DSLR user wants pocketable compact

I agree, the A720 is one to look at. This pro selected it as his DSLR backup. http://www.bobatkins.c​om …ershot-a720is_review.html

Regarding shutter speed on compacts, you have to make sure you pre-focus (depress shutter button halfway to give camera a chance to focus). If you do that, it's not bad.

JustShootin wrote in post #5160530
=JustShootin';5160530]​Very high indeed. I wish I could help, but it seems you want SLR features in a $300 compact. Ain't gonin' to happen.

Gary

Actually, I don't. I already have two DSLR's and a film SLR. I'm looking for something small with a nice zoom. The features I listed are similar to the SX100 IS, I believe. I was hoping for input from someone using this type of camera, my current P&S is a Sony DSC75 with an f/2 Zeiss lens. It's not a bad camara but the shutter lag is horrible.

Thanks Reiheim, you seem to be the only one who understood my post.

I am not using this for sports (look at my signature), this is for indoor, kid related stuff. Noise in a 4 x 6 print at ISO 1600 will not be a problem for me(acceptable).

Tim Sheridan wrote in post #5168419
Thanks Reiheim, you seem to be the only one who understood my post.

Clearly you didn't read the link I posted. Here's an excerpt. It sounds pretty much like what you were asking, no?

I was recently looking for a small, pocketable digicam to serve as a backup for my DSLR system. I wanted something with full manual control of shutter speed and aperture (and manual focus if possible), something capable of shooting in low light (which means an image stabilized lens and high ISO capability), a decent zoom range, good image quality and a reasonable price.

As I described in another article, I decided to go with a Canon Powershot A720is based on the specs as listed below:

• Manual exposure mode
  
• Av exposure mode
  
• Tv exposure mode
  
• Manual focus mode
  
• Manual flash power control (3 steps)
  
• Exposure compensation +/- 2 stops in 1/3 stop steps
  
• Flash exposure control +/2 2 stops in 1/3 stop steps
  
• 35-210mm (equiv), 6x zoom lens
  
• Shutter speeds from 15s to 1/2000s
  
• 8MP CMOS sensor
  
• Optical stabilization system good for 3 stops increased stability
  
• ISO settings from 80 to 1600
  
• Pocketable size
  
• Price under $200

Audiobomber-
I did in fact read the link you posted, however it was after I had posted. I'm sorry I didn't repost to thank you also. The A720IS and the SX100IS are the two Canon models I am interested in. Do you have any experience with either model?

Tim Sheridan wrote in post #5173518
Audiobomber-
I did in fact read the link you posted, however it was after I had posted. I'm sorry I didn't repost to thank you also. The A720IS and the SX100IS are the two Canon models I am interested in. Do you have any experience with either model?

Thanks. What struck me about the Bob Atkins review was how closely it paralled your wish list.

I read the reviews and handled the SX100, but I chose the A720. The differences that favored the 720 were size, cost, viewfinder and capacity for adding convertors (zoom, macro, wide angle). The SX100 has a popup flash, but the 720 flash is slightly more powerful. The optical viewfinder was crucial for me. Sometimes you just can't see well enough on a screen. I took a photo using the OVF yesterday because I couldn't see the LCD in the bright sun. I find the OVF gives me more detail (e.g. facial expression). And of course holding the camera to your eye gives better stability, which is especially important when zooming. The only significant advantage I can see for the SX100 is zoom, but that can be a biggie depending on your needs and preferences.

I was looking for a dslr-like camera that was highly portable, and the A720 was the closest thing I could find.

Sorry, I really don't know of any pocketable cameras with your dimensions, but if you find one let me know as I will definately buy it! I think I would go with the new Elf series with IS.

audiobomber-
I'm pretty convinced the A720 IS will be great for what I want. Have you used ISO 1600? I'm thinking it will probably be OK for 4 x 6 prints, but others have said "it's unusable".

Here's a quick test shot using my sx100 at iso-1600. Its a bit underexposed, but I made no corrections, so its a valid test shots.
First image is right out of the camera, just resized. Second was run through NoiseWare Pro, then resized. It should give you and idea how a 4x6 print will look. I think its usable. Not great, but better than missing a shot entirely.

FYI: This was hand held at 1/15th, and zoomed to 18mm.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Didn't think with the first post, and already trashed the file. So, I snapped it again, to get 100% crops before & after NoiseWare. 1/13th now, since light was lower.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I believe these are resized to 5x7 (that's what they measure on my screen anyway).
ISO 80, tripod mount, Tv 3.2s, Av 3.5, Focal length 17.2mm, Tungsten wb.
ISO 1600, tripod mount, Tv 1/6s, Av 3.5, Focal length 17.2mm, Tungsten wb.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

ISO 1600, handheld, Tv 1/15s, Av 3.5, Focal length 17.2mm, Tungsten wb.
ISO 1600, handheld, Tv 1/15s, Av 3.5, Focal length 14.7mm, Tungsten wb, Vivid colour mode.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Mystified by megapixels

I was just thinking, these would look better printed at 5x7 than they would on a monitor wouldn't they? I think my screen is 120 dpi, and photo quality is 300 dpi?

I exported these images at 1152 x 864 pixels, but they're changed to 1024 x 768 here. Not sure why or what effect it has.

Print it and see. I find resizing to 1024 viewing on screen, and printing 4x6 show about the same amount of noise and detail. Thats why I posted that size. But, monitors and printers vary.

I think the A720 and SX100 have the same sensor, so noise is gonna be similar on the two.(I'm guessing). Neither is even close to a dSLR. If I pixel peep, the noise/detail-loss at ISO100 bugs me. I really wish they'd start upping the sensor size in P&S. Not dSLR size(lenses would need to be large), just something in between to help with the noise.

Price aside, what about the G9?

JC4 wrote in post #5186718
Print it and see. I find resizing to 1024 viewing on screen, and printing 4x6 show about the same amount of noise and detail. Thats why I posted that size. But, monitors and printers vary.

I uploaded at 1152, but the forum settings changed the size. I don't have a printer yet, but it's on the list.

What bugs me is that when they increase the sensor size, as in the G9 for example, they also boost the pixel count, thus ending up with better marketability but no real improvement in IQ. If 6mp is OK for a Nikon 40 or Pentax K100, why isn't it good enough for a G9?