Canon SD300 or SD400

[straden]

SD400 comes with higher MP as well as some new features that only comes on SD400 or SD500. One example is "My color" feature. And that is the only reason I bought SD500 over SD200 or 300. I didn't really need extra 3MP but damn "my color" looks nice. With that you can swap colors without using photo editing tool on the computer. If you don't really care then SD300 is good enough, I believe movie mode is same or maybe it depends on MP as well. If I were you, I'd go for SD400

[JTL]

i heard that the sd300 only allows you to record for 30secs? can anyone answer these for me?

Where did you hear that from...a Sony Rep? LOL!!!

It films at 30-fps VGA quality until the card is filled. Where does all of this mis-information come from??????????

[SneiKs]

hahaha! i actually read it somewhere believe it or not. i forget which site though.

thanks for the feedback though guys. i went with the sd400. my color IS fun to play with though...now i just need a dang memory card.

[David Metsky]

With a slow memory card, some people might be limited to 30 seconds but that is a factor of the card, not the camera. They may have misinterpreted that without knowing that their SD card was at fault.

Also, the 60fps movie mode is limited by the camera to 1 minute, or at least it is on my SD300. Haven't tried the SD400 or SD500.

-dave-

[s5sa3]

the sd400 review kind of turned me off.
I don't really see any other alternative to the sd series because I need an ultacompact camera. does the sd300 really take better pictures? what is a man to do?

[JTL]

the sd400 review kind of turned me off.
I don't really see any other alternative to the sd series because I need an ultacompact camera. does the sd300 really take better pictures? what is a man to do?

I gave the SD300/400/500 all a pretty good workout...taking pics with each, bringing home the memory cards and examining the pics myself. I think the pictures fro the SD300 looked better (by better, I mean more pleasing to my eye) than the SD400. But, I couldn't enlarge the pictures from the SD300 to my satisfaction. So that left the SD500.

I guess I just don't understand the SD400. For a point-and-shoot snapshot camera, the SD300 is fine. More than fine.

[tian]

Ive heard the SD300's have a LCD cracking issue, whereas the SD400 doesn't. Hmm im thinking about both those cameras too! not sure which to get!
hmmmmmm

[David Metsky]

Ive heard the SD300's have a LCD cracking issue, whereas the SD400 doesn't. Hmm im thinking about both those cameras too! not sure which to get!

Some folks have reported some problems online. It's pretty hard to evaluate the validity of the reports from such limited information.

I own an SD300 and have had no problems with the LCD. I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why the SD400 would have any problems that weren't present in the SD300.

-dave-

[tian]

Some folks have reported some problems online. It's pretty hard to evaluate the validity of the reports from such limited information.

I own an SD300 and have had no problems with the LCD. I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why the SD400 would have any problems that weren't present in the SD300.

-dave-

me too, but maybe they improved the LCD screen?

[Causeway]

For what it's worth - I own a SD400. I have taken about 300 pictures at this point. I have printed abut a third of those. All in all I am more than happy with the function of the SD400 as well as the quality of the pictures.