Powershot or other Choice for Small Back-up

[gemtracker]

I'd love a SMALL Canon digital for walking around and as a back-up camera. prefer something small enough for carrying in my pocket. My Powershot 430 has been taken over by my S.O. Don't want to break the bank but looking for suggestions. The PS 600 series look very nice. Appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.

[Jon]

I use an A620 for that role; only marginally pocketable, though. Maybe the A4xx or A5xx series? Smaller, cheaper, and use AA cells, so you don't need a second dedicated charger and set of batteries.

[fourteencents]

Don't want to break the bank but looking for suggestions. The PS 600 series look very nice.

Since you're looking for a camera that's both small and relatively cheap, you're already looking at the right cameras. I bought the SD600 recently and love that it can travel with me without being a hassle.

You probably already know this, but the SD600 and SD630 are pretty much the same camera. The 630 is dressed in a sexier case and has a larger LCD, but no viewfinder. If you usually take pictures off the LCD, then you'd definitely like the 630. I bought the 600 over the 630 because I wanted the option of being able to turn off the LCD and take pictures using the viewfinder just in case. I bought an extra battery with the money I saved.

I don't think you can go wrong with either one.

[gemtracker]

I like your thinking on that and I didn't mention but everytime I browse in the store I keep coming back to that 600. I saw a very slick Casio but I have all the Canon software downloaded and can treat the 600 images just like I do my others. Thanks, Ed

[Headcase650]

I picked up an A540 for $160 befor christmas. Its smaller than the 600 series since it takes 2 AA's insted of 4 but the downfall is slower flash recycle times. It has all the manual controls so everything should be second nature. Image quality is pretty good, noisey at iso 400 and 800 but clean up nicely with noisewere. For me it was the smallest camera with full control simmilar to a DSLR and I didnt need the bling that comes with the 600 series like the swing out LCD.

[Advisor]

I just recently purchased the Canon SD600 as my Fuji F10 got dropped and didn't survive. I hate to say it but the Fuji hands down beat the Canon. The SD600 was very noisy in quality, slower than the F10, and not as easy to operate. The F10 I had was a great camera with very good image quality, especially in low light. The size of the Canon camera's are nice, but the image quality just isn't there in my opinion. I just returned the SD600 for the newer Fuji F30. Canon makes great SLR's, but am not too sure about their point and shoots after my experience with that one...:cry:

[Robukincan]

My old Nikon Coolpix that's 3 years old seems to generally take better pictures than my A630 for most situations (the manual controls on the A630 makes it good for 'up close' pictures but other than that...)

[JustShootin']

Because of the very compact size, I bought an SD 600 as a replacment for my four year old, 3MP Olympus. But make no mistake about it, when it comes to photo quality, the old Olympus will out do the 600 in every way. The 600 has lots of novelty features not found on the Olympus, plus it's faster, but for actual photo quality, the cute little Canon just doesn't have it. My Canon S2IS does all I expected it to, and I really like it, so I just took it for granted that the compact 600 would also do what I expected. I was wrong! I understand that all built in flash units are weak, and are prone to red eye, but this one is the worst I have ever owned on both counts. There's no hurry, but I will look around for another compact for "carry with me" use. But for now, it's back to the rather bulky Olympus.

[wayhow]

Everybody to their "own kick" I guess but for the life of me I do not understand the attraction of these "small, cute" Canons. Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the number one criteria for a camera be the end result? I use the A540 and could not ask for better images (outside of a dslr) from a camera. No, it is not as small nor as "pocketable" as some, but it will fit in a pants pocket, takes great pictures, has all the creative control anyone would want for an amateur camera and is extremely durable. I will stack it up against any Nikon, Sony or Panasonic p&s anyday.

[JustShootin']

Everybody to their "own kick" I guess but for the life of me I do not understand the attraction of these "small, cute" Canons.

I agree, I just thought being very small would make it so handy. But that means nothing what so ever, if the picture quality suffers, and it does with the 600! I read many personal reviews saying how great the SD600 was, but now I look back and believe they didn't really know a good picture from a bad one, and was really more interested in how cute the camera it's self was. I have also read where many, just like me, have bought them, only to be very disapointed in the results. Wish I would have read those first. But hey, I can switch the colors of objects with the 600. Yippie!:confused: