalent and opens up to f/2.8 at wide angle settings and f/4.9 at telephoto settings. Canon uses its advanced Optical Image Stabilization in the camera to reduce blurry images caused by hand movement.

Face detection technology is included to make for ideal exposure and focus on the faces of individuals in shots. Up to nine faces can be detected in one shot. Eighteen different shooting modes are included along with a fully automatic mode and a semi-automatic mode. The SD1100 IS uses 9-pont autofocus and has a large 2.5-inch Pure Color LCD Screen. The SD1100 IS will ship in March at a price of $249.99. At the price you also get a 32MB SD card, USB cable, AV cable and software.

Canon also added three new models to its A-series line of digital cameras. The new A-series models include the PowerShot A590 IS, PowerShot A580, and the PowerShot A470. The A590 IS is an 8.0 megapixel camera with a 4x optical zoom lens equivalent to 35mm – 140mm. The camera uses optical image stabilization as well. Other features include 19 shooting modes from fully automatic to fully manual. The A590 will ship in March for $179.99 with a 32MB SD card.

The A580 is an 8.0 megapixel camera that uses a similar 4x optical zoom lens equivalent to 35mm – 140mm. The main difference here is the lack of image stabilization. The A580 features 16 shooting modes and comes in silver. The A580 will be available in March for $149.99.

The final new camera is the PowerShot A470. This camera has an odd 3.4x optical zoom giving it a 38mm – 132mm equivalence. The A470 comes with a silver body and four trim color options including orange, gray, pink and blue. At 38mm the f stop setting is 3.0 and at the full zoom it is 5.8. Fourteen shooting modes are offered with the A470 and it will be available in March for $129.99.

These three point-and-shoot cameras from Canon join the new Digital Rebel XSi DSLR DailyTech covered yesterday.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By VitalyTheUnknown on 1/25/2008 7:17:10 PM , Rating: 1
ahh, Again 1024x768 of pure image, and amazing 3005x2159 resolution of fallacious BS.




RE: 888888888888888.0 million-billion-megapixels
By maven81 on 1/26/2008 1:30:59 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, I don't understand this megapixel race... Are consumers really asking for bigger and bigger images (surely the largest most people will print is an 8x10) or are the companies simply trying to outdo eachother for specs alone?

My main camera is a Canon 20D and with a good lens it already takes stunning images. I also have an old 3.2 megapixel powershot s230. This camera takes horrible images by comparison... fuzzy, noisy, and with low dynamic range. I realize sensors got better over the years, but squeezing 8 megapixels into such a tiny sensor will not produce much better images. And will definitely never equal the quality of my 8 megapixel DSLR.

Why don't they just make a 5 megapixel camera that starts intantly, has a larger chip with larger more sensitive pixels, less noise, faster AF etc... it would produce far better pictures, and wouldn't require loads of storage space either.


RE: 888888888888888.0 million-billion-megapixels
By mindless1 on 1/26/2008 6:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
Why they don't is easy - if you only want low res pictures nobody is forcing you to use the higher setting on the camera, but the truth is that higher MP is better (all else being equal), whether the reason be a better ability to crop what you want while retaining resolution, or applying noise and other filters, reduction of the % degradation from compression artifacts, and support for the inevitably forthcoming higher resolution monitors, printers, and other display devices.

Remember, pictures used to last a lifetime. Will 5MP seem ok in 40 years? At that point it might only be thumbnail sized on a screen.


By DeepBlue1975 on 1/26/2008 8:21:10 PM , Rating: 4
No, higher MP is not always better, unless you are talking about high end SLR cameras.

In average consumer cameras like those that the article takes on, basically what you get with more megapixels is more work for the post processing engine to remove the resulting noise.

That kind of camera, for the price they cost, doesn't have the required lens quality to take advantage of such high resolutions, and sensors are way too small to not be facing more noise.

So, what you say of "all else being equal, more MPs is better" is not true, because:

a- a cheap lens which can cope well with a 4mp resolution, not necessarily will do well with double than that.

b- the sensor will surely be the sime size as always is in this kind of camera, and so will be more prone to noise.


RE: 888888888888888.0 million-billion-megapixels
By mindless1 on 1/27/2008 7:13:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you wish you were right but that is nonsense. Even prescription eyeglasses lens is quality enough for this and costs $1. I don't mean highest quality possible, only high enough that higher MP is not a waste. If the lens were cheap enough it can't do that, it can't do the lower resultion well enough either. You've just succeeded in duplicating another urban myth.

When you have a sensor that seems to pick up the noise, that is exactly what you want to have happen. Otherwise it can't be filtered out but is instead averaged into adjacent pixels.

I'm not saying some really poor camera will automatically benefit, but in general an average camera does except for the processing speed, and more importantly, the photographer does later because post processing allows for finer control.


By DeepBlue1975 on 1/27/2008 7:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
I rahter think what you say makes no sense at all.

These consumer cameras do not support taking raw pictures, and jpgs are filtered by their image processing engines which ends up obliterating detail every time it finds noise, which is quite often in these high resolution consumer cameras.

Why do you think a dslr with no lens and 8mp costs so much more than this kind of camera?

And why do you think an 8mp dslr always yields better pictures than an 8mp consumer one, even if the pictures are taken by the same person?

