Canon SD600 terrible for "point and shoot", help me find an alternative!!!

The majority of photos I take are with a flash, just a few feet away
from the subject. I loved my Canon S300 (older, from 2001) because I'd
get great image quality & contrast when just holding up my camera and
snapping a shot. However, it's old and bulky and I want a newer,
sleeker camera.

I've purchased 2 of the more recent Canons in the past 2 years, one
being the SD600, and returned both because I hated the quality, and my
friends complained that my new camera makes them ugly

Examples:
Nice colors from the S300:
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...4-26%20014.jpg
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...6-16%20047.jpg

Poor colors from the SD600:
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...8/IMG_0853.JPG
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...2/IMG_1113.JPG
(my friends are not that pale!)

Can someone please suggest a camera that's capable of taking photo
that are more like the above s300 photos? I'm sure the SD600 is great
for someone who uses a tripod, without a flash, in perfect lighting,
but for someone like me, who mostly uses it when "out on the town",
it's terrible. I have heard others claim that "my canon makes me
friends look ugly". Obviously the S300 was doing something this is
not, and I refuse to believe that none of the newer cameras can
replicate this nice quality in their "Auto" functions! That may make
me an "amateur", but that doesn't dequalify from the basic human right
of taking sweet photos

Also, if someone feels like giving an explanation on the technical
reasons why the S300 photos were pleasing to the eye, and the SD600
were not, feel free..

Thanks!

On 6 Feb 2007 12:46:04 -0800, wrote:

The majority of photos I take are with a flash, just a few feet away
from the subject. I loved my Canon S300 (older, from 2001) because I'd
get great image quality & contrast when just holding up my camera and
snapping a shot. However, it's old and bulky and I want a newer,
sleeker camera.

I've purchased 2 of the more recent Canons in the past 2 years, one
being the SD600, and returned both because I hated the quality, and my
friends complained that my new camera makes them ugly

Examples:
Nice colors from the S300:
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...4-26%20014.jpg
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...6-16%20047.jpg

Poor colors from the SD600:
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...8/IMG_0853.JPG
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...2/IMG_1113.JPG
(my friends are not that pale!)

Can someone please suggest a camera that's capable of taking photo
that are more like the above s300 photos? I'm sure the SD600 is great
for someone who uses a tripod, without a flash, in perfect lighting,
but for someone like me, who mostly uses it when "out on the town",
it's terrible. I have heard others claim that "my canon makes me
friends look ugly". Obviously the S300 was doing something this is
not, and I refuse to believe that none of the newer cameras can
replicate this nice quality in their "Auto" functions! That may make
me an "amateur", but that doesn't dequalify from the basic human right
of taking sweet photos

Also, if someone feels like giving an explanation on the technical
reasons why the S300 photos were pleasing to the eye, and the SD600
were not, feel free..

The S300 pictures are a lot warmer in color. Spend some time with the
SD600 manual and see if there is an adjustment to fix the color. (I
don't know that camera...)

You could adjust the colors afterwards in software (for instance using
Irfanview, a free program), but I think you would rather not do it
that way.

If the camera takes pictures with nice colors without flash, then you
could tape an amber-colored gel filter over the flash to fix the color
of the flash... probably also not a very appealing solution, but
worthwhile considering.

I like your friends.

KS

On Feb 6, 3:46 pm, wrote:
The majority of photos I take are with a flash, just a few feet away
from the subject. I loved my Canon S300 (older, from 2001) because I'd
get great image quality & contrast when just holding up my camera and
snapping a shot. However, it's old and bulky and I want a newer,
sleeker camera.

I've purchased 2 of the more recent Canons in the past 2 years, one
being the SD600, and returned both because I hated the quality, and my
friends complained that my new camera makes them ugly

Examples:
Nice colors from the S300:http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...6-16%20047.jpg

Poor colors from the SD600:http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...2/IMG_1113.JPG
(my friends are not that pale!)

Can someone please suggest a camera that's capable of taking photo
that are more like the above s300 photos? I'm sure the SD600 is great
for someone who uses a tripod, without a flash, in perfect lighting,
but for someone like me, who mostly uses it when "out on the town",
it's terrible. I have heard others claim that "my canon makes me
friends look ugly". Obviously the S300 was doing something this is
not, and I refuse to believe that none of the newer cameras can
replicate this nice quality in their "Auto" functions! That may make
me an "amateur", but that doesn't dequalify from the basic human right
of taking sweet photos

Also, if someone feels like giving an explanation on the technical
reasons why the S300 photos were pleasing to the eye, and the SD600
were not, feel free..

