Digital Cameras For Beginners: When All You Want To Do Is TakePictures

Jasper Janssen

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:30:14 -0800, SMS ???• ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

[Camera known variously as Powershot SD 800 IS/Ixus 850 IS/Ixy 900 IS]

>a) optical viewfinder
>b) wide-angle lens
>c) image-stabilization
>d) Li-Ion battery
>
>There are _no_ other small cameras on the market with these seemingly
>basic features. Almost no small cameras have a wide-angle lens, and the
>optical viewfinder has disappeared from most cameras.

Note, though, that the optical viewfinder is mostly useless. It's tiny,
and my big nose gets in the way. Usable, just barely, in emergencies. The
LCD is actually really good, and doesn't wash completely out under
anything except the very most difficult circumstances, and battery life is
still awesome (compared to the 2AA and 4AA NiMH Olympuses I've used
before, for sure).

SDHC support means you can fit memory cards over 2/4 gigs, which SD pre-HC
is limited to (for in spec/out of spec respectively), which means never
having to fiddle around with changing cards unless you want to or have a
large collection of small cards.

The built-in orientation sensor is used to good effect. It records in the
DCIF metadata for each JPG whether the camera was normal or portrait
orientation at the time. It uses this information along with the current
orientation of the camera to keep or rotate the images in display mode,
which works very intuitively. Oh, and the camera has a flat bottom *and*
side so you can put it down on a table with the selftimer in either
orientation.

For long travel, it's a light shame the battery charger isn't built in to
the camera, like a phobile moan -- you actually have to physically remove
the battery and insert into a fairly large charger (well.. pretty much the
same size as the camera, which is tiny in real units but large in
comparison). Although it's relatively big, it weighs close to nothing (I
think less than the provided line cord..), so it's not a huge deal.

dpreview reviewed the camera (if you plan on buying one, I recommend
reading that review) and notes that the wide angle 28-104 lens is not
*quite* as good quality as the 35-135 zoom fitted to most of the Canon
subcompacts, but the difference is only marginal.

Oh, and the IS thing.. It really is quite fricking amazing indoors,
compared to most digital cameras. ISO above 400 is not really usable due
to noise, but sometimes getting the shot is more important than it looking
good. And the IS really does seem to help. I've shot handheld steady
pictures up to 1/4 second (although that usually requires several tries,
but that's why you have a digital..).


Jasper

still just me

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:20:09 +0100, Jasper Janssen
<jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:

>Note, though, that the optical viewfinder is mostly useless. It's tiny,
>and my big nose gets in the way. Usable, just barely, in emergencies. The
>LCD is actually really good, and doesn't wash completely out under
>anything except the very most difficult circumstances, and battery life is
>still awesome (compared to the 2AA and 4AA NiMH Olympuses I've used
>before, for sure).

A general comment though: For the OP' stated intent of "just take
pictures", an optical viewfinder is fine. Shutting of the digital
display is a major battery saving step.

SMS 斯蒂文• �

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:30:14 -0800, SMS ???• ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [Camera known variously as Powershot SD 800 IS/Ixus 850 IS/Ixy 900 IS]
>
>> a) optical viewfinder
>> b) wide-angle lens
>> c) image-stabilization
>> d) Li-Ion battery
>>
>> There are _no_ other small cameras on the market with these seemingly
>> basic features. Almost no small cameras have a wide-angle lens, and the
>> optical viewfinder has disappeared from most cameras.
>
> Note, though, that the optical viewfinder is mostly useless. It's tiny,
> and my big nose gets in the way.

Hmm, my nose isn't huge, but it's not tiny either, and I've had not
problem using the optical viewfinder on a succession of P&S cameras, and
film cameras for that matter.

