Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon SD 500?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 12, 2005 3:00:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
digital camera. She's not interested in manual settings. I've
checked out a couple of professional reviews. They're pretty
favorable, except they talk about image quality being less than
great. However, most of the customer reviews say the images
are sharp and the colors are vivid. Can anyone give a first-hand
assessment of this camera's images? One expects a 7 megapixel
image to look teriffic, but I'm thinking a compact camera may
impose some limitations.

Thanks!
Scott

More about : canon 500

Anonymous
April 12, 2005 3:37:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:425B47F8.A6B98CF@uslink.net...
> My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
> digital camera. She's not interested in manual settings. I've
> checked out a couple of professional reviews. They're pretty
> favorable, except they talk about image quality being less than
> great. However, most of the customer reviews say the images
> are sharp and the colors are vivid. Can anyone give a first-hand
> assessment of this camera's images?

>One expects a 7 megapixel
> image to look teriffic, but I'm thinking a compact camera may
> impose some limitations.

To the contrary, I would expect a 7MP imager (sensor) that tiny to render
very noisy images.

I will be very surprised if it't NOT noisy.

You may wish to seriously consider whether you really will need 7MP.
If your wife intends to enlarge photos well beyond 8x10...then she may
appreciate the extra resolution.
If not, they the SD400 (5MP) or the SD300 (4MP) may be a better, cleaner
(image-wise) choice.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:16:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
> digital camera.
<snip>

I have the s500 (5 MP) and I have been very pleased with the results. I
know it's not the same camera, but I have to say that I was amazed with the
quality for what I figured would be a camera for quick snaps only. The
quality is much better than my Sony 717 which cost 2 times as much.

BTW, IMO $499 for the sd500 is a good deal. just a couple months ago when i
bought the s500 it was $499. so for 2 extra mega pixels you pay the same.
ain't moore's law great? :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Related resources
April 12, 2005 8:16:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark,

Thanks for your input. That really helps. By the way, with 5MP,
what kind of file sizes do you get? With my 3MP Canon, I like to
set it close to the highest resolution (in case I take a memorable shot),
and then when I edit, I reduce the picture to 1280 resolution. With
a 7MP camera, would I see file sizes much over 200K? I like to be
reasonable when emailing pics.

Thanks again!
Scott

Mark Lauter wrote:
>
> > My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
> > digital camera.
> <snip>
>
> I have the s500 (5 MP) and I have been very pleased with the results. I
> know it's not the same camera, but I have to say that I was amazed with the
> quality for what I figured would be a camera for quick snaps only. The
> quality is much better than my Sony 717 which cost 2 times as much.
>
> BTW, IMO $499 for the sd500 is a good deal. just a couple months ago when i
> bought the s500 it was $499. so for 2 extra mega pixels you pay the same.
> ain't moore's law great? :) 
>
> --
> Mark Lauter
>
> Photos, Ideas & Opinions
> http://www.marklauter.com
April 12, 2005 8:16:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark,

By the way, you have some really excellent photos on your site!
Thanks for sharing.

Scott

Mark Lauter wrote:
>
> > My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
> > digital camera.
> <snip>
>
> I have the s500 (5 MP) and I have been very pleased with the results. I
> know it's not the same camera, but I have to say that I was amazed with the
> quality for what I figured would be a camera for quick snaps only. The
> quality is much better than my Sony 717 which cost 2 times as much.
>
> BTW, IMO $499 for the sd500 is a good deal. just a couple months ago when i
> bought the s500 it was $499. so for 2 extra mega pixels you pay the same.
> ain't moore's law great? :) 
>
> --
> Mark Lauter
>
> Photos, Ideas & Opinions
> http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:425B512B.D79F573D@uslink.net...
> Mark,
>
> Thanks for your input. That really helps. By the way, with 5MP,
> what kind of file sizes do you get? With my 3MP Canon, I like to
> set it close to the highest resolution (in case I take a memorable shot),
> and then when I edit, I reduce the picture to 1280 resolution. With
> a 7MP camera, would I see file sizes much over 200K? I like to be
> reasonable when emailing pics.

Not even close...unless you reduce the image significantly, or shoot at low
res.
If you're shooting at full resolution, you will see image files over 2MB
(2000+KB).

