Canon A540 vs A700, any thoughts?

A540 advantages:

Costs less

Uses 52mm accessories with adapter. 52mm accessories are much
less expensive. Wideangle adapter for A540 is $75, for A700 is $150.

Shorter zoom range-more sharpness?

Camera is slightly smaller and lighter

A700 advantages:

Longer zoom range (6x tele) - ok, but that important to me
More LCD screen resolution (115k pixels instead of 85k)
Supposedly slightly better battery life--
I'm skeptical, may have just been normal testing variation between
samples and batteries

Faster lens at tele end--
A700 is 5.8-34.8 mm f/2.8-4.8 vs. 5.8-23.2 mm f/2.6-5.5 for A540.
Note that a540 max zoom is midrange for A700. If A700 at 23.2mm
is at f/4, it's a full stop faster than the A540. Maybe in reality
it's more like a half stop.

Closer macro focus: to 1cm in wide mode, vs 5cm for A540

The A700 seems noticably better in many respects. I can't help
thinking there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Thoughts?

RW+/- writes:
Yeah, buy what you need, want, tomorrow will come and you'll save
the money up for the accessories.

I don't understand what you're saying. I thought I wanted an A540
because I didn't care much about the A700's longer lens and I liked
the A540's 52mm accessories. However, examining the specs and reviews
of both cameras more carefully shows additional differences. Now I'm
wondering whether there's something going on that the reviews don't
indicate.

The A530 is the low cost model ($170 @ B&H) and the A700 is the high
end model. The A540-A700 cost difference is noticable ($225 vs $295)
but not that big a deal. So if the A700 is so great, why does the
A540 even exist?

RW+/- writes:
The A530 is the low cost model ($170 @ B&H) and the A700 is the high
end model. The A540-A700 cost difference is noticable ($225 vs $295)
but not that big a deal. So if the A700 is so great, why does the
A540 even exist?

Have you considered the A620?

Yes. It's considerably bigger, and it's last years' model, supposedly
with a less efficient CCD. I'd actually get the A610 over the A620
but I like the smaller models, other things being equal.

For instance, if you do most of your shooting inside and you want available
lighting without flash then a lower f-stop will be a priority. From your OP
it seemed that you wanted the longer zoom. If you have kids in school and
want to take pictures of events, kids on stage, etc. then a longer zoom
will be important to you, flash would be useless even detrimental in such a
case so a higher useable ASA/ISO and lower f-stop at the long end comes
into play.

No I don't care that much about the longer zoom. Nothing against it,
but I wouldn't use it much, and I'd rather have more wideangle
coverage for scenery. The A700's lens's other advantage vs. the A540
is added speed at the long end.

Then you need to know what sized prints you are typically going to use, and
how large a print you sometimes use.

I almost never print anything. When I do, it's almost always at 4x6".
So I don't care at all about the A620's higher pixel count. In fact
I've found that for 4x6" prints, 640x480 works just fine unless you
examine the print very closely. So I wish they made a 2MP model in
this series, with an extra stop of ISO.

If you are printing a home then a new printer will most likely be in order
so you can maximize your quality of prints.

I have an old inkjet printer but I find that the ink cartridges dry
out faster than I actually print stuff with them. Recently I got a
few prints done at Walgreen's, sort of a mixed experience.

I had originally selected the A540 over the A530 because of its larger
LCD but I guess I'll give the A530 another look as well. I'm leaving
on a trip in a few weeks so want to buy something before then. My
current compact digicam (Coolpix 3100) is very clumsy and I think not
entirely working right, though it does take pretty good pictures if
you can stand the slow handling.