Tom Sherman

still just me wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:20:09 +0100, Jasper Janssen
> <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>
>> Note, though, that the optical viewfinder is mostly useless. It's tiny,
>> and my big nose gets in the way. Usable, just barely, in emergencies. The
>> LCD is actually really good, and doesn't wash completely out under
>> anything except the very most difficult circumstances, and battery life is
>> still awesome (compared to the 2AA and 4AA NiMH Olympuses I've used
>> before, for sure).
>
> A general comment though: For the OP' stated intent of "just take
> pictures", an optical viewfinder is fine. Shutting of the digital
> display is a major battery saving step.

The feature that I really want in a camera is a hidden explosive charge
that can be remotely activated to blow the hell out of the thief that
steals it.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.

Jasper Janssen

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:40:26 -0800, SMS ???• ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>
>> [Camera known variously as Powershot SD 800 IS/Ixus 850 IS/Ixy 900 IS]

>> Note, though, that the optical viewfinder is mostly useless. It's tiny,
>> and my big nose gets in the way.
>
>Hmm, my nose isn't huge, but it's not tiny either, and I've had not
>problem using the optical viewfinder on a succession of P&S cameras, and
>film cameras for that matter.

The viewfinder's too small for me to use reasonably successfully with my
glasses. This wasn't the case on my previous less compact P&Ses, either
film or digital. The image is just simply a bit too small to see any
detail.

Jasper

Jasper Janssen

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:31:48 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:20:09 +0100, Jasper Janssen
><jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>
>>Note, though, that the optical viewfinder is mostly useless. It's tiny,
>>and my big nose gets in the way. Usable, just barely, in emergencies. The
>>LCD is actually really good, and doesn't wash completely out under
>>anything except the very most difficult circumstances, and battery life is
>>still awesome (compared to the 2AA and 4AA NiMH Olympuses I've used
>>before, for sure).
>
>A general comment though: For the OP' stated intent of "just take
>pictures", an optical viewfinder is fine.

No, that's my point. I can't see any detail through the optical viewfinder
and it strains my eyes, because the image is too small.

>Shutting of the digital
>display is a major battery saving step.

Not as much as it used to be, actually. Battery life on this particular
camera is damn good to start with; I think it was something like 300
pictures on the standardised test, and I usually get much more than that.
The screen takes up only maybe a third of the power usage, if that. I
can't really think of any real-world situations where that would be a
hugely unacceptable problem.

Jasper

carlfogel@comcast.net

On Nov 18, 10:14 am, Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:

[snip]

> No, that's my point. I can't see any detail through the optical viewfinder
> and it strains my eyes, because the image is too small.

[snip]

Dear Jasper,

The camera in question may be different from what I use, but I had a
similar problem--the optical viewfinder was utterly useless. The LCD
screen wasn't all that great, since the sun usually hit it just
wrong.

Then my sister visited and asked me why I didn't use the optical
viewfinder instead of complaining about the sunlight making the LCD
hard to see.

I told her that it was useless, that I couldn't see anything through
it. A quick peek re-confirmed my complaint--I couldn't make out
anything through the tiny optical viewfinder.

She suggested that I should look again, but without my glasses.

Works like a charm.

If you wear glasses, try looking through the optical viewfinder
without them.

If you don't wear glasses, it may be time to visit an optometrist.

If the optical viewfinder still doesn't work, be glad that we have
digital cameras with big LCD screens.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

jim beam

Tom Sherman wrote:
> still just me wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:20:09 +0100, Jasper Janssen
>> <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Note, though, that the optical viewfinder is mostly useless. It's tiny,
>>> and my big nose gets in the way. Usable, just barely, in emergencies.
>>> The
>>> LCD is actually really good, and doesn't wash completely out under
>>> anything except the very most difficult circumstances, and battery
>>> life is
>>> still awesome (compared to the 2AA and 4AA NiMH Olympuses I've used
>>> before, for sure).
>>
>> A general comment though: For the OP' stated intent of "just take
>> pictures", an optical viewfinder is fine. Shutting of the digital
>> display is a major battery saving step.
>
> The feature that I really want in a camera is a hidden explosive charge
> that can be remotely activated to blow the hell out of the thief that
> steals it.
>

better yet - label with "property of tom sherman". that way, any
would-be thief will stay away from an object that has no memory, can't
focus, whines excessively, can't operate when upright, and never
produces nothing of any value whatsoever.

