When the reviewer can't distinguish between a metal body and a plastic one - am I to believe he is competent enough to properly operate the cameras in question. The Olympus has a magnesium body. Magnesium is NOT plastic. I wish the review was done by someone with at least a modicum of believability!
I wish AnandTech included the Fuji FinePix F10 in this comparison. I believe it fits into this segment and, from the reviews I've seen, would have been a good competitor to this lineup.
Hi Stephen,
thanks for the great review, really shed some light on a lot of things for me. I've done some of my own research after reading your review, and one thing that I was wondering about was the "effective price" of these cameras if you include the difference in the prices of the media options. If Sony's memory stick format is significantly more expensive, this hidden cost is just as noteworthy as that of buying a car with lower MPG.
Another question I have is about the read/write speed of these cameras. In offering a high speed version of their memory formats, are they attempting to increase the speed at which the camera writes to its memory, or the speed at which the pictures can be transmitted from camera to PC?
Great review!
One question though: On page 2 it says the Sony T33 has (3.7V 680mAh) and on page 8 (3.7V 760mAh). I wonder if anyone else noticed this...
Im only learning this stuff myself.However the cameras strength is in the keeping the light it contains in one piece.Further processing,a computer,and the expense and knowledge for software necesary to do so is a considerable stake in this equation.If actual usage involves ignoring the cameras strength through them.
First with any of these cameras.You can take your photos perhaps to Walmart,or online developer and have them developed using its memory card...ok..
________ Comment..It about the Camera,not the format.
The reviewer sais that the 'Cannon does the best video.Then when you look,and you see that the video it produces is an .avi. Well .avis run on computer hardware,wich are built for computers.etc.
Just a look at the file sizes for the movie downloads from Anandtech article "An In-Depth Look at 4 Ultra-compact Digicams":
With the usage factors of each of these cameras of course the digital nature of the files allows the use of sending them over the web. The time for each file though differs for each format.Then as each movie for each camera is 11 seconds long. You can take your choice of criteria for scoring on this for each Cameras formats.
Noting the hardware you are paying for here.The processor that each camera utilizes usually isn't specified via an articles review.Being aware of what processing is necesary for each of these formats could lead me to think that perhaps the Sonys may have the strongest processor. Since .MPG takes a large amount of processing to 'encode. I have no idea of amounts of processing necesary for the .MOV formats created by the Nikon Coolpix,or Olympus IR-300.
You might take a hint from a Cameras format,as to the strength of its processors hardware then.
When the reviewer had stated the CannonSD400 make the best video.Its .avi format does in fact display the best full screen video.Then when you look at both the .mov Cameras the Nickon Coolpix,and the Olympus IR-300 with a smaller Window,these look exceptionaly good along with the Sony DCS-T33.*1
Then look at the neccasary equipment for playback of each of these formats:
.AVI,.MOV,MPG.
For both Cameras wich use the .mov 'Apples Quicktime application is necesary. Roll the software tv set up called 'Apple Quicktime to look at your cameras movies with your computer.
With .AVI,this is a fairly wide known format. Wich has been used for quite sometime in Windows. Windows Media Player,is the magic tube here. Usually .avis on a Microsoft Windows computer will have Windows Media Player onboard.
MPG..*2 It is only recently the .MPGs where a somewhat 'marketed computer format. I have onboard my Windows XPHome machine along with the Creative Audigy2 soundboard,a software player called 'Creative Media Source. The Sony DCS-T33 was 'processed via this player onboard my XP Windows computer.Few proprieties have available suites in wich to author,edit using the .MPG formats. With the exception of the very most recent offerings.
........
Guess what Im telling here. Is that a lot can be ascertained via the cameras 'formats. If the format is limited,or output changes with differing format. There are other creditials to consider for the camera.
The Cannon SD400 will require further processing to use for a DVD.And creates a large file,needing long times to communicate via the web.It will also require extra encoding to process it to DVD.
Both the Nikon Coolpix,and Olympus IR-300,are 'Apple format cameras.If you have a desire for quick transport,an Apple software player,(or Apple Machine Computer),or dont have a problem with a smaller windowed player. These cameras may do you well.Im not aware of any software suites wich can change .mov into usable DVD files.
The Sony wich utilizes the only MPEG seen from the review.Will probably look very good on Standard Resolution Screens.As well putting it onto DVD 'may be easier than those of the others seen from the review.
......
Finishing up here.I cannot first be satisfied that a camera is considered reviewed without considering what end result is also considered to be of that produced by the camera.It is highly likely that the procesing strength in the cameras are some better than others in its hardware.If you notice most all digital cameras will slowly max out at 7 Mpxls by dropping the use of video in them. Where consumers will not see a digital video camera until at last paying somewhere in the range of 2grand for a HD style camera to utilize those formats.
Also likely is that the sellers point is to maintain a propriety such as Apple,Microsoft,to be the users venture and expense.Wich should be noticed.
.........
To the poster here speaking of the JVC camcorder.If you notice only 1Mpixel of processor strength is used for photos in that device.While the rest of what processor strenght it has is used to create its files.
MPEG4 is 'around.But it is what an angel to a ghost can be mentioned between them.With a certainly usable transportable file.But very little if any editing available ,along with certainly proprietary commonalities between an end output file.And device destination. (MPG4 DVD ? Well I dont know ).MPEG4 is showing up with latest mini-hardrives for storage.
I'll note the review did not involve anything of the traits of the suites offered from each of the cameras.Or the ubiquity of whats involved in solving for them.The tested 'results,would deem what is used to solve for them when acertaining with different formats necesary in some instances.
*2 Note a lot of software playback Players can do many different formats.
*1 Recognize that a 'Display Resolution of a given screen usually only differs with a display controled via a computer.Up until very recently with the advent of DTV,and HTDV the typical resolutions for display of medias was only on a Standardized Telivision with limited horizontal,and vertical lines.The file formats composition ,and size is considered one of the criterion for scaling traits of it to the display via processing.
perhaps my point was more to the thought that if your intent is to 'retain/store' memories, then getting all excited about a camera as opposed to video is more or less a waste of time.
there are still plenty of good uses for cameras as opposed to videos.
so maybe just ignore my initial post, since the article didn't make any assumptions about either :)
your comparisons are flawed in that you're comparing completely different mediums, i mean a book and tv?? different 'styles/varieties' of things??
i'm talking about a photograph and a video, both use digial pixels (the review wasn't about analog cameras) to show the same thing. granted, digital pictures (based on the source object's price) are still better and cheaper then those from a video camera.
but i'm still willing to bet that if you look at a digital picture 20 years from now, and a digital movie 20 years from now (when we're older and more senile) you'll get much more of a 'flooding' effect of memories/emotions by seeing the video rather then a still.
a picture may be worth a thousand words, but a video is worth millions :)
granted, if all you want is to post ebay pictures however, no reason to spend more then $200 :)
Please excuse me, but your statement about photographs is either ignorant or an obvious troll. I suppose it is my roll to enlighten, and I also like to feed trolls, so here ya go.
Should we throw out pen and ink or paint and brush as well? Who needs a portrait when you can filter an image with photoshop to look like one and hang it on your wall, right? Wrong.
How about anime vs. american animation vs. computer generated movies?
Graphics novels? Books? Who needs that when you can watch TV ... /me supresses the vomit reflex.
Aside from art applications, photographs can concentrate the attention of a viewer on a single scene ad infinitum. Nothing changes, nothing moves, all focus is controlled in a still image. Motion and lighting and infinite detail can be described by one well taken photograph. All this may be lost in a video of the same thing.
And if you are talking about taking stills from a video being the same as taking photographs with a camera ... well ... let's just say we've got a while to go before video can come close to a nice camera for still images.
So that's my 0.02 USD. Sorry for the dissertation.
not sure why people still bother with cameras when you can have video. i mean what will be more impressive 10 years from now? a picture you took, or a video you took?
every since i bought my old Kodak DC240 (used) back in the day, i've had no need for another camera, been waiting patiently for a video camera worth buying, and now i've found it in the upcoming JVC Everio G series... http://www.jvc.com/presentations/everio_g/ 30 gig hard drives and no stupid media to mess with.
None of these cameras seem to get that soft lime-green colored square. Top right.
