I'm Looking for a New Small Camera

[Jason Dunn]

Seeing as Suhit just posted about the Canon SD-800 (http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/index.php?topic_id=11211), I figured this might be a good time for me to ask this question to the community. I'm looking at a camera to replace my Casio EX-S500, and the Canon SD-800 is the leading contender. I'm a bit spoilt by how thin the Casio is (0.63"), and I wish I could see a Canon that thin (the SD-800 is 0.99" thick)...but that never seems to happen, the Canon's always stay "chunky". But at this point I want something that can take better pictures than the Casio, so having to go bigger is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Are there any other cameras I should be looking at?

[Jerry Raia]

Chunky yes but lighter than previous models. I'm really liking my SD800.

[Damion Chaplin]

I'll make the same recommendation I made to Mike a couple months back: the Pentax Optio W10 (http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/digital_camera--Optio_W10/reqID--7399568/subsection--optio). Got it for $250 from Amazon.

The difference is I actually own one now. I have owned this camera for less than two weeks and yesterday I actually got the opportunity to test its waterproof function:

http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/FireHydrant 017.jpg

This was a fire hydrant that was knocked over by a delivery truck. The SFFD is naturally there to save the day. I was being rained on considerably when I took this picture, and any closer and I would have been under the giant plume of water. So I can't recommend this camera more. And it will come in very handy in Hawaii. :wink:

[dmcgill]

It's probably bigger than you want, but I'm quite liking the Fujifilm F30 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf30/) I picked up for my wife - quite a bit cheaper than the Canon (at least in Australia), very usable up to ISO800 and great battery life. I wish it didn't use xD memory cards, but other than that, great camera.

[Phoenix]

I'd seriously check out the Casio Z-1000. You can buy it from B&H Photo (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=433095&is=REG&addedTroughType=search) for $320 USD - I guess around $365 CAD for you (once you add it into your cart), which really isn't much for a PAS.

The really great thing on top of that is Casio has a trade-in/trade-up program that allows anyone to trade in their used camera for cash after they purchase a new Casio from an authorized dealer (they have a long list), of which B&H is one. If you go here (http://exilim.casio.com/) and click on their Trade-In/Trade-Up link, it allows you to enter info about your used PAS and it estimates what they'll pay for it once they receive it and verify its condition matches what you claim. You get an automatic $50 more if you happen to buy a Z-1000. So in addition to getting a great, compact camera, you end up spending next to nothing once you trade in your used PAS.

The thing about the Z-1000 is, it uses a slightly larger sensor (1/1.8") which does produce better photos than what you get with the smaller (1/2.5") sensors. This is very important at any resolution, but at 10mp, the larger sensor becomes especially welcome.

It doesn't hold the world record for the thinnest camera, but at 9/10 of an inch (or 22mm), it's certainly far from chunky and is very pocketable. It's very fast (the fastest capture and write of the PAS's, I think), affordable, easy to use, has great features, flexibility, and battery life, looks good, has a large 2.8", very bright, high res LCD widescreen (230,400 pixels), and takes great photos. IMO, you can't ask for more than that, and with that said along with the Trade-In program, it's unbeatable.

There are other features you'll notice when you look closer: Image stabilization (although only electronic and I question its value; optical is better); ISO up to 3200 (anything over 200 on any PAS is silly, IMO, but I digress); SDHC support; etc.

I don't hesitate to recommend this camera to anyone in the market for a new one. Check it out... I think you'll be glad you did. :)

Whichever way you go, let us know what you decided on.

[Mike Temporale]

I'll make the same recommendation I made to Mike a couple months back...

:oops: I forgot to go back and update that thread with the outcome. I'll have to do that today. I didn't end up with this camera but I did take a long look at it and others suggested. As I recall, it wasn't as fast on the point and shoot as some of the others and that was one of the top things I was looking for.

I have to say, that's a great picture. How long did you have them standing in the water until you got the picture just right. ;)

[Damion Chaplin]

How long did you have them standing in the water until you got the picture just right. ;)

Well, it was a classic example of take as many pictures of the same shot as possible while you still can... I took probably a dozen pictures of them close-up (and about as many from half a block away so I could get the enitre 40-foot plume). This was the only really good one. The rest were just average snapshots...

[Jerry Raia]

That is a great shot.

[Jon Childs]

I'd seriously check out the Casio Z-1000...

I ended up buying this camera recently when I finally upgraded from my 3MP model. My wife wanted something small to fit in her pocketbook and easy to use. It takes nice pictures outside or in brightly lit areas. My only complaint is that the flash seems a little weak. I assume this is a problem with all of these really small cameras, but things start to fade quick at anything over 12-15 feet. This has led to me moving probably too close to take pictures to make sure they are bright enough, which has in turn lead to almost every picture of the kids having serious redeye. I know it can easily be removed but it is still kind of a pain.

