If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
User review Canon a720 IS
Hi all,
I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own :-) http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html Regards Paul |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
User review Canon a720 IS
Paul van Andel wrote:
I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own :-) http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html Thanks, that was interesting. In your 2nd sentence after "Reason buying" did you mistype A650 instead of A640? Because the 3rd sentence says A640. Odd product naming scheme: Canon gave the less-expensive lighter A720IS a higher number than the more-expensive A650IS. I almost bought an A640 but did not like the ergonomics, in particular my nose gets in the way of the viewfinder, which should be further left. The rotating LCD is great, though. Instead I got an SD800IS. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
User review Canon a720 IS
On 27 Sep 2007 09:21:34 -0700, Bill Tuthill wrote:
Odd product naming scheme: Canon gave the less-expensive lighter A720IS a higher number than the more-expensive A650IS. It's probably due to when each A#xx series was introduced. While DPReview's alphabetical index may not be complete, it shows that the first A5xx cameras in their list preceded the first A6xx cameras, and these were followed in 2006 by the A7xx series. I almost bought an A640 but did not like the ergonomics, in particular my nose gets in the way of the viewfinder, which should be further left. The rotating LCD is great, though. Instead I got an SD800IS. That could have been corrected by a very good plastic surgeon. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
User review Canon a720 IS
Thanks, that was interesting. In your 2nd sentence after "Reason buying" did you mistype A650 instead of A640? Because the 3rd sentence says A640. I mean the A650, mist that typo, I'll correct it on the page. Thanks Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
User review Canon a720 IS
Finally a good sunny day, 11 new images added to the review.
http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html Regards Paul "Paul van Andel" schreef in bericht ... Hi all, I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own :-) http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html Regards Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
User review Canon a720 IS
Paul van Andel wrote:
Hi all, I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own :-) http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html Regards Paul Very nice review, thank you. Your English is rather good. Bedankt. Morton |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
User review Canon a720 IS
On Sep 27, 8:48 am, "Paul van Andel" wrote:
Hi all, I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own :-)http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html Regards Paul Hi, I just got one as well. It has many great features, almost allowing DSLR flexibility in a small camera. Two problems though. 1) When shooting solid midtone objects at dusk (no real range-just shots of grass in even light-did this as a test), they are consistently overexposed. The histogram shows photos I know to be overexposed as being in the middle, and correctly exposed ones as being underexposed. I think the camera is set up biased somewhat towrds overexposure. 2) More seriously and as you discovered when shooting in bright light, there is a distinct tendency to blow out bright objects, especially if they are surrounded by not so bright tones. Apart from the example mentioned in your review, I also noted it badly blowing out much of the image in the boat in IMG-0542 and in parts of the boat in the right background in IMG-0503. I have found the same thing. It takes a LOT of underexposre to bring back the detail; to the extent of rendering other portions ridiculousy dark. This issue may convince me to return it for another model. I have read that all the A series suffer somewhat from this problem but I don't know if they are all this extreme in that aspect. I had been looking at the A640. Perhaps it would be better. Have you done any more testing and come to any conclusions? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
User review Canon a720 IS
On 2007-10-04 20:05:07 -0700, commando1854 said:
On Sep 27, 8:48 am, "Paul van Andel" wrote: Hi all, I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own :-)http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html Regards Paul Hi, I just got one as well. It has many great features, almost allowing DSLR flexibility in a small camera. Two problems though. 1) When shooting solid midtone objects at dusk (no real range-just shots of grass in even light-did this as a test), they are consistently overexposed. The histogram shows photos I know to be overexposed as being in the middle, and correctly exposed ones as being underexposed. I think the camera is set up biased somewhat towrds overexposure. 2) More seriously and as you discovered when shooting in bright light, there is a distinct tendency to blow out bright objects, especially if they are surrounded by not so bright tones. Apart from the example mentioned in your review, I also noted it badly blowing out much of the image in the boat in IMG-0542 and in parts of the boat in the right background in IMG-0503. I have found the same thing. It takes a LOT of underexposre to bring back the detail; to the extent of rendering other portions ridiculousy dark. This issue may convince me to return it for another model. I have read that all the A series suffer somewhat from this problem but I don't know if they are all this extreme in that aspect. I had been looking at the A640. Perhaps it would be better. Have you done any more testing and come to any conclusions? I wonder if the explanation for this is going to be complicated, or as simple as the effect seen in the earliest TTL light meters, where they consistently overexposed bright scenes and underexposed in dim lighting. I used to call it an "optimistic" meter, but then I'm not an engineer. -- Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address yourselves instead to the safety of the republic |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
User review Canon a720 IS
commando1854 wrote:
I just got one as well. It has many great features, almost allowing DSLR flexibility in a small camera. Two problems though. 1) When shooting solid midtone objects at dusk (no real range-just shots of grass in even light-did this as a test), they are consistently overexposed. The histogram shows photos I know to be overexposed as being in the middle, and correctly exposed ones as being underexposed. I think the camera is set up biased somewhat towrds overexposure. 2) More seriously and as you discovered when shooting in bright light, there is a distinct tendency to blow out bright objects, especially if they are surrounded by not so bright tones. Apart from the example mentioned in your review, I also noted it badly blowing out much of the image in the boat in IMG-0542 and in parts of the boat in the right background in IMG-0503. I have found the same thing. It takes a LOT of underexposre to bring back the detail; to the extent of rendering other portions ridiculousy dark. So you're saying, "it is a digital camera." If you want cameras to perform up to your expectations above, go back to film. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
User review Canon a720 IS
commando1854 wrote:
On Sep 27, 8:48 am, "Paul van Andel" wrote: Hi all, I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own :-)http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html Regards Paul Hi, I just got one as well. It has many great features, almost allowing DSLR flexibility in a small camera. Two problems though. 1) When shooting solid midtone objects at dusk (no real range-just shots of grass in even light-did this as a test), they are consistently overexposed. The histogram shows photos I know to be overexposed as being in the middle, and correctly exposed ones as being underexposed. I think the camera is set up biased somewhat towrds overexposure. 2) More seriously and as you discovered when shooting in bright light, there is a distinct tendency to blow out bright objects, especially if they are surrounded by not so bright tones. Apart from the example mentioned in your review, I also noted it badly blowing out much of the image in the boat in IMG-0542 and in parts of the boat in the right background in IMG-0503. I have found the same thing. It takes a LOT of underexposre to bring back the detail; to the extent of rendering other portions ridiculousy dark. This issue may convince me to return it for another model. I have read that all the A series suffer somewhat from this problem but I don't know if they are all this extreme in that aspect. I had been looking at the A640. Perhaps it would be better. Have you done any more testing and come to any conclusions? Has it got RAW output as an option? If it has, you may find that the apparent overexposure problem is a feature of the internal RAW to jpeg conversion, and doesn't apply to the original RAW image. -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
user review of Canon 400D, 50 mm f/1.2 L and 70-200 f/4 L IS | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 4 | August 28th 06 10:01 PM |
Canon S70 user | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | December 20th 04 05:48 PM |
User review of the Nikon 8800 | Bobsprit | Digital Photography | 8 | November 26th 04 05:32 PM |
Pentax S5I User review | Bobsprit | Digital Photography | 0 | November 24th 04 10:53 PM |
Nikon user to Canon user questions... | Andrew McCall | 35mm Photo Equipment | 20 | November 2nd 04 11:31 PM |