Canon A95

[BristolFlorida]

I'm currently deciding, obviously, on which digital camera to go for. I'm, for the most part, new to *digital* photography. I've owned a digital camera in the past, but i've only used the automatic setting (this is what i mean by new). I'd love to learn about manual settings, but i wouldn't know where to start. But, i'm obsessed with digital photography, SO...i'm looking for a fairly compact (but not to the extreme) camera, with excellent image quality for $200-400 (maybe 5, but hopefully not). Close-up shots aren't really involved. I mainly photograph landscapes, buildings, or just interesting things. As far as megapixels go, i'm leaning towards 4-6, but as i said, i'm new to this.

From what i've read, the Canon A95 is currently my top choice. Does anyone:

1) have any comment on this choice (support/criticism)
2) have a better suggestion?

[BristolFlorida]

Also, what about the Canon S410, as far as image quality goes? how do the S410 and the A95 compare?

[PhilR.]

Well, if you really would "love to learn manual settings", then you should consider a camera that has them, unlike the S410, which AFAIK does not. On the other hand, the A95 would be an excellent place to start, as it does have proper A/S/M modes accessible via mode dial. This camera fits your size, budget, and megapixel requirements, and is a well-known high quality performer.

There are other suggestions, but not necessarily "better" suggestions. Another one to consider is the Fuji "E" series cameras, and perhaps the newer Canon "A" series 510 and 520. Both of these have manual modes as well. One thing that is quite helpful with landscape shooting is a wide-angle lens, which is seldom found in p&s cameras. However, the Fuji E500 and E510 have a wide-angle lens, so it might be worth your while to check these out....

PhilR.

[BristolFlorida]

thanks for the reply, i think i'm going to go with the A95, but the more i think about it, the more i think portability will be a big issue here. i'd really like to be able to just carry it around in my pocket. This is the reason for the A95 vs. S410 debate. For those of you with experience with the A95, how small is it exactly? that is, would it fit in a pocket?

[jessie25]

I ended up going with the Canon A520 cause it was smaller and lighter than the A95, though I considered both of them. The A95 isn't pocket sized; it's compact but not ultra-compact. The A520 is a bit smaller. But if you want something really compact, you'll probably want to choose something different.

[PhilR.]

For those of you with experience with the A95, how small is it exactly?

How small is it exactly? That's what the reviews are for. Time to do some homework....

PhilR.

[BristolFlorida]

okay...i know that it's 4.0 x 2.5 x 1.4 inches. this helps me very little, as i haven't recently probed my pants pocket with a ruler (and i doubt i will any time soon). It seems it would be much easier to simply ask someone who has owned one in the past.

How does the sd400 compare to the A95, in terms of image quality? i've seen sample pictures for the A95 with horrible purple fringing, and vignetting seems to be a slight problem as well.

A95/S410/sd400-----> i know i'm being difficult about all of this, but it's a lot of money to me, and i'd like to be sure.