What IS the true color of that 'Engineering Bldg.?
_____________
Which,or how well do these cameras work to create DVDs. How to determine this.Wich propietor has the best software. Wich software suite works best with wich camera to do so ? [ ]
.........
Most reviews miss this aspect of features for a camera.I've read for example,codec articles,wich tell of specificities of 'formats,and playback. Generally what you do with your output depends on how you want to use it though.Then what playback device/medium is wished to use. Some formats do not work so well with creation of DVDs.Or authoring. Those wich are most ubiquotous will give you most satisfaction for your camera.
You might think that for example,that favorite movie you caught would be great to send to grandma. You can't capture it again though. However its an extra step to re-process the capture. So quality count of a good camera becomes the question of being able to edit from its usable format.What each uses,and how well it keeps the original intented quality for the use you want it to.
Some Cameras will use the MPEG4 format for example.However the utility of editing this format to DVD is difficult to find exact detail from any reviews. In trying to keep of what you see is what you have using the Camera.
You link for the Sony movie clip is broken. You've got a ".jpg" at the end of the file name. The Canon looks pretty nice, though I'm still holding out for SLR. Give me a few more months....
number 21 it is possible i actually took a hard looka t my camera as well nikon sometimes uses diffrent metals in there cameras im speaking from my experiance using there profresional cameras and they feel plastic but i did open the bettery lid and its a pretty thick metal shell. But you are right it defenately feels diffrent from the sont and cannon. the sony is brushed stainless teel i belive and is ver hard. the canon sd400 feels great its a small and dense feeling camera. they are very diffrent and when compared to the feel of these cameras it deos feel as if it were plastic but compare it to your mouse of keybaord or some sort of video game controller and youll see its a wierd metal.
#19, thats interesting. The sample we reviewed definitely felt like plastic and made a plastic sound when I tapped on the shell with my fingernail. It felt nothing like the solid metal of the SD400 or the T33. It didn't even feel cool to the touch after leaving it in air-conditioning like metal should. Perhaps the body is made of a very thin metal surrounded by plastic. Either that or you and I received different versions.
That Canon SD400 certainly looks very nice, not as high a resolution as the top-end SD500 but a bit smaller and lighter than it which is important to me. If I needed a replacement camera, that would be the one I'd go for.
It's worth noting that in the UK (and maybe other countries) the Canon SD400 is called the Canon IXUS 50, but apart from the name is otherwise identical.
the nikon is made with an all metal body if you want to refrence that see Http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25529
the bottom of the page says in bold compact super slim metal body. i know this also because i own one.
my friend has a SD400 weve done all the posible real life senario test possible night time shooting in clubs both get the same exact looking prints some small discrepensies in color cast in the pictures but other then that same performance on both awsome cameras. one thing this article didnt mention is the annoying yellow cast in all the sony t33 pictures sony may advertise 1000+ shots for the t33 but with flash and normal usage checking you pics and that kinda stuff maybe 100 - 150 shots on one baterry. i had the t33 and returned it when i took a picture of the best buy roof only to find it looking extremly orange.
Been in the market for a camera for a while and was considering the digital rebel xt for quality concerns. After I read this review, I decided that the quality wouldn't be that different, so I ran out and bought the SD400. Thanks for the great review.
excellent review...i'd been waiting for a full sd400 review, also just wanted to say that your selection of Duke for your sample pictures was an excellent choice.
As a long-time Canon customer, no surprise here. Right now, Canon makes the best consumer-level digicams period. Sony may be close to catching up, and Nikon may have been the shizznit a few years ago, but right now Canon has a considerable lead.
I really want to get the SD400...but I'm wondering if I should hold out for a newer Canon with wifi.
I've been really impressed with Canon's pocket cameras, I bought their Ixus 500 (the European version of the SD500 I think) as I wanted a camera I could keep in my pocket and have with me all the time, as much as I like my big Fuji it's simply to o big to carry over my shoulder all the time. It's great it takes CF cards, so it can share with the Fuji plus it doesn't leave me regretting too much that I didn't take the Fuji.
The build quality does feel good but it's really let me down recently, there's a little bit of plastic which broke on the door which holds the memory card door shut, so the camera has had to go back for repair - really missed having it to hand while out at the weekend, looking forward to getting it back.
