Canon SD880

Ken Rockwell (a Nikon aficionado) has used and tested the Canon
SD880. He likes the LCD and controls and claims that this is the best P&S
Canon offers in the small compact class and can produce as good an image
quality and any other Canon P&S.

For some reason he does not seem to make a big deal over the lack of an
optical viewfinder.

This I do not understand since most agree that even with IS one can brace
the camera better at eye level.

The one shortcoming is lack of a long enough lens but it does go to 28mm
eqv.

Now he claims that you can get a great 11x14 from this but I have doubts.
I would say that a 5x7 would be the max if you are fussy.

Comments welcome.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:49:28 GMT, measekite wrote
in :

Ken Rockwell (a Nikon aficionado) has used and tested the Canon
SD880. He likes the LCD and controls and claims that this is the best P&S
Canon offers in the small compact class and can produce as good an image
quality and any other Canon P&S.

For some reason he does not seem to make a big deal over the lack of an
optical viewfinder.

This I do not understand since most agree that even with IS one can brace
the camera better at eye level.

The one shortcoming is lack of a long enough lens but it does go to 28mm
eqv.

Now he claims that you can get a great 11x14 from this but I have doubts.
I would say that a 5x7 would be the max if you are fussy.

Comments welcome.

I don't like the lack of a viewfinder, but I would agree that it can
produce great 11x14 prints.

From my prior posts to r.p.d

| Assuming that the image has been taken with a good lens, for printing
| figure at least 130 PPI (pixels per inch) for acceptable results (at
| normal viewing distances), and up to 230 PPI for excellent results.
| With current technology, anything more than 300 PPI is pretty much
| wasted.
| 4x6 5x7 8x10 11x14 16x20 20x30
| ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
| Acceptable: 0.4MP 0.6MP 1.4MP 2.6MP 5 MP 10 MP
| Very good: 0.8MP 1.1MP 2.6MP 5 MP 10 MP 19 MP
| Excellent: 1.3MP 1.9MP 4 MP 8 MP 16 MP 32 MP
| Best: 2.2MP 3.2MP 7 MP 14 MP 28 MP 54 MP
|
| Note that there is much more to the quality of digicam images than
| the raw pixel count. The quality of the lens is an important item
| that is often overlooked -- I'd usually go for 3-4 MP taken with a
| high-quality lens over 5+ MP taken with an inexpensive consumer lens.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong (only) in rec.photo.marketplace.digital]

measekite wrote:
Ken Rockwell (a Nikon aficionado) has used and tested the Canon
SD880. He likes the LCD and controls and claims that this is the best P&S
Canon offers in the small compact class and can produce as good an image
quality and any other Canon P&S.

For some reason he does not seem to make a big deal over the lack of an
optical viewfinder.

This I do not understand since most agree that even with IS one can brace
the camera better at eye level.

The one shortcoming is lack of a long enough lens but it does go to 28mm
eqv.

Now he claims that you can get a great 11x14 from this but I have doubts.
I would say that a 5x7 would be the max if you are fussy.

Comments welcome.

I don't know why you would feel 5x7 is max. acceptable print size. Half
the posts in this group claim 6mp is adequate and indeed the entry level
Pentax and Nikon dslr's were just that, those people then go on to state
(and I suspect correctly) that this push for more pixels on a small
sensor is a marketing ploy. Of course, much larger sensors in a dslr are
another matter.
While I'm very happy with my now dated A95, the best picture of my
grandkids were taken with my earlier 2mp A40. I've no idea what the
actual dpi is on the 8x10, it just looks good.
Dave Cohen