I'm sorry I'm so confused now - I definitely want Canon

[nickels]

but what is the difference between the A95, A610, A620, G6 I know there are technical differences but what are the most important features to have? Is the DIGIC II worth spending more because I hear it is? Let's say which is the best value and produces the best shots for AVERAGE untrained eye.

Thanks to all.

[Rex914]

Of all those choices, the A610 is the best value. If you live in the US, you can pick it up for $250. You should't look at the A95 because of the DIGIC (I) vs. DIGIC II difference, and you probably don't need the 7 MP that the 620 offers. The G6 is good, but it's still only DIGIC I and almost costs twice the price of the A610.

[nickels]

The only one that has DIGIC II of those is the A620? Thanks for all this help ;0)

[JTL]

The only one that has DIGIC II of those is the A620? Thanks for all this help ;0)I'm sorry, but (buzzer sound here) you are incorrect! The A610 most certainly does have the Digic II processor!

[nickels]

thanks for pointing that out!

[elo]

You're getting some good advice here, but I wanted to mention just a couple of things in response to your original post. The main reason to pay for Digic II is increased speed. It really is worth it to have the camera respond so quickly to what you're doing. With a Digic II camera, you'll get some shots that you otherwise would miss. The processor can affect image quality, but only in a way that you probably won't notice, especially given that all the cameras you're looking at are quite good.

I very much agree that the A610 is probably the best camera for the money. For something so inexpensive, you still get an excellent Canon lens (no camera is better than its glass) and numerous manual features. It also does just fine as a point-and-shoot and has a pretty spiffy movie mode.

I do think you *might* want to consider the A620, but that depends on your needs. Many people say that you only need a higher megapixel camera if you plan to make larger prints, but there are two other reasons to think about getting one. The first is that you in essence get more zoom, as you will be able to crop to a smaller area of the picture with the A620 and still be able to print a clear picture. If you want to take pictures of subjects that are far away from you, more megapixels can help. The second reason is that the two cameras use different sensors, but I wouldn't suggest worrying about that one way or the other. The new 5MP sensor in the A610 seems to be more than holding its own. For your purposes, treat image quality as equal between the A610 and A620 and buy the latter only if you think, based either on the above or because you want to make large prints, it's worth the extra money. For me, it was.

I wouldn't look at the A95 now unless it were really severely discounted. The G6 is a great camera, but probably not what you're after. You can't go wrong with either the A610 or A620.

[nickels]

S2 is still hanging around - I'm really not into the manual camera thing but I think I could use the IS - it's a little too bulky for me but if the IS were worth it - I'd do it - But I am still thinking the A620 is def where I am headed with much thanks to all of your great advice!

[Vich]

Check out this chart:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13994&page=1&pp=10
and check out the sensor sizes for those cameras.

A Canon rep told me that Canon bumps up the sensor size when it gets to 7MP. Bigger pixels is good for noise. I wouldn't care about 5MP vs. 7MP, in fact would prefer the one that offers the largest individual pixels.

I also agree that faster put-to-shot response should be a determining factor if all else is fairly equal. Even if you don't think so; you WILL get frustrated with a slow response. The Digic II processor promises to help that.

[nickels]

due to the lag! DIGIC II seems like the way to go!

[Charlie4350]

The 610 takes an excellent pic. I just picked one up a couple days ago after researching til my head was going to explode. I really want the S2 for it's IS and ultra zoom, but couldn't get past the fact of the 1/1.8" ccd on the 610. Looking at the chart and drawing my own conclusions, it would appear I made a good choice.

[nickels]

how did you distinguish between the 610 and 620 then?

[Charlie4350]

Best I can tell given my quick research is that given the same size ccd the camera with less MP will give the better results, to a point anyway. After reading the forums and reviews, lower noise and better low light stick with me. I could be all wrong - I look at cameras when I need a new one, like now, and the old Nikon is just too difficult for me to get a clear shot. For me, I have no need for a 7MP camera, just want nice clear, detailed pics to throw on the computer, web, and still plenty of info for printing.