I agree -- great review. However, I was a bit disappointed to see that the Panasonic FX-7 was left out of the review. It's a similarly-priced 5MP ultracompact that has some of the best resolution and color reproduction I've seen. Also comes with optical image stabilization, which i can't say for the other cameras here. I understand that you can't review every ultracompact, but I think the FX-7 beats the SD400 in terms of image quality any day.
Still strikes me as a bit odd for a PC hardware site to be reviewing cameras but that's a pretty decent review. I still prefer the Canon image clarity and quality even though the images are slightly 'cooler' in color.
You've also beaten DPReview to a Full Review, so props for that. :)
I liked my SD300 & S400 till I got my hands on my friends Nikon D70 SLR. Wow. The difference is amazing. The shutter sound is like manly. As well as the focus, is far better. I truly think the 100% price increase is worth it :). canon's SD series is still great though.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
35 Comments
Back to Article
dooner - Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - link
When the reviewer can't distinguish between a metal body and a plastic one - am I to believe he is competent enough to properly operate the cameras in question. The Olympus has a magnesium body. Magnesium is NOT plastic. I wish the review was done by someone with at least a modicum of believability!J Borsh - Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - link
I wish AnandTech included the Fuji FinePix F10 in this comparison. I believe it fits into this segment and, from the reviews I've seen, would have been a good competitor to this lineup.golive - Monday, July 25, 2005 - link
Hi Stephen,thanks for the great review, really shed some light on a lot of things for me. I've done some of my own research after reading your review, and one thing that I was wondering about was the "effective price" of these cameras if you include the difference in the prices of the media options. If Sony's memory stick format is significantly more expensive, this hidden cost is just as noteworthy as that of buying a car with lower MPG.
Another question I have is about the read/write speed of these cameras. In offering a high speed version of their memory formats, are they attempting to increase the speed at which the camera writes to its memory, or the speed at which the pictures can be transmitted from camera to PC?
thanks again!
George
Jazic - Saturday, July 23, 2005 - link
Great review!One question though: On page 2 it says the Sony T33 has (3.7V 680mAh) and on page 8 (3.7V 760mAh). I wonder if anyone else noticed this...
stephencaston - Sunday, July 24, 2005 - link
Jazic,It is supposed to be 680mAh, I've corrected the mistake on page 8. Thanks!
Stephen
Tujan - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
Wanted to add to my previous comment.Im only learning this stuff myself.However the cameras strength is in the keeping the light it contains in one piece.Further processing,a computer,and the expense and knowledge for software necesary to do so is a considerable stake in this equation.If actual usage involves ignoring the cameras strength through them.
First with any of these cameras.You can take your photos perhaps to Walmart,or online developer and have them developed using its memory card...ok..
________ Comment..It about the Camera,not the format.
The reviewer sais that the 'Cannon does the best video.Then when you look,and you see that the video it produces is an .avi. Well .avis run on computer hardware,wich are built for computers.etc.
Just a look at the file sizes for the movie downloads from Anandtech article "An In-Depth Look at 4 Ultra-compact Digicams":
Cannon PowerShot SD400 19 MB .AVI
Nikon Coolpix 6.48 MB .Mov
Olympus IR-300 5.11 MB .Mov
Sony DCS-T33 14.11 MB .MPG
With the usage factors of each of these cameras of course the digital nature of the files allows the use of sending them over the web. The time for each file though differs for each format.Then as each movie for each camera is 11 seconds long. You can take your choice of criteria for scoring on this for each Cameras formats.
Noting the hardware you are paying for here.The processor that each camera utilizes usually isn't specified via an articles review.Being aware of what processing is necesary for each of these formats could lead me to think that perhaps the Sonys may have the strongest processor. Since .MPG takes a large amount of processing to 'encode. I have no idea of amounts of processing necesary for the .MOV formats created by the Nikon Coolpix,or Olympus IR-300.
You might take a hint from a Cameras format,as to the strength of its processors hardware then.