Mark (not Lauter) :) 

>
> Thanks again!
> Scott
>
> Mark Lauter wrote:
>>
>> > My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
>> > digital camera.
>> <snip>
>>
>> I have the s500 (5 MP) and I have been very pleased with the results. I
>> know it's not the same camera, but I have to say that I was amazed with
>> the
>> quality for what I figured would be a camera for quick snaps only. The
>> quality is much better than my Sony 717 which cost 2 times as much.
>>
>> BTW, IMO $499 for the sd500 is a good deal. just a couple months ago
>> when i
>> bought the s500 it was $499. so for 2 extra mega pixels you pay the
>> same.
>> ain't moore's law great? :) 
>>
>> --
>> Mark Lauter
>>
>> Photos, Ideas & Opinions
>> http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

see tons of pros and cons posted in www.dpreview.com -> forum -> Canon
forums -> search on sd500.

----

Short: The Canon SD500 would have been the next Canon killer on the
market if it had not been for notable flaws and the pricing vs. the Sony
DSC-P200. Flaws such as soft lens (or varying sample quality), lower
color contrast/saturation vs. older models, noise in movie mode, etc.
all contribute to making the SD500 one of Canon's first 'failures'.

Thankfully, in the meantime, there's the excellent Sony DSC-P150/P200
7.2MP digicams to consider -- at a $100 lower price than the Canon!

----

The minuses:
Noise/HISS is pronounced on the SD500 when recording movies! Bad!
Poorer flash performance than the Sony P200
Softer lens/images than S500
$100 more at amazon.com vs. Sony P200 for basically the same 7MP digicam.
Variations in samples - some people have worse lenses, some have
super-sharp.

Colors some have noted are worse:
"IMHO they are not as sharp and punchy as my Ixus400. But on the other
hand they look more photographic, not so digital and over processed if
you know what I mean."

Some have even returned theirs:
"Peter Dysert wrote:
> I returned it principally because of the audio hum as others have
> documented. However before I returned it, I did a comparison with
> my wife's s410 Powershot and my son's Powershot s500. I am an EOS
> 1Ds Mark II user and most of our photos, which I print, are done on
> my Fuji 3500 Pictography printer. The maximum print size we use is
> 8x10 so that is how I compared them. I don't put much credence on
> reviewing photos on screens, it's the prints that matter to me.
> Having said that, based on 8x10s, the s410 is first, the s500 a
> close second, and the sd500 a clear third. Reasons, the sd500
> images do not have the pop the other 2 cameras have. The sd500
> clearly has more noise, the image is not as sharp, and there is a
> much shallower depth of field which some may see as a real
> advantage. The sd500 operationally is clearly superior, larger and
> better LCD (you will need a case though, my dealer says they have
> many of the sd cameras returned with LCD damage for repair) it is
> faster, and the flash appears to be more powerful. The realities
> are all 3 of these cameras produce excellent 8x10s. Anyone
> upgrading from a camera earlier than the s400s will not be
> disappointed or if this is your first digital. My professional
> friends will disagree but as a serious amateur, I have to use
> primes like the 24 1.4L and do prints larger than 8x10 to really
> blow the Powershot images away with the 1Ds. When you calculate how
> much gear you have to take with you along with the difference in
> weight, I end up using my wife's s410 a lot of the time. I think
> the s410 is a great value at this time and the manufacturing
> process is mature. While I can't prove it, it seems lately that as
> the manufacturing process matures, the quality of the camera wthin
> a model line improves. "

Comparison pics here (sd500 vs. s400 vs sd20 vs Sony P200)
http://www.pbase.com/ausb/sd500_comp
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=1&ma1=1&mo1=1...
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:16:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Thanks for your input. That really helps. By the way, with 5MP,
> what kind of file sizes do you get? With my 3MP Canon, I like to
> set it close to the highest resolution (in case I take a memorable shot),
> and then when I edit, I reduce the picture to 1280 resolution. With
> a 7MP camera, would I see file sizes much over 200K? I like to be
> reasonable when emailing pics.

WAY over 200k.

I ALWAYS set to highest resolution. File sizes (jpg mode) may vary. I
think the largest I've seen is just over 3 mb, smallest about 1.4 mb, but
the average is 2.2 mb. YMMV.

