«

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

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

In article <7AQ%g.31$>, Morton Linder
<> 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

Charles wrote:
> In article <7AQ%g.31$>, Morton Linder
> <> 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

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" <wt6uh-> wrote in message
news:fJQ%g.12553$...
> 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

Charles wrote:
> In article <7AQ%g.31$>, Morton Linder
> <> 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

In article <Owy0h.115$>, Morton Linder
<> 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