| Author |
c902 vs Canon Ixus 85is |
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
On 2009-04-25 22:34:25, number1 wrote:
Whats so great about it being thin? just means its easier to lose. id rather have a chuncker device that performs better.
you misunderstood me.
for such super-slim camera/cellphone its really OK quality i think...thats what i meant, (i just reflexed about Mizzles "both cams suxs bigtime"...
well, i have news for you..everything SUXS against my girlfriend Hasselblad 503CW....(but do i compare it with my 10mm c902 ??? hell no)
ps...easier to loose ??? (its not that thin 
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-25 22:59 ] |
|
|
Mizzle
Joined: Oct 06, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
The Hasselblad 503CW, just like most other medium format cameras, sucks big time outside the studio.
[ This Message was edited by: Mizzle on 2009-04-25 23:01 ] |
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
oh my.... first i thought you kidding, but then i release you didnt.
Hasselblad 503CW and all other medium formats cameras suxs outside the studio ??
edit....why even bother, but what a heck:
.....have you ever seen the result from a 503cw after you develop the film straight ahead ??? (im talking about analogue now, not some boring digi-format)
edit...
back to topic...my former DSC-T1 is the best slim camera i have. its a bit better then ixus-85, (not way better)...so i really think its ok quality on your ixus and c902 for its size
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-25 23:58 ] |
5nak3
Joined: Oct 22, 2007
Posts: 364
PM |
To be honest with you the snaps from both look good. Ok at 100% they are not great, but then most people don't ever view them at 100%. So for a large majority of the population either would be a good choice.
As for this topic about the camera being crap, as was already mentioned in the thread different tools for different needs. You don't buy a Ferrari if you want to tow farm equipment you buy a Hilux (or something similar). And an extension to that, if you want a point and shoot, pocket friendly, clubbing camera, you don't go and blow £5000+ on a SLR / DSLR camera, you get a little Cannon that does it's job and keeps you happy.
At the same time you also have to remember the price points. The OP said they paid $200. What is that, bout £130? That isn't a bad price for a camera that is more than capable at doing the job the manufacturer intended for it to do.
Sweeping statements like "both suck big time" really are nothing but a waste of server space. Ultimately if the tool suits the job, then it doesnt matter that a much better (and more expensive) alternative exists.
As for the OP that was a nice bargain you picked up with the camera, and I'm sure you'll enjoy using it. |
davidtre
Joined: Nov 01, 2008
Posts: 14
PM |
On 2009-04-25 23:54:11, Mizzle wrote:
that doesn't mean that there are other and better options available.
That is to say that the same reasoning can be valid with your “professional equipment” |
Pitzon
Joined: Oct 14, 2007
Posts: 435
From: Sweden
PM |
I didn´t have the intent of a flame war with his thread thats for sure
Ofcourse one of the cheapest digicams out there can´t compare with professional photo equipment and dslr:s but that wasn´t really the point here. For me the difference in photo quality between the c902 and Ixus are lightyears but i sure understand that they aren´t the best in the world.
I will be very happy with it and it suits my needs. It slips down easily in my jeans pocket and i don´t have to use a backpack for a 100 mile hike to carry around the cam.
I have own bigger cams before but already with the Canon Powershot A640 it feels so big. You cant carry it around that easy and i know i have missed many shots just because of this.
The intent was to show how much better (less worse) a small cheap digicam is today compared to a cellphone and at the same time show that for some people it won´t matter at all. It all has to do with our different taste and needs.
|
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
how thick is c902 camera ???(maybe 6-8mm with the lens), and produce similar pics as both A640 and ixus85 in normal size....thats pretty good.
and thats how you can compare it, you cant compare with some larger digi cams, (ixus85 have real moving, optical lenses and is of course a bit thicker, but still quite thin)....
anyway, if you want a great slim camera...buy a DSC-T1....its really cool (best 5m.p. i've tried)
|
Mizzle
Joined: Oct 06, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
On 2009-04-26 00:37:12, plankgatan wrote:
oh my.... first i thought you kidding, but then i release you didnt.
Hasselblad 503CW and all other medium formats cameras suxs outside the studio ??
edit....why even bother, but what a heck:
.....have you ever seen the result from a 503cw after you develop the film straight ahead ??? (im talking about analogue now, not some boring digi-format)
edit...
back to topic...my former DSC-T1 is the best slim camera i have. its a bit better then ixus-85, (not way better)...so i really think its ok quality on your ixus and c902 for its size
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-25 23:58 ]
Of course I've seen images shot with medium format cameras, and the cameras are extremely limited. And don't even get started with the whole analogue versus digital - digital won that battle several years ago.
On 2009-04-26 03:01:26, davidtre wrote:
On 2009-04-25 23:54:11, Mizzle wrote:
that doesn't mean that there are other and better options available.
That is to say that the same reasoning can be valid with your “professional equipment”
Obviously that should have said "that there aren't".
@plankgatan
FFS man, "normal size" is full size! I'm sick and tired of hearing your ramblings about "normal sizes" and how thin a camera is.
About your comment on "real moving optics" - any autofocus camera will have that.
|
blerk
Joined: Jun 12, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
A Nikon D700 is only 1500 pounds... if it didnt take better pictures than a small 150 pound digicam I'd get my money back Mizzle 
[ This Message was edited by: blerk on 2009-04-26 10:46 ] |
gtr83
Joined: Sep 27, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: Indonesia
PM |
@blerk
So, are you already using an N95 8GB now?  |
Mizzle
Joined: Oct 06, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
On 2009-04-26 11:43:32, blerk wrote:
A Nikon D700 is only 1500 pounds... if it didnt take better pictures than a small 150 pound digicam I'd get my money back Mizzle
[ This Message was edited by: blerk on 2009-04-26 10:46 ]
Good thing it does then  |
nikolat
Joined: Apr 08, 2008
Posts: 187
From: Serbia
PM, WWW
|
I actually laughed upon reading this thread xD
Mizzle says they both suck, and everyone gets offended. |
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
hardly offended by that, but i thought he was way out fishing when he said that ex, 503CW just looks good in a studio ??? (more weird then so can it hardly be)
we develop 503CW films (straight ahead) quite often, and they are amazing, just amazing
besides, i think this ixus-85 photos looks pretty good in fullsize, (seen worse, for sure).
|
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
The cannon a470 is a great cam at only 50GBP
http://www.digitalcamerarevie[....]80&review=Canon+Powershot+A470
check the fullsized samples , dam good quality for 50quid. |
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
Here's a sample from my 5 year old p100
http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewphotos.php?pid=19334
It's good enough for me. |
|
|
Posted: 2009-04-25 23:56
