Canon A540 Review

[Archangel_GT]

I just read the review of the Canon A540.
In the review are described the following findings:

1. Not so good screen resolution ("Unfortunately, Canon skimped big time on the screen resolution").

2. Average macro shot ("The colors look good, and the subject has a "smooth" (somewhat soft look to it").

3. Average nightshot ("The night shot turned out fairly well, though there's more purple fringing than I would've liked").

4. Very poor higher ISO image quality ("ISO 400 and 800 shots have a lot of lost detail, so you probably won't be able to do much with those").

5. Mild to moderate barrel distortion ("There's mild-to-moderate barrel distortion at the wide end of the A540's 4X zoom lens").

And finally it is stated:
"...The Canon PowerShot A540 is a very good entry-level camera that has just a few flaws. The camera offers controls for both beginning and advanced users, it performs well, is expandable, and the photo quality is impressive for its class..."


OK...

Half of the ISOs are unusuable even ISO 400 at 4x6 prints.
There is redeye in the shots.
There is moderate barrel distortion.
Macro shots are soft. (By the way I think it is time to change that mickey macro shot since it is always in a white tablecloth with a white background and nobody can see how good a camera can capture texture detail behind the odject being focused).
There is purple fringing.
There is corner blurriness.
Sharpness on the A540 falls of on the left and right sides of the pictures (same like on the A620) and not mentioned in A620's and A540's reviews. In case it didn't happen to be noticed that then compare the photos already posted from the A540 and the A700. The A700 seems to have edge to edge sharp consistency compared to the A540.

So after all these how it can be concluded?:

1. that a camera with flaws like that can be considered that takes impressive photos?
2. that is very nice entry-level camera with a 6 Megapixel CCD, 4X zoom lens, and a 2.5" LCD display.
3. It's not perfect, but the positives far outweigh the negatives, so the A540 gets an easy recommendation from me.


What's the gain from the advanced manual controls when amatures and advanced users cannot use high ISOs to shoot because of the terrible noise?
A 6MP CCD with only 4MP being sharp is a plus?
A 4X zoom lens is an advantage? Almost all cameras now have 4X zoom.
A 2.5" LCD is a plus when stated: "Canon skimped big time on the screen resolution"
What are the positives that outweigh the negatives? The "My Colors" or the 640x480 at 30fps video?
Which are these positives that can outweigh the unusable ISO400 & ISO 800 pictures, the soft and smooth macro shots, the redeye, the non consistent edge to edge sharpness?

On what standards the conlusion is based?
It is not based first on image quality with low and high ISO's?
It is not based on macro shots?
It is not based on edge to edge sharpness consistency?
It is not based on redeye free indoor shots?
It is not based on minimum possible barrel distortion?

I also remembered now that when reviewing other cameras (except Canons) there were conclusions complaining about image softness. Back then Canon's sharp images were praised.
Now Canon's smooth and soft images are praised?

[Jeff Keller]

The A540, as a whole is a very good camera. I never said it was very noisy at high ISOs -- in fact, I said it was pretty good. Naturally the night shots will be worse since they have longer exposure times. The macro and night shots were average, meaning as good as other other cameras in this class. And said that corner blurriness was not an issue in my sample photos -- just in the test chart where it often occurs.

You have to remember what the competition is here -- I list them at the end of the review. How many of them offer a 4X zoom, manual controls, conversion lens support, good photo quality, a great continuous shooting mode, and a VGA movie mode? The total package is what really matters.

[Archangel_GT]

Hi Jeff,

You wrote in your review:
"ISO 100 isn't too much worse than ISO 80, and ISO 200 is still usable, especially with a little cleanup. Both the ISO 400 and 800 shots have a lot of lost detail, so you probably won't be able to do much with those".
Here you imply that images a at ISO80, 100 and 200 are acceptable and actually they are, but higher ISO400 and ISO800 are unusable.
You also wrote that ISO400 has noticeable grain and ISO800 is very grainy.
What is grain in a picture at High ISOs? It is not one form noise?
Do you really think that you must say specifically the word "noise"?
Even though you said it: "Using the night scene above, here's how the noise looks at higher ISO sensitivities"

As far as good lighting high ISOs are concerned I don't think that exists anybody to use ISO400 and ISO800 to take shots under good lighting conditions. So this seems to me as trick to make the A540's high ISO noise images not to look that bad.

As far as the rest of competition is concerned a lot of cameras now offer 4x zoom and if not the 1X extra zoom is not a good reason in order to sacrifice image quality.

Good VGA movie mode almost all cameras in that class now offer. The A540 has a limitation though to 1GB. Others are not that limited.

Conversion lens support...very few cameras offer in this class, but who will buy a A540 and start playing with conversion lenses? They can go straight to a better lens and bigger zoom camera.

