«

measekite wrote:
[]
> That is why I am thinking of an SD880. They say the controls are
> better than other Canon P&S and the LCD is brilliant and visible
> during the day in the sun. To gain those features and the 28mm eqv
> wide I would be giving up on the tele end and giving up an optical
> viewfinder that I like.

I carry a compact as well as the DSLR. I went for the Panasonic TZ3,
which has a good LCD viewfinder and a 28-280mm image stabilised lens. No
need to give up on the tele if you want 28mm wide. No optical finder (at
reasonable size, cost and size) is going to cover a 10:1 zoom range, and
your present S5 doesn't have one.

Cheers,
David

measekite wrote:

> That is why I am thinking of an SD880. They say the controls are better
> than other Canon P&S and the LCD is brilliant and visible during the day
> in the sun. To gain those features and the 28mm eqv wide I would be
> giving up on the tele end and giving up an optical viewfinder that I like.

Try to find an SD800. You get both the 28mm _and_ the optical
viewfinder. Plus you get lower noise due to the lower pixel density.

Install CHDK on it, and you get some nice extra features like histogram.

measekite wrote:

> But notwithstanding brands or models or even camera type it is a known
> fact that larger sensors with the same number of pixels can produce better
> images; especially when cropped and enlarged.

That's one of the key issues that's important for buyers to understand.
Certainly there are occasions when you can get by just fine with a P&S,
i.e. good lighting, stationary subjects, somewhere in the sweet spot of
a very wide focal range lens, and when you don't need to do cropping and
enlarging (which highlights the problems with high-noise sensors, lack
of dynamic range, and lens problems). This is something I patiently
explain to every colleague, relative, and friend that asks me for advice
on which camera to purchase.

Using a table to show them what they can expect from each type of camera
is often helpful, i.e.:

Print Size versus Megapixels versus Camera Type

Mp Type 4x6 5x7 8x10 13x18 16x20 24x36
-- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
6 P&S Good Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor
6 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Fair Poor
8 P&S Good Good Fair Poor Poor Poor
8 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Fair
10 P&S Good Good Good Fair Poor Poor
10 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
12 P&S Good Good Good Good Fair Poor
12 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
14 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
16 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good
20 D-SLR Good Good Good Good Good Good

It's sometimes hard to explain to non-technical types the reasons why
they need to look at more than just focal length and megapixels, and why
they may want to consider spending more on a D-SLR. Explaining about why
the AF lag on the P&S is so bad is often easier than explaining about
sensor noise and dynamic range.

Explaining something like CHDK to a novice is like talking a foreign
language. Besides what they have to do to load it on the camera
(including putting it on every memory card they have), it's a challenge
to explain to them why they might want to use it. I really need to go
back and update some of the documentation that I wrote on CHDK in a less
technical way.

Stephen Henning wrote:
> measekite <> wrote:
>
>> But notwithstanding brands or models or even camera type it is a known
>> fact that larger sensors with the same number of pixels can produce better
>> images; especially when cropped and enlarged.
>
> That is entirely true, but larger sensors also require much larger
> pieces of glass, heavy glass and interchangeable lenses that allow dust
> on the sensor.

Dust is not as much of a problem as in the past due to automatic sensor
cleaning systems.