Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon SD850 IS vs Kodak C875 vs ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon SD850 IS vs Kodak C875 vs ?

 
 
Doug White
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2007
I'm looking to upgrade my Olympus D520. I'd like something smaller, with
higher resolution & better low light performance. The D520 only gets to
ISO 400, and has a lot of trouble with indoor photos beyond the range of
the rather feeble flash.

I want a viewfinder, and both the Canon SD850 IS and the Kodak C875
qualify. The Canon is newer, has better macro capability, IS & is
smaller, but requires a proprietary battery & charger. The Kodak is
cheaper, a little bulkier (but still smaller than the D520), has
aperture priority and can use alkalines in a pinch. Canon has a better
reputation for quality.

While I'm fence sitting and wrestling with the pros & cons on these two,
I thought I'd ask here for any other cameras I should be considering.
This would mostly be for general family photos, and the hope is to have
something small enough that I'll be more inclined to bring it along than
the D520, which takes a pretty generous pocket. I also will use it for
documenting gizmos & gadgets, so a good macro mode is essential. I won't
be taking tons of pictures every day (or even every week except on
trips), and that's where the battery issue comes up. Alkalines last
about 6 months in the D520, and I don't have to mess with a charger. I
find it hard to believe that I will be able to just "grab & go" with any
rechargeable system, but maybe the new batteries are good enough to work
OK. For example, if I'm going on a 10 day trip and expect to take <100
pictures, can I do that on one charge of the Canon Li Ions?

Thanks for any comments & input!

Doug White
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Conrad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2007
On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Doug White) wrote:

> I'm looking to upgrade my Olympus D520. I'd like something smaller, with
> higher resolution & better low light performance. The D520 only gets to
> ISO 400, and has a lot of trouble with indoor photos beyond the range of
> the rather feeble flash.
>
> I want a viewfinder, and both the Canon SD850 IS and the Kodak C875
> qualify. The Canon is newer, has better macro capability, IS & is
> smaller, but requires a proprietary battery & charger. The Kodak is
> cheaper, a little bulkier (but still smaller than the D520), has
> aperture priority and can use alkalines in a pinch. Canon has a better
> reputation for quality.
>
> While I'm fence sitting and wrestling with the pros & cons on these two,
> I thought I'd ask here for any other cameras I should be considering.
> This would mostly be for general family photos, and the hope is to have
> something small enough that I'll be more inclined to bring it along than
> the D520, which takes a pretty generous pocket. I also will use it for
> documenting gizmos & gadgets, so a good macro mode is essential. I won't
> be taking tons of pictures every day (or even every week except on
> trips), and that's where the battery issue comes up. Alkalines last
> about 6 months in the D520, and I don't have to mess with a charger. I
> find it hard to believe that I will be able to just "grab & go" with any
> rechargeable system, but maybe the new batteries are good enough to work
> OK. For example, if I'm going on a 10 day trip and expect to take <100
> pictures, can I do that on one charge of the Canon Li Ions?
>
> Thanks for any comments & input!
>
> Doug White



Depending on how small you go - make sure you choose a camera with an
optical viewfinder. Those with only an LCD viewing system are
difficult to see in bright, outside light.

Best,

Conrad

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2007
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:48:47 +0000, Doug White wrote:

> I'm looking to upgrade my Olympus D520. I'd like something smaller, with
> higher resolution & better low light performance. The D520 only gets to
> ISO 400, and has a lot of trouble with indoor photos beyond the range of
> the rather feeble flash.
>
> I want a viewfinder, and both the Canon SD850 IS and the Kodak C875
> qualify. The Canon is newer, has better macro capability, IS & is
> smaller, but requires a proprietary battery & charger. The Kodak is
> cheaper, a little bulkier (but still smaller than the D520), has
> aperture priority and can use alkalines in a pinch. Canon has a better
> reputation for quality.


With whom? I am on my second Kodak digital camera (currently a P850 -
previous was a 1mp DC210+) and I've never had any problems with Kodak
quality. BTW - both are/were refurbs.


>
> While I'm fence sitting and wrestling with the pros & cons on these two,
> I thought I'd ask here for any other cameras I should be considering.
> This would mostly be for general family photos, and the hope is to have
> something small enough that I'll be more inclined to bring it along than
> the D520, which takes a pretty generous pocket. I also will use it for
> documenting gizmos & gadgets, so a good macro mode is essential. I won't
> be taking tons of pictures every day (or even every week except on
> trips), and that's where the battery issue comes up. Alkalines last
> about 6 months in the D520, and I don't have to mess with a charger. I
> find it hard to believe that I will be able to just "grab & go" with any
> rechargeable system, but maybe the new batteries are good enough to work
> OK. For example, if I'm going on a 10 day trip and expect to take <100
> pictures, can I do that on one charge of the Canon Li Ions?


The 'new' nimh batteries from sanyo and rayovac are supposed to have
licked the 'shelf life' problem which normally afflicts the breed. On my
Kodak P850 I have a spare li-ion which I've never had to use.


