Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon SD 800.

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon SD 800.

 
 
Morton Linder
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2006
Hi,

I'm posting this item to ask a question, not to be a troll.

I've been using a Canon SD 550 for almost a year, with excellent
results. I ordered a new Canon SD-800, as its specs looked great,
including a 28mm equivalent w/a end, 215K pixel screen, optical
stabilizer, and ISO to 1600. After ordering but before it arrived, I
read some reviews which mentioned severe corners softness at the w/a
setting. Well, I tried the new camera out and was severely disappointed.
The softness at 4 corners at w/a setting is totally unacceptable, as is
its flash coverage. Taking flash pictures at only 6 feet distance
indoors, the medium and full tele pix were hopelessly underexposed. I'm
an advanced amateur, and can assure you that it was not operator error.

I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has an SD-800. The softness
is apparently in all these SD-800s, but I don't know if the flash
problem is too. Even with a slow tele end, the pix should not be almost
black at 6 feet.

I returned the camera to the dealer.

Thanks.

Morton Linder
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2006
I've read similar comments about the SD800. I
have the SD700IS and really like it.

But the ISO 1600 claim for the SD800 is a joke.
Good up to 200, OK at 400 in a pinch (and maybe
some post processing).

Phil

Morton Linder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm posting this item to ask a question, not to be a troll.
>
> I've been using a Canon SD 550 for almost a year, with excellent
> results. I ordered a new Canon SD-800, as its specs looked great,
> including a 28mm equivalent w/a end, 215K pixel screen, optical
> stabilizer, and ISO to 1600. After ordering but before it arrived, I
> read some reviews which mentioned severe corners softness at the w/a
> setting. Well, I tried the new camera out and was severely disappointed.
> The softness at 4 corners at w/a setting is totally unacceptable, as is
> its flash coverage. Taking flash pictures at only 6 feet distance
> indoors, the medium and full tele pix were hopelessly underexposed. I'm
> an advanced amateur, and can assure you that it was not operator error.
>
> I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has an SD-800. The softness
> is apparently in all these SD-800s, but I don't know if the flash
> problem is too. Even with a slow tele end, the pix should not be almost
> black at 6 feet.
>
> I returned the camera to the dealer.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Morton Linder

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2006
In article <7AQ%g.31$(E-Mail Removed)>, Morton Linder
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has an SD-800. The softness
> is apparently in all these SD-800s, but I don't know if the flash
> problem is too. Even with a slow tele end, the pix should not be almost
> black at 6 feet.


I don't have the reported corner softness on my SD-800 at 28mm, nor do
I have any problem with the flash. Only had it a few days but I am
happy with the camera so far.

--
Charles
 
Reply With Quote
 
Morton Linder
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2006
Charles wrote:
> In article <7AQ%g.31$(E-Mail Removed)>, Morton Linder
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has an SD-800. The softness
>>is apparently in all these SD-800s, but I don't know if the flash
>>problem is too. Even with a slow tele end, the pix should not be almost
>>black at 6 feet.

>
>
> I don't have the reported corner softness on my SD-800 at 28mm, nor do
> I have any problem with the flash. Only had it a few days but I am
> happy with the camera so far.
>

Your post makes me happy. Perhaps I just had a bad camera. I'll try again.

Thanks.

Morton
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Sommers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2006
I disagree in part. Yes, the ISO 1600 is a stretch. However, with Noise
Ninja, ISO 800 is useable. It comes done to this, by setting for HI ISO on
the SD800 IS, I can get useable shots where my SD700 IS had to struggle too
much. I shoot a lot of family events in available light and no flash, so
it's get the shot or not. With usable ISO 800, I get more.

Bye.

"Phil Wheeler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fJQ%g.12553$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've read similar comments about the SD800. I have the SD700IS and really
> like it.
>
> But the ISO 1600 claim for the SD800 is a joke. Good up to 200, OK at 400
> in a pinch (and maybe some post processing).
>
> Phil
>

[............]
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Morton Linder



 
Reply With Quote
 
Morton Linder
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2006
Charles wrote:
> In article <7AQ%g.31$(E-Mail Removed)>, Morton Linder
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has an SD-800. The softness
>>is apparently in all these SD-800s, but I don't know if the flash
>>problem is too. Even with a slow tele end, the pix should not be almost
>>black at 6 feet.

>
>
> I don't have the reported corner softness on my SD-800 at 28mm, nor do
> I have any problem with the flash. Only had it a few days but I am
> happy with the camera so far.
>

Hi Charles and Group,

Thanks to your post, I purchased an SD-800 at a different dealer, and
what a difference. This one has minimal corner softness, and the flash
exposures are excellent. I suppose that my first SD-800 was defective. I
am surprised that Canon allowed a bad camera like that to get through.

Thanks again.

Morton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2006
In article <Owy0h.115$(E-Mail Removed)>, Morton Linder
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Thanks to your post, I purchased an SD-800 at a different dealer, and
> what a difference. This one has minimal corner softness, and the flash
> exposures are excellent. I suppose that my first SD-800 was defective. I
> am surprised that Canon allowed a bad camera like that to get through.


I am glad to hear you have a good one now. It should not happen, but I
am not surprised that some defective cameras get through. Particularly
in the initial batches. These point and shoots cameras are mass
produced. That is why it is a good idea to purchase from retailers that
take have good return policies.

--
Charles
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, b Mike Henley Digital Photography 43 12-15-2004 05:21 PM
Difference between Canon G5 and Canon S50 zxcvar Digital Photography 6 07-23-2003 09:47 AM
APS Canon IXUS versus digital Canon IXUS ( a question for the pros ) Davidgilmour2003@hotmail.com Digital Photography 4 07-20-2003 05:48 AM
Canon ixus 400 or canon ixus 2 ? David J. Gilmour Digital Photography 7 07-20-2003 12:00 AM
reading compact flash on different camera than used to take photos (canon to canon) Jim Digital Photography 0 07-15-2003 08:13 PM



Advertisments