Hi,
i have an older DS400 Powershot camera and i am thinking of buying a new one.
First off. I like Canon a lot so i don’t think i would buy another brand.
What i am looking for is perhaps the same size but with a little better low light.
What model do you use?
Not really pro in any way, just casual. So far my camera never broke and still works great but i know that details are not that great on the images. Might be because of 4 Megapixels. A guess.
I whole heartedly recommend the Ixus range! Cannon brand, I had the Ixus 75i, gave to my mum when I wanted an update and got the 110 IS. Both have been utterly awesome.
Wiki page on them : Canon Digital IXUS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There has only been 2 regular problems with them. Neither in the current models (and I didn’t have either camera that had the problem, they are noted at the bottom of the wiki page).
Size wise, they arnt much different from the powershots. The shape is a bit more streamlined. Quality wise though they just pwned the powershots. Not a huge difference on paper, but surprisingly noticeable when using them.
I own a very old Canon Ixus 800 IS (known in the USA as the Canon Ixus 700) which has served me well over the years. My wife uses it now, as instead I use a somewhat old digital camcorder, the Canon HF S10 which also takes reasonable videos, although its starting to show its age in this rapidly moving field.
I do not use the Canon software for either of those cameras. Instead I just plug them into my Linux PCs via a USB cable, and either drag and drop the files back to my desktop (or laptop if on the road travelling) or I use digikam software to drag back still pix to my PC.
I am definitely a big Canon fan, and my next camera will likely be a Canon.
Still, there was a time from about a year ago, until the last month or two, when I would have recommended a very specific Panasonic instead of a Canon. This was the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 (known in Europe as the DMC-TZ7).
However Panasonic since then, while adding more features, have not IMHO been able to maintain the image quality of the ZS3 in their subsequent models. For example this review of the DMC-ZS7 (DMC-TZ10 in Europe) suggests that the image quality of the excellent ZS3 was not kept in the ZS7.
Now if you like scuba diving or white water rafting, there IS still a Panasonic digital camera you could consider, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS2
But, having typed that, I’m back looking at Canon’s again. There are some excellent Ixus models to choose from. Fortunately there are also EXCELLENT web sites which can provide reviews of the many different models available. I have no favourite camera web site so I can’t provide any recommendation there, … but you should not have any problem finding a review of any camera you are considering.
My next camera will likely be a Canon.
I checked the canon site and i like the S95 a lot. It does RAW also, which is really nice. Of course this is a little more pro i guess, but omg these cameras got so little now.
Remembering some years ago that model used to be big.
Or the SX200, not RAW but still nice.
I don’t mind to pay a little more if its worth it. They look as they can also take photos in low light which is a huge plus.
btw. i use also Digikam and i wonder why i even paid for Acdsee as i was on Windows. It does the same thing and its really nice to work with. Even better than current gnome equivalents.
The canon software i only used in the beginning really. The one i used a lot was stitching. Its really nice to make panorama photos.
I can show one of mine if someone is interested.
Thanks and take care.
The s95 does get some good reviews. For example: Canon PowerShot S95 Review | Digital Camera Resource Page
On 2010-10-11 00:36, oldcpu wrote:
> My next camera will likely be a Canon.
How well do those cameras work with linux?
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
Both my Canons worked off the bat with Linux. F-Spot detected them both as Cameras, but even closing F-Spot it assumes the memory in the camera is just like a USB pen drive kinda storage and mounted it as such. No problems at all.
I have never used Canons own software as I don’t use WINE or Windows 
They both work well with Linux. As I noted:
I’ve got a Cannon D450, Had it a year or two and taken a few thousand Pictures. Its a fine piece of Kit, and still going strong. Only 12mp 
. I use digikam to download to the pc and Gimp to manipulate them. Mind my Daughter has a Fuji camera and it does nearly everything my camera can. It has 10 or 12 times zoom and the pictures are crisp and sharp cost 1/ 5th of the price of my camera for the price its great and very versatile …
Only 12mp? Oh wow… mine only has 4mp. lol
I do like the S95, but i also consider the SX200 (or so). My biggest need is the low light. And all the cameras i see right now have way more option than mine has. And most important all Canons were at least made in Japan. Kind of quality in my opinion. Canon doesn’t seem to outsource much.
One thing i read a lot is with the more megapixel you get, the noisier your picture gets.
Nevertheless, i put that in for my tax return. Maybe i will get the previous model. Not sure about it. RAW mode is quite nice. I used to have a G3 (in black), but it was bulky and i did not make a lot of pictures really. In the end i got the powershot which is quite handy for being in the road.
