1o) Canon PowerShot A70 or 2o) Canon PowerShot SD100
you can compare them in this website, but I know nothing about digital cameras, never had one before. One of the main difference is the battery: - number 1o) uses 4 AA bateries whereas number 2o) has a Canon Lithium-Ion & charger. Does anyone have any experience with this? what should I look at when choosing between these 2 cameras? Is the battery going to be an issue in the future? is it better to have AA bateries or a "lithium" one? if you have any feature that I should look at and pay attention let me know thanks [ October 12, 2003: Message edited by: Andres Gonzalez ]
I'm not going to be a Rock Star. I'm going to be a LEGEND! --Freddie Mercury
From what I can see you have to choose between more expensive ultra compact SD100 and less expensive compact A70. If the size doesn't matter I would pick A70, otherwise SD100. A70 has slightly better parameters.
Joined: Nov 27, 2001
Originally posted by stara szkapa: From what I can see you have to choose between more expensive ultra compact SD100 and less expensive compact A70. If the size doesn't matter I would pick A70, otherwise SD100. A70 has slightly better parameters.
I'll have to have a look at them, I mean, feel them, because size matters. If you go out, you'd wanna keep it easily in your pocket. I also don't mind the manual configurations that the A70 provides. I'm not the kind of guy that spends more than 3 minutes adjusting my settings and taking the picture. what do you think about the battery? thanks [ October 12, 2003: Message edited by: Andres Gonzalez ]
I had a chance to fiddle around with a A70 yesterday, and I should say its a decent camera indeed. But from dpreview.com, SD100 seems to have a better storage device (more pictures) and 9point Ai Autofocus (better pictures), and thats impressive indeed. And its smaller too (more chances of having the camera with you when it matters). But its 100 quids more and that make it a tough decision.
Before buying a digital camera, you might want to checkout this Digital Camera Buying Guide at cnet.com. here. Its very good Last week, i looked at the same things (Canon Powershot stuff) but finally ended up buying a Kodak DX6490.(my first digital camera - My last Yashica point & click lasted close to 4 years and still going strong btw) My brother the week before that bought a canon power shot S400 , its so small that you can put that in your pocket with no problem. hope that helps [ October 12, 2003: Message edited by: vi kam ]
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings -- They did it by killing all those who opposed them
What use are these things anyway apart from proliferating computers around the globe of pictures of "When I went to..." ? And the borrowing of one's computer to download some driver so that they can store and forward their images , that gets my goat ! I must have 20 device drivers on my computer by now. Not to mention being forced to sit and "compliment" 200 poses a time of unvarying monotony of subjects who look as though they'd also rather be elsewhere. If there's one thing that would get my vote for "It should never have been invented" this whould be it. regards
Originally posted by <varun>: Does the make of the camera makes any difference? I have seem ppl prefering Japanese make over the Chinese one ... but as i've noticed, the latter one is often cheaper ... !!!
It matters a LOT. The brand of your camera can make the difference between a plastic clunker that you throw away after a few tries, disgusted with the terrible quality of the pictures (calling them photos is an insult to photography) they create and getting good quality photographs. Personally I'd not buy ANY digicam unless it is from a traditional cameramaker like Nikon or Minolta. Those companies have decades of experience in lens design and creation and can be relied upon to build good optics and light meters. As there are only a few makers of CCDs (and equivalent tech) around the difference on that end is far less (though there too the traditional brands have more to loose in image and future sales of higher end models thus are more likely to use the best they can get rather than economise on some cheap low quality chip. Camera choice should be based on: 1) optics 2) light meter 3) image resolution (different resolutions are required as minimum for different uses of course) 4) storage (media, speed) 5) price (of course within your set budget) If you can't get the quality you want in 1) 2) 3) and 4) for your budget either increase the budget or defer your purchase! 4) is debatable, and the only area you can really compromise if need be. CF cards are the best choice, as they are (relatively) cheap, rugged and standardised. Sony memorystick are expensive, non-standard (only Sony uses them despite their best efforts to get other brands to license the tech). SM cards are extremely easily damaged and expensive. As you give neither a budget nor mention what you want to use the camera for I can't really give a recommendation, but good general purpose cameras are for example the Nikon Coolpix 4500 and 5400 and the Minolta Dimage 7i. P.S. I currently own a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (predecessor to the 5400, same electronics but different optics), Nikon F80 and F100 (SLRs) and a Minolta X300 (SLR). My standards in cameras might be higher than the average, but the criteria hold. [ October 13, 2003: Message edited by: Jeroen Wenting ]
Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Originally posted by HS Thomas: What use are these things anyway apart from proliferating computers around the globe of pictures of "When I went to..." ?
hmm, much legitimate uses. Varries from the reporter wanting to get something in print at home from the other end of the world (without having to have the film FedEx'ed to his editor) to the photographer making studies of a scene in preparation of shooting the final image, to a digital sketchbook for keeping ideas. Police agencies can use them to record evidence.
Not to mention being forced to sit and "compliment" 200 poses a time of unvarying monotony of subjects who look as though they'd also rather be elsewhere.
Ah, but isn't that the same as with people showing you the prints from their vacation snapshots? At least here you can innocently kick the power supply out of its socket having the computer mysteriously fail
If there's one thing that would get my vote for "It should never have been invented" this whould be it.
There is a use for the tech, but it is indeed often overused. I got mine about half a year ago to use as a kind of digital sketchbook, and it serves well as such. I might exchange one of my SLRs for a DSLR next year (if Nikon gets around and launches the much expected sub-$1000 DSLR in february), reducing the amount of film I use on non-critical imagery.