Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > P&S question.

Reply
Thread Tools

P&S question.

 
 
Doug Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2007
Hi All,

Earlier today I was shopping for a new P&S.
The store had the Cannon A560 at $145 and the Cannon SD1000 at $245.
Except for the look and feel of them I couldn't find a reason for the price
differance.
Is anyone familiar with these? Is the SD1000 really worth the extra 100
bucks?

DJ,


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2007
"Doug Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AJHDi.56150$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi All,
>
> Earlier today I was shopping for a new P&S.
> The store had the Cannon A560 at $145 and the Cannon SD1000 at $245.
> Except for the look and feel of them I couldn't find a reason for the
> price differance.
> Is anyone familiar with these? Is the SD1000 really worth the extra 100
> bucks?
>
> DJ,
>


See for yourself:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...canon_a560.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...non_sd1000.asp

The SD1000 is more compact, but has a shorter zoom range (3x vs. 4x).


Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2007
Mark B. wrote:
> "Doug Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:AJHDi.56150$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Earlier today I was shopping for a new P&S.
>> The store had the Cannon A560 at $145 and the Cannon SD1000 at $245.
>> Except for the look and feel of them I couldn't find a reason for the
>> price differance.
>> Is anyone familiar with these? Is the SD1000 really worth the extra 100
>> bucks?
>>
>> DJ,
>>

>
> See for yourself:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...canon_a560.asp
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...non_sd1000.asp


They both have 1.9 micron pixel spacing; that's really small.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bucky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2007
On Sep 5, 5:20 pm, "Doug Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Earlier today I was shopping for a new P&S.
> The store had the Cannon A560 at $145 and the Cannon SD1000 at $245.
> Except for the look and feel of them I couldn't find a reason for the price
> differance.
> Is anyone familiar with these? Is the SD1000 really worth the extra 100
> bucks?


Well, size matters a lot. Smaller size will cost a lot more. Some
other differences: A560 has 4x zoom, the SD1000 has 2x LCD pixels.
A560 uses 2AA batteries, which some people prefer since they are
cheap, and you can buy alkalines in an emergency. Basically, I'd say
if size is not a factor for you, go for the cheaper one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
irwell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2007
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:20:52 -0500, "Doug Jones"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>Earlier today I was shopping for a new P&S.
>The store had the Cannon A560 at $145 and the Cannon SD1000 at $245.
>Except for the look and feel of them I couldn't find a reason for the price
>differance.
>Is anyone familiar with these? Is the SD1000 really worth the extra 100
>bucks?
>
>DJ,
>

I just ordered the SD1000 from Buydig.com for $207 with
free shipping, ordered yesterday, it is already on the way.
It is smaller than the A560, which is what I wanted for an
everyday carry around camera.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2007
Doug Jones wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Earlier today I was shopping for a new P&S.
> The store had the Cannon A560 at $145 and the Cannon SD1000 at $245.
> Except for the look and feel of them I couldn't find a reason for the price
> differance.
> Is anyone familiar with these? Is the SD1000 really worth the extra 100
> bucks?
>
> DJ,


It depends on your needs. the S1000 is much smaller, and includes a
Li-Ion battery and charger. It also has slightly better macro capability.

At buydig.com the SD1000 is $209, and the A560 is $169. For $40
difference the SD1000 is worth it, IMVAIO.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-07-2007
irwell wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:20:52 -0500, "Doug Jones"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Earlier today I was shopping for a new P&S.
>> The store had the Cannon A560 at $145 and the Cannon SD1000 at $245.
>> Except for the look and feel of them I couldn't find a reason for the price
>> differance.
>> Is anyone familiar with these? Is the SD1000 really worth the extra 100
>> bucks?
>>
>> DJ,
>>

> I just ordered the SD1000 from Buydig.com for $207 with
> free shipping, ordered yesterday, it is already on the way.
> It is smaller than the A560, which is what I wanted for an
> everyday carry around camera.