>
> Thanks for any comments & input!
>
> Doug White


 
Reply With Quote
 
mrsgator88
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2007
"Doug White" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm looking to upgrade my Olympus D520. I'd like something smaller, with
> higher resolution & better low light performance. The D520 only gets to
> ISO 400, and has a lot of trouble with indoor photos beyond the range of
> the rather feeble flash.


Fuji has the best high-ISO sensors.

> I want a viewfinder, and both the Canon SD850 IS and the Kodak C875
> qualify. The Canon is newer, has better macro capability, IS & is
> smaller, but requires a proprietary battery & charger. The Kodak is
> cheaper, a little bulkier (but still smaller than the D520), has
> aperture priority and can use alkalines in a pinch. Canon has a better
> reputation for quality.


Fuji probably won't give you a viewfinder. I don't consider Canon to be
better quality. Canon is a fine product, but my experience with Kodak has
been great. Some Canons do have some nice features however. The viewfinder
I'm using less and less. Really you'll get used to it. Runs down the
battery, yes, but then you can look at some other really good cameras as
well.

> While I'm fence sitting and wrestling with the pros & cons on these two,
> I thought I'd ask here for any other cameras I should be considering.



I've used several Sony cameras. I like them too.

> This would mostly be for general family photos, and the hope is to have
> something small enough that I'll be more inclined to bring it along than
> the D520, which takes a pretty generous pocket. I also will use it for
> documenting gizmos & gadgets, so a good macro mode is essential. I won't


A sharp lens and processor can substitute for a macro shot. Crop and
enlarge. Read dpreview.com for image tests and comparisons.

> be taking tons of pictures every day (or even every week except on
> trips), and that's where the battery issue comes up. Alkalines last
> about 6 months in the D520, and I don't have to mess with a charger. I
> find it hard to believe that I will be able to just "grab & go" with any
> rechargeable system, but maybe the new batteries are good enough to work
> OK. For example, if I'm going on a 10 day trip and expect to take <100
> pictures, can I do that on one charge of the Canon Li Ions?


Personally I like AA systems, and disposable lithium AA batteries. My dad's
Kodak (two+ year old design, Li Ion) has served him well over several 7 day
cruises. Shouldn't be a deal breaker though. Again, read the reviews

LiIon based cameras can be a good bit smaller however.

> Thanks for any comments & input!
>
> Doug White



 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2007
Doug White wrote:
> I'm looking to upgrade my Olympus D520. I'd like something smaller, with
> higher resolution & better low light performance. The D520 only gets to
> ISO 400, and has a lot of trouble with indoor photos beyond the range of
> the rather feeble flash.
>
> I want a viewfinder, and both the Canon SD850 IS and the Kodak C875
> qualify.


The C875 does not have a viewfinder, nor does it have image stabilization.

Get the SD850 IS or the SD800 IS. For a small camera with an optical
viewfinder and image stabilization, these are the two best choices, not
that there are many choices. In fact I think these are the _only_ two
choices, unless the SD700 IS is still available. Kudos to Canon for
keeping the optical viewfinder on at least a couple of small cameras.

> I won't
> be taking tons of pictures every day (or even every week except on
> trips), and that's where the battery issue comes up.


You'll want a Li-Ion battery if it's only being used intermittently,
though Sanyo Eneloop AA batteries would also be fine in an AA powered
camera.

It's really moot, as all pocketable cameras use Li-Ion (I saw one that
used AAA batteries once, but it was a toy-like camera from Oregon
Scientific). The Kodak you refer to is larger, and lacks an optical
viewfinder.

The flashes of most small cameras are feeble, so count on the higher ISO
not a better flash. Canon does offer the HF-DC1 High Power Wireless
Flash for their PowerShot cameras.

100 photos is nothing for a Li-Ion battery. The SD800 IS is rated for
270 shots with the LCD on, and since you're smart enough to require an
optical viewfinder, presumably you wont be holding the camera at arms
length to compose a picture with the LCD. With the LCD off it's even
more. Of course the charger is very small, and a spare battery, also
very small, is $11, if you really want to be safe.

The "AA in a pinch" argument was born of user's bad experiences with
NiMH batteries prior to the availability of the Sanyo Eneloop batteries.
If you're backpacking across Australia, carry a solar charger, rather
than depending on stumbling across a 7-11 in the Outback that sells AA
batteries at high prices.

Above all, _never_ buy a camera that lacks an optical viewfinder, or at
least an EVF.

Steve
"http://batterydata.com"
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2007
SMS wrote:
[]
> Above all, _never_ buy a camera that lacks an optical viewfinder, or
> at least an EVF.
>
> Steve
> "http://batterydata.com"


Steve,

That's your choice - but millions of people find cameras with just the LCD
finder on the back perfectly adequate for their needs.

I would never trust an "optical" finder to be accurate (as I tend to go
for a very large zoom range and I'm interested in macro), so I would go
for an EVF or DSLR-viewfinder where possible, but if I wanted a very
compact camera I accept that I might have to compromise and have just the
LCD.

