P&S question.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Doug Jones, Sep 6, 2007.

  1. Doug Jones

    Doug Jones Guest

    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,
     
    Doug Jones, Sep 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Doug Jones

    Mark B. Guest

    "Doug Jones" <> wrote in message
    news:AJHDi.56150$...
    > 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/specs/Canon/canon_a560.asp

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd1000.asp

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


    Mark
     
    Mark B., Sep 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark B. wrote:
    > "Doug Jones" <> wrote in message
    > news:AJHDi.56150$...
    >> 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/specs/Canon/canon_a560.asp
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd1000.asp


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

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Doug Jones

    Bucky Guest

    On Sep 5, 5:20 pm, "Doug Jones" <> 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.
     
    Bucky, Sep 6, 2007
    #4
  5. Doug Jones

    irwell Guest

    On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:20:52 -0500, "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,
    >

    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.
     
    irwell, Sep 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Doug Jones

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Sep 6, 2007
    #6
  7. Doug Jones

    Ron Hunter Guest

    irwell wrote:
    > On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:20:52 -0500, "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,
    >>

    > 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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 7, 2007
    #7
  8. Doug Jones

    irwell Guest

    On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    >irwell wrote:
    >> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:20:52 -0500, "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,
    >>>

    >> 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.
     
    irwell, Sep 7, 2007
    #8
  9. Doug Jones

    Ron Hunter Guest

    irwell wrote:
    > On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> irwell wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:20:52 -0500, "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,
    >>>>
    >>> 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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 8, 2007
    #9
  10. Doug Jones

    sw2u Guest

    On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:31:10 -0700, irwell <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    >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
     
    sw2u, Sep 9, 2007
    #10
  11. Doug Jones

    irwell Guest

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 23:14:40 GMT, sw2u <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:31:10 -0700, irwell <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    >>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.



    Yet the same criteria seem acceptable by the mobile phone
    users?
     
    irwell, Sep 9, 2007
    #11
  12. Doug Jones

    sw2u Guest

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:15:24 -0700, irwell <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 23:14:40 GMT, sw2u <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:31:10 -0700, irwell <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    >>>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?

    (snip)
    >>
    >>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.

    >
    >
    >Yet the same criteria seem acceptable by the mobile phone
    >users?


    The average age of which is probably well under 30, truth be known.
    But even there, I think there's a point at which people will start to
    turn away from overly miniaturized cell phones.

    I recognize that up to a point there's a certain "gee, that's cool"
    factor to ever smaller technology packages, both for producers and
    consumers. I've noticed going back years that designers and engineers
    will do some questionable things simply because they can do them.

    The Minox "spy camera" was considered something of a marvel for
    decades. It sold for a premium price and filled a specific need. Did
    it ever outsell Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or Olympus cameras? Not that I
    ever heard of.

    I think there were good, understandable reasons for that.

    --
    sw2U
     
    sw2u, Sep 9, 2007
    #12
  13. Doug Jones

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 05:41:58 GMT, sw2u wrote:

    > The Minox "spy camera" was considered something of a marvel for
    > decades. It sold for a premium price and filled a specific need. Did
    > it ever outsell Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or Olympus cameras? Not that I
    > ever heard of.
    >
    > I think there were good, understandable reasons for that.


    The small size of their negatives was a big negative!
     
    ASAAR, Sep 9, 2007
    #13
  14. Doug Jones

    Ron Hunter Guest

    sw2u wrote:
    > On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:31:10 -0700, irwell <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    >> 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
    >


    I agree that cameras, and cell phones can get TOO small. I can see the
    problems if the current trend continues. "Now here IS that darn
    camera?" "Oh, yes, there it is, the postage stamp was covering it up."
    Sigh.

    I think cell phones have already hit the minimum size, and rebounded a
    bit. Small is nice, but there can be too much of a good thing. The
    same certainly goes for cameras.

    BTW, I don't recall the Argus C3 being heavy, but then I was pretty
    young when I used one.
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 10, 2007
    #14
  15. Doug Jones

    Ron Hunter Guest

    sw2u wrote:
    > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:15:24 -0700, irwell <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 23:14:40 GMT, sw2u <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:31:10 -0700, irwell <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:09:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    >>>> 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?

