In a few words: not necessarily. Unfortunately, improvements to image quality are not that dramatic, though overall image quality is every bit as good as its predecessors. The S has slightly better dynamic range than its predecessors, and images taken at high ISO are a tad less noisy.
Honestly though, all things being equal such as proper exposure, few eyes would see a huge image quality difference between the three cameras. So how do you decide whether or not to upgrade from the S90 or S95 to the S? But there is significantly less chance for the camera to inadvertently slip out of your hands.
It has a nicely textured surface and new front and improved rear finger rests. So the wide end view is not as wide and the tele end is shorter too:. It is superior to G9X, but a half inch thicker:. For image quality, best consult the PowerShot forum.
Specs side by side comparison. DPReview roundup compact enthusiast zoom cameras. Also be sure to check Camera Labs reviews on best compact cameras. The buyer guides are quite frankly giving me a headache. Possibly because I don't see myself in any of the categories. I mean, I like landscapes, but what they recommend is, in my admittedly uneducated opinion, a bit of overkill.
I like Canons simply because I'm used to the interface, but was reading reviews of them and the Sony RX series when I came across a warning on lens quality, "Something we've noticed while testing all of the 1"-type enthusiast compacts is a large amount of variation in lens quality.
When did this become acceptable to the camera community? If it was prevalent enough to be noticed and addressed, why hasn't it been remedied, or the product boycotted until it was fixed?
If that has been the case, could you point it out please? An interesting modern equivalent to your old camera is the Nikon Coolpix P But it has an enormous zoom range which can be fun. The worst camera mistake I made was for my first real digital camera; I had "analysis paralysis", not knowing what I wanted or what I needed, and so I bought "the best" which was a very bad idea. It didn't work well out of the box, and I wasn't willing to spend the time learning how to use it. My next camera was a Fuji, which was very nice, producing great-looking photos with little messing with the controls; Fujis today still have this reputation.
Since then I use Nikon DSLRs, which don't produce such spectacular images out-of-camera but this does not matter since I do significant post-processing. My most recent Nikon is a D, which I bought on a whim when on sale, and it does just what I want it to do: but I knew that it would work well and didn't have any headaches or anxiety about my purchase decision.
Fair point. A "good" landscape will mean different things to different folks. Anytime you are curious about a particular camera the Sample Images tool on this site can provide samples that include a landscape or two -. To get to the camera enter the model name in the "Quick find" box.
Decide for yourself if that camera's landscapes are good enough for you. Wouldn't be the first time! Now that phrase makes a lot of sense. I am prone to that, admittedly, but have since done some more research and hands-on, so hopefully with new parameters I can narrow down the search. I tried a Canon 7ti and found the viewfinder a problem. As I wear glasses, I couldn't get the 'full view' at one time, more like I moved it around a bit to see what was in the frame, and that just broke my rhythm I guess you could say.
Without glasses it was unusable, so the viewfinder is out. I will, like I do with my S, use the live view entirely. What do I shoot? I thought long and hard about that and came to the conclusion I haven't a genre like so many of you.
I've seen some incredible photos here, but I really don't have the urge to take one type of shot. Definitely a generalist. I know that doesn't help narrowing the choices down, sorry. Image quality: ok, this is really puzzling me.
I've read a lot of reviews and commentary on a whole bunch of cameras, and am shocked that there are so many 'not great' cameras in terms of IQ out there and accepted by the folk here. Almost all of the compacts, as I noted earlier, have issues, I'm reading some mirrorless I believe cameras are good in Raw, but forget jpg, some kit lenses are bad not 'not as good as primes' but just bad. The lenses on the Panny and I believe were noted as soft or mediocre. So, any new thoughts? The Sony a with a proper lens maybe, but I still need to check what other lens are offered, and if they are remotely affordable.
I guess I should ask what is the best live view experience I can hope to get and work from there? I don't particularly want a dumbed-down control set, the more options the better so I can learn is my thought.
