Canon Powershot E1 reviewed: a little style, not so much substance

The Canon PowerShot E1 -- an entry-level 10 megapixel digital camera we saw a while back -- variously described as being aimed at "women" and "on-the-go, fashion-conscious teens perfect for capturing every OMG moment" has gotten itself a review over at Photography Blog, and well, it's not exactly anything to "OMG" about. This addition to the PowerShot clan gets a few points for its retro stylings, but the build makes it feel even more like a cheap toy than other plastic models. As for image quality, the E1 predictably packs too many pixels for its sensor, resulting in photos with good resolution, but noise and smearing in anything with fine details. It does, however, get better then expected marks on video quality. Essentially, the PowerShot E1 is called out for being a pricier, updated design of the PowerShot A580, with improved macro and video modes, plus the addition of infinity focus. While the reviewer seems wary of recommending the camera to any adult, they are willing to concede that the it "could still make a good first camera for a child." Wow, burn. It's available now in white, cyan and girlish pink (from the press release, sorry), and retails for about $183.

[htd @ Nov 6th 2008 5:02PM]

'chubby girl'

[The Number 1 Cubs Fan @ Nov 6th 2008 5:02PM]

One word: Ugly.

[gad get @ Nov 6th 2008 5:14PM]

Two words: very ugly.

[StalematE @ Nov 6th 2008 6:35PM]

two words made into one word, fugly.

[KAIKAI @ Nov 6th 2008 5:02PM]

sorry im not 4 i dont like the color :(

[BJ is Gooder @ Nov 6th 2008 5:24PM]

LoLz! OMG! I wuz totally gonna say the same thing...

Sorry, I don't have anything personal against kaikai, but I do have a general aversion to people that can't type complete sentences.

[KAIKAI @ Nov 6th 2008 5:28PM]

im sorry bj
i figured full sentences were not a requirement for the internet :(

[BJ is Gooder @ Nov 6th 2008 5:32PM]

No problem, as long as you truly are wearing a sad face. :)

[FLaSHBaCK @ Nov 6th 2008 5:21PM]

I think the label is wrong shouldn't the camera say "FisherPrice" on it?

[computer.dude.28 @ Nov 6th 2008 5:21PM]

It looks like a toy one would give to a 4 year old.

[Lowest Ranked @ Nov 6th 2008 6:49PM]

Well. That was original.

[Stefan @ Nov 6th 2008 5:38PM]

Wow the ugliest camera i saw in my entire life and i'm not young

[MarbleMind @ Nov 6th 2008 5:42PM]

Well, well, looks like we've come a very long way since I've purchased my G3 in spring 2003, which still happens to be my main camera (yeah, I don't photograph much and no, I don't care for resolution), hence I didn't really follow the trends.

Back then, $183 bought you... I don't know, maybe a 1.3 MP Hewlett-Packard camera with CMOS sensor, fix-focus plastic lens, producing blurry images with yucky, washed-out colors? Details and sharpness weren't the issue, *everything* looked bad, and most definitely not only in the lowest price class. I still remember myself looking at the results several chubby"professional" class Sony cameras with elaborate optics, from before '03, being in total disbelief about the appalling fact any random disposable camera could easily surpass them in terms of image quality (under normal conditions).

But oh gee, I'm getting sentimental. I don't care for the pastel-baby-color design, but apart from the pictures being a good bit more grainy and mushy than what I get from my G3, I must confess I don't think they look that bad. And if that quality is really only to satisfy a child, not even one that has (already) developped some photographic ambitions, I really, REALLY feel like a Neanderthal.
A Neanderthal, still having the picture of that atrocious red-yellowish Fisherprice camera carved in one of his mental stone boards.

[Valicore @ Nov 6th 2008 5:58PM]

Girlish pink? Oh yeah I'm hella getting that one, even if i would prefer manish Pink. Seriously though, I'm getting sick of manufacturers releasing supposedly 20 bagillion megapixel cameras like that's the only thing that matters.

[Jinto @ Nov 6th 2008 6:01PM]

I think the color makes it even uglier than it really is.

[Greg Mcp @ Nov 6th 2008 6:03PM]

It seems like a classic mistake that manufacturers make.
Go all out on the surface design, aiming to be cool in some way, but then not bothering to make the product actually good.

[MarbleMind @ Nov 6th 2008 6:39PM]

I hear you, man, I really do. Every time I hear laymen ignorantly babble about the "importance" of resolution, I'm instantly reminded of the in my book absolutely legendary Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1. Even for 2003, the 2 megapixel CCD was puny, and here certainly not just from a laymen point of view. It was just enough for 4"x6" and maybe 5"x7.5" printouts.
But DAMN. Did these printouts look GOOD. High contrast, rich colors, excellent sharpness, just about everything you would expect from a photograph that simply looks nice, thanks to a large, very high quality CCD and a generously big Leica fast lens. Oh, and it had a 12x optical zoom thrown in for good measure.

Price of all the goodness? A mere $449.

Did anyone aside from experts give a bloody darn? You guessed it.

Panasonic illustrated a big point. Possibly the most important one ever made in history of digital photography. Sadly, people were too busy celebrating the release of the first 5 mpx cameras to notice.

That's why we will have a ton of 80 mpx cameras with pinhead sized CCDs and flimsy third rate glass optics with the diameter of a rat contact lens in only a few years.

[Lowest Ranked @ Nov 6th 2008 6:51PM]

Are you talking to the voices in your marble-headed mind again?

[MarbleMind @ Nov 6th 2008 7:04PM]

No, the voices have, as usual at this hour, already relapsed into silence (it's 1 o'clock here). After 16 hours of babbling, they become somewhat too exhausted to go on. I was (trying to) reply to Valicore.

[phanbouy @ Nov 6th 2008 7:45PM]

what the hell is with all these cougar banner ads? i thought we shipped Palin back to AK anyway

[Peter @ Nov 6th 2008 9:32PM]

It looks like it uses film. That was not a compliment.

[Knives_Out @ Nov 7th 2008 12:41AM]

it uses AA batteries .... hence it's not slim & sexy.

a lot of people out there like the ability to use AA batteries.

[yrag @ Nov 7th 2008 2:59AM]

Kinda seems like a "Hello Kitty' logo should be where the Canon logo sits,

[amit @ Nov 7th 2008 3:47AM]

All of the sudden, this camera gets many online reviews (designed for women by women, or for young people by young people, not sure what the most popular phrase is, surely not for Schwarzeneggers by Schwarzeneggers).
http://www.dprguru.com/?model=170018423&mfg=0

[MisterJom @ Nov 7th 2008 6:41AM]

It looks like something from the 1990s. (The Chrysler Neon)

[Wwhat @ Nov 7th 2008 3:46PM]

What's with canon all of a sudden? they pulled several good cameras and introduced nothing but shoddy point-and-shoots that are more bulky and uglier than before and have less options, and are using their old digic3 processor instead of their newly developed 4.
I wonder if that new company philisophy will also travel to their semi-pro and pro line, if so; say bye-bye to canon.