Should I buy a Canon PowerShot Pro1?

Hi guys...

I was going through the local classifieds and found a Pro1 for 75 bucks, I should be able to talk the guy down to like 50-60 bucks, if I want it...

I don't really need it, I just think it's kinda neat (a compact with an L lens!)...and it does time lapse, something I've been missing since the departure of my G7/G9 cameras. However, I read somewhere that it has a 100 shot limit on the time lapse function...is this true?? What's the playback frame rate on the time lapse? Playback resolution? (I'm trying to find this all out on Google, but having little luck).

In general, does the lens live up to the "L" hype? I mean it's a fairly ancient camera...should I even bother with this camera, given that I don't need it? (Basically, I only want to get it if it's a crazy deal on an excellent camera).

Thanks,
Tamas

I had the Pro 1 before getting my first DSLR. I loved the clear sharp images I got from it for landscape. Not sure if I'd call it "L" but it was an L of a lot better than the other P&S cameras of its day.

However, where it failed me was that it was extremely slow focusing. My grandkids were playing soccer in BC Place indoor stadium and I missed most shots because by the time it had locked focus the players had moved on. I cursed it big time and came away with very few infocus shots.

I gave it to my daughter and bought a 400D. She used it for quite a few years on vacations and family stuff until it finally just fell apart. She loved it.

If I could find one I'd buy one now for my wife or taking vacation pictures when I don't want to carry a DSLR.

Thanks...how did you like the high(er) ISO images out of it...the fact that it tops out at 400 and it has a CCD kind of worries me...from what I've seen, ISO 200 and above aren't pretty on it...and that's not very high...though I'm liking the fast lens...hmmm

I'll look thru some of my archived images later today and see if there are any high ISO shots in it. I had the camera about 6 months and mostly used it on a road trip to Southern California so mostly landscape and SanDiego Zoo. Probably not too many low light circumstances.

Some coincidence, I used to have a Pro 1 before getting my first DSLR too, it's a nifty camera... still have mine laying around somewhere. Later I upgraded to a 400D. Now I have a 5D2.

Ehh, I guess it's kind of ok up to about ISO200, but it's not really a low-light camera. It's great in good light though, and it has a built-in ND filter you can activate, so it was clearly intended for daylight shooting.

On of the Pro 1's cons is that it seems to eat up battery power faster than my old 400D, but maybe I just have an old battery. AF is obviously contrast-detect instead of phase, since it's mirrorless with electronic VF, so it's fairly slow. Oh yeah, the EVF is fairly low-res and has an awful refresh rate (lags), at least compared to a decent modern P&S.

CCD or not doesn't matter, choice of technology is irrelevant to the kind of performance level it can achieve, and some of the most expensive cameras in the world use CCD sensors.

WaltA wrote in post #15523597
I'll look thru some of my archived images later today and see if there are any high ISO shots in it. I had the camera about 6 months and mostly used it on a road trip to Southern California so mostly landscape and SanDiego Zoo. Probably not too many low light circumstances.

Thanks!

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #15523665
Some coincidence, I used to have a Pro 1 before getting my first DSLR too, it's a nifty camera... still have mine laying around somewhere. Later I upgraded to a 400D. Now I have a 5D2.


Ehh, I guess it's kind of ok up to about ISO200, but it's not really a low-light camera. It's great in good light though, and it has a built-in ND filter you can activate, so it was clearly intended for daylight shooting.

On of the Pro 1's cons is that it seems to eat up battery power faster than my old 400D, but maybe I just have an old battery. AF is obviously contrast-detect instead of phase, since it's mirrorless with electronic VF, so it's fairly slow. Oh yeah, the EVF is fairly low-res and has an awful refresh rate (lags), at least compared to a decent modern P&S.

CCD or not doesn't matter, choice of technology is irrelevant to the kind of performance level it can achieve, and some of the most expensive cameras in the world use CCD sensors.

Haha...I also had a 400D (XTi) and now a 5D2

Thanks...did either of you ever do any time lapse stuff with it?

Yes and no on the CCD thing...old CCD has never been synonymous with good low light performance...I think even going back 5 years, if I could choose a 5 year old camera with a CCD or CMOS for low light, I bet CMOS comes out ahead in low light situations in 9 out of 10 cases.