Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Canon (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-21/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 105833] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-21/%5Brecovered-thread-105833%5D-103292/)

Contriver Oct 8, 2006 8:08 PM

Last year I went to visit family for Christmas and realized that I had forgetten the battery pack for my Olympus Verve. I never liked the Verve and actually attempted to return it soon after I purchased it, but I didn't want to pay the restocking fee and also didn't want to buy a different camera at the time. Anyway, so because I forgot the battery pack and didn't like the Verve, I decided to purchase a new camera. After only a brief time spent researching cameras that where around $200, I got the Canon A520. I was very happy with the focusing capabilities, especially when compared to the Verve. I also liked how it offered so many manual options. In any case, now I just don't feel that this camera provides very vivid looking shots. Alot of the photos from this camera just seem to look 'flat'. Does anyone understand what I mean? Do newer cameras that are under $300 make better pictures than the A520?

KALEL33 Oct 11, 2006 8:00 PM

If you're comparing it to the lower end Kodaks, Nikon, and Olympus, then yeah it looks flat. I find that some cameras try to compensate in some areas by making the colors look vivid. You can do the same thing in almost any software, but it's not true to the actual pic taken.

rgvcam Oct 11, 2006 9:48 PM

It's a preference. Some people prefer the more vivid photos that some camera's produce while others are happy with the more 'true to life' photos that other cameras take. I myself am quite happy with the more 'true to life' photos that my Minolta Dimage F300 takes for instance. This is why the sample photos for the Canon A520 look good enough for me.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:03 PM.