BrandX loyalty can definitely bias comments for a camera that happens to have a kit lens that is not tops. Which is understandable, BrandX may have attributes other than the kit lens that are top shelf. Almost all of the compacts, as I noted earlier, have issues, I'm reading some mirrorless I believe cameras are good in Raw, but forget jpg,. That is not a matter of soft JPGs. It's more about the default color tones. Folks sometimes say they want accurate color, but that is rarely true.
As accurate color can be quite dull. So it's up to each brand to try to gin up the JPG colors in a way that is pleasing to everybody. Which is mission impossible. With RAW the colors from the camera no longer count for the most part. Samples offered by owners have often had the benefit of post processing.
Which is why I recommend sticking to samples provided by camera reviews. I do understand that BrandX may be great in certain categories, it is just the odd refusal to admit the shortcomings.
Then again, maybe I see it differently as I really don't have brand loyalty? I've used mostly Canons, and been happy with them, but that wouldn't stop me if another brand introduced something incredible. I've been considering mirrorless a lot, given I can't effectively use a viewfinder. I think the only real negative I've heard about the is the lens can be soft at the wide end, but I cannot find untouched samples at the wide end to see for myself.
Clips are restricted to 30 seconds with playback over two minutes for fps clips or four minutes for fps clips. For all other movie modes, focus can be adjusted, either automatically or manually.
However camera noises may be recorded in the soundtracks. A wind cut filter is available for suppressing noise when recording movies outdoor with the other modes.
It enables the camera to detect different light sources, identifying tungsten lighting, flash and daylight. In mixed lighting, the processor will compensate for differences between them to produce more realistic and consistent colour reproduction.
The camera then selects the most appropriate scene type from 32 pre-sets and displays a colour icon indicating the type of scene detected and the lighting conditions. Face detection has also been improved with the ability to detect up to 35 faces in a frame and optimise focus, exposures ambient light and flash and white balance as well as applying red-eye correction, if required.
Advanced Subject Detection in the Smart Auto mode also allows the camera to identify a moving non-human subject, such as a pet, and keep it in focus and correctly exposed until the shutter is released. Motion Detection Technology automatically detects motion in the scene and causes the camera to increase the ISO or shutter speed to reduce the risk of blurred shots.
Built-in shooting effects are the same as those in other recent cameras and include monochrome, fish-eye, toy camera, super vivid, poster and miniature effects. The S also comes with a built-in GPS receiver that records location information in the image metadata.
Data can be logged at. The software bundle is also the same. Both are covered in the review of the PowerShot S Performance Despite the new sensor, image processor and lens, the review camera delivered similar image quality to its predecessor. Shots taken in bright outdoor lighting often contained blown-out highlights, although shadow detail was usually well recorded even when In most situations, colours were accurately recorded and saturation was well contained.
We noticed no improvements to the HDR mode, which was introduced in the S Tripod mounting is still required and subjects should be static to avoid blurring while the three shots that make up the image are recorded. Imatest showed JPEG resolution almost able to meet expectations for a megapixel camera, while raw files processed with Adobe Camera Raw 6.
Image noise became visible in test shots from about ISO on, although detail in shots was retained. This indicates superior noise-management to the average performance in most small-sensor digicams. Shots were printable at snapshot size up to ISO but at ISO contrast deteriorated and blotchiness increased at the expense of detail resolution. Flash exposures fared better than available-light shots, although shots taken at ISO were unsharp.
The flash also had insufficient power to provide correct exposures at the 26mm focal length with ISO settings below Lens performance was variable, with the highest resolution in our tests achieved at maximum aperture around the middle of the zoom range. The graph below shows the results of our Imatest tests. Edge softening was detected in the middle of the focal length range and could be seen in some wide-angle shots.
Rectilinear distortion was obvious at the shortest focal length setting but negligible from about 13mm on. Lateral chromatic aberration was also negligible at most focal length settings, although traces of coloured fringing could be found in some shots of high-contrast subjects. Close-up performance was competent, although the lens will only focus down to 3 cm at the 5.
At full zoom extension, the minimum focusing distance is around 50 cm. Digital zoom shots were sharp and less artefact-affected than we normally see but the limited dynamic range of the sensor tended to compromise highlight areas in contrasty conditions.
Auto white balance performance was similar to the S
0コメント