Just reduce them after the fact. Use a program like Ifranview to do batch
resizes. And lastly, do your email recipients a favor - don't email them,
put them on a web site.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
April 12, 2005 7:16:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your input. That really helps. By the way, with 5MP,
> > what kind of file sizes do you get? With my 3MP Canon, I like to
> > set it close to the highest resolution (in case I take a memorable shot),
> > and then when I edit, I reduce the picture to 1280 resolution. With
> > a 7MP camera, would I see file sizes much over 200K? I like to be
> > reasonable when emailing pics.
>
> WAY over 200k.
>
> I ALWAYS set to highest resolution. File sizes (jpg mode) may vary. I
> think the largest I've seen is just over 3 mb, smallest about 1.4 mb, but
> the average is 2.2 mb. YMMV.
>
> Just reduce them after the fact. Use a program like Ifranview to do batch
> resizes. And lastly, do your email recipients a favor - don't email them,
> put them on a web site.
>
> --
> Mark Lauter
>
> Photos, Ideas & Opinions
> http://www.marklauter.com


Mark,

OK, I'm looking at the specs for the SD500. If I set the resolution to the
highest (3072×2304 pixels) as you recommend and also Superfine...but then
reduce the final image to 1280 x 1024 pixels (which I prefer for email),
what kind of file size should I expect?

Thanks again!
Scott
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:16:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Mark (not Lauter) :) 

LOL!

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:17:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> By the way, you have some really excellent photos on your site!
> Thanks for sharing.

Wow thanks! But you must be looking at the ones my girlfriend has been
taking lately. I couldn't shoot my way out of a brown paper bag. :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:22:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> To the contrary, I would expect a 7MP imager (sensor) that tiny to render
> very noisy images.

Yes, one would. Probably due to noise reduction in camera software, but the
Canon s500 at ISO 200 is much less noisy than the Sony 717 at ISO 100.

> You may wish to seriously consider whether you really will need 7MP.
> If your wife intends to enlarge photos well beyond 8x10...then she may
> appreciate the extra resolution.
> If not, they the SD400 (5MP) or the SD300 (4MP) may be a better, cleaner
> (image-wise) choice.

Mark has an excellent point here. If you are already reducing image size on
a 3 megapixel camera and intend to email the photos, why waste the money on
extra megapixels you're not going to use? Even picking up last year's 3 or
4 megapixel model will get you what you want/need and, better yet, cost you
much less.

On the other hand, if your wife wants to challenge Ansel Adams for
supremacy, you should not be buying a super compact camera. ;) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:41:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> OK, I'm looking at the specs for the SD500. If I set the resolution to
the
> highest (3072×2304 pixels) as you recommend and also Superfine...but then
> reduce the final image to 1280 x 1024 pixels (which I prefer for email),
> what kind of file size should I expect?

For the large or small image?

Large - uncompressed 20mb - compressed I'd figure between 2.5mb and 3.5mb on
average
Small - uncompressed ~3.7mb - compressed about .5mb

HTH :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:11:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott <golden@uslink.net> writes:

>OK, I'm looking at the specs for the SD500. If I set the resolution to the
>highest (3072×2304 pixels) as you recommend and also Superfine...but then
>reduce the final image to 1280 x 1024 pixels (which I prefer for email),
>what kind of file size should I expect?

That depends on both the "quality" factor you select for the JPEG
compression step, and the image content.

Since you'll be doing the JPEG encoding step with your image editor,
you'll have almost continuous control of the tradeoff between size and
visual quality, unlike the camera where you only get 3 choices.

Content matters because, at the same visual quality level, complex
images take more space than simple images.

Dave
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:41:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Thankfully, in the meantime, there's the excellent Sony DSC-P150/P200
> 7.2MP digicams to consider -- at a $100 lower price than the Canon!

Buy a Sony and may the gods help you if you ever need support. Better to
buy Canon's last year model than the latest Sony.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:41:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote in
message news:QvV6e.60430$Fz.52788@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Thankfully, in the meantime, there's the excellent Sony DSC-P150/P200
>> 7.2MP digicams to consider -- at a $100 lower price than the Canon!
>
> Buy a Sony and may the gods help you if you ever need support. Better to
> buy Canon's last year model than the latest Sony.

For Sony digicams...I couldn't agree more!

Plus... It means buying into Sony's addiction to proprietary memory
cards...
-A personal pet peeve...
April 13, 2005 3:54:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott wrote:
>
> My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
> digital camera. She's not interested in manual settings. I've
> checked out a couple of professional reviews. They're pretty
> favorable, except they talk about image quality being less than
> great. However, most of the customer reviews say the images
> are sharp and the colors are vivid. Can anyone give a first-hand
> assessment of this camera's images? One expects a 7 megapixel
> image to look teriffic, but I'm thinking a compact camera may
> impose some limitations.
>
> Thanks!
> Scott

We stopped at Best Buy today and looked at the Canon SD400 (5MP)
and the SD500 (7MP). Unfortunately, both had dead batteries, so
we couldn't try them out.

