Canon A640

Hello

I am totally new to photography. I bought a Canon 640 at a CompUSA
store that is closing after being incorrectly informed that it has
image stabilization. I have been been experimenting with it; that is,
I'm trying to figure out the basic features.

How important is it that this camera does not have image
stabilization? If it's a critical feature, I'll try to return it.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...ization_01.htm

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:15:22 -0400, "Le Patriote"
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...ization_01.htm


OK.

I'd like to know whether the Canon 640 is a bad bet for shooting
moving images in low light conditions or when using long focal
lengths. It's supposedly a pretty good camera so I wonder whether it
effectively compensates for the lack of image stabilization.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:58:20 GMT, wrote:

I am totally new to photography. I bought a Canon 640 at a CompUSA
store that is closing after being incorrectly informed that it has
image stabilization. I have been been experimenting with it; that is,
I'm trying to figure out the basic features.

How important is it that this camera does not have image
stabilization? If it's a critical feature, I'll try to return it.

Image stabilization is important for some people, not very
important for others. When I got my A620, which also doesn't have
image stabilization, part of the reason was that it produced better
images than the A710 which does have image stabilization. For P&S
cameras IS is of greatest use with very long lenses, the kind that
you see with the 10x and 12x megazooms. When IS does help, it's
with static subjects, but if the subjects are moving (children,
pets, active sports, etc.) IS won't help much and can even worsen
the blur you'd get from moving subjects when it allows slower
shutter speeds to be used. Irregardless, IS does *not* eliminate
blur. It only reduces it, and in some cases can be quite helpful.
But your even if your A640 had IS, you'd get much sharper, blur free
shots by using a tripod with the IS turned off than by handholding
the camera using IS.

In case you aren't familiar with any of the better camera review
websites, here are a couple of URLs for reviews of the A640 and the
A710 IS. They'll probably be worth reading even if you aren't
familiar with or understand all of the intricacies the reviews get
into. They're quite extensive with, for instance, the A640 review's
conclusions only appearing on the 16th page. Reviews of other
cameras having IS are also available from DPReview, and include some
made by Olympus, Panasonic and other manufacturers, as well as some
others from Canon, such as the S2 IS and S3 IS.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona640/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona710is/

On Apr 8, 5:58 pm, wrote:
Hello

I am totally new to photography. I bought a Canon 640 at a CompUSA
store that is closing after being incorrectly informed that it has
image stabilization. I have been been experimenting with it; that is,
I'm trying to figure out the basic features.

How important is it that this camera does not have image
stabilization? If it's a critical feature, I'll try to return it.


It depends. It sounds unhelpful to say this but it's useful for its
use, if you need it. That is, handheld lowish light where you
wouldn't be using a fast shutter. Not only for moving subjects but
also still objects where the shutter speed would prevent a decent
picture hand held. For use in good light and general out and about
shooting it's not a deal breaker. It's a good feature but it
wouldn't make me buy a camera I wasn't crazy about.


I have a 640 and love it. I simply use old fashioned photo strategy
to get the best shots. The Canon A710 IS started off around the same
retail but I notice now it's around $250 vs $215 for the 640. I liked
the A710, I just didn't want to do without the rotating LCD which I've
grown so used to. If you can get an equally good blow out price on
the A710 IS you could do that and trade the rotating LCD and some
mpxls for image stabilization.

On Apr 8, 6:27 pm, wrote:

I'd like to know whether the Canon 640 is a bad bet for shooting
moving images in low light conditions or when using long focal
lengths.



It's hard to say. I do a lot of that with mine but while I
definitely get what you'd call pictures, high ISO and long shutter
speeds on the 640 give way to a certain artifactiness and graininess.
How much depends on how far you stretch it. Moving images in low
light is not a strong point. If that's your main thing I'd say it's
not the right choice. If you're talking about indoor sports I'd say
ixnay for sure.


It's supposedly a pretty good camera so I wonder whether it
effectively compensates for the lack of image stabilization.


No, I'd definitely say that wouldn't describe it. But again, it's a
great camera and the images in general are to me noticeably superior
and more pleasing than from the A710 IS.

a écrit dans le message de
...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:15:22 -0400, "Le Patriote"
wrote:


http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...ization_01.htm


OK.

