Canon SD850 IS vs Kodak C875 vs ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Doug White, Jul 31, 2007.

  1. Doug White

    Doug White Guest

    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
     
    Doug White, Jul 31, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Doug White

    Conrad Guest

    On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, (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
     
    Conrad, Jul 31, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Doug White

    ray Guest

    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
     
    ray, Jul 31, 2007
    #3
  4. Doug White

    mrsgator88 Guest

    "Doug White" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    mrsgator88, Aug 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Doug White

    SMS Guest

    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"
     
    SMS, Aug 1, 2007
    #5
  6. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 1, 2007
    #6
  7. Doug White

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Aug 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Doug White

    John Turco Guest

    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 <>
     
    John Turco, Aug 2, 2007
    #8
  9. Doug White

    Doug White Guest

    Keywords:
    In article <46b0b9ca$0$27199$>, SMS <> 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
     
    Doug White, Aug 3, 2007
    #9
  10. Doug White

    ASAAR Guest

    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? :)
     
    ASAAR, Aug 3, 2007
    #10
  11. Doug White

    John Turco Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    >
    > 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? :)



    Hello, ASAAR:

    C'mon, don't keep us in suspense! What does "IMVAIO" >really< stand
    for, anyway? <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Aug 5, 2007
    #11
  12. Doug White

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:51:11 -0500, John Turco wrote:

    >>> Yes, it certainly is "IMVAIO."

    >>
    >> In My Very Arrogant, Ignorant Opinion? :)

    >
    >
    > Hello, ASAAR:
    >
    > C'mon, don't keep us in suspense! What does "IMVAIO" >really< stand
    > for, anyway? <g>


    I don't really know. This is the first time I heard of that
    acronym and I just had a go at it. All I can say is that it almost
    certainly represents In My Very Axxx Ixxx Opinion.

    I've previously encountered IMO, IMHO, IMVHO and IMNSHO, but never
    IMVAIO. Maybe SMS is trying to tell us that there's something in
    his Sony laptop. Maybe it's a Li-Ion battery? <g>
     
    ASAAR, Aug 5, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Info
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    818
    ArtKramr
    Nov 18, 2003
  2. Shannon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    620
    Ron Baird
    Aug 19, 2004
  3. hfs2

    c875 power adapter

    hfs2, Nov 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    308
    Ron Baird
    Nov 14, 2006
  4. hfs2

    c875 comments

    hfs2, Dec 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    292
    John Turco
    Dec 24, 2006
  5. davek57

    Doctor's choice - Kodak C875 or Canon A630?

    davek57, Apr 8, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    798
    John Turco
    Apr 25, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page