Paul van Andel <pava@notthisvandel.nl> wrote:
>
> I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own
> :-)
> http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html
Thanks, that was interesting. In your 2nd sentence after "Reason buying"
did you mistype A650 instead of A640? Because the 3rd sentence says A640.
Odd product naming scheme: Canon gave the less-expensive lighter A720IS
a higher number than the more-expensive A650IS.
I almost bought an A640 but did not like the ergonomics, in particular
my nose gets in the way of the viewfinder, which should be further left.
The rotating LCD is great, though. Instead I got an SD800IS.
On 27 Sep 2007 09:21:34 -0700, Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Odd product naming scheme: Canon gave the less-expensive lighter
> A720IS a higher number than the more-expensive A650IS.
It's probably due to when each A#xx series was introduced. While
DPReview's alphabetical index may not be complete, it shows that the
first A5xx cameras in their list preceded the first A6xx cameras,
and these were followed in 2006 by the A7xx series.
> I almost bought an A640 but did not like the ergonomics, in particular
> my nose gets in the way of the viewfinder, which should be further left.
> The rotating LCD is great, though. Instead I got an SD800IS.
That could have been corrected by a very good plastic surgeon.
"Paul van Andel" <pava@NOTTHISvandel.nl> schreef in bericht
news:46fb9868$0$230$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Hi all,
>
> I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own
> :-)
> http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html
>
> Regards
> Paul
>
Paul van Andel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own
> :-)
> http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html
>
> Regards
> Paul
>
>
Very nice review, thank you. Your English is rather good. Bedankt.
On Sep 27, 8:48 am, "Paul van Andel" <p...@NOTTHISvandel.nl> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own
> :-)http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html
>
> Regards
> Paul
Hi,
I just got one as well. It has many great features, almost allowing
DSLR flexibility in a small camera.
Two problems though.
1) When shooting solid midtone objects at dusk (no real range-just
shots of grass in even light-did this as a test), they are
consistently overexposed. The histogram shows photos I know to be
overexposed as being in the middle, and correctly exposed ones as
being underexposed. I think the camera is set up biased somewhat
towrds overexposure.
2) More seriously and as you discovered when shooting in bright light,
there is a distinct tendency to blow out bright objects, especially if
they are surrounded by not so bright tones. Apart from the example
mentioned in your review, I also noted it badly blowing out much of
the image in the boat in IMG-0542 and in parts of the boat in the
right background in IMG-0503. I have found the same thing. It takes
a LOT of underexposre to bring back the detail; to the extent of
rendering other portions ridiculousy dark. This issue may convince me
to return it for another model. I have read that all the A series
suffer somewhat from this problem but I don't know if they are all
this extreme in that aspect. I had been looking at the A640. Perhaps
it would be better.
Have you done any more testing and come to any conclusions?
commando1854 <coverich@nb.aibn.com> wrote:
> I just got one as well. It has many great features, almost allowing
> DSLR flexibility in a small camera. Two problems though.
> 1) When shooting solid midtone objects at dusk (no real range-just
> shots of grass in even light-did this as a test), they are
> consistently overexposed. The histogram shows photos I know to be
> overexposed as being in the middle, and correctly exposed ones as
> being underexposed. I think the camera is set up biased somewhat
> towrds overexposure.
> 2) More seriously and as you discovered when shooting in bright light,
> there is a distinct tendency to blow out bright objects, especially if
> they are surrounded by not so bright tones. Apart from the example
> mentioned in your review, I also noted it badly blowing out much of
> the image in the boat in IMG-0542 and in parts of the boat in the
> right background in IMG-0503. I have found the same thing. It takes
> a LOT of underexposre to bring back the detail; to the extent of
> rendering other portions ridiculousy dark.
So you're saying, "it is a digital camera."
If you want cameras to perform up to your expectations above,
go back to film.
commando1854 <coverich@nb.aibn.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 8:48 am, "Paul van Andel" <p...@NOTTHISvandel.nl> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own
>> :-)http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html
>>
>> Regards
>> Paul
> Hi,
> I just got one as well. It has many great features, almost allowing
> DSLR flexibility in a small camera.
> Two problems though.
> 1) When shooting solid midtone objects at dusk (no real range-just
> shots of grass in even light-did this as a test), they are
> consistently overexposed. The histogram shows photos I know to be
> overexposed as being in the middle, and correctly exposed ones as
> being underexposed. I think the camera is set up biased somewhat
> towrds overexposure.
> 2) More seriously and as you discovered when shooting in bright light,
> there is a distinct tendency to blow out bright objects, especially if
> they are surrounded by not so bright tones. Apart from the example
> mentioned in your review, I also noted it badly blowing out much of
> the image in the boat in IMG-0542 and in parts of the boat in the
> right background in IMG-0503. I have found the same thing. It takes
> a LOT of underexposre to bring back the detail; to the extent of
> rendering other portions ridiculousy dark. This issue may convince me
> to return it for another model. I have read that all the A series
> suffer somewhat from this problem but I don't know if they are all
> this extreme in that aspect. I had been looking at the A640. Perhaps
> it would be better.
> Have you done any more testing and come to any conclusions?
Has it got RAW output as an option? If it has, you may find that the
apparent overexposure problem is a feature of the internal RAW to jpeg
conversion, and doesn't apply to the original RAW image.
In article <5na5kuFhaiepU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> commando1854 <coverich@nb.aibn.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 8:48 am, "Paul van Andel" <p...@NOTTHISvandel.nl> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I bought the Canon A720, and since no reviews are out there I wrote my own
> >> :-)http://www.cpr.demon.nl/canon/index.html
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Paul
>
> > Hi,
> > I just got one as well. It has many great features, almost allowing
> > DSLR flexibility in a small camera.
> > Two problems though.
> > 1) When shooting solid midtone objects at dusk (no real range-just
> > shots of grass in even light-did this as a test), they are
> > consistently overexposed. The histogram shows photos I know to be
I have found that every one of my Canons treat green items as if they
were black. They are consistently overexposed, as the camera tries to
make them look grey. I routinely reduce exposure by about 1 stop if the
scene contains a lot of green.
User review Canon a720 IS 
Linear Mode