I'd like to know whether the Canon 640 is a bad bet for shooting
moving images in low light conditions or when using long focal
lengths. It's supposedly a pretty good camera so I wonder whether it
effectively compensates for the lack of image stabilization.

your best bet is a cheap DSLR (D50, D40, Rebel XT), or one of the Fuji P&S
that can give you good IQ even in low light.

No movies with a DSLR and only the Olympus 330 has "live view on LCD" for
now (I think). The E510 is not available yet (same for the Canon 1DM3 but it
will be a lot more expensive ).

And the king of high ISO is still the Canon 5D, it is of course, very
expensive.

You might try a Canon 30D (or a 20D) at ISO 3200, impressive for the price.

You should go ask for samples in that Fuji forum if you prefer a P&S:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1012

On 8 Apr 2007 15:51:52 -0700, wrote:

It depends. It sounds unhelpful to say this but it's useful for its
use, if you need it. That is, handheld lowish light where you
wouldn't be using a fast shutter. Not only for moving subjects but
also still objects where the shutter speed would prevent a decent
picture hand held. For use in good light and general out and about
shooting it's not a deal breaker. It's a good feature but it
wouldn't make me buy a camera I wasn't crazy about.

For still subjects, yes, IS can help. But it doesn't do anything
to improve moving objects unless those objects are the
photographer's hands. What you need to stop blur in moving
objects is faster shutter speeds. You can get that by using a
higher ISO, unless the high ISO produces too much noise. IS can
help when the light level is low, but that's because it allows
slower shutter speeds to be used. That's fine for still objects,
but the slower shutter creates greater blurring of moving objects.

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:58:20 GMT, wrote:

I am totally new to photography. I bought a Canon 640 at a CompUSA
store that is closing after being incorrectly informed that it has
image stabilization. I have been been experimenting with it; that is,
I'm trying to figure out the basic features.

How important is it that this camera does not have image
stabilization? If it's a critical feature, I'll try to return it.

Image stabilization is important for some people, not very
important for others. When I got my A620, which also doesn't have
image stabilization, part of the reason was that it produced better
images than the A710 which does have image stabilization. For P&S
cameras IS is of greatest use with very long lenses, the kind that
you see with the 10x and 12x megazooms. When IS does help, it's
with static subjects, but if the subjects are moving (children,
pets, active sports, etc.) IS won't help much and can even worsen
the blur you'd get from moving subjects when it allows slower
shutter speeds to be used.


Irregardless,

Amaing, this is the first time i've heard this word used and I have to say,
it confused me, but it seems that it is a standard North American word.
Boston or Indiana maybe?



, IS does *not* eliminate
blur. It only reduces it, and in some cases can be quite helpful.
But your even if your A640 had IS, you'd get much sharper, blur free
shots by using a tripod with the IS turned off than by handholding
the camera using IS.

In case you aren't familiar with any of the better camera review
websites, here are a couple of URLs for reviews of the A640 and the
A710 IS. They'll probably be worth reading even if you aren't
familiar with or understand all of the intricacies the reviews get
into. They're quite extensive with, for instance, the A640 review's
conclusions only appearing on the 16th page. Reviews of other
cameras having IS are also available from DPReview, and include some
made by Olympus, Panasonic and other manufacturers, as well as some
others from Canon, such as the S2 IS and S3 IS.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona640/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona710is/

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:58:20 GMT, wrote:

Hello

I am totally new to photography. I bought a Canon 640 at a CompUSA
store that is closing after being incorrectly informed that it has
image stabilization. I have been been experimenting with it; that is,
I'm trying to figure out the basic features.

How important is it that this camera does not have image
stabilization? If it's a critical feature, I'll try to return it.

Unfortunately, if you bought it at a CompUSA that's closing, chances
are you can't return it, unless you got it before the stock was turned
over to a closeout business.
:-(

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
The White House gave John Kerry's
campaign nemesis Sam Fox, who funded
the Swift Boat Veterans, a recess
appointment to Belgium on Wednesday.
Nothing ever changes. John Kerry
insisted he was for the appointment
before he was against the appointment.