Log in

View Full Version : DCRP Reviews Canon's PowerShot Pro1

Jason Dunn
03-04-2004, 10:30 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_pro1-review/index.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_pro1-review/index.shtml</a><br /><br /></div><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/camera-front-angled[1].jpg" /> <br /><br />"The PowerShot Pro1 ($999) is the new flagship camera in Canon's consumer line of digital cameras. Packing a whopping 8 Megapixel CCD, a 7X "L" lens, full manual controls, beautiful LCD and electronic viewfinders, and more, the Pro1 is one of the most impressive fixed-lens cameras out there. The 8 Megapixel field has grown considerably since the introduction of the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 (read our review). That camera was plagued with purple fringing and noise, due in part to the tightly-packed pixels on the 8 Megapixel sensor. Was Canon able to get rid of the junk in their 8 Megapixel images? Find out now, in our review!"<br /><br />Jeff Keller over at DCRP has one of the first PowerShot Pro1 reviews I've seen - in fact, Jeff seems to have a talent for getting "first" reviews published. The positioning of this camera is interesting - you can get the EOS 300D body + lens for less, and it has a removable lens. I suppose this is targeting a different market though - the prosumer who wants a great camera, but doesn't want to go DSLR. Thoughts?

03-04-2004, 11:17 PM
Actually, in the beginning of this year, I was facing the same dilemma. Going for a 300D with exchangeable lens (and amazing image quality), or going for an all-in-one with a full zoom range (28 to 200 mm)? In the end I went for the Sony DSC-F828, although I knew it had its flaws.

The reasons: I like having a live preview. I like having a live histogram in recording. I like having a flip-up screen/swivel body, enabling me to take waist level shots (ideal for candid photography), I like not having dust on my sensor, I like travelling light (not taking two lenses and a body), I like the price of this all-in-one with a decent lens.

If I would have gone for the DSLR, I would have spent much more than the DSLR kit price. I would have had to buy a second lens to get more zoom than the kit lens. But if you pick your lens wisely, that would be not that hard to overcome. I would have gained a better upgrade path (keep the lens, exchange the body), a better image quality and true DSLR framing. For my personal needs, the F828 currently suited my bill better, although I can see why others go for the DSLR.

If I'll ever get a DSLR, it will probably be a top of the range one, with a sealed body and sealed lenses. The combination of body and lenses will probably cost me multitude of the price of a Digital Rebel kit. And before I'll spend that amount of money, I'd better get into photography really serious....

If I had to choose now, it would even be more interesting, with the Sony DSC-F828, the Canon PowerShot Pro 1, the Minolta Dimage A2 and the Nikon Coolpix 8700 going head-to-head in the range of cameras I'm interested in. And the Digital Rebel and Nikon D70 still have their appeal too. Things are getting really exciting!

Gary Sheynkman
03-04-2004, 11:20 PM
my "thoughts is this" ...have you seen the noise at higher ISOs?! the Drebel will not make that much noise..ever. It is a fault with all the "sony" 8mp cameras (pro1, 828, 8700) that makes one doubt whether or not this generation is worth waiting for.

Everything else: awesome device. Canon should have used their own chip though :cry:

03-04-2004, 11:25 PM
Canon should have used their own chip though :cry:

Although the CMOS sensor can't be beaten noise-wise (if you compare it to a CCD as in the D100), I think this amount of noise is caused more by the smaller size of the sensor than by the fact that it's a Sony chip. And adding a small sensor in this type of camera is a sensible thing, how funny that might sound. If you would put a CMOS chip the size the Digital Rebel uses in a prosumer camera like this, the lens would look more like a traditional L lens, in size and weight I mean. Now, only because the sensor is smaller, the lens can be smaller too. But that sure has its drawbacks. Long live Noise Ninja and Neat Image. ;)

Gary Sheynkman
03-05-2004, 12:40 AM
I think u missunderstood me....the problem with the sony chip is that it IS too small, that is why the larger CMOS chip would have been better even if the camera would increase in size a little (it is the smallest of the "sony cameras")

Neil Enns
03-05-2004, 12:54 AM
Michael at www.luminous-landscape.com is doing a running series where he's evaluating the current crop of 8 megapixel "cross-over" cameras (his term). I think all the current ones that are on their way to the market use the same Sony CCD chip. If anyone's interested in comparing the above Canon to others, here's the two reviews he's done so far:

Olympus C-8080: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus-c8080.shtml

Sony F-828: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml

03-05-2004, 01:44 AM
I think u missunderstood me....the problem with the sony chip is that it IS too small, that is why the larger CMOS chip would have been better even if the camera would increase in size a little (it is the smallest of the "sony cameras")

I don't think there was any misunderstanding. What I mean to say is that it's not the chip alone that dictates the size of the camera, but also the size of the lens that is needed to give enough information to the chip. If you put the same CMOS chip in this type of camera and you still would want to have a similar zoom range and speed of lens, the lens of the camera would not be a little bigger than the current lens, but a lot. Take a look at the lenses for the DSLRs that have a 28-200mm range. I held the Canon EF 28-135 3,5-5,6 IS USM today (with the 1,6 factor it comes close in the zoom, but it lacks in the wide range), and that thing in itself is quite big. Too big for a prosumer camera like this one. And it isn't even a 2.8 L lens, which tend to be bigger than their less complicated nephews.

This is exactly the reason why there are specific digital lenses created for DSLRs (like the Sigma's (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102703sigmadclenses.asp)), since they can be made lighter and more compact, since they only need to provide an image circle for the smaller sensors of the DSLRs. What the exact consequence would be of adding a CMOS sensor to this kind of device in size and weight is not known to me, but for sure it would be larger and heavier. We can only hope that in future, Canon and others will be able to give us at least APS sized sensors in a compact enough package with enough zoom range and a fast lens. What do you mean, demanding? ;)

Lee Yuan Sheng
03-05-2004, 02:02 AM
Michael at www.luminous-landscape.com

Heh, luminous-landscape, heh.

I like Jeff's reviews. Simple and easy to understand. Good for everyone out there. Sometimes I feel other sites obsess way too much on minor things and miss the big picture.

Gary Sheynkman
03-05-2004, 05:55 AM
Marlof I definatly agree that the chip is never the sole determining factor. A good example is the minor CA in the G5 cause they matched the lens used on the G3 for one sensor with a different one on the G5.... stupid megapixel race is making producer come out with half finnished cameras that have mismatched components from the parts bin.