Canon needs better cameras

[ProblemSolver]

Hi everyone. Recently, I bought an Ixus 700 (SD500) and it is G-R-E-A-T! Fast processing, great pictures (and movies) and the stylish body. However, I've been reading in the DCRP Canon forums and a lot of other Canon camera related forums, many people want more creativity - manual controls - (Thus, unable to accept the SD500) and need better cameras (such as the A520). Right ;) ?

With so many competitors around, I hope Canon releases better cameras in the future. The next A camera (A530?) should have, at the very least, 5x optical zoom and image stabilizer. The next S(-) IS should have 12x optical zoom and a 1.8" LCD (The S2 IS has a chance of having at least these two upgrades as rumours are increasing). I have no idea on whether there will be any G7 or S80 as they'll be entering dSLR 8MP territory but incase they do, 8 MP and 5x zoom would be great. Most importantly, all future Canon cams should have DIGIC II and unlimited VGA movies. Agree :p ?

Just my two cents

[EWins]

I think there was talk of the next successor to the S1 IS is supposed to get an upgrade in MP and a few other things but it already has a 10x zoom w/ image stabilization. It's already a good camera but it needs to be at least 5mp to be competetive.

[Rhys]

I think there was talk of the next successor to the S1 IS is supposed to get an upgrade in MP and a few other things but it already has a 10x zoom w/ image stabilization. It's already a good camera but it needs to be at least 5mp to be competetive.

I'm very happy with my S1 IS. Rather than extra (redundant) megapixels, it would be much better if they went and fixed the focussing problems.

[wolfgangk]

Hi everyone. Recently, I bought an Ixus 700 (SD500) and it is G-R-E-A-T! Fast processing, great pictures (and movies) and the stylish body. However, I've been reading in the DCRP Canon forums and a lot of other Canon camera related forums, many people want more creativity - manual controls - (Thus, unable to accept the SD500) and need better cameras (such as the A520). Right ;) ?

With so many competitors around, I hope Canon releases better cameras in the future. The next A camera (A530?) should have, at the very least, 5x optical zoom and image stabilizer. The next S(-) IS should have 12x optical zoom and a 1.8" LCD (The S2 IS has a chance of having at least these two upgrades as rumours are increasing). I have no idea on whether there will be any G7 or S80 as they'll be entering dSLR 8MP territory but incase they do, 8 MP and 5x zoom would be great. Most importantly, all future Canon cams should have DIGIC II and unlimited VGA movies. Agree :p

Just my two cents

1) Quick question: if you have the sd500 and really like it, why do you care what people in this and other forums are saying? Enjoy your camera.

2) Yes, every new Canon cam should have digic II. If the A95 and S1 IS replacement still use DIGIC, their will be many dissapointed people out there.

[sveet]

1) Quick question: if you have the sd500 and really like it, why do you care what people in this and other forums are saying? Enjoy your camera.

2) Yes, every new Canon cam should have digic II. If the A95 and S1 IS replacement still use DIGIC, their will be many dissapointed people out there.


I think what he is saying is that the SD500 is a pretty nice camera that represents in many ways, what Canon needs to do with the whole line.

I, too, have the SD500, and it is an amazing package. My only complaint is that some of the production quality control seems to have slipped a bit. I went thru a few trying to get one with no problems, and ended up settling with one that has an off center autofocus assist lamp.

Digic II is amazing. I hear people often say the the camera that is with you is the best camera. I would modify that to "the camera that is ready for the shot" is the best camera. The Digic II makes the camera ready for that shot.

[stema]

People said that larger sensor needs a thicker body, that's why the sd500 is 26.5mm. I saw the first shots with the z750 and i don't see any corner blurriness! So CANON, if you see this page, i would (and think we - the community - would) expect from the next ixus:

1 - Most importantly an IMAGE STABILIZER, like the one in the fx7 (optical), or sensor stabilized, like in the konica models.
2 - Have mpeg4 video (we are shooting on a mem-card for crying-out-loud :'( and casio mpeg4 videos have GREAT quality at quarter of the size!)
3 - to be slimmer
These features would be needed too:
4 - red-eye reducing, maybe as an automatic post-process on the computer (but in that case, only that part of the jpeg-data should be modified!!)
5 - noise reduction option (noise ninja with color @20 and luminance @-5 works great, and preserves details), that way it could have iso speeds up to 1600 maybe
6 - somehow reducing blooming (don't ask me how)
7 - digital zoom could be like in HP cams: just crops that image part, and not resample it, that way it's use would make sense

I have a canon a70, and i was planning to buy a new cam after pma2005, but non of the cams seem to be right for me now, so i guess I wait another year for the next IXUS :)

[ProblemSolver]

People said that larger sensor needs a thicker body, that's why the sd500 is 26.5mm. I saw the first shots with the z750 and i don't see any corner blurriness! So CANON, if you see this page, i would (and think we - the community - would) expect from the next ixus:

1 - Most importantly an IMAGE STABILIZER, like the one in the fx7 (optical), or sensor stabilized, like in the konica models.
2 - Have mpeg4 video (we are shooting on a mem-card for crying-out-loud :'( and casio mpeg4 videos have GREAT quality at quarter of the size!)
3 - to be slimmer
These features would be needed too:
4 - red-eye reducing, maybe as an automatic post-process on the computer (but in that case, only that part of the jpeg-data should be modified!!)
5 - noise reduction option (noise ninja with color @20 and luminance @-5 works great, and preserves details), that way it could have iso speeds up to 1600 maybe
6 - somehow reducing blooming (don't ask me how)
7 - digital zoom could be like in HP cams: just crops that image part, and not resample it, that way it's use would make sense

I have a canon a70, and i was planning to buy a new cam after pma2005, but non of the cams seem to be right for me now, so i guess I wait another year for the next IXUS :)

Let me answer your questions:
1. The Digital Ixus is nothing but a fashion statement. You pay for the stylish design more than anything else (Compare the Ixus 500 with the A95). Optical image stabilization would involve optics and lenses so that'll add probably $50-$100. Now, if Canon were to use digital image stabilization.....

2. Not sure if I agree with you on this. There must be a trade-off to make the video size so small. Anyway, memory cards are cheap nowadays (ie $40 for a Sandisk Ultra II 1GB)

3. I don't really agree on this either. What's the point of having a slimmer Ixus when the current one doesn't buldge out that much? I think 26.5 mm is just right. If you look at the Sony T7, it's 15mm and will topple down the minute the wind blows ;) . Slimmer body would sacrifice the NB-3L battery and 1/1.8" sensor for the less powerful NB-4L and maybe a grainy 1/2.2" sensor.

4. I definately agree on this. In-camera red eye removal is something which is popping up on cameras nowadays.

5. A thumbs up for noise reduction and higher ISO speeds. But why not higher shutter speeds and fast shutter control instead?

6. Blooming in what sense?

7. HP cameras don't crop, Sony does. They appear to be cropping out the picture but after that, they enlarge the picture. I'd like this feature too - Less one visit to Paint Shop.

Another few things I'd like to point out to Canon is to make use of the space located to the left and right of the viewfinder. For example, placing the speaker there might be a good idea so everyone can hold the camera with both hands, without covering the speaker.

Flash exposure control should also be added.

[stema]

Let me answer your questions:
1. The Digital Ixus is nothing but a fashion statement. You pay for the stylish design more than anything else (Compare the Ixus 500 with the A95). Optical image stabilization would involve optics and lenses so that'll add probably $50-$100. Now, if Canon were to use digital image stabilization.....


there's no such thing as digital image stabilization in photography, only when taking videos, because, another frame can use another set of pixels, but without mechanics, image stabilization for a still-camera is I think impossible, fx7 does have an image stabilization, and I think that would worth the extre bucks.

2. Not sure if I agree with you on this. There must be a trade-off to make the video size so small. Anyway, memory cards are cheap nowadays (ie $40 for a Sandisk Ultra II 1GB)

At dpreview there are some casio mpeg4 videos, and you should look at the samples too, they're amazing! 7-8 mins on a 1 gb card is ridiculous. Most of the people go for a week holiday with that kind of card, and if you want to take a 2 minutes long little movie, it would be nice if it wouldn't take up the quarter of the space. But here's a compromise: since mjpeg is an obvius part of every cam (jpeg compression... duh...), They could make both video modes, if you want to take mjpeg video, but mpeg4 video should be a must in todays still cams!

3. I don't really agree on this either. What's the point of having a slimmer Ixus when the current one doesn't buldge out that much? I think 26.5 mm is just right. If you look at the Sony T7, it's 15mm and will topple down the minute the wind blows ;) . Slimmer body would sacrifice the NB-3L battery and 1/1.8" sensor for the less powerful NB-4L and maybe a grainy 1/2.2" sensor.

Look at the casio z750 again: it has an excellent battery life, it's 22mm slim and, it still has a 1/1.8" ccd, with just the smallest corner blurriness. Or have a look at the Slim FX7, which has a 1/2.5" ccd, optical stabilization and a 19.9mm thick body

4. I definately agree on this. In-camera red eye removal is something which is popping up on cameras nowadays.

5. A thumbs up for noise reduction and higher ISO speeds. But why not higher shutter speeds and fast shutter control instead?

I prefer higher ISOs in dark indoor areas, not for fast moving objects, does that answer your question? (Whats the use of no motion blur if you can't see anything on the picture?)

6. Blooming in what sense?

Maybe you prefer using "purple fringing" (but in this case it's blue :D). I couldn't beleive that this could be done in an in-camera-engine, until I see this written in a specification of the fx7's, and see it's pictures, so it's possible.

7. HP cameras don't crop, Sony does. They appear to be cropping out the picture but after that, they enlarge the picture. I'd like this feature too - Less one visit to Paint Shop.?

Sorry, I don't know about new HPs, but my sister has a HP 735 which only crops. The main benefit would be not the less editing, but more pictures on a certain mem card (well, as for me :D)

Another few things I'd like to point out to Canon is to make use of the space located to the left and right of the viewfinder. For example, placing the speaker there might be a good idea so everyone can hold the camera with both hands, without covering the speaker.

