PowerShot SD970 IS, HD Video Now Added to Mix

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=145&modelid=18335' target='_blank'>http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...5&modelid=18335</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Cool curves, powerful features and a fun new way to operate the camera mark Canon's PowerShot SD970 IS Digital ELPH. Amazing resolution and expanded editing options are yours with 12.1 megapixels, and you can even create HD movies. Shooting is fun and easy with Smart AUTO that makes all your shots better effortlessly, and there's a new user-friendly interface. And see how much fun it is to browse through your photos and even speed up image advance with a shake or tilt of the camera!"</em><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1235145507.usr1.jpg" style="border: 0;" /></p><p>Similar to my earier post I'm thrilled to see that Canon has finally added 720p video capture, and they've done it across multiple models. I've always found Canon's point and shoot product line up baffling, and they continue to confuse everyone by releasing the SD970 IS, a camera that has 5x optical zoom, a 12.1 megapixel image sensor, a three-inch display, 720p video capture, and a MSRP price of $379.99 USD. Then there's the slightly older SD990 IS, which is $20 more expensive, and boasts 14.7 megapixels, but only VGA video. So, the more expensive model with the higher model doesn't have everything the less expensive, cheaper model has. Well, at least Canon is consistent in making things confusing.</p><p>The PowerShot SD970 IS is expected to be available in April of 2009, at which point I'll try to pick one up immediately. I guess that shows how I really feel about my Panasonic DMC-TZ5 - it's just a bit too big, and the photo quality isn't that great. The 720p video and 10x optical zoom rock though, which is why I've tended to carry it. I'm willing to lose 5x on the optical zoom if it means better photos - which I presume the Canon will deliver.</p>

[Vincent Ferrari]

I'd settle for a battery gauge. :-)

Seriously, though, why the 970 over the 1200?

[Jason Dunn]

Seriously, though, why the 970 over the 1200?

Good question. Canon's frigtarded comparison system tells me that the two are very similar, but the 970 has 5x optical zoom while the 1200 has 3x optical zoom and more megapixels (12 vs. 10). That's about it. The 1200 is lighter though, and maybe thinner too? The 1200 has a smaller screen.

Ultimately Canon has WAY too many cameras that are WAY too close in terms of features/benefits. I really hate that.

EDIT: Oh wait, the 1200 doesn't have 720p video!! That's why I wouldn't pick it. The real question is the 970 vs. the 780. They're almost identical...basically the optical zoom is the biggest difference.

[Vincent Ferrari]

EDIT: Oh wait, the 1200 doesn't have 720p video!! That's why I wouldn't pick it. The real question is the 970 vs. the 780. They're almost identical...basically the optical zoom is the biggest difference.

Somehow I managed to completely miss the video part. You're right. I may shoot for the 970 now also. My 1100 is quite nice and relatively new, but HD video means one less camera I have to carry.

And kudos to Canon for finally adopting H.264 instead of Motion JPEG.

[bwaibel]

The SD 990 IS has a larger ccd and lower pixel density than the 970, that should result in better still shot performance for the 990 across the board, but I don't really know. It sort of makes me angry that they released all of these sweet new cameras with 1/2.3" sensors instead of the better 1/1.7" ones, I should probably just turn off my brain for a second.

I'm sort of trying to decide between the 990 and the newly announced sx200, canon finally won me back with by adding manual mode to their compacts (the 970 is auto only). The sx200 is bigger and has the small ccd, but takes 720p video and has a superior zoom. The 990 takes lame 480p video. Tough decision, with a baby on the way, I think the better video might win out. It'll probably come down to whether the sx200 fits well in my pocket.

[Jason Dunn]

And kudos to Canon for finally adopting H.264 instead of Motion JPEG.

For sure. MJPEG has been around for over a decade now...its time is over.

[Jason Dunn]

The SD 990 IS has a larger ccd and lower pixel density than the 970, that should result in better still shot performance for the 990 across the board, but I don't really know.