Here's the bottom line question. If I use the Canon 7MP camera,
and I routinely reduce the image to 1280 x 1024 pixels when editing,
will it look any sharper or better than the same 1280 x 1024 pixel
image from a Canon 4MP or 5MP camera?

Thanks much!
Scott
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:54:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:425CA61A.E30B937B@uslink.net...
>
>
> Scott wrote:
>>
>> My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
>> digital camera. She's not interested in manual settings. I've
>> checked out a couple of professional reviews. They're pretty
>> favorable, except they talk about image quality being less than
>> great. However, most of the customer reviews say the images
>> are sharp and the colors are vivid. Can anyone give a first-hand
>> assessment of this camera's images? One expects a 7 megapixel
>> image to look teriffic, but I'm thinking a compact camera may
>> impose some limitations.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Scott
>
> We stopped at Best Buy today and looked at the Canon SD400 (5MP)
> and the SD500 (7MP). Unfortunately, both had dead batteries, so
> we couldn't try them out.
>
> Here's the bottom line question. If I use the Canon 7MP camera,
> and I routinely reduce the image to 1280 x 1024 pixels when editing,
> will it look any sharper or better than the same 1280 x 1024 pixel
> image from a Canon 4MP or 5MP camera?

No.
It won't.
When you reduce pixel dimensions, you are basically throwing away detail.
If you go with the 7MP, you'll simply be paying for more detail and then
throwing it away...ending up with the same reduced image you'll have from a
3, 4, or 5MP SDxxx.
Do yourself a favor...
Get the 4MP SD300.
April 13, 2005 3:57:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott wrote:
>
> My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
> digital camera. She's not interested in manual settings. I've
> checked out a couple of professional reviews. They're pretty
> favorable, except they talk about image quality being less than
> great. However, most of the customer reviews say the images
> are sharp and the colors are vivid. Can anyone give a first-hand
> assessment of this camera's images? One expects a 7 megapixel
> image to look teriffic, but I'm thinking a compact camera may
> impose some limitations.
>
> Thanks!
> Scott

We stopped at Best Buy today and looked at the Canon SD400 (5MP)
and the SD500 (7MP). Unfortunately, both had dead batteries, so
we couldn't try them out.

Here's the bottom line question: If I use the Canon 7MP camera
at the highest resolution, and I routinely reduce the image to
1280 x 1024 pixels when editing, will it look any sharper or better
than the same 1280 x 1024 pixel image from a Canon 4MP or 5MP camera?

Thanks much!
Scott
April 13, 2005 5:07:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" wrote:
>
> "Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
> news:425CA61A.E30B937B@uslink.net...
> >
> >
> > Scott wrote:
> >>
> >> My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
> >> digital camera. She's not interested in manual settings. I've
> >> checked out a couple of professional reviews. They're pretty
> >> favorable, except they talk about image quality being less than
> >> great. However, most of the customer reviews say the images
> >> are sharp and the colors are vivid. Can anyone give a first-hand
> >> assessment of this camera's images? One expects a 7 megapixel
> >> image to look teriffic, but I'm thinking a compact camera may
> >> impose some limitations.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Scott
> >
> > We stopped at Best Buy today and looked at the Canon SD400 (5MP)
> > and the SD500 (7MP). Unfortunately, both had dead batteries, so
> > we couldn't try them out.
> >
> > Here's the bottom line question. If I use the Canon 7MP camera,
> > and I routinely reduce the image to 1280 x 1024 pixels when editing,
> > will it look any sharper or better than the same 1280 x 1024 pixel
> > image from a Canon 4MP or 5MP camera?
>
> No.
> It won't.
> When you reduce pixel dimensions, you are basically throwing away detail.
> If you go with the 7MP, you'll simply be paying for more detail and then
> throwing it away...ending up with the same reduced image you'll have from a
> 3, 4, or 5MP SDxxx.
> Do yourself a favor...
> Get the 4MP SD300.

Mark,

Thank you!! You have totally clarified this issue for us. We're now looking
seriously at either the SD300 or SD400.