Outdoor photo quality is ok (not forget the sharpness fall of on the left and right sides of images). Macro is average and low light ISO performance is only acceptable at ISO80, 100 and 200. There are other cameras with much better high ISO images (Fuji F10-F11, Olympus SP 310-320-350, Coolpix 5900-7900, e.t.c).

Continuous shooting mode almost all cameras in that class range from 1.7 to 2.3 fps. The A540 was tested with a high speed memory though.
"There's a brief blackout between shots on the LCD, though you should still be able to follow a moving subject".
That LCD blackout doesn't make a camera to have an excellent continuous shooting. The fast DIGIC II processor's performance is left behind by the poor LCD's blackout. Possibly you can shoot continuously but you will shoot other than the photos you really want because of the LCD blackout and if the camera lets you shoot while the LCD blacks out.


Anyway...
It is very honest of you though when you write:
"Don't just take my word for all this, though. Have a look at the photo gallery, printing the photos if you'd like, and then decide if the A540's photo quality meets your expectations".
And it is also very honest of me to have a different opinion than yours and express it straight through your website forum.

[bascom]

Archangel, what are the similar cameras in this class you think are better?

[Archangel_GT]

If you are into Canons then the A700 is better than the A540 in terms of noise and edge to edge sharpness. It lacks ithough mage stabilizer hopefully put on the next upgrade model and needed when you are zooming from 3X and up.
If you don't have brand preference generaly then I would say that you have the following choices (I list them not in some favorable order, just how they come to my mind):

1. Fuji F10/F11 (but they have intense purple fringing from some sample pictures I saw) but generally a very good camera and especially in terms of noise.
2. Olympus SP-320 (full manual controls, picture adjustment controls and image stabilizer, relatively low noise) if you like the design.
3. Nikon Coolpix P3/P4 (not completely full manual controls, picture adjustment controls, image stabilizer, relatively low noise), but I think the 5900/7900 were the best in terms of image quality of all compact Coolpixes.
4. Panasonic LS2 (one of my 5MP favorites along with the Coolpix 5900).

This is my personal opinion so far with the existing compact cameras in the market.

Regards

Archangel_GT
@ http://www.coolpix7900.com

[bascom]

In general, I agree that's a list of good point and shoots but to me most of those don't seem like peers of the A540 or they are hard to find due to their age:

-A700: Yes this is better than the A540 but it's the top-end of the A series so it should be better. The reviews I read said it's only slightly better. If you like the A700, then it seems like you should like the A540 for $50 less.
-Fuji F10/F11: These are good and the review here said they were, but they are over a year old. They are hard to find for sale now espec in the USA where the F11 was never offered.
-Nikon 5900/7900: These are good and the review here said they were, but they are over a year old. They are hard to find for sale now. The review here compared them to the Canon SD series not the A series because they are so small. Maybe these aren't in the same class as the A540 due to their size and age?
-Nikon P3/P4: These are good from the reviews I read but their retail price is 450/400 USD which is quite a lot more than the A540 at 300 USD.
-Olympus SP-320 : This is the new verision of the SP-310 from last year. I haven't seen any SP-320 review yet but for the SP-310 Steve's says it has poor shooting performance and short battery life. Is the SP-320 any better? If not then it doesn't sound as good as the A540.
-Pana LS2 - Sounds like a good low-cost camera (200 USD) but it has no VF, only has EC and WB controls, and I think is below the A540 level. It sounds like it compares more closely to the Canon A430.

Summary:
-5900/7900 and F10/F11: good A540 alternatives but they are early 05 models and hard to find now.
-A700 and P3/P4: above the A540 in cost and quality
-LS2: below the A540 in cost and quality
-SP-320: no reviews yet but SP-310 didn't sound good

[Archangel_GT]

Generally, it would be a good idea to wait a while.
Currently things look like that almost all companies dropped the Megapixels and quality a little.
From what I saw most newer compact models suffer from edge to edge sharpness. This is more intense on Canon, Sony new models.
The A700 is tack sharp from edge to edge though. Some reviews reported sluggish flash recharge times, not so good LCD resolution and some other very minor problems. Hopefully the A700 upgrade will have image stabilizer and correct some of the other minor dificiencies.
Keep in mind though that not all newer or upgraded models are better than the old ones.
Also reviews are there to give a general idea about the camera and not to manipulate peoples' mind (this is my personal opinion since I've seen a lot of Brand preference and big judgement discrepancies between very similar images came out from different cameras).
I don't know where you live, but here in Greece I can find everything instantly from new to even 3-4 year old models. That is the reason I suggested you also some older models.

Anyway, I wish you good luck whatever your choice will be.

Archangel_GT
@ http://www.coolpix7900.com