When the reviewer had stated the CannonSD400 make the best video.Its .avi format does in fact display the best full screen video.Then when you look at both the .mov Cameras the Nickon Coolpix,and the Olympus IR-300 with a smaller Window,these look exceptionaly good along with the Sony DCS-T33.*1
Then look at the neccasary equipment for playback of each of these formats:
.AVI,.MOV,MPG.
For both Cameras wich use the .mov 'Apples Quicktime application is necesary. Roll the software tv set up called 'Apple Quicktime to look at your cameras movies with your computer.
With .AVI,this is a fairly wide known format. Wich has been used for quite sometime in Windows. Windows Media Player,is the magic tube here. Usually .avis on a Microsoft Windows computer will have Windows Media Player onboard.
MPG..*2 It is only recently the .MPGs where a somewhat 'marketed computer format. I have onboard my Windows XPHome machine along with the Creative Audigy2 soundboard,a software player called 'Creative Media Source. The Sony DCS-T33 was 'processed via this player onboard my XP Windows computer.Few proprieties have available suites in wich to author,edit using the .MPG formats. With the exception of the very most recent offerings.
........
Guess what Im telling here. Is that a lot can be ascertained via the cameras 'formats. If the format is limited,or output changes with differing format. There are other creditials to consider for the camera.
The Cannon SD400 will require further processing to use for a DVD.And creates a large file,needing long times to communicate via the web.It will also require extra encoding to process it to DVD.
Both the Nikon Coolpix,and Olympus IR-300,are 'Apple format cameras.If you have a desire for quick transport,an Apple software player,(or Apple Machine Computer),or dont have a problem with a smaller windowed player. These cameras may do you well.Im not aware of any software suites wich can change .mov into usable DVD files.
The Sony wich utilizes the only MPEG seen from the review.Will probably look very good on Standard Resolution Screens.As well putting it onto DVD 'may be easier than those of the others seen from the review.
......
Finishing up here.I cannot first be satisfied that a camera is considered reviewed without considering what end result is also considered to be of that produced by the camera.It is highly likely that the procesing strength in the cameras are some better than others in its hardware.If you notice most all digital cameras will slowly max out at 7 Mpxls by dropping the use of video in them. Where consumers will not see a digital video camera until at last paying somewhere in the range of 2grand for a HD style camera to utilize those formats.
Also likely is that the sellers point is to maintain a propriety such as Apple,Microsoft,to be the users venture and expense.Wich should be noticed.
.........
To the poster here speaking of the JVC camcorder.If you notice only 1Mpixel of processor strength is used for photos in that device.While the rest of what processor strenght it has is used to create its files.
MPEG4 is 'around.But it is what an angel to a ghost can be mentioned between them.With a certainly usable transportable file.But very little if any editing available ,along with certainly proprietary commonalities between an end output file.And device destination. (MPG4 DVD ? Well I dont know ).MPEG4 is showing up with latest mini-hardrives for storage.
I'll note the review did not involve anything of the traits of the suites offered from each of the cameras.Or the ubiquity of whats involved in solving for them.The tested 'results,would deem what is used to solve for them when acertaining with different formats necesary in some instances.
*2 Note a lot of software playback Players can do many different formats.
*1 Recognize that a 'Display Resolution of a given screen usually only differs with a display controled via a computer.Up until very recently with the advent of DTV,and HTDV the typical resolutions for display of medias was only on a Standardized Telivision with limited horizontal,and vertical lines.The file formats composition ,and size is considered one of the criterion for scaling traits of it to the display via processing.
araczynski - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
perhaps my point was more to the thought that if your intent is to 'retain/store' memories, then getting all excited about a camera as opposed to video is more or less a waste of time.there are still plenty of good uses for cameras as opposed to videos.
so maybe just ignore my initial post, since the article didn't make any assumptions about either :)
araczynski - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
DW:your comparisons are flawed in that you're comparing completely different mediums, i mean a book and tv?? different 'styles/varieties' of things??
i'm talking about a photograph and a video, both use digial pixels (the review wasn't about analog cameras) to show the same thing. granted, digital pictures (based on the source object's price) are still better and cheaper then those from a video camera.
but i'm still willing to bet that if you look at a digital picture 20 years from now, and a digital movie 20 years from now (when we're older and more senile) you'll get much more of a 'flooding' effect of memories/emotions by seeing the video rather then a still.
a picture may be worth a thousand words, but a video is worth millions :)
granted, if all you want is to post ebay pictures however, no reason to spend more then $200 :)
DerekWilson - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
araczynski ...Please excuse me, but your statement about photographs is either ignorant or an obvious troll. I suppose it is my roll to enlighten, and I also like to feed trolls, so here ya go.
