Canon Powershot SD890 IS Review

[Suhit Gupta]

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cam..._Search+Results

"Whether human or camera, it's always hard following in the footsteps of a popular sibling, and the near-universally well-liked Canon PowerShot SD850 IS is a harder act to follow than most. Rather than simply bump up the resolution and zoom range for the SD890 IS--it's now 10 megapixels, up from 8, and 5x zoom, up from 4x--Canon chose to redesign the camera as well. The result is an almost completely different--and ultimately not as satisfying--compact point-and-shoot. With its thick 2.3-by-3.8-by-1.1-inch body, the 6.5-ounce camera can slide somewhat comfortably into a loose pants pocket. The SD890 IS sports a much curvier design than its predecessor, including a gently sloping front where you grip the camera."

What I have been hearing about the SD890 IS over the last few weeks seems to be confirmed by this article. People seem to be generally disappointed by the usually solid Powershot series by Canon. Don't get me wrong, it still takes great pictures, but the camera is disappointing in a lot of small things that add up to why it is getting a relatively mediocre 7/10 in many reviews. For example, the camera frip has become a lot smaller, it has shown poor shot-to-shot performance, it has a small LCD, an awkward design and it does not support optical zoom in movie capture mode. I feel that when one is spending over $300 for a camera, all these things become important. Time to pass on the 890 and wait for the 895?

[Suhit Gupta]

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cam..._Search+Results

"Whether human or camera, it's always hard following in the footsteps of a popular sibling, and the near-universally well-liked Canon PowerShot SD850 IS is a harder act to follow than most. Rather than simply bump up the resolution and zoom range for the SD890 IS--it's now 10 megapixels, up from 8, and 5x zoom, up from 4x--Canon chose to redesign the camera as well. The result is an almost completely different--and ultimately not as satisfying--compact point-and-shoot. With its thick 2.3-by-3.8-by-1.1-inch body, the 6.5-ounce camera can slide somewhat comfortably into a loose pants pocket. The SD890 IS sports a much curvier design than its predecessor, including a gently sloping front where you grip the camera."

What I have been hearing about the SD890 IS over the last few weeks seems to be confirmed by this article. People seem to be generally disappointed by the usually solid Powershot series by Canon. Don't get me wrong, it still takes great pictures, but the camera is disappointing in a lot of small things that add up to why it is getting a relatively mediocre 7/10 in many reviews. For example, the camera frip has become a lot smaller, it has shown poor shot-to-shot performance, it has a small LCD, an awkward design and it does not support optical zoom in movie capture mode. I feel that when one is spending over $300 for a camera, all these things become important. Time to pass on the 890 and wait for the 895?

[Jason Dunn]

It's pretty strange that the 890 is worse than the 870 in many ways. I think Canon is rushing things to market - they're so busy cranking out a new line of P&S cameras every six months that they don't stop to think how they can really improve their cameras.

I'm fairly happy with my 870SD, but not in a big way - it won't take much to make me switch brands, that's for sure. Come on Canon, where's the 720p video?

[yslee]

How about, less megapixels? I was looking at digital cameras for Mother's Day and I've come to the conclusion that all of them (them being compact digital cameras) suck majorly now. 8-10 megapixels is too much in a 1/2.5" sensor. Even at ISO 100 I can see artifacting from noise, de-noising, then sharpening to cover up the noise reduction.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by yslee

8-10 megapixels is too much in a 1/2.5" sensor. Even at ISO 100 I can see artifacting from noise, de-noising, then sharpening to cover up the noise reduction.

Ignorant question: sensor sizes haven't changed much over the years, so are you saying that as they've put higher-resolution sensors on there, the quality of the images has gone down? Did 5 MP sensors capture better images?

[yslee]

I thought everyone knew that bit. :P

Quick review:

More pixels = smaller photosites = less light sensitivity = more amplification = more noise.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by yslee

More pixels = smaller photosites = less light sensitivity = more amplification = more noise.

Hmm. I guess I assumed that as they ramped up the megapixels they found a way to keep the quality. I've certainly heard a lot of people complain about how their 10 MP camera takes worse pictures than their 5 MP cameras, but I've always assumed it came down to differences in sensors, in-camera processing, glass, etc.

[gibson042]

Larger image sizes also create a substantial performance hit. My SD200 is definitely showing its age, but rapid shot modes are a joke on its replacements. They're lucky to hit half of the 2.4 fps that I get regularly.

[yslee]

Don't assume that. It's just that they found the mass market can (and always has) lower tolerence levels. That's why we got things like APS in the film days.