Thanks!

Both results look awful. Garish, bad colour and flash work. My
advise? Get a DSLR and use a flash diffusor.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The majority of photos I take are with a flash, just a few feet away
.Snipped
were not, feel free..

Thanks!


Hi

I have fairly recently got an SD 600 for my daughter who takes a lot of
flash shots at concerts, clubs & parties.

She is no photographer, just a snapshooter, but the results are excellent.

The Colour etc is fine, all that ever needs doing in PS (by me) is a little
Curves or Levels tweaking with the Eye Droppers.

I have been very impressed with the quality.

Roy G

On 6 Feb 2007 12:46:04 -0800, wrote:

The majority of photos I take are with a flash, just a few feet away
from the subject. I loved my Canon S300 (older, from 2001) because I'd
get great image quality & contrast when just holding up my camera and
snapping a shot. However, it's old and bulky and I want a newer,
sleeker camera.

I've purchased 2 of the more recent Canons in the past 2 years, one
being the SD600, and returned both because I hated the quality, and my
friends complained that my new camera makes them ugly

Examples:
Nice colors from the S300:
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...4-26%20014.jpg
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...6-16%20047.jpg

Poor colors from the SD600:
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...8/IMG_0853.JPG
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...2/IMG_1113.JPG
(my friends are not that pale!)

Can someone please suggest a camera that's capable of taking photo
that are more like the above s300 photos? I'm sure the SD600 is great
for someone who uses a tripod, without a flash, in perfect lighting,
but for someone like me, who mostly uses it when "out on the town",
it's terrible. I have heard others claim that "my canon makes me
friends look ugly". Obviously the S300 was doing something this is
not, and I refuse to believe that none of the newer cameras can
replicate this nice quality in their "Auto" functions! That may make
me an "amateur", but that doesn't dequalify from the basic human right
of taking sweet photos

Also, if someone feels like giving an explanation on the technical
reasons why the S300 photos were pleasing to the eye, and the SD600
were not, feel free..

Thanks!

I don't own a SD600 but do have a few Canon P&S cameras so I
will offer what works well for me (personal & subjective), also if
your camera does not have a given feature please don't flame me I am
just trying to help as best I can with some general knowledge.

A few things to consider trying:

1 Set the camera to picture effects to "VIVID". This will both
increase in-camera sharpening, contrast & color saturation (warmer).

2 Experiment with exposure compensation, especially if you do the
above. You may want to boost EV +1/3 so that your friend don't come
out too pink! Feel free to experiment here.

3 Manually set the ISO to it's lowest setting. This will render
lower noise pictures but will also force longer shutter speeds, so
there will be a greater need to hold the camera steady.

4 Experiment to find the sweat spot of the tiny flash on your SD600.
By this I am talking about the distance where the flash is able to
expose correctly, (this varies when you optically zoom in). The
manual give you a good starting point but you may find optimal to be
narrower, especially after setting the ISO to it's lowest setting.

5 Make sure that the JPEG compression is set to it's lowest amount,
best image quality. This is a very good idea especially now that 2GB
SD cards are so inexpensive.

These are just suggestions & you should know that most of these only
work if the camera is set to a creative mode. "Program" mode it
likely your best mode for these settings to work & retain a fully
automatic mode (shutter speed & aperture).

My A95 Works best with it set in "VIVID" mode & exposure (EV)
set to -1/3 for outdoor non-flash pictures. For flash pictures I
usually return EV to 0 or +1/3 for best results. ISO ob all of my P&S
cameras is manually set to there lowest setting, 50 on most. This is
all subjective to my preferences, your may vary considerably.

Best of luck, I think you have a good camera & just need to
tweak it a bit to get the most out of it without need for
post-processing the image aside from red-eye removal which is often
needed with such small cameras.

Respectfully, DHB


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

I appreciate the replies. Right now I'm thinking that Canon has put a
stronger "whiter" flash on their new cameras compared to the older
model I had. I had noticed that the flash was more powerful, actually.
So maybe this, combined with my unfortunate color settings were
causing the colors to come out less warm?

Any suggestions for a small camera that has a "warmer" flash? Sonys?
Panasonics?

On 7 Feb 2007 07:55:28 -0800, wrote:

Any suggestions for a small camera that has a "warmer" flash? Sonys?
Panasonics?

