«

Has anyone else here tried or bought the new Canon Digital Elph SD900? I
recently bought one on sale ($399 at Dell.com), and I'm interested to see
what others think about the camera. I'm having trouble finding any
discussions about this new flagship Elph camera, and reviews are scarce.

I bought the SD900 to replace an S400 that has served me well. I wanted at
least twice the pixels, faster startup and shot-to-shot times, a larger LCD,
more f-stops (I got 3 more), a durable case (titanium) and the same or
smaller form factor. The SD900 supplies everything on my wish list. I
decided I preferred maximum native pixel resolution, durable Ti skin, and
that I could live without the image stabilizer on the SD800 IS. (I'm a
pretty steady shooter.)

However, the SD900 is far from perfect. For instance, the curvy, smooth
case is hard to hold onto - like a slippery polished stone. There aren't
any perches for your fingers, making simple operation very challenging in
the best of conditions. This situation may be bad enough to consider
returning the camera: I'm having trouble operating it without accidentally
hitting other buttons, dropping the camera, etc. The S400, by contrast, is
very easy to hold and to operate, having more surface area devoid of LCD's
or buttons. I havent tried operating the SD900 with gloves on; but I'm sure
it's extremely difficult if not impossible

The 10.0 megapixel sensor gives truckloads of pixel detail, which is just
what I wanted for cropping and poster-sized prints. Image quality seems
very good; but not outstanding. JPEG noise is plainly evident even in
"Super Fine" mode (~6 MB/image). I was surprised that ISO 3200 is usable;
but very noisy (like pushing Tri-X film to 1600). The noise from this CCD
does look "film like," except for the patchy chroma noise. Converting to
B/W produces excellent results at every ISO setting, IMO.

The lens motor is extremely noisy and clattering. It sounds like there's
something wrong with it, or a bad design (gears not meshing, etc). The lens
itself seems to produce approximately the same quality as my aging S400,
with significant blue fringing toward the corners of the image. Very
annoying. I had hoped Canon could do something about the purple/blue
fringing. Apparently it's endemic to the species.

Those are my first impressions. Anybody else have opinions to share about
this camera?

What, Me Worry? wrote:
> Has anyone else here tried or bought the new Canon Digital Elph
> SD900? I recently bought one on sale ($399 at Dell.com), and I'm
> interested to see what others think about the camera. I'm having
> trouble finding any discussions about this new flagship Elph camera,
> and reviews are scarce.
> I bought the SD900 to replace an S400 that has served me well. Those are
> my first impressions. Anybody else have opinions to share
> about this camera?

10MP is just WAY too high to be useful for such a tiny sensor.
6MP is about all I'd want to try and eek out of anything that small...


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:tQA3h.2711$...
> What, Me Worry? wrote:
>> Has anyone else here tried or bought the new Canon Digital Elph
>> SD900? I recently bought one on sale ($399 at Dell.com), and I'm
>> interested to see what others think about the camera. I'm having
>> trouble finding any discussions about this new flagship Elph camera,
>> and reviews are scarce.
>> I bought the SD900 to replace an S400 that has served me well. Those are
>> my first impressions. Anybody else have opinions to share
>> about this camera?
>
> 10MP is just WAY too high to be useful for such a tiny sensor.
> 6MP is about all I'd want to try and eek out of anything that small...
>
>
> --
> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
> www.pbase.com/markuson

I agree.... In my opinion, the SD700IS is a much better proposition weighing
in with all the same features but also including image stabilisation and
squeezing a far more sensible 6mp out of the sensor.

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:tQA3h.2711$...
> What, Me Worry? wrote:
>> Has anyone else here tried or bought the new Canon Digital Elph
>> SD900? I recently bought one on sale ($399 at Dell.com), and I'm
>> interested to see what others think about the camera. I'm having
>> trouble finding any discussions about this new flagship Elph camera,
>> and reviews are scarce.
>> I bought the SD900 to replace an S400 that has served me well. Those are
>> my first impressions. Anybody else have opinions to share
>> about this camera?
>
> 10MP is just WAY too high to be useful for such a tiny sensor.
> 6MP is about all I'd want to try and eek out of anything that small...

Not sure I'm understanding your response here. Are you suggesting that
having more native pixel resolution is not useful?

FYI: The 10 megapixel CMOS image sensor in the SD900 is physically larger
than the 7.1MP CCD found in the SD800 IS. The lens is proportionately larger
as well.

What, Me Worry? wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:tQA3h.2711$...
>> What, Me Worry? wrote:
>>> Has anyone else here tried or bought the new Canon Digital Elph
>>> SD900? I recently bought one on sale ($399 at Dell.com), and I'm
>>> interested to see what others think about the camera. I'm having
>>> trouble finding any discussions about this new flagship Elph camera,
>>> and reviews are scarce.
>>> I bought the SD900 to replace an S400 that has served me well.
>>> Those are my first impressions. Anybody else have opinions to share
>>> about this camera?
>>
>> 10MP is just WAY too high to be useful for such a tiny sensor.
>> 6MP is about all I'd want to try and eek out of anything that
>> small...
>
> Not sure I'm understanding your response here. Are you suggesting
> that having more native pixel resolution is not useful?
>
> FYI: The 10 megapixel CMOS image sensor in the SD900 is physically
> larger than the 7.1MP CCD found in the SD800 IS. The lens is
> proportionately larger as well.

As you stuff more and more pixels into small sensors, you necessarily
increase noise.
And...as you stuff those pixels in, you reach a point where the lens is
unable to resolve detail to take advantage of the sensor resolution. David
Littlewood or Roger Clark could get into the numbers/math to back this
up...but basically you get to a point of severely diminishing returns...not
to mention unnecessarily-bloated file sizes. The huge pixel counts in these
TINY sensor cameras is all about marketing, and not much else. Don't get me
wrong... There IS a place for high pixel counts. My 5D has 12.8
megapixels...but you could likely fit 6 or 8 of your sensors onto the 5D's
sensor, size-wise (don't know the exact dimensions of the SD900, but it's
relatively tiny).

I own and use the SD700IS, and think it does OK...for a dinky little camera.
But even at its modest 6MP, the noise is very pronounced at even ISO 200 or
400, where my 5D is nearly noise-free up to ISO 800. ISO 1600 on my 5D is
better than my 700IS at 400. -Heck...it's not even close.

So...basically I am suggesting that you will gain very little true DETAIL in
your photos with that 110MP sensor. You'll get noise (which can sometimes
give the ILLUSION of detail) and bloated file-sizes. -Not much else.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson