Engadget's Point-and-Shoot Shootout

[Timothy Huber]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/19/engadget-labs-the-best-point-and-shoot-camera-for-under-400/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/19/...-for-under-400/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"The summer looms, and so too does the summer vacation season. Despite the economy there are visions of great trips brewing in the backs of peoples' minds, visions that will soon turn into (hopefully) great memories -- and (hopefully) great pictures. Some folks wouldn't dream of going on those trips without an SLR slung 'round their neck or hanging at the hip, but then there are plenty of others who'd much prefer something a little more pocketable. Even for aspiring photographers there are times when lugging around five pounds of glass just isn't going to work."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1243955660.usr147.jpg" style="border: #d2d2bb 1px solid;" /></p><p>I love my DSLR and the quality of the pictures I get from it, but there are times when I just don't want to carry around all that bulk. That's when I pull out our little Canon point-and-shoot camera.&nbsp; Over at Engadget Labs, they've done a shootout with nine different cameras, ranging in price from $125 to $400.&nbsp; They tested using a series of "real-world" situations and came up with a conclusion that, I must confess, really surprised me.&nbsp; I won't spoil it, but after looking at the article, tell me what you think.</p>

[Vincent Ferrari]

I won't spoil it, but after looking at the article, tell me what you think.

Laughable.

I know they won't have a chance to test every single camera, but Canon's best point and shoot cameras are the Powershot SD700-1200 cams and the 960/970 are two of the best point and shoots money can buy and both are well under the $400 limit. Frankly, I've seen the image quality from more than one of the SD's and they kill some of the "best" shots in this "roundup." I'd put my 1100's image quality up against most of the crap they showed in that article.

Also in video, the 960's video is so good, most people don't even need a camcorder if they own one. This "roundup" is way too limited to be taken seriously.

[randalllewis]

Yeah, I know they can't look at every camera out there but their selection strikes me as odd too. Canon is consistently the number one or two seller of digital cameras and they have ONE Canon model yet two Kodaks? Consumer Reports says Canon, Casio, Panasonic and and Samsung are consistently the best performing cameras they test and yet only Panasonic places two models in this list. And some of the totally subjective comments were amazing. I recently shopped for a pocket sized camera. I am admittedly partial to Canon and so tried the A1100 as well as some of the SX series super zooms. The A1100 I used for hours did not "creak or rattle" when shooting video and neither does its cheaper cousin the A1000. Both models actually have a better "feel" to them then my much more expensive S5. I wound up with the A1000 because I just couldn't pass up on what I got for the price of $129 and like Vincent I'll put the A1000 up against what Engadget reviewed.

[Jason Dunn]

I'm equally surprised by the fact that they didn't have more Canon's in the lineup - at the very least the most expensive Elph series that's under $400 would have been a contender. I'm surprised with the image quality of the Samsung though - generally they get fairly poor ratings and reviews...