Canon PowerShot SD900 reviewed
By Cyrus Farivar 
posted October 8th 2006 8:41PM
posted October 8th 2006 8:41PM
CNET has just published one of the first reviews that we've seen of the Canon PowerShot SD900, the recently-released 10-megapixel camera that comes with a 3x zoom and a 2.5-inch screen. The site gave the SD900 a respectable 7.6 (out of 10) rating, but said while the cam was "heavy on style," it could use some work in the features department. Specifically, the review lamented the lack of manual controls (acknowledging that this is common on most point-and-shoot cameras), the weak f/2.8 to f/4.9 shutter speed, and its "noticeable fringing." However, CNET balanced the criticisms with praise for the cam's small size and good image quality, and concluded that the $500 SD900 is a "moderately fast shooter" that will produce some nice-lookin' snaps.
I know this isn't a camera site, but the "f/2.8" figures refer to aperture, not shutter speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture
"f/2.8 to f/4.9" does not refer to "shutter speed" (which C|Net says actually "felt quite responsive"), but to f-stop, the camera's lens aperture settings, which controls incoming light and affects depth-of-field.
Personally I think the SD800 looks like a more appealing camera, between its inclusion of image stabilization and wide angle zoom. I think I would take those two features over having a 10 megapixel camera (not sure when I'd be printing something so large that I'd even need that).
I'm sure the editor knew that f stop is the apeture. I'm sure he was just saying that 2.8 to 4.9 is slow, as in not letting enough light, forcing you to shoot with slow shutter speeds.
$500 and no manual settings?
Despite the unfavorable reviews it's been getting (and I don't agree with them, my images taken with the camera look great) the Samsung SD7 is a better value.
Manual controls, image stabilization, 10mp and a better control system. For $150 less.
Why does the "read" link not bring you to the CNet review?
I'm getting tired of all these camera stories. There should be an engadget photo.
Are you saying that digital cameras aren't gadgets? What the? Maybe we should have an all iPod engadget too, because some people get tired of iPod posts?
Logical.
For being a "stylish" camera, this thing reminds me of a mid-90s Ford Taurus.
"weak f/2.8 to f/4.9 shutter speed" lol
engadget - get better editors
"I'm sure the editor knew that f stop is the apeture. I'm sure he was just saying that 2.8 to 4.9 is slow, as in not letting enough light, forcing you to shoot with slow shutter speeds."
2.8 is considered very fast for a point and shoot.
Cnet reviews are pretty sorry when it comes to cameras. The place too much emphasis on features and too little, way too little, emphasis on image quality. They'll say a camera has mediocre image quality but since it has all these features they'll give it an editor's choice. Which doesn't really make sense to me.
Anyone who buys this camera is not going to need 10mp. Does anyone know if Canon has changed their image sensor in this? Cause I know the sd550 had problems handling the 7.2mp. I know the sd630 uses the Sony. I personally like the sd600. Not too many mp, and it stylish, and takes great pics.
get a dSlr, they beat p/s cameras to the moon and back..
I concur
dSLR doesn't fit in your pocket.
and to all the "no manual settings" folks.. this is geared at people who don't care about that. And frankly, I have my dSLR for that.
on the same note tho, I've made the mistake of paying too much for an ultra compact because I wanted it to fit in my pocket comfortably. just wait for it to knock itself down in price
Interesting timing on the article. I was just looking at the Canon A640 to replace our point-and-shoot Nikon 7900. We also have a Konica-Minolta Dimage A2, and it gets a lot of use, but it's nice ot have a smaller camera when you just get up and go.
And do I disagree with the sentiment that 10mp would be too much. There's never "too much". I wouldn't compromise image quality or AF speed for pixels, but all things the same, more pixels is BETTER.
Why? Well, because of the flexibility allows you *after* the picture is taken. The SD900 has a 3x optical zoom. Want to go in further? You can get 6x at 5mp, or 15x at 2mp (which makes pretty good 4x6). With a 7mp camera, you're limited to ~10x.
You also never know what format you're going to print later, so more pixels = more options. And who gets the composition perfect every time? Having more pixels allows you to crop for that perfect frame, and still have enough pixels to blow up to poster size.
I'm going to be upgrading to a 10mp+ camera in the next month, leaving me with a 8mp SLR like and a 10mp Point-and-shoot. When the 12, 15, 18mp cameras are coming, I will upgrade (as I did from the 5mp Dimage 7i to the 8mp Dimage A2). My kids are growing up fast, and I want to leave them a legacy of moment and memories that my childhood polaroids couldn't compare to.
vignetting all the way!