Scott
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 9:32:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Plus... It means buying into Sony's addiction to proprietary memory
> cards...

Well, they did go with CFlash for the 828, but then they made a proprietary
RAW encryption.

One of their top guys got demoted recently, apparently he had been one of
the favorites for new CEO... but he criticized the company for not creating
an iPod like device before apple did simply because Sony Entertainment was
worried that people would pirate their music! So now their music is pirated
AND they don't get revenue that's going to Steve Jobs instead.

That sort of backward thinking about innovation and the worst customer
support staff in the history of the world will keep Sony products out of my
house for a lifetime.

LOL, those guys will never learn. :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 9:32:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Here's the bottom line question: If I use the Canon 7MP camera
> at the highest resolution, and I routinely reduce the image to
> 1280 x 1024 pixels when editing, will it look any sharper or better
> than the same 1280 x 1024 pixel image from a Canon 4MP or 5MP camera?

As Mark (not Lauter) said, you're wasting pixels.. better off buying a model
with less megapixels and in my opinion you're better off buying an older
model someplace that's trying to clean out the inventory. You should be
able to find a good deal.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 5:10:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> Thank you!! You have totally clarified this issue for us. We're now looking
> seriously at either the SD300 or SD400.

amazon.com -> electronics -> digicams -> older Canon ELPH sales

3MP SD110 2x : $169
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001G6U9I/ref=a...

4MP S410 3x : $249
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001G6U5M/ref=a...

5MP S500 3x : $299
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001G6U5...

Add Amazon.com visa card first-time purchase for a few more dollars off.

---

More canon deals:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/searchresults.cfm?title...
April 13, 2005 8:33:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:09:13 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
>news:425CA61A.E30B937B@uslink.net...
>>
>>
>> Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
>>> digital camera. She's not interested in manual settings. I've
>>> checked out a couple of professional reviews. They're pretty
>>> favorable, except they talk about image quality being less than
>>> great. However, most of the customer reviews say the images
>>> are sharp and the colors are vivid. Can anyone give a first-hand
>>> assessment of this camera's images? One expects a 7 megapixel
>>> image to look teriffic, but I'm thinking a compact camera may
>>> impose some limitations.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Scott
>>
>> We stopped at Best Buy today and looked at the Canon SD400 (5MP)
>> and the SD500 (7MP). Unfortunately, both had dead batteries, so
>> we couldn't try them out.
>>
>> Here's the bottom line question. If I use the Canon 7MP camera,
>> and I routinely reduce the image to 1280 x 1024 pixels when editing,
>> will it look any sharper or better than the same 1280 x 1024 pixel
>> image from a Canon 4MP or 5MP camera?
>
>No.
>It won't.
>When you reduce pixel dimensions, you are basically throwing away detail.
>If you go with the 7MP, you'll simply be paying for more detail and then
>throwing it away...ending up with the same reduced image you'll have from a
>3, 4, or 5MP SDxxx.
>Do yourself a favor...
>Get the 4MP SD300.
>


I read that you could crop the 7 MP pic and get greater detailer than
3 or 4 MP camera on one of many reviews I read. Since I'm not
familiar with this, first is this true? Second, if so, I presume you
could crop to a known print size and keep the same resolution?? Is
there software that will let you know that your cropped pic is a
certain print size (maybe by ruled edges) ??
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:02:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<Rob> wrote in message news:2t1r51p9oa6th5kvmnm0dfgaf9pbovrrbk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:09:13 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
>>news:425CA61A.E30B937B@uslink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My wife is looking at the new Canon SD-500 7 MP for her first
>>>> digital camera. She's not interested in manual settings. I've
>>>> checked out a couple of professional reviews. They're pretty
>>>> favorable, except they talk about image quality being less than
>>>> great. However, most of the customer reviews say the images
>>>> are sharp and the colors are vivid. Can anyone give a first-hand
>>>> assessment of this camera's images? One expects a 7 megapixel
>>>> image to look teriffic, but I'm thinking a compact camera may
>>>> impose some limitations.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Scott
>>>
>>> We stopped at Best Buy today and looked at the Canon SD400 (5MP)
>>> and the SD500 (7MP). Unfortunately, both had dead batteries, so
>>> we couldn't try them out.
>>>
>>> Here's the bottom line question. If I use the Canon 7MP camera,
>>> and I routinely reduce the image to 1280 x 1024 pixels when editing,
>>> will it look any sharper or better than the same 1280 x 1024 pixel
>>> image from a Canon 4MP or 5MP camera?
>>
>>No.
>>It won't.
>>When you reduce pixel dimensions, you are basically throwing away detail.
>>If you go with the 7MP, you'll simply be paying for more detail and then
>>throwing it away...ending up with the same reduced image you'll have from
>>a
>>3, 4, or 5MP SDxxx.
>>Do yourself a favor...
>>Get the 4MP SD300.
>>
>
>
> I read that you could crop the 7 MP pic and get greater detailer than
> 3 or 4 MP camera on one of many reviews I read. Since I'm not
> familiar with this, first is this true? Second, if so, I presume you
> could crop to a known print size and keep the same resolution?? Is
> there software that will let you know that your cropped pic is a
> certain print size (maybe by ruled edges) ??