Mike Jacoubowsky

> The SD800 IS is the Olympus XA of the twenty-first century. What
> self-respecting bicyclist of the twentieth century didn't own an Olympus
> XA (not the XA2 or XA4)?

Umm... me?

Olympus D-220L, Olympus D340, Olympus 450Z, Olympus D-40, Fuji 510 (the only
real dog in the bunch, chosen too quickly for a trip to Hawaii, based on its
28mm wide lens), Fuji F10, Fuji F30.

The nice thing about the Fuji F10/F30 is the high quality at high ISO
levels, allowing you to kick up the ISO as high as 800 and still get nice
shots. This is important for photos taken while riding because light may not
be optimal (think Tunitas Creek if you're in Northern California) yet you
still need a relatively-high shutter speed. The F10 unfortunately didn't
allow enough manual control; the F30 was basically the same camera with more
ability to dial things in.

The Canon SD800 & SD870 (which replaces it) probably have better optics than
the Fuji F10/30/40 series of cameras, but unfortunately get very noisy at
higher ISOs. The image stabilization will definitely help in that regard,
although that deals with shake, not movement of what you're photographing
(or your own movement, for that matter).

Of course, if you're sensible and not trying to get photos *while* riding, a
camera with effective IS is a wonderful thing.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:473dc529$0$79864$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>> I think the Canon PowerShot SD800 IS has features that appeal to most
>> bicyclists. It has a large view screen, plus a view lense that comes
>> in handy in light where the viewer is hard to see. It's battery last
>> a long time between charges and the camera is smaller than most.
>> Beyond that, its advanced features are essentially in its background
>> and can be ignored by the beginner.
>
> Not just to bicyclists. In fact, it's the _only_ small camera on the
> market with:
>
> a) optical viewfinder
> b) wide-angle lens
> c) image-stabilization
> d) Li-Ion battery
>
> There are _no_ other small cameras on the market with these seemingly
> basic features. Almost no small cameras have a wide-angle lens, and the
> optical viewfinder has disappeared from most cameras.
>
> What this means is that the SD800 IS is sure to be discontinued very soon.
>
> The SD800 IS is the Olympus XA of the twenty-first century. What
> self-respecting bicyclist of the twentieth century didn't own an Olympus
> XA (not the XA2 or XA4)?
>

Patrick Lamb

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:19:55 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
>
>The Canon SD800 & SD870 (which replaces it) probably have better optics than
>the Fuji F10/30/40 series of cameras, but unfortunately get very noisy at
>higher ISOs. The image stabilization will definitely help in that regard,
>although that deals with shake, not movement of what you're photographing
>(or your own movement, for that matter).
>
>Of course, if you're sensible and not trying to get photos *while* riding, a
>camera with effective IS is a wonderful thing.

After my last century, I've decided I'll take a camera on every big
ride. Stop in the middle of the monster climb, and people passing you
look at you like, "What's with that loser, stopping while I'm still
climbing?" Pull out the camera, grab a drink while it comes on, walk
around a little, and the same people voice things like, "That is a
(huff) nice view (puff)," and look like they're jealous. And of
course there's another view through the brush 20 yards up, so you just
hike up there while holding the camera high.

Pat

Email address works as is.