<sigh> That's depressing. I didn't realize the 970 used the smaller sensor, but you're right, the bigger sensor would definitely be a better choice for photos - and Canon is making people chose between better photos or 720p video. What if I want both! Bah. :mad:

The sx200 is bigger and has the small ccd, but takes 720p video and has a superior zoom. The 990 takes lame 480p video.

Oh yeah, I didn't notice the sx200! I'll post on that one...

[ptyork]

<sigh> That's depressing. I didn't realize the 970 used the smaller sensor, but you're right, the bigger sensor would definitely be a better choice for photos - and Canon is making people chose between better photos or 720p video. What if I want both! Bah. :mad:

Duh! Just get the 5D mkII! ;)

I agree that they have way too many cameras. They bring out too many new ones to begin with and then they confuse matters by not retiring the old ones for months/years. I think some marketing genius must think that there is a benefit to having so many models (shows product maturity? gives illusion of choice? covers every conceivable market segment?), but for everyone I know, it is just horribly confusing. And yes, the model number mess doesn't help one bit. Bigger number definitely doesn't equal better. In SLR's, smaller is better kind of. Fewer digits is better, but a larger number with the same number of digits is also better. Confusing but at least there's a method to the madness. Here, there's no method--only madness.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

The real question is why bother with Canon compacts at this point in time? They're starting to get rather me-too. Currently the cameras from Panasonic are more interesting. Wide-angle, HD-video, AVCHD-lite, nicer designs, and so on.

[humayunl]

I've never owned a canon or panasonic P&S compact. I have a cybershot which needs to be upgraded. My two options are Panasonic (FX-580 or some such model) or the Canon SD 970 or SX-200.

Based on all the reviews/opinions i have seen, even though both companies make great cameras, the lumix seems to be beat (by canon) when it comes to still image quality.

I personally like the design (and feature set) of lumix better but since the primary objective of a camera is still images (and 720p now) i am leaning towards the new canon range.

[humayunl]

The real question is why bother with Canon compacts at this point in time? They're starting to get rather me-too. Currently the cameras from Panasonic are more interesting. Wide-angle, HD-video, AVCHD-lite, nicer designs, and so on.

How would the SD970 or the sx-200 hold up against the new lumix MDC-ZS3K

The Lumix says HD and AVHCD Lite (MPEG4-H.264) but in the technical specs it only says "Motion Image Aspect Ratio 16:9 WVGA: 848 x 480 pixels, 30 fps (Motion JPEG)" no mention of HD or a AVHCD or H.264 so i'm confused what it really does for video recording.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

With compact cameras at 12 megapixels, you're just picking out a version of less bad. Personally Panasonic has managed to overcome its initial reputation of terrible noise and they're doing quite decently. Since I prefer wide angles, a photo taken at 25/28mm equivalent (where most Panasonics start) is far more preferable than a marginally better photo taken at 35mm equivalent.

[Jason Dunn]

Personally Panasonic has managed to overcome its initial reputation of terrible noise and they're doing quite decently.

I'm surprised that you're such a big fan of Panasonic. My DMC-TZ5 doesn't take very good pictures in my opinion. Are the newer ones better?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Hmm, in what way did the TZ-5 let you down? One thing with compacts is that I will never make use of their full output, especially with the ultra dense sensors they're using nowadays. Even on the LX2 (which I use in RAW to minimise its noise problem) I'll still not print it at anywhere near its native resolution.

[Jason Dunn]

Hmm, in what way did the TZ-5 let you down? One thing with compacts is that I will never make use of their full output, especially with the ultra dense sensors they're using nowadays.

I think I might have a case of "100%itis". Meaning that when I look at the images at 100%, I see noise and generally a non-crisp image and I get grumpy. But you're right, I'm probably not going to print this at 24 inches diagonally like I'm looking at it on my monitor, so there's no sense in me getting upset about it.

OK, so perhaps it's not so bad after all, though I still think my SD870 takes better pictures. :D