You know your statement is completely nonsense and that you can find proof of it in so many digital photography dedicated sites.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 1/26/2008 8:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you either misunderstood me or you never took shots with different kind of digital cameras.
My problem is not with image size, I do want pure image in big resolution but MP count does not equate to high quality pictures. Actually, it should in an ideal world but since makers of cameras just want to get rid of additional technical questions they invented this ever increasing megapixel myth, here's where it gets dirty. It's a simple and nasty lie for consumers who are not fully aware of nuances in digital photography, and now we have what they wanted (well..i guess both digital camera manufacturers and consumer), average Joe thinks more pixels = better, bigger, sharper photo.
But I will say this, my brother has 5 MP camera witch bought 3 years ago, I will say this again 3 years ago and it beats the crap out of my 7 MP new olympus camera.


RE: 888888888888888.0 million-billion-megapixels
By mindless1 on 1/27/2008 7:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
I never wrote that MP was the only factor, but it does actually equate to higher quality pictures all else equal.

It does not have to be an ideal world, and it is not a myth. You capture more valid data and have the ability to resolve more true detail even if you have to later use a noise filter.

Your brother having a 5MP camera that beats your 7MP does not invalidate this, his might be even better if it were modern day 7MP model instead of 5MP, though really from 5MP to 7MP is not much of a jump.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 1/27/2008 12:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
I see you are not really willing to understand what we are saying, so here's a home work for you:
Take any mainstream 7MP digital camera and take two shots, choose for the first picture 1027x768 resolution and 3005x2159 or increase to any cosmic proportion for the second one.(some of cameras allow even much bigger resolution). Open these files in any image editor(photoshop). Now you got big, blurry, excessively noisy one and small, clear, crisp one. Now resize your small picture to match big one, and what do we see now? There is no difference in quality between them. See, did you get my initial post now. The excessive amount, in this case 7 Mp did not result in better image quality. What was done to the photo when you selected high resolution in your camera settings it's automatic resize of image and nothing more.
So that is why I am saying that pixel counting is a great way to confuse people who don't have enough knowledge in this field.


By DeepBlue1975 on 1/28/2008 8:43:34 AM , Rating: 2
Don't waste your time, mate, I tried to tell him the same thing but he insists that what we say is complete BS.

Let him happily buy a 40mp sub 200 cam when it gets out, and ask himself why his neighbour's DSLR with only 10mp yields much better images.

Even there's the example of the fuji s6000 compared to the s9600 which is essentially the same camera (same lens, same super ccd sensor) but with 9mp instead of 6, and reviewers find the s9600 pictures noisier than the s6000 ones, in raw mode. Why could that be?

I hate it when people who


By s12033722 on 1/28/2008 12:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
I am an electrical engineer and I design digital cameras for a living. Please understand that more MP is NOT better. Oftentimes it is worse. The reason is that to put that many pixels on a chip that size means that the pixels are absolutely minute. In turn, the physical size of the pixels imposes all sorts of limitations on the light-gathering abilities of that pixel.

1. Full-well capacity. A small pixel means means that the pixel is not able to store very many electrons. The lower the number of electrons you can store, the lower your dynamic range will be and the higher your noise will be. This is not subjective. It's hard, unchangable math and physics.

2. Boundary effects. With pixels that small, you begin to have the size of the pixel structure approach the wavelengths of visible light. This turns the sensor into a diffraction grating (sort of) which bends the light, fundamentally limiting the resolving capability of the pixels to those wavelengths. The result is that despite the theoretical increase in resolution from the pixel count, the fact is LESS resolution because you are bending the incoming light and putting photons in pixels that they do not belong in.

There are lots of other reasons why more pixels on the same size chip are a bad idea, but hopefully that sheds a little of the light of reality on the marketing fluff.


Not too big on the different colors..
By One43637 on 1/25/2008 5:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
but I'm curious to know how much of an improvement this is to the SD1000. Other then the obvious difference in megapixels.




By VahnTitrio on 1/25/2008 5:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely based on the numbering it is probably identical except the resolution. The screen seems the same, face detection, shooting modes, etc. seem to match what I can do on my SD1000. Nice little camera to carry around on trips.


RE: Not too big on the different colors..
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/25/2008 6:02:23 PM , Rating: 3
The big addition is image stabilization. This is the main reason why I ditched my SD1000 and went with an SD850 IS.


RE: Not too big on the different colors..
By One43637 on 1/25/2008 6:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
Ah thanks Brandon. I too have the SD1000. It's a nice camera, but the image stabilization would be nice. Think I might upgrade to this, if that's the case.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/25/2008 11:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, my hands shake when taking pictures, I hate it. I will definately look into this.


By DeepBlue1975 on 1/26/2008 8:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
You ditched a camera just for not having IS?

IS only helps you with standing still subjects and mainly in long zooming situations.

Yes, it can buy you 2 f stops in low light situations but when you are in those situations, exposure times are ridiculously high for the IS to make any difference and you have to use a tripod, or use the flash.


By sxr7171 on 1/26/2008 3:02:31 AM , Rating: 2
The SD1000 was out of numbering order in their lineup. The SD950IS is a much better camera as are the SD700IS, SD800IS, SD850IS and the SD900. The SD1000 is more a successor of the SD600. This SD1100 follows more in the SD950 lineage and at $250 is a bargain.


By Aquila76 on 1/25/2008 11:51:24 PM , Rating: 3
32MB? Why? What's that hold: 3-4 pics? Just add $5 (better yet, drop those eye-gouging colors) and give us a standard 1GB SD card.




By Fnoob on 1/26/2008 12:46:38 AM , Rating: 3
Comon, there's a market out there for doodoo brown.