Tom Sherman

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> still just me wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:20:09 +0100, Jasper Janssen
>>> <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note, though, that the optical viewfinder is mostly useless. It's tiny,
>>>> and my big nose gets in the way. Usable, just barely, in
>>>> emergencies. The
>>>> LCD is actually really good, and doesn't wash completely out under
>>>> anything except the very most difficult circumstances, and battery
>>>> life is
>>>> still awesome (compared to the 2AA and 4AA NiMH Olympuses I've used
>>>> before, for sure).
>>>
>>> A general comment though: For the OP' stated intent of "just take
>>> pictures", an optical viewfinder is fine. Shutting of the digital
>>> display is a major battery saving step.
>>
>> The feature that I really want in a camera is a hidden explosive
>> charge that can be remotely activated to blow the hell out of the
>> thief that steals it.
>>
>
> better yet - label with "property of tom sherman". that way, any
> would-be thief will stay away from an object that has no memory, can't
> focus, whines excessively, can't operate when upright, and never
> produces nothing of any value whatsoever.

Do not quit your day job, "jim".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.

SMS 斯蒂文• �

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> The SD800 IS is the Olympus XA of the twenty-first century. What
>> self-respecting bicyclist of the twentieth century didn't own an Olympus
>> XA (not the XA2 or XA4)?
>
> Umm... me?
>
> Olympus D-220L, Olympus D340, Olympus 450Z, Olympus D-40, Fuji 510 (the only
> real dog in the bunch, chosen too quickly for a trip to Hawaii, based on its
> 28mm wide lens), Fuji F10, Fuji F30.

Right, but if you're old enough to remember film cameras, what were you
using at the end of the last century, especially in the 1980's? The
Olympus XA rangefinder was like the super-standard for cyclists and
backpackers due to its quality and small size and detachable flash
attachment.

> The Canon SD800 & SD870 (which replaces it) probably have better optics than
> the Fuji F10/30/40 series of cameras, but unfortunately get very noisy at
> higher ISOs. The image stabilization will definitely help in that regard,
> although that deals with shake, not movement of what you're photographing
> (or your own movement, for that matter).

The SD870 IS drops the viewfinder, and increases the pixel count, which
means more noise. For now, both are still up as current models on the
Canon Powershot site ("http://powershot.com") but I'm sure that the
SD800 IS will be gone soon. The reviews of the SD800 IS claim that noise
levels are acceptable up to ISO 400. One advantage of the Canon
Powershot line is the availability of the wireless flash, which will
allow you to shoot at lower ISO in some situations.

SMS 斯蒂文• �

SMS 斯蒂文• � wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>> I think the Canon PowerShot SD800 IS has features that appeal to most
>> bicyclists. It has a large view screen, plus a view lense that comes
>> in handy in light where the viewer is hard to see. It's battery last
>> a long time between charges and the camera is smaller than most.
>> Beyond that, its advanced features are essentially in its background
>> and can be ignored by the beginner.
>
> Not just to bicyclists. In fact, it's the _only_ small camera on the
> market with:
>
> a) optical viewfinder
> b) wide-angle lens
> c) image-stabilization
> d) Li-Ion battery
>
> There are _no_ other small cameras on the market with these seemingly
> basic features. Almost no small cameras have a wide-angle lens, and the
> optical viewfinder has disappeared from most cameras.
>
> What this means is that the SD800 IS is sure to be discontinued very soon.

I saw that on "http://dcresource.com", the SD800 IS already shows up as
discontinued, though on Canon's Powershot page, "http://powershot.com",
it still shows up.

I finally went and ordered one on Sunday (took three days with Amazon
free shipping) before they are not available any more. I had an Canon
S500 with a broken LCD, and had no small camera to take on rides.
Naturally, the price came down since last Sunday when I placed the
order, now it's $239.94 (I paid 249.9x).

Here are the direct links on Amazon to the camera, case, and external flash:

Amazon Link for Camera: "http://tinyurl.com/3yk9v5"
Amazon Link for Case: "http://tinyurl.com/2sade2"
Amazon Link for Flash: "http://tinyurl.com/3duw2l"

The replacement for the SD800 IS is the SD870 IS which is 8.3 megapixels
rather than 7.4, and has a bigger LCD (3.0" versus 2.5") but no optical
viewfinder. The SD870 IS has a slower frame rate (common when the
resolution goes up), and will have more noise due to the smaller pixel
size.