The complaint a couple of my friends (who like Canons) had with the SX200 (I think that is the model) is when ever they take a pix, even without a flash, the flash device would pop up. They found having a device that popped up (even when no flash was being taken) to be quite annoying in the SX200.
Need to consider.
Altough the camera model looks very similar to the S90/95.
But i think the difference is the RAW mode and the widescreen for the SX200. Not sure what widescreen supposed to be. Autocrop?
What i’ve read is that all Digital Cameras take their pictures in RAW format it then gets converted into Jpeg. so all cameras have the ability to take Raw format they just dont save it. so the 40 euro camera takes a raw image its then processed into Jpeg. Here’s a camera that my daughters has for £ 120 sterling its amazing value for money and takes amazing pictures Fujifilm FinePix S1600 Digital camera - compact - 12.2 Megapixel - 15 x optical zoom . its not a cannon but it half the price.
Not sure about how cameras really get their image, but it makes sense. The beauty is, that with a RAW image you have, well, the raw data uncompressed.
This doesn’t matter for normal use, but for editing it does.
I am not a pro, but i used the option before. Today i am out of touch somewhat. Last, i went to target (retail store) and seen the Sx120. To bulky and to much plastic. Otherwise nice camera.
But it looks like that all these cameras have a pop out flash. Altough with this one it did not pop out.
Does anyone use one of these models like the SX series or S? Kinda curious how you like it. Maybe it gives me an idea.
Have you ever taken a digital camera, applied a hack so that you can access the raw image, and then compared it to the jpg format image that the camera manufacturer provides?
I have for my Canon Ixus 800IS. The differences are NOT what the press blows them up to be.
In the case of the Canon Ixus 800IS, there was no difference that matters between the RAW and manufacturer’s jpg compression level for editing. No perceptible difference.
Having seen a real life case for one camera myself, I am wondering how much of an issue this is for other cameras. … I guess I am now getting a bit cynical about the importance that is placed on RAW vs compressed, … at least until I can see the difference in front of me (and of course, there is the rub! … who is willing to hack their camera and risk breaking it and voiding the warranty ? (just to see the difference) … )
Same with my canon 450D there really isnt that much difference between the Raw and Jpeg to really warrant the 13mb file size. Also the Jpeg’s have to be sharpened later as the camera only saves them without sharpening. Suppose that’s why there isn’t much Difference between the Jpeg and RAW files on my camera.
On 2010-10-13 07:36, oldcpu wrote:
>
> yester64;2237245 Wrote:
>> Not sure about how cameras really get their image, but it makes sense.
>> The beauty is, that with a RAW image you have, well, the raw data
>> uncompressed.
>> This doesn’t matter for normal use, but for editing it does…
>
> Have you ever taken a digital camera, applied a hack so that you can
> access the raw image, and then compared it to the jpg format image that
> the camera manufacturer provides?
>
> I have for my Canon Ixus 800IS. The differences are NOT what the press
> blows them up to be.
It matters for anything close to professional photography. If you are going to use any advanced
filtering, it does - and a press photographer would notice. However, for this use you don’t need
“raw”, it could be compressed as .png: that would be perfect. What they are doing with “raw” is
saving themselves the need to do the coding and cpu usage. You should really want a camera that
generated .png images, not .jpg, nor raw.
For an idea of what the difference would be, take any photo in gimp, and say save as jpg, and tell
the dialog you want to see the expected size: the displayed image changes to what it would be after
compression. Now move the quality slider left or right, and wait for the program to recalculate, and
look at the image carefully. You will see how it changes at lower quality settings.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
On 2010-10-13 14:06, reaper-man wrote:
>
> Same with my canon 450D there really isnt that much difference between
> the Raw and Jpeg to really warrant the 13mb file size.
The difference is usually to small to see, because jpeg was designed precisely to fool the eye.
Think of a smooth blue sky. There are a few dots with a 2% lighter blue. Jpeg would store all as the
same blue, removing the cloaked UFO >:-)
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
True. The difference is usually to small to notice. Thing is manufacturers try to give us the best possible picture they can in the jpeg format. Even with the high end cameras. Other wise they’d emit the format and we’d just have the Raw format. I know the Jpeg format isn’t the best format for editing photographs with, but as long as their not over compressed their adequate for what most people want them for. Yes its nice to have Raw but its a bit of a gimic in a way, since all digital cameras even really cheap ones can take raw pictures. They just dont have the option to saver them. As for me I use the Raw + Jpeg option.
On 2010-10-13 17:06, reaper-man wrote:
> for. Yes its nice to have Raw but its a bit of a gimic in a way,
> since all digital cameras even really cheap ones can take raw pictures.
> They just dont have the option to saver them. As for me I use the Raw
> + Jpeg option.
And none has png? Curious…
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)