Before switching to another brand or model that may have similar
problems, make sure that the camera's problem isn't due to using
Auto White Balance. AWB frequently produces colors that aren't
ideal. Follow the instructions in the SD600's manual to set a custom
white balance. It should allow you to get whatever warmth you need.
First try it using the recommended white paper or cloth. If this
gives you results that are still too cool, setting the WB using a
paper that's slightly cooler or 'bluer' will produce warmer images.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:28:03 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

On 7 Feb 2007 07:55:28 -0800, wrote:

Any suggestions for a small camera that has a "warmer" flash? Sonys?
Panasonics?

Before switching to another brand or model that may have similar
problems, make sure that the camera's problem isn't due to using
Auto White Balance. AWB frequently produces colors that aren't
ideal. Follow the instructions in the SD600's manual to set a custom
white balance. It should allow you to get whatever warmth you need.
First try it using the recommended white paper or cloth. If this
gives you results that are still too cool, setting the WB using a
paper that's slightly cooler or 'bluer' will produce warmer images.

He returned the SD600.
He's now wondering about a camera that will get the images he likes.
Your suggestion is good for just about any P&S he decides to buy,
though.

--
San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom admitted to having
an affair with his friend's
wife while he was divorcing
Fox News anchor Kimberly
Guilfoyle. The city may never
forgive him. If there's one
thing they can't stand, it's
somebody who's in bed with
Fox News.

--
___________________
EDW SPA



"DHB" wrote in message
...
On 6 Feb 2007 12:46:04 -0800, wrote:

The majority of photos I take are with a flash, just a few feet away
from the subject. I loved my Canon S300 (older, from 2001) because I'd
get great image quality & contrast when just holding up my camera and
snapping a shot. However, it's old and bulky and I want a newer,
sleeker camera.

I've purchased 2 of the more recent Canons in the past 2 years, one
being the SD600, and returned both because I hated the quality, and my
friends complained that my new camera makes them ugly

Examples:
Nice colors from the S300:
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...4-26%20014.jpg
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...6-16%20047.jpg

Poor colors from the SD600:
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...8/IMG_0853.JPG
http://www.cryblood.net/Pictures/200...2/IMG_1113.JPG
(my friends are not that pale!)

Can someone please suggest a camera that's capable of taking photo
that are more like the above s300 photos? I'm sure the SD600 is great
for someone who uses a tripod, without a flash, in perfect lighting,
but for someone like me, who mostly uses it when "out on the town",
it's terrible. I have heard others claim that "my canon makes me
friends look ugly". Obviously the S300 was doing something this is
not, and I refuse to believe that none of the newer cameras can
replicate this nice quality in their "Auto" functions! That may make
me an "amateur", but that doesn't dequalify from the basic human right
of taking sweet photos

Also, if someone feels like giving an explanation on the technical
reasons why the S300 photos were pleasing to the eye, and the SD600
were not, feel free..

Thanks!

I don't own a SD600 but do have a few Canon P&S cameras so I
will offer what works well for me (personal & subjective), also if
your camera does not have a given feature please don't flame me I am
just trying to help as best I can with some general knowledge.

A few things to consider trying:

1 Set the camera to picture effects to "VIVID". This will both
increase in-camera sharpening, contrast & color saturation (warmer).

2 Experiment with exposure compensation, especially if you do the
above. You may want to boost EV +1/3 so that your friend don't come
out too pink! Feel free to experiment here.

3 Manually set the ISO to it's lowest setting. This will render
lower noise pictures but will also force longer shutter speeds, so
there will be a greater need to hold the camera steady.

4 Experiment to find the sweat spot of the tiny flash on your SD600.
By this I am talking about the distance where the flash is able to
expose correctly, (this varies when you optically zoom in). The
manual give you a good starting point but you may find optimal to be
narrower, especially after setting the ISO to it's lowest setting.

5 Make sure that the JPEG compression is set to it's lowest amount,
best image quality. This is a very good idea especially now that 2GB
SD cards are so inexpensive.

These are just suggestions & you should know that most of these only
work if the camera is set to a creative mode. "Program" mode it
likely your best mode for these settings to work & retain a fully
automatic mode (shutter speed & aperture).

My A95 Works best with it set in "VIVID" mode & exposure (EV)
set to -1/3 for outdoor non-flash pictures. For flash pictures I
usually return EV to 0 or +1/3 for best results. ISO ob all of my P&S
cameras is manually set to there lowest setting, 50 on most. This is
all subjective to my preferences, your may vary considerably.

Best of luck, I think you have a good camera & just need to
tweak it a bit to get the most out of it without need for
post-processing the image aside from red-eye removal which is often
needed with such small cameras.

Respectfully, DHB


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918