Should we throw out pen and ink or paint and brush as well? Who needs a portrait when you can filter an image with photoshop to look like one and hang it on your wall, right? Wrong.
How about anime vs. american animation vs. computer generated movies?
Graphics novels? Books? Who needs that when you can watch TV ... /me supresses the vomit reflex.
Aside from art applications, photographs can concentrate the attention of a viewer on a single scene ad infinitum. Nothing changes, nothing moves, all focus is controlled in a still image. Motion and lighting and infinite detail can be described by one well taken photograph. All this may be lost in a video of the same thing.
And if you are talking about taking stills from a video being the same as taking photographs with a camera ... well ... let's just say we've got a while to go before video can come close to a nice camera for still images.
So that's my 0.02 USD. Sorry for the dissertation.
araczynski - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link
not sure why people still bother with cameras when you can have video. i mean what will be more impressive 10 years from now? a picture you took, or a video you took?every since i bought my old Kodak DC240 (used) back in the day, i've had no need for another camera, been waiting patiently for a video camera worth buying, and now i've found it in the upcoming JVC Everio G series... http://www.jvc.com/presentations/everio_g/ 30 gig hard drives and no stupid media to mess with.
forget the cameras, that's so... 90's ;)
stephencaston - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link
Thanks for catching that Jarred, I've fixed it now.Tujan - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link
None of these cameras seem to get that soft lime-green colored square. Top right.What IS the true color of that 'Engineering Bldg.?
_____________
Which,or how well do these cameras work to create DVDs. How to determine this.Wich propietor has the best software. Wich software suite works best with wich camera to do so ? [ ]
.........
Most reviews miss this aspect of features for a camera.I've read for example,codec articles,wich tell of specificities of 'formats,and playback. Generally what you do with your output depends on how you want to use it though.Then what playback device/medium is wished to use. Some formats do not work so well with creation of DVDs.Or authoring. Those wich are most ubiquotous will give you most satisfaction for your camera.
You might think that for example,that favorite movie you caught would be great to send to grandma. You can't capture it again though. However its an extra step to re-process the capture. So quality count of a good camera becomes the question of being able to edit from its usable format.What each uses,and how well it keeps the original intented quality for the use you want it to.
Some Cameras will use the MPEG4 format for example.However the utility of editing this format to DVD is difficult to find exact detail from any reviews. In trying to keep of what you see is what you have using the Camera.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
You link for the Sony movie clip is broken. You've got a ".jpg" at the end of the file name. The Canon looks pretty nice, though I'm still holding out for SLR. Give me a few more months....Thatkid - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
number 21 it is possible i actually took a hard looka t my camera as well nikon sometimes uses diffrent metals in there cameras im speaking from my experiance using there profresional cameras and they feel plastic but i did open the bettery lid and its a pretty thick metal shell. But you are right it defenately feels diffrent from the sont and cannon. the sony is brushed stainless teel i belive and is ver hard. the canon sd400 feels great its a small and dense feeling camera. they are very diffrent and when compared to the feel of these cameras it deos feel as if it were plastic but compare it to your mouse of keybaord or some sort of video game controller and youll see its a wierd metal.stephencaston - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
#19, thats interesting. The sample we reviewed definitely felt like plastic and made a plastic sound when I tapped on the shell with my fingernail. It felt nothing like the solid metal of the SD400 or the T33. It didn't even feel cool to the touch after leaving it in air-conditioning like metal should. Perhaps the body is made of a very thin metal surrounded by plastic. Either that or you and I received different versions.PrinceGaz - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
That Canon SD400 certainly looks very nice, not as high a resolution as the top-end SD500 but a bit smaller and lighter than it which is important to me. If I needed a replacement camera, that would be the one I'd go for.It's worth noting that in the UK (and maybe other countries) the Canon SD400 is called the Canon IXUS 50, but apart from the name is otherwise identical.
Thatkid - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
the nikon is made with an all metal body if you want to refrence that see Http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25529the bottom of the page says in bold compact super slim metal body. i know this also because i own one.
my friend has a SD400 weve done all the posible real life senario test possible night time shooting in clubs both get the same exact looking prints some small discrepensies in color cast in the pictures but other then that same performance on both awsome cameras. one thing this article didnt mention is the annoying yellow cast in all the sony t33 pictures sony may advertise 1000+ shots for the t33 but with flash and normal usage checking you pics and that kinda stuff maybe 100 - 150 shots on one baterry. i had the t33 and returned it when i took a picture of the best buy roof only to find it looking extremly orange.
IceWindius - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Canon wins again, go figure. My A85 farking rocks, I love it!ShadowVlican - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
w00t canon wins again, happy i choose an A95rubikcube - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Been in the market for a camera for a while and was considering the digital rebel xt for quality concerns. After I read this review, I decided that the quality wouldn't be that different, so I ran out and bought the SD400. Thanks for the great review.R3MF - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
< owns a panasonic fx8, and loves it.sciwizam - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Nice, I just ordered a SD400 yesterday!bigpow - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Panasonic FX7 >> Canon SD400 & it's cheaperFricardo - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Heh. Just a day or two after I asked for an SD400 review you guys come up with this. Thanks.astralusion - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
excellent review...i'd been waiting for a full sd400 review, also just wanted to say that your selection of Duke for your sample pictures was an excellent choice.UNCjigga - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
As a long-time Canon customer, no surprise here. Right now, Canon makes the best consumer-level digicams period. Sony may be close to catching up, and Nikon may have been the shizznit a few years ago, but right now Canon has a considerable lead.I really want to get the SD400...but I'm wondering if I should hold out for a newer Canon with wifi.
Johnmcl7 - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
I've been really impressed with Canon's pocket cameras, I bought their Ixus 500 (the European version of the SD500 I think) as I wanted a camera I could keep in my pocket and have with me all the time, as much as I like my big Fuji it's simply to o big to carry over my shoulder all the time. It's great it takes CF cards, so it can share with the Fuji plus it doesn't leave me regretting too much that I didn't take the Fuji.The build quality does feel good but it's really let me down recently, there's a little bit of plastic which broke on the door which holds the memory card door shut, so the camera has had to go back for repair - really missed having it to hand while out at the weekend, looking forward to getting it back.
John
blwest - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
#4 both of those cameras suck more than the Olympus and would thus be a waste of time to review. A piece of %$@#$ is a piece of @#$#@.cheesus - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
I agree -- great review. However, I was a bit disappointed to see that the Panasonic FX-7 was left out of the review. It's a similarly-priced 5MP ultracompact that has some of the best resolution and color reproduction I've seen. Also comes with optical image stabilization, which i can't say for the other cameras here. I understand that you can't review every ultracompact, but I think the FX-7 beats the SD400 in terms of image quality any day.Larso - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Yes, great review. But it fails to recognize one weakness with the Canon SD400, that sharpness is lacking in the corners of the image (at wideangle).I decided to buy the camera anyway because of its excellent performance and nice case, and I'm extremely happy with it!
yacoub - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Still strikes me as a bit odd for a PC hardware site to be reviewing cameras but that's a pretty decent review. I still prefer the Canon image clarity and quality even though the images are slightly 'cooler' in color.You've also beaten DPReview to a Full Review, so props for that. :)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/
EdvardGrieg - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Nice review, but if you're looking at super compact cameras shouldn't including Casio and Pentax be required?Dennis Travis - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Great review. Thanks so much. It helped me make a desicion on which 5MP to purchace. Thanks again and keep up the great work.Jedi2155 - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
I liked my SD300 & S400 till I got my hands on my friends Nikon D70 SLR. Wow. The difference is amazing. The shutter sound is like manly. As well as the focus, is far better. I truly think the 100% price increase is worth it :). canon's SD series is still great though.sprockkets - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
those canons are niceI first saw how fast they can take pics opposed to my older nikon, I couldn't believe it. Oh well, there is a reason for me to upgrade...