***long quote edited by moderator JD***

[Jason Dunn]

Thanks for the suggestions guys, I have indeed been looking at the Casio Z-1000 as well.

Sample Cason SD-800 images:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/PowerShot_2006/PS_SD800IS/sample_image_1.JPG
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/PowerShot_2006/PS_SD800IS/sample_image_2.JPG
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/PowerShot_2006/PS_SD800IS/sample_image_3.JPG

Sample Casio 1000 images:

http://exilim.casio.com/images/gallery/Z-1000/original/image13.jpg
http://exilim.casio.com/images/gallery/Z-1000/original/image14.jpg
http://exilim.casio.com/images/gallery/Z-1000/original/image15.jpg

Thoughts? I really wish Casio would have had images of people for an easier comparison. Guess they didn't want to pay model fees. ;-)

[Mike Temporale]

Thoughts? I really wish Casio would have had images of people for an easier comparison. Guess they didn't want to pay model fees. ;-)

Z1000: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/ex-z1000_samples.html

700IS: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/sd700_samples.html

I know you said 800IS, but Steve doesn't have a review of that yet. The thing I like about Steve's sample pictures, is that they tend to be the same across the reviews.

[Jason Dunn]

Thanks Mike, that was helpful. When I compare this image of the Z1000:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/ex-z1000/samples/cimg0060.jpg

to this one from the Canon SD-700:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/sd700/samples/IMG_0006.JPG

...I can see big differences in the colour, the noise levels, the sharpness...pretty much everything about the Canon image looks better to my eyes. I know I'm "pixel peeping" a bit, but I really do want something that takes better photos than my Casio S500...

[Phoenix]

In those two samples, the photo the Canon took looks much better, but those two samples don't represent a fair comparison.

In those samples, he states that the Canon was on ISO 80 and that he used the flash, but with the Casio, he states that the ISO was on auto and that he only used ambient light. So in addition to no flash, it's very possible that the Casio, being on auto, could have defaulted to a higher ISO than the Canon (and it most certainly looks like it did). Perhaps it didn't, but there's no way to know for certain. I'd bet anything the Casio wasn't on ISO 50, and if it were, along with a flash, would have taken a much better photo.

And while we're looking at the details here (which are important), I notice that the Casio zoomed in a bit closer than the Canon, and that he moved a couple of things around just a bit. So was he standing a bit closer with one camera than the other? These types of variables, even when slight, can make a real difference.

I think the only way that a person can really get the best comparison is to lock each cam at ISO 50 with flash on (and at the same flash intensity setting if possible (which I suppose could differ some between manufacturers, but still...)), and then to mount them on the same tripod, one after the other. This way, variables barely differ or not at all. With these those two samples, he didn't do that.

Just food for thought.

[Mike Temporale]

I agree, it's best if all variables can be removed, but that's pretty hard to do. Steve seems to mention when things are changed for a picture - like Ambient light, outdoor with flash, or outdoor no flash. So it might be safe to assume that everything else it "Auto" Maybe?

As for the different zoom levels, is it possible that what you see is actually a difference in the cameras? (I'm truly asking here, I don't know) If Camera A and B are placed at the exact same distance from an object, could one camera produce a image that appears closer to the object? I'm guessing it could be a difference in the lens on the camera - but I don't really know.

[Phoenix]

It's absolutely possible that one camera could zoom in closer than another, and in that regard, the Canon can. But in those samples, it's the Casio that happens to be closer. So it tells me that more than likely he was standing closer with the Casio than he was with the Canon.

[Jason Dunn]

Ok, this message turned into a "spec whoring" contest more than I intended, and I'm not trying to slam the Casio Z-1000 at all, but trying to show that the comparison images are quite fair.

In those samples, he states that the Canon was on ISO 80 and that he used the flash, but with the Casio, he states that the ISO was on auto and that he only used ambient light.

I was confused by that as well - because it's obvious he didn't, so I downloaded the original images and looked at the EXIF info, and the flash on the Canon did not fire. He has it mis-labeled. The two images I was showing were both without flash.

...it's very possible that the Casio, being on auto, could have defaulted to a higher ISO than the Canon (and it most certainly looks like it did).

I looked at the EXIF data for both images, and what's so strange is that the ISO on *BOTH* images is missing. On the Canon it says "unknown" and the Casio doesn't even have an EXIF field for ISO...?? I find that very baffling. [goes and checks his Casio S-500 photos] Wow, my Casio images don't have ISO EXIF information either. How strange. Don't most cameras put ISO info in the EXIF?