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2007
David J Taylor wrote:

> Steve,
>
> That's your choice - but millions of people find cameras with just the LCD
> finder on the back perfectly adequate for their needs.
>
> I would never trust an "optical" finder to be accurate (as I tend to go
> for a very large zoom range and I'm interested in macro), so I would go
> for an EVF or DSLR-viewfinder where possible, but if I wanted a very
> compact camera I accept that I might have to compromise and have just the
> LCD.


Yes, it certainly is "IMVAIO."

If there were some very compact camera that is magnitudes better than
the SD 850 IS that the op is considering (or the SD 800 IS) then maybe
giving up the OV or EVF would be an acceptable compromise.

I'd also say, that most of those tens of millions of people ended up
with a camera that lacked an OV or EVF out of ignorance, rather than out
of choice. Not all of course, but most.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2007
Doug White wrote:
>
> I'm looking to upgrade my Olympus D520. I'd like something smaller, with
> higher resolution & better low light performance. The D520 only gets to
> ISO 400, and has a lot of trouble with indoor photos beyond the range of
> the rather feeble flash.
>
> I want a viewfinder, and both the Canon SD850 IS and the Kodak C875
> qualify. The Canon is newer, has better macro capability, IS & is
> smaller, but requires a proprietary battery & charger. The Kodak is
> cheaper, a little bulkier (but still smaller than the D520), has
> aperture priority and can use alkalines in a pinch. Canon has a better
> reputation for quality.


<edited, for brevity>

Hello, Doug:

The C875 has no optical viewfinder, alas. Several of the other models
in Kodak's "C" series of digicams >are< so endowed, however, and they're
also rather inexpensive.

Incidentally, in my opinion, Canon's "reputation for quality" is more
myth than fact; Kodak has nothing to be ashamed of, by comparison.
(Practically all P&S cameras come from the same Chinese factories,
nowadays, anyway. <g>)

Good luck!


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug White
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2007
Keywords:
In article <46b0b9ca$0$27199$(E-Mail Removed)>, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Doug White wrote:
>> I'm looking to upgrade my Olympus D520. I'd like something smaller, with
>> higher resolution & better low light performance. The D520 only gets to
>> ISO 400, and has a lot of trouble with indoor photos beyond the range of
>> the rather feeble flash.
>>
>> I want a viewfinder, and both the Canon SD850 IS and the Kodak C875
>> qualify.

>
>The C875 does not have a viewfinder, nor does it have image stabilization.


Aha! You are quite correct. I wonder where I got the idea it had
one...?

>Get the SD850 IS or the SD800 IS. For a small camera with an optical
>viewfinder and image stabilization, these are the two best choices, not
>that there are many choices. In fact I think these are the _only_ two
>choices, unless the SD700 IS is still available. Kudos to Canon for
>keeping the optical viewfinder on at least a couple of small cameras.


No one has jumped up to pose a better alternative, so that looks like a
good plan. I'll have to compare the 850 and the 800 to see if the price
difference is worth it.

<snip>
>100 photos is nothing for a Li-Ion battery. The SD800 IS is rated for
>270 shots with the LCD on, and since you're smart enough to require an
>optical viewfinder, presumably you wont be holding the camera at arms
>length to compose a picture with the LCD. With the LCD off it's even
>more. Of course the charger is very small, and a spare battery, also
>very small, is $11, if you really want to be safe.
>
>The "AA in a pinch" argument was born of user's bad experiences with
>NiMH batteries prior to the availability of the Sanyo Eneloop batteries.
>If you're backpacking across Australia, carry a solar charger, rather
>than depending on stumbling across a 7-11 in the Outback that sells AA
>batteries at high prices.


It sound slike the Li Ion's have come far enough along that it won't be
an issue.

>Above all, _never_ buy a camera that lacks an optical viewfinder, or at
>least an EVF.


That's my plan. Thanks to everyone for their feedback. Time to
stimulate the economy...

Doug White
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2007
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:39:13 -0700, SMS wrote:

>>> Above all, _never_ buy a camera that lacks an optical viewfinder,
>>> or at least an EVF.

>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> That's your choice - but millions of people find cameras with just the LCD
>> finder on the back perfectly adequate for their needs.
>>
>> I would never trust an "optical" finder to be accurate (as I tend to go
>> for a very large zoom range and I'm interested in macro), so I would go
>> for an EVF or DSLR-viewfinder where possible, but if I wanted a very
>> compact camera I accept that I might have to compromise and have just the
>> LCD.

>
> Yes, it certainly is "IMVAIO."


In My Very Arrogant, Ignorant Opinion?

 
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
Doctor's choice - Kodak C875 or Canon A630? davek57 Digital Photography 33 04-25-2007 04:23 PM
c875 comments hfs2 Digital Photography 1 12-24-2006 04:38 AM
c875 power adapter hfs2 Digital Photography 1 11-14-2006 09:41 PM
Canon Elph SD110, Kodak EasyShare CX7430, Canon Powershots A75 and A80, and Nikon CoolPix 3200 Shannon Digital Photography 4 08-19-2004 09:03 PM
Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters? Info Digital Photography 10 11-18-2003 06:33 PM



Advertisments