Are Canon Ixus any good?

[Mike]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Certainly nice and small but are they any good??
I keep reading about some images coming out not quite as sharp or slightly
blurred. One guy took 100 pics and had to dump 60 of them because they were
disappointing.

Any thoughts on this camera range?. Or should is stick to the A range like
the Canon A75

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:50:21 +0100, "Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Certainly nice and small but are they any good??
>I keep reading about some images coming out not quite as sharp or slightly
>blurred. One guy took 100 pics and had to dump 60 of them because they were
>disappointing.
>
>Any thoughts on this camera range?. Or should is stick to the A range like
>the Canon A75
>
>
Your question has no answer. Of course the camera is 'good', I've had
one now for two years and as far as I am concerned it is excellent.

Its big plus for me is its extreme portability but now there are
others that are similar. You really have to ask yourself what you
want it for and how much you are prepared to pay. Experts may
squabble over the finer points of cameras but for most of us who
simply want to take 'snap shots' this camera does the job as well as
any. Most short-comings can be 'adjusted' using software such as
'photoshop' and others.

The downside, as with all small cameras, is it may be rather 'fiddly'
if you have large hands. The larger foot print cameras are much
easier to hold and manipulate but are 'larger'. I want a camera to
fit into my shirt pocket, not something I have to carry over my
shoulder.

Your choice.

 

[Kent]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I've had one for over four years and it takes excellent pictures. I have
other digital cameras, but the Canon is shirt-pocket size and I like that.

Kent
"Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1096163424.55928.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> Certainly nice and small but are they any good??
> I keep reading about some images coming out not quite as sharp or slightly
> blurred. One guy took 100 pics and had to dump 60 of them because they
> were
> disappointing.
>
> Any thoughts on this camera range?. Or should is stick to the A range
> like
> the Canon A75
>
>
>

 

[Mike]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Kent" <kdp@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kfo6d.12664$gG4.10126@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I've had one for over four years and it takes excellent pictures. I have
> other digital cameras, but the Canon is shirt-pocket size and I like that.
>
> Kent


I do like the idea of size, im just concerned i might be losing picture
quality for size.

Both the ixus and the A75 are 3m pixels and £150.

i cant decide on which to buy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

My S400 has been excellent; however, I do sorta miss having shutter
and aperture priority modes like the A series has.

Mike wrote:
> Certainly nice and small but are they any good??
> I keep reading about some images coming out not quite as sharp or
> slightly blurred. One guy took 100 pics and had to dump 60 of them
> because they were disappointing.
>
> Any thoughts on this camera range?. Or should is stick to the A
> range like the Canon A75

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:36:37 +0100, "Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Kent" <kdp@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:kfo6d.12664$gG4.10126@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> I've had one for over four years and it takes excellent pictures. I have
>> other digital cameras, but the Canon is shirt-pocket size and I like that.
>>
>> Kent
>
>
>I do like the idea of size, im just concerned i might be losing picture
>quality for size.
>
>Both the ixus and the A75 are 3m pixels and £150.
>
>i cant decide on which to buy.
>
What do think the relationship is between the physical size of the
camera and picture quality. There is none.

Picture quality is a function of the lens and the number of pixels,
that equates to picture resolution. For the 'normal' use, that is the
amateur who does not need large prints 2M pixels is adequate. Some
cameras do have a 'colour cast' that comes from other camera
electronics but if these deficiencies annoy they can be corrected by
software.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Edward W. Thompson
<thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:36:37 +0100, "Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kent" <kdp@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:kfo6d.12664$gG4.10126@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> I've had one for over four years and it takes excellent pictures. I have
>>> other digital cameras, but the Canon is shirt-pocket size and I like that.
>>>
>>> Kent
>>
>>
>>I do like the idea of size, im just concerned i might be losing picture
>>quality for size.
>>
>>Both the ixus and the A75 are 3m pixels and £150.
>>
>>i cant decide on which to buy.
>>
>What do think the relationship is between the physical size of the
>camera and picture quality. There is none.
>
> Picture quality is a function of the lens and the number of pixels,
>that equates to picture resolution. For the 'normal' use, that is the
>amateur who does not need large prints 2M pixels is adequate. Some
>cameras do have a 'colour cast' that comes from other camera
>electronics but if these deficiencies annoy they can be corrected by
>software.

Gotta put in my opinion here.... about physical size of the camera
and picture quality. I have a lot more problem with my small
S-400 than I do my G-5 or Olympus 2100. I have a lot more trouble
holding the small camera steady when I take a photo. Of course,
that is my problem and not the camera's ..... however, I think it
worth mentioning.

Jack Mac

 

[Kent]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

My camera is pretty old and so only yields about 2.1 megapixels. But the
picture quality is very good for that resolution. I don't usually print
larger than 5x7, but pictures printed at that size are good quality.

Kent


"Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1096454205.6589.0@echo.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Kent" <kdp@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:kfo6d.12664$gG4.10126@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> I've had one for over four years and it takes excellent pictures. I have
>> other digital cameras, but the Canon is shirt-pocket size and I like
>> that.
>>
>> Kent
>
>
> I do like the idea of size, im just concerned i might be losing picture
> quality for size.
>
> Both the ixus and the A75 are 3m pixels and £150.
>
> i cant decide on which to buy.
>
>