Sure. You can crop the image down, and have a bit more resolution to play
with if that's what you want to mess with from time to time. Photoshop and
other photo editors allow this.
From the sound of the OP, though, it doesn't sound like he wants to fool
around with all his shots this way.
Also...it is unlikely that he'll have tons of shots where he has vast
regions of the shot that he wants to crop out...unless he's pretty sloppy
framing each shot. More than likely, he'd (from the sound of it) he's
simply want to reduce the resolution of entire folders of images in order to
e-mail them.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:06:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:425D92AF.1FE3EA18@uslink.net...

David Chien wrote:
>
> Thank you!! You have totally clarified this issue for us. We're now
> looking
> seriously at either the SD300 or SD400.
amazon.com -> electronics -> digicams -> older Canon ELPH sales
3MP SD110 2x : $169
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001G6U9I/ref=a...
4MP S410 3x : $249
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001G6U5M/ref=a...
5MP S500 3x : $299
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001G6U5...
Add Amazon.com visa card first-time purchase for a few more dollars off.
---
More canon deals:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/searchresults.cfm?title...
David,
Thanks for the heads up on the deals!
Scott
-------------------------
Don't confuse the S500 with the SD series.
The S500 is a discontinued camera that is severely behind in terms of
battery life, video capture (the latest SD series whollops the competition
if video clips matter to you), and size. On the other hand...the S500
capture superior images by most accounts.
There is nothing "wrong" with the S series, but they really aren't all that
thin--if you're think of carrying it in a pocket. The upside is that they
give you more manual control over image settings.
-Just another 2 cents...
April 14, 2005 3:41:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" wrote:
>
> "Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
> news:425D92AF.1FE3EA18@uslink.net...
>
> David Chien wrote:
> >
> > Thank you!! You have totally clarified this issue for us. We're now
> > looking
> > seriously at either the SD300 or SD400.
> amazon.com -> electronics -> digicams -> older Canon ELPH sales
> 3MP SD110 2x : $169
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001G6U9I/ref=a...
> 4MP S410 3x : $249
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001G6U5M/ref=a...
> 5MP S500 3x : $299
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001G6U5...
> Add Amazon.com visa card first-time purchase for a few more dollars off.
> ---
> More canon deals:
> http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/searchresults.cfm?title...
> David,
> Thanks for the heads up on the deals!
> Scott
> -------------------------
> Don't confuse the S500 with the SD series.
> The S500 is a discontinued camera that is severely behind in terms of
> battery life, video capture (the latest SD series whollops the competition
> if video clips matter to you), and size. On the other hand...the S500
> capture superior images by most accounts.
> There is nothing "wrong" with the S series, but they really aren't all that
> thin--if you're think of carrying it in a pocket. The upside is that they
> give you more manual control over image settings.
> -Just another 2 cents...


Mark,

Yes, I figured that out. We're looking solely at the SD series.

Scott
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:53:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Don't confuse the S500 with the SD series.
> The S500 is a discontinued camera that is severely behind in terms of
> battery life, video capture (the latest SD series whollops the competition
> if video clips matter to you),

:(  I'm hurt. <g>

I've been impressed with the s500 battery life.

video from digicam - blech. who uses this other than porn sites?

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:07:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Oh... What sort of battery life are you getting with your S500?

Haven't recharged in at least a month, but have filled a 256mb mem card at
least 4 times since the Strawberry Festival.

> So... I concluded that in spite of my own picky ways concerning quality,
> that choppy video clips actually have their uses.
> :) 

That's a good story and I see your point. :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
!