Canon Ixus 700 (SD500) independent review

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

Well I couldn't wait any longer to get the Ixus 700 as I really wanted
to be able to take VGA video (640 x 480 at 30fps) with an ultra compact
camera as well as having awesome photos. So, I bought the Ixus 700. So
far I have been very impressed with it. The video is quite good and the
60fps at 320 resolution is very smooth, although the white balance (when
it adjusts when moving from light to dark) seems to kick in in
noticeable steps.

I also have the Ixus 400 which is a great camera, although the size
difference between the 400 and the 700 is quite a bit even though their
dimensions are nearly identical. The 700 is a lot smaller and fits into
your pocket a lot better as it curves in towards the edges. The 700
makes the 400 look like a bit of a brick as the 400 is very rectangular
which is unlike the curves on the 700.

When watching the videos (mjpg or mjpeg codec) on your computer it
consumes quite a lot of cpu! So much so, that sometimes my computer
(Athlon xp 1800) doesn't seem to play it back smoothly (my friend's
laptop played it back quite choppy - it is a about 2 years old though).
However, quicktime seemed to play back the videos a lot better.
Apparently the video format is quicktime 3.5 and so maybe that is why
quicktime handles it a lot smoother. If you have an old computer you
might have trouble playing back the videos.

It also takes great photos (imagine that since it is a digital camera
and not a video camera , although the AiAF does seem to get confused a
bit more than the 400. I've found if I leave the AiAF off on manual then
I can just switch to manual shooting if I have any focusing problems.

The power up time is very quick and you can probably take a photo in
around a second (it is pretty hard to time it from power up to photo
taken) although the focus may not be as good. I haven't tested this
feature much as I don't really have a need for it, but the lens does
seem to come out quite quick.

The macro works just as good as the 400 and maybe better. I still
haven't sussed out the digital zoom macro fully yet, but it does take
nice close up pics.

It has a feature that lets you jump to movies or jump 10 or 100 photos
at once. It allows you to check the time when switching it on by holding
the set button down with the power button. You can mute the camera
quickly so you don't scare animals if you are taking photos of them.

Some of the new features that I like about it are:

* the hold option which makes the last photo stay on the screen
until you half (or fully) depress the shutter button, this also allows
you to zoom in on the photo in case you want to check how in focus it is
or in case everyone wants to look at the photo that was just taken. It
use to annoy me, on the 400, how you had to continually switch the dial
back to play back the photo.

* the custom self-timer option. This allows you to set how long
before the first photo fires and then how many photos it takes after
that. Once it starts taking the photos, you can't control how long it
pauses for in between photos. If the flash doesn't fire then it is quite
fast, maybe a second, if the flash fires each time I guess it depends on
how quickly the flash charges, ie how flat your battery is, but on a new
battery it was about 2 seconds or so

* the burst shot feature is pretty cool, just hold your finger on
the shutter button and it will continue to take 2 photos per second for
ages. I stopped after 10 or so

* the microphone is on the front near the lens and so you seem to get
a LOT less wind noise if you are videoing while moving quite fast, say
30 to 60km/h



Some things I noticed or don't like are:

* there isn't much room on the back to put your thumb when holding
it, especially as it has a 5cm lcd screen. I guess you are going to get
this with ultra compacts. If you have big clumsy fingers then this isn't
the camera for you

* the stitch button is no longer on the little dial that you turn (it
is on the 400) so you have to get to it from a menu, but this isn't that
bad I guess when you don't take many stitch assist photos.

* to plug in the connectors you have to take off a little hard
plastic cover which seems like it might break, the 400 had a rubber
cover which seemed more flexible and less prone to break

* it still doesn't take raw images, I would have thought that it
would be simple to add the option for raw images but obviously not

* you can actually see tip of the lens when you look through the view
finder, although it is barely visible. Once you zoom, even if for a
fraction, it disappears from the view finder.

* the speaker volume, when playing back movies, isn't as loud as the 400


I ended up buying the cheapest 1Gb SD card (from umart.com.au -
extremely cheap at $AUS 115) and so far it seems fast enough to store
video, although the longest video I have taken so far is just over 2
minutes. I think that I'll have to get another 1Gb card as I filled it
up the other night taking about 9 minutes of video and about 10 photos.

In conclusion, I'm very happy with the camera, especially as it only
cost me AUS$ 670 which was $230 cheaper than my Ixus 400. I guess I can
also sell my old camera and that will make it even more affordable. I'd
recommend this camera for anyone who wants VGA quality video as well as
awesome photos. If I didn't mind staying with 320 resolution videos (at
only 15fps), I would have kept the 400 as I'm very happy with the photo
quality of it as well. The one thing that I haven't done is the drop
test. Maybe if I lend it to two of my friends, they can both drop it as
they did with my 400, although the 400 was dented, it still works perfectly.