[David Metsky]

The basic idea is the for a CCD of a given size, the fewer megapixels you have the less noise you'll see. So, even though you have fewer pixels, they can produce cleaner images. Up to a point, you really won't notice the noise, but at the limits you can try to put too many pixels on a CCD sensor of a particular size.

At the Cannon SD500 and 550 level, they go up to a larger CCD for the 7.1 megapixel cameras. They take excellent images. Some have said that the SD400 images are noisier than the SD300. You have more pixels to play with, but you'll have to look at the images to decide if the noise is a problem.

-dave-

[Charlie4350]

At the Cannon SD500 and 550 level, they go up to a larger CCD for the 7.1 megapixel cameras. -dave-[/QUOTE]

Dave,
Wouldn't they be the same in the 500/550 & 620/610, 1/1.8" - or did I oversimplify. chuck

[David Metsky]

The SD500, SD550, and 620 all are 7.1 Megapixel and use the larger 1/1.8" sensor.

The SD400, SD450, and 610 all are 5 Megapixel and use the smaller 1/2.5" sensor. This CCD is also used in the SD200 and SD300.

-dave-

[nickels]

For me, I have no need for a 7MP camera, just want nice clear, detailed pics to throw on the computer, web, and still plenty of info for printing.

Charlie it sounds like you don't need anything "fancy" which I think is my hangup. We all want nice pictures and I am going from 2.3MP junk but don't want to overbuy. My only concern is that since budget is not a concern should I buy the A620 so I have the latest technology (ie. DIGIC II). I think of it how I buy my computers. I don't buy the $399 Dell Deals because I feel they will be obsolete in a year. But I don't need a $2,000 computer either.

My other hangup is the zoom. I have another post about the Fuji Discovery (my 35mm) which has an AMAZING zoom. I just want to make sure I don't get less than that. I feel like the zoom on the A line isn't enough but the S2 IS I really don't need the manual controls and it's a bit too bulky. I know I want Canon because if you check the manufacturer boards on here they are all TROUBLESHOOTING except for Canons! So I am at a standstill!

Thanks for listening!

[Charlie4350]

The 610 also has the 1/1.8" ccd according to Canon's site. That's the beauty of this thing.

This is the only thing that pulled me from the S2. If I had been making a purchase a couple months ago it would have been a nonissue. Always a tradeoff, but I couldn't spend the extra dough and get the 1/2.5" in the S2 vs. the 1/1.8" in the 610. I read too much of this forum and found out the 1/1.8 was better than 1/2.5" which was not what I originally thought. Perhaps I'm just silly because I see absolutely terrific shots taken with the S2 from some of the guys here

[JTL]

The 610 also has the 1/1.8" ccd according to Canon's site. That's the beauty of this thing.

This is the only thing that pulled me from the S2. If I had been making a purchase a couple months ago it would have been a nonissue. Always a tradeoff, but I couldn't spend the extra dough and get the 1/2.5" in the S2 vs. the 1/1.8" in the 610. I read too much of this forum and found out the 1/1.8 was better than 1/2.5" which was not what I originally thought. Perhaps I'm just silly because I see absolutely terrific shots taken with the S2 from some of the guys hereAll things being equal, the A610 will show less noise than the S2...but, at ISO 50 and 100, the S2 shows no appreciable noise at all and is even reasonably good at 200. Also, the reason you'll see more S2 shots than from the other Canons is that it is a more popular camera (could that excellent 12X lens and IS have anything to do with it, I wonder? :D :D :D )...and more people are shooting with it, thus a greater percentage of great shots for preople to post...

[Charlie4350]

Charlie it sounds like you don't need anything "fancy" which I think is my hangup. We all want nice pictures and I am going from 2.3MP junk but don't want to overbuy. My only concern is that since budget is not a concern should I buy the A620 so I have the latest technology (ie. DIGIC II). I think of it how I buy my computers. I don't buy the $399 Dell Deals because I feel they will be obsolete in a year. But I don't need a $2,000 computer either.