    > (snip)
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> Yet the same criteria seem acceptable by the mobile phone
    >> users?

    >
    > The average age of which is probably well under 30, truth be known.
    > But even there, I think there's a point at which people will start to
    > turn away from overly miniaturized cell phones.
    >
    > I recognize that up to a point there's a certain "gee, that's cool"
    > factor to ever smaller technology packages, both for producers and
    > consumers. I've noticed going back years that designers and engineers
    > will do some questionable things simply because they can do them.
    >
    > The Minox "spy camera" was considered something of a marvel for
    > decades. It sold for a premium price and filled a specific need. Did
    > it ever outsell Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or Olympus cameras? Not that I
    > ever heard of.
    >
    > I think there were good, understandable reasons for that.
    >
    > --
    > sw2U


    I always felt the Minox B should have been sold at either the jewelry,
    or gun counters. The construction reminded me of both those areas. It
    had some rather special characteristics, and I had a LOT of fun with mine.
    I have always liked to take 'candid' shots, and it allowed me to get
    those pictures, often without anyone realizing that I had taken their
    pictures. Another type of 'spy' use, I guess.
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 10, 2007
    #15
  16. Doug Jones

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 05:41:58 GMT, sw2u wrote:
    >
    >> The Minox "spy camera" was considered something of a marvel for
    >> decades. It sold for a premium price and filled a specific need. Did
    >> it ever outsell Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or Olympus cameras? Not that I
    >> ever heard of.
    >>
    >> I think there were good, understandable reasons for that.

    >
    > The small size of their negatives was a big negative!
    >

    Yes, for the time, but the format is larger than the average P&S camera
    sensor, isn't it?
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 10, 2007
    #16
  17. Doug Jones

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:19:02 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

    >> The small size of their negatives was a big negative!
    >>

    > Yes, for the time, but the format is larger than the average P&S camera
    > sensor, isn't it?


    For all times. I'd guess that even "noisy" small sensor P&S
    cameras have much better resolution and at ISO 100 and ISO 200
    produce higher quality images than you'd get from the Minox. But
    even small digicams can't be smuggled into places that the little
    Minox suppository-cam could easily get into. :)
     
    ASAAR, Sep 10, 2007
    #17
  18. Doug Jones

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:19:02 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >>> The small size of their negatives was a big negative!
    >>>

    >> Yes, for the time, but the format is larger than the average P&S camera
    >> sensor, isn't it?

    >
    > For all times. I'd guess that even "noisy" small sensor P&S
    > cameras have much better resolution and at ISO 100 and ISO 200
    > produce higher quality images than you'd get from the Minox. But
    > even small digicams can't be smuggled into places that the little
    > Minox suppository-cam could easily get into. :)
    >

    Well, they weren't THAT small. Grin.
    And with fine-grain ASA 25 film, the pictures at snapshot size were
    quite detailed.
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 11, 2007
    #18
  19. Doug Jones

    John Turco Guest

    SMS wrote:

    <edited, for brevity>

    > At buydig.com the SD1000 is $209, and the A560 is $169. For $40
    > difference the SD1000 is worth it, IMVAIO.



    Hello, SMS:

    I've often wondered...what does "IMVAIO" stand for, anyway? :-J


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Sep 11, 2007
    #19
  20. Doug Jones

    John Turco Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    > sw2u wrote:


    <heavily edited, for brevity>

    > > 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.


    <edited>

    > BTW, I don't recall the Argus C3 being heavy, but then I was pretty
    > young when I used one.



    Hello, Ron:

    I bought a secondhand C3, in the 1980's; haven't used it, since then,
    though. Anyway, "sw2u" is half right...the Argus was fairly weighty,
    but, not large.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Sep 15, 2007
    #20
    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. Wayne
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    760
    Wayne
    Mar 2, 2004
  2. eddiec
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,095
    Zenner
    May 20, 2004
  3. c.reifert

    Actually, a wav question instead of mp3 question

    c.reifert, Dec 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,012
    °Mike°
    Dec 3, 2004
  4. Jørgen Gilberg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,191
  5. SPD
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,305
    Jørgen Gilberg
    Aug 13, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page