Other than looking like it might be VERY easy to drop (USE that wrist
strap!), it looks like a very nice camera. Still not sure it is worth
the $100 more, though.
 
Reply With Quote
 
irwell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-07-2007
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>irwell wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:20:52 -0500, "Doug Jones"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Earlier today I was shopping for a new P&S.
>>> The store had the Cannon A560 at $145 and the Cannon SD1000 at $245.
>>> Except for the look and feel of them I couldn't find a reason for the price
>>> differance.
>>> Is anyone familiar with these? Is the SD1000 really worth the extra 100
>>> bucks?
>>>
>>> DJ,
>>>

>> I just ordered the SD1000 from Buydig.com for $207 with
>> free shipping, ordered yesterday, it is already on the way.
>> It is smaller than the A560, which is what I wanted for an
>> everyday carry around camera.

>
>Other than looking like it might be VERY easy to drop (USE that wrist
>strap!), it looks like a very nice camera. Still not sure it is worth
>the $100 more, though.


Funny thing is that I felt the Nikon P5000 slipping from my hands
more than the Sony W100 (similar size to the SD1000), but I agree
about the wrist strap.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2007
irwell wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> irwell wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:20:52 -0500, "Doug Jones"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Earlier today I was shopping for a new P&S.
>>>> The store had the Cannon A560 at $145 and the Cannon SD1000 at $245.
>>>> Except for the look and feel of them I couldn't find a reason for the price
>>>> differance.
>>>> Is anyone familiar with these? Is the SD1000 really worth the extra 100
>>>> bucks?
>>>>
>>>> DJ,
>>>>
>>> I just ordered the SD1000 from Buydig.com for $207 with
>>> free shipping, ordered yesterday, it is already on the way.
>>> It is smaller than the A560, which is what I wanted for an
>>> everyday carry around camera.

>> Other than looking like it might be VERY easy to drop (USE that wrist
>> strap!), it looks like a very nice camera. Still not sure it is worth
>> the $100 more, though.

>
> Funny thing is that I felt the Nikon P5000 slipping from my hands
> more than the Sony W100 (similar size to the SD1000), but I agree
> about the wrist strap.


It's not so much the size, or even the weight, as the shape. I have a
Motorola RAZR V3 phone, and my only real complaint about the thing is
that it is slippery to pick up, and hold as the metal case doesn't have
any projections to make it easy to grip. If they would add some rubber
grip strips along the sides, the phone would be much less prone to being
dropped. My Kodak DX6440 has some rubber grip inserts on it, and is
very easy to keep hold of. Nice touch for a cheap camera.
 
Reply With Quote
 
sw2u
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2007
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:31:10 -0700, irwell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>

(snip)
>
> Funny thing is that I felt the Nikon P5000 slipping from my hands
>more than the Sony W100 (similar size to the SD1000), but I agree
>about the wrist strap.



Haven't we reached a point where mini, small, easily pocketable and
purse-able cameras are already abundant and miniaturizing cameras
further will only lead to making them impractical for increasingly
large segments of the population?

I looked at a nice ultracompact Sony a couple of days ago. It looked
more like the creation of a jewelry or women's fancy makeup compact
designer than something a camera designer came up with.

To the good, it even had an optical viewfinder. To the bad, that
viewfinder was so small as to be virtually useless for most folks over
30 and all eyeglass wearers. The camera's controls were also tiny,
evidently scaled to the finger size and dexterity of Japanese high
school and college girls.

I was never a big fan of the Argus C3 "brick" and other big, heavy
cameras. But to my mind, and hands, anything smaller than an Olympus
Pen S is too small. Glitzy styling and dozens of fancy features matter
little if a camera is difficult to see, use and hold onto because it's
unnecessarily small.

Camera designers ought to work closely with the public, not go off in
their studios and cubicles doing their own thing.

--
sw2U

 
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




Advertisments