My other hangup is the zoom. I have another post about the Fuji Discovery (my 35mm) which has an AMAZING zoom. I just want to make sure I don't get less than that. I feel like the zoom on the A line isn't enough but the S2 IS I really don't need the manual controls and it's a bit too bulky. I know I want Canon because if you check the manufacturer boards on here they are all TROUBLESHOOTING except for Canons! So I am at a standstill!

Thanks for listening!

Nickels, You're right. I don't need anything fancy, and I'm not afraid to spend the dough either. Also like you, I'm moving on from a 2mp Nikon that's gotta be 5 or 6 years old. The 610 also has the Digic II and manual shooting like the 620. It's quick and an energy miser. For me, I just don't need the extra MP. And! as much as I'd like to fantasize about one of the beautiful DSLR's, in my hands it would be a waste. Lack of time and other hobbies.

[Charlie4350]

All things being equal, the A610 will show less noise than the S2...but, at ISO 50 and 100, the S2 shows no appreciable noise at all and is even reasonably good at 200. Also, the reason you'll see more S2 shots than from the other Canons is that it is a more popular camera (could that excellent 12X lens and IS have anything to do with it, I wonder? :D :D :D )...and more people are shooting with it, thus a greater percentage of great shots for preople to post...

JTL, You nailed it - the 12X and IS, perfect. I was a laydown on the S2 and then (unfortunately?) found out about the larger ccd on the 610 and felt shorted. Perhaps I got a little bit too much information for my own good.

The story may not be over. I purchased locally so if necessary I can go trade the 610 for the S2. There comes a point when you have to make a move, but I can't get the thought of zooming in on a moose during that occasional trip to Maine. Then, maybe a couple months away from the S3 with 1/1.8"? Isn't this fun.

[Balrog]

Well one thing you have to realize is that the reason the S2 can have that marvellous 12X 2.8-3.5 zoom is because of the small sensor. Increase the sensor size, and you have to increase the lens size (at least if you want to maintain any kind of decent aperture); increase the lens size and the whole thing becomes even more bulky.
I think the marginal increase in sensor size from 1/2.5 to 1/1.8 isn't really worth fussing over. Just about all point and shoots I've used so far look lousy at ISO400, passable at 200, and pretty good at 100 or below.

[JTL]

JTL, You nailed it - the 12X and IS, perfect. I was a laydown on the S2 and then (unfortunately?) found out about the larger ccd on the 610 and felt shorted. Perhaps I got a little bit too much information for my own good.

The story may not be over. I purchased locally so if necessary I can go trade the 610 for the S2. There comes a point when you have to make a move, but I can't get the thought of zooming in on a moose during that occasional trip to Maine. Then, maybe a couple months away from the S3 with 1/1.8"? Isn't this fun.Don't second guess yourself needlessly...the A610 is a great choice...and you can always get a teleconverter for added zoom if needed...:) A 1.7x tele converter would give you a 238mm equivalent lens...

[nickels]

that solves all of my issues except for image stabilization - which is an issue. I would think I need it - doesn't everyone? But obviously people are taking MANY great photos without IS - can someone please give their input on that?

Here's a picture of my English Bulldog with my 2.3MP Nightmare! This would have been a classic shot - I did crop it though and I certainly need a faster shutter speed and maybe IS because my subject moves so fast.

Thanks you have all been a great help. I plan on sticking around even after my purchase - I hope you don't mind :rolleyes:

[nickels]

little boys - I take about 100 photos a month. I used to have a manual Pentax years ago and I LOVED IT - someday when I have the time again I will have to get back into the manual side of things again. That's why it is so fascinating listening to all of the knowledge here. You are all VERY generous with your knowledge! I am so fascinated about all the flybys that you help. I do appreciate it!

[JTL]

that solves all of my issues except for image stabilization - which is an issue. I would think I need it - doesn't everyone?200mm is kind of like the "Rubicon" of focal lengths...crossing it without image stabilization, tripod or monopod takes a steady hand...but at 238mm equiv., I think most people would be o.k. Maybe someone else would comment...

And please stick around...this site needs thoughtful, contemplative individuals to help drive these discussions that others hopefully find of value. And hopefully, you will find yourself in a situation where you can help others as well. :)