And while we're looking at the details here (which are important), I notice that the Casio zoomed in a bit closer than the Canon, and that he moved a couple of things around just a bit.

According to the EXIF data, the Casio was 13.7mm and the Canon was at 14.3mm. Virtually identical. The difference is there, yes, but it's quite slight. The Casio was at f/3.8 and the Canon at f/4, so the Casio actually was letting in more light there.

I think the only way that a person can really get the best comparison is to lock each cam at ISO 50 with flash on...

Well, that's funny, because I purposefully compared to two non-flash photos because I really dislike flash. Since shooting with my D200, I've come to realize how much flash destroys the colours in an image, so I avoid flash unless I really need it. So for me, comparing with flash wouldn't be helpful.

Anyway, perception is a very personal thing, but to me, the Canon image looks better, even allowing for the slight differences. I haven't ruled the Z-1000 out completely, but I'm leaning toward the Canon...

[Jerry Raia]

I'm leaning toward the Canon...

You won't be disappointed. :D

[Phoenix]

Spec whoring contest? That's a new one. :lol: I don't think anyone thinks you're slamming anything, and I certainly don't take it personal, but looking closer at how the photos were taken isn't spec whoring - that is, the info that we gathered is interesting and helps us understand how to make a fair judgement.

The comparison I was talking about could be with or without flash; either way, it would be insightful, IMO, to have a more exacting comparison and of course, more info on settings. That is strange, that the EXIF info didn't provide more data.

In those two samples, the photo the Canon took looks much better. Without knowing for sure, looking at the photos, I'm of the belief that the Casio was at a higher ISO.

One thing it could be also (and I'm not certain of this), is that the Canon that took that photo was a 7mp cam, and the Casio is 10mp. But then again, the sensor on the Casio is larger than that Canon. It's hard to say.

But enjoy your Canon. Looks like a great little camera.

[GadgetDave]

Having had several Canon Elphs since the original S100, I can say you won't be disappointed. There's a reason they sell well, and it's amazing how much technology from the DSLRs Canon has managed to move into that form factor ... you'll love it. Been thinking about upgrading to the S900 myself, but I'm watiting for an IS model of that ... :)

(Of course, I would have told you to buy the 5D instead of the Nikon, too...)

[Jerry Raia]

Been thinking about upgrading to the S900 myself, but I'm watiting for an IS model of that ... :)

(Of course, I would have told you to buy the 5D instead of the Nikon, too...)

I have the SD800 with IS. Don't wait!

BTW I just sold my 30D for the 5D. Love it! :)

[Phoenix]

Another thing I forgot to mention and to keep in mind about those comparison photos, is that the Casio has electronic IS which effectively just bumps up the ISO. So if Steve had that on in addition to being on Auto when taking the photo, that photo could easily have been at ISO 200.

It's definitely not an "ISO 50" shot. And with all the analyzing we've done of the samples, with objectivity in mind, and considering that we're lacking too much info about the shots, it would be best not to use those samples as the only ones that serve as a performance comparison of the two cameras.

I just wanted to add that in hopes that it would help anyone else looking.

[Jerry Raia]

How does that work? Bumping up the ISO stabilizes the image?

(I'm still learning here)

[Jason Dunn]

It's definitely not an "ISO 50" shot.

Can you point me to some nice images then are are ISO 50/100 and show the camera's true potential?

[Phoenix]

How does that work? Bumping up the ISO stabilizes the image?

(I'm still learning here)

By increasing the ISO, the camera increases shutter speed (and sensitivity to light), which reduces the amount of time the shutter needs to stay open to gather enough of everything it needs to capture an image. By increasing shutter speed, it effectively decreases the chance for any camera shake /motion blur to negatively impact image sharpness (pseudo stability) - at least that's the idea - but at the expense of increased image noise.

Obviously, optical IS is the best way to go (the Canon SD700 has that as you know) if you're going to use it, and electronic IS is a joke. However, even with that said, the Casio still takes fantastic photos.


Can you point me to some nice images then are are ISO 50/100 and show the camera's true potential?

You can go here: Z1000 Sample Images (http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/casioexz1000_samples/)

If you scroll through them, you can take note of the ISO on the images and see just how sharp and rich the photos are.

They also have a gallery for the Canon SD700IS, as well.

They both take great photos even though the sensors in each camera are different and the photos are being taken at two different resolutions. But at least with these samples, you can get a much better (and fairer) idea of their capability.

[Jason Dunn]

You can go here: Z1000 Sample Images (http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/casioexz1000_samples/) If you scroll through them, you can take note of the ISO on the images and see just how sharp and rich the photos are.

Those photos are MUCH better! That camera does have a good sensor. Ok, now my decision is a big harder. ;-)