Flash exposure control should also be added.

I don't know about that speaker thing (I don't think it's a must, it's just would be nice), but ixus cams aren't famous about their manual controls so just throttling the flash exposure by the metered distance would be enough

[justinluck]

I would really like to see a version of the PowerShot S1 IS with a 1.8" screen. 1.5" is just too small for me, and it is the only reason holding me back from purchasing the camera. :(

[stema]

Oh yes, open-source firmware would be nice for all kinds of cam, like while connecting the cam to pc, it could use the firmware on the computer, and a trick to reset the original, in case of any trouble. I don't know if the image calculation and noise reduction procedure are in the engine-chip or in the firmware, does anyone know?

[ProblemSolver]

there's no such thing as digital image stabilization in photography, only when taking videos, because, another frame can use another set of pixels, but without mechanics, image stabilization for a still-camera is I think impossible, fx7 does have an image stabilization, and I think that would worth the extre bucks.

You can afford the extra bucks. I can too. But Canon doesn't want you to do that. Upping the price of the Ixus from $500 to say, around $600, would endanger the S70's place as a highend camera.

At dpreview there are some casio mpeg4 videos, and you should look at the samples too, they're amazing! 7-8 mins on a 1 gb card is ridiculous. Most of the people go for a week holiday with that kind of card, and if you want to take a 2 minutes long little movie, it would be nice if it wouldn't take up the quarter of the space. But here's a compromise: since mjpeg is an obvius part of every cam (jpeg compression... duh...), They could make both video modes, if you want to take mjpeg video, but mpeg4 video should be a must in todays still cams!

Well, I suppose this is one improvement that Canon should make. Maybe on next year's Ixus but most probably not on this year's S2 IS.

Look at the casio z750 again: it has an excellent battery life, it's 22mm slim and, it still has a 1/1.8" ccd, with just the smallest corner blurriness. Or have a look at the Slim FX7, which has a 1/2.5" ccd, optical stabilization and a 19.9mm thick body

Casio uses a more powerful battery. The FX7 is a different story - It's capable of using a 1/2.5" CCD because it has 5 MP, thus enabling it to be slimmer. If Canon were to engineer a 1000 mAh NB-4LH (Opposed to the thicker NB-3L on the Ixus 700), then maybe the Ixus 800 can be slimmed down to 22 mm as well as added battery life.

I prefer higher ISOs in dark indoor areas, not for fast moving objects, does that answer your question? (Whats the use of no motion blur if you can't see anything on the picture?)

Canon can of course implement the noise reduction used on their long shutter feature, provided that they want to.

Maybe you prefer using "purple fringing" (but in this case it's blue :D). I couldn't beleive that this could be done in an in-camera-engine, until I see this written in a specification of the fx7's, and see it's pictures, so it's possible.

I have no idea how Panasonic does this but color fringing is not a big problem when not viewing the pictures in full size.

_____________

Well, all those improvements could be put on the next Ixus, hopefully on the Ixus 70?

[stema]

I have an idea for image stabilization, which wouldn't take much space and no real changes just firmware. There's the konica like IS, it moves the ccd according to the camera movement, so there must be a sensor to feel that movement. Canon should put such a sensor in the ixus, and make the firmware to get a use of it, like this:

you press and hold the shutter button > aparture opens, camera sense the movement
if the movement is out a range > clears the charge from ccd, but holds the aparture open > starting to fill up the ccd with new data
but if there was enough time (pre-set shutter speed) without movement > closes aparture, processes image

Maybe for a real dark place you could wait for 10 secs maybe, but you will get a picture that is not motion blurred, it's a bit better than other techniques, because you don't have to have another moving component that can go wrong, and even with optical stabilization there will be some shots that are blurred, but with this, the pictures will only be blurred as the range is set. It's like a more advanced BSS :) And ablity of setting range would be nice in such case, for one's who have hands of stone, and for one's who are willing for a compromise (but auto mode would be needed for certain shutter speeds).

[ProblemSolver]

I have an idea for image stabilization, which wouldn't take much space and no real changes just firmware. There's the konica like IS, it moves the ccd according to the camera movement, so there must be a sensor to feel that movement. Canon should put such a sensor in the ixus, and make the firmware to get a use of it, like this:

you press and hold the shutter button > aparture opens, camera sense the movement
if the movement is out a range > clears the charge from ccd, but holds the aparture open > starting to fill up the ccd with new data
but if there was enough time (pre-set shutter speed) without movement > closes aparture, processes image

Maybe for a real dark place you could wait for 10 secs maybe, but you will get a picture that is not motion blurred, it's a bit better than other techniques, because you don't have to have another moving component that can go wrong, and even with optical stabilization there will be some shots that are blurred, but with this, the pictures will only be blurred as the range is set. It's like a more advanced BSS :) And ablity of setting range would be nice in such case, for one's who have hands of stone, and for one's who are willing for a compromise (but auto mode would be needed for certain shutter speeds).

The moving CCD is quite a good idea. But if I had to wait 10 seconds in a dark place, I'd rather choose fast shutter plus ISO 1600 ;) (If there was such an option on the Ixus)