Canon Ixus 430 vs Canon Ixus 40

I've been researching the canon range of digital cameras for a long time,
and have always been admirer of the Ixus 430 (now superceded by the Ixus
40). The Ixus 430 had an amazing range of features for a compact camera, and
was ruggedly built. Now that it has been replaced by the Ixus 40, does
anyone like me think they would still prefer to have the older model?

The Ixus 40 seems to have sacrificed some image quality for size, and I
think I'd prefer to have something that's a bit more "rugged".

Also, does anyone know why Canon doesn't produce cameras in their "A" range
(A85, A95 etc) with Lithium batteries? To me, that is their major
drawback.........

"Jason Smith" writes:

Also, does anyone know why Canon doesn't produce cameras in their "A" range
(A85, A95 etc) with Lithium batteries? To me, that is their major
drawback.........

Two possible reasons: cost, and providing choices.

LiIon batteries require electronic monitoring during charging *and*
discharge, plus the cells cost more too. Any camera that comes with
LiIon pack plus charger has to cost more to manufacture than one that
uses standard AA cells, all other things being equal. So using AAs in
some of their camera lines allows Canon to sell the Axx range for a bit
less than they would cost with LiIon.

Also, some people have a definite preference for standard batteries that
can be charged in standard chargers, and that can be used in many other
devices. It's nice to have a manufacturer that caters to this
preference. Canon's Axx and Axxx lines use standard AA cells, while the
Sxx, Sxxx, and G series all use LiIon, so you have a choice.

Dave