Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Canon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 30, 2005, 12:23 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1
Default

I am looking for a camera i can take with me everywhere, and just take pictures when i want. My big thing is though, i need decent battery life and great picture quality, do you think the SD110 is the camera? Also zoom really isn't a big thing, but if it is there, ill take it lol. Also if you have one, any pictures you could post would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Backspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 31, 2005, 3:00 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
Default

Price is low but the LCD is too small for an ultra-compact IMO. You really want a big LCD for ultra-compacts (since the viewfinder is next to useless). SD110 seems to have 1.5", which is on the very low-end for ultra-compacts.

I think the megapixels (3MP) and the rest of the stuff look ok but the LCD is too small IMO... wait for 2005 models, which will likely have larger LCDs... OR...if money is tight, look at a cheaper brand like Casio (eg. Casio Z40) or something. Casio has bigger LCD but with less pixels so it looks horrible but it is bigger...

So to sum up, the Canon will have good pics but its LCD is kind of small...
Sivaram Velauthapillai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2005, 6:36 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17
Default

Maybe look to the newer SD200 - still 3MP but more optical zoom - 3x not 2x, a bigged LCD 2" not 1.5" and better, unlimited movie modes. Also a bit thinner.
jkmng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 5:42 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2
Default

I disagree - the viewfinder is perfectly adequate for me. I have tried lots of cameras and on none of them is the size of the LCD a determining factor. In sunlight you can't see it no matter how 'big' it is.

Did a lot of research on the really small digicams and this one came up a winner for quality vs. price vs. features. The one sacrifice we made was the 2x zoom, but other factors made more of a difference. This is my wife's camera - she keeps it in her purse, whiche she could not do with my A85.
CGBJR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 8:21 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 17
Default

for me it was the 3x zoom and the awsome video modes on the sd200/300 that kept me from getting the 110.

chris
lafester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 9:08 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
kimnkk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 23
Default

It's all in the resolution. There's no point having a big screen with a low resolution, because then you will just get undetailed, pixelated pictures. But if you have a smaller LCD with a higher resolution, things will look sharp but may be too small if you have bad eyes. All in all, i would take a higher resolution, smaller screen over a bigger but low resolution screen; anyday.
kimnkk is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:52 AM.