Behavioural scientists reckon that, within ten seconds of meeting someone for the first time, we’ve already decided whether we like them or not. Well, if the Canon Ixus 860 IS was a person, we would have liked them from the moment we first clapped eyes on them.
It’s a handsome thing, with smooth curves, a two-tone silver and …
Besides, the review doesn't highlight the points where small cameras fail (and as such, new versions can do better.) Those photos could be taken on any compact camera.
How about testing it at high ISO, and show us how the noise is, rather than regurgitating the specs which say 1600 ISO. I can't imagine that a 1mm CCD would be useable at that range.
What were you trying to focus on in the bird picture? I think you'll find that the birds are out of focus, and the fence is in focus.
It would also be nice to have a demonstration of how well the IS works.
dpreview have a good template for reviewing both compacts and DSLR cameras, perhaps you could plagiarise that?
Call me old fashioned, but I hate to extend my arms and look at a little screen when composing a photo -- and it makes it harder to steady the shot and get better sharpness too.
Nice enough "on the run" camera otherwise. I can't have my DSLR with me all the time after all... But a bit too expensive for what it does. Now if it had a more powerful zoom... I've seen compacts around doing 7x optical and 7 Mpix for a lower price than this (at least here in the US...).
In April this year I bought a Panasonic FX3. The Canon is very similar in features and capability. OK so the FX3 is only 7m and the zoom is x3 and the screen is slightly smaller. But it has got anti-shake which is essential with a camera of this type. Pocket cameras are too small to hold properly and without a viewfinder cannot be stabilised easliy (against the face) so camera shake is a problem. It also has a handy illuminator so you can see what you are photographing in the dark. It also came with a 200 shot card.
The point is that I only paid £100 for this camera and I believe it was much better value for money.
Register
Canon Ixus 860 IS compact camera
Behavioural scientists reckon that, within ten seconds of meeting someone for the first time, we’ve already decided whether we like them or not. Well, if the Canon Ixus 860 IS was a person, we would have liked them from the moment we first clapped eyes on them. It’s a handsome thing, with smooth curves, a two-tone silver and …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Posted Tuesday 6th November 2007 15:20 GMT
Anonymous Coward
I think you mean VGA and 320x240 #
Just that.
Canon's have been VGAing for years now so I'm sure that's what you mean't.
Posted Tuesday 6th November 2007 15:20 GMT
Anonymous Coward
No Viewfinder #
Shame this camera doesn't have an Optical viewfinder.
Posted Tuesday 6th November 2007 15:20 GMT
Anonymous Coward
A 1mm CCD? #
Are you sure?
Besides, the review doesn't highlight the points where small cameras fail (and as such, new versions can do better.) Those photos could be taken on any compact camera.
How about testing it at high ISO, and show us how the noise is, rather than regurgitating the specs which say 1600 ISO. I can't imagine that a 1mm CCD would be useable at that range.
What were you trying to focus on in the bird picture? I think you'll find that the birds are out of focus, and the fence is in focus.
It would also be nice to have a demonstration of how well the IS works.
dpreview have a good template for reviewing both compacts and DSLR cameras, perhaps you could plagiarise that?
Posted Tuesday 6th November 2007 16:53 GMT
J
Re: No Viewfinder #
Second that.
Call me old fashioned, but I hate to extend my arms and look at a little screen when composing a photo -- and it makes it harder to steady the shot and get better sharpness too.
Nice enough "on the run" camera otherwise. I can't have my DSLR with me all the time after all... But a bit too expensive for what it does. Now if it had a more powerful zoom... I've seen compacts around doing 7x optical and 7 Mpix for a lower price than this (at least here in the US...).
Posted Wednesday 7th November 2007 03:55 GMT
Martin Huizing
I agree with Anonymous Coward #
With all due respect to the writer but this review sucked.
Sample photo's should be the original size and not down-scaled. (1000x750 wth)
Photo's of people, please!
Macro pics should have something in it so we can compare the size of the object photographed.
Eh... Movie sample?
Please!
Posted Wednesday 7th November 2007 10:24 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Still feeling good? #
I don't know why this camera is so special.
In April this year I bought a Panasonic FX3. The Canon is very similar in features and capability. OK so the FX3 is only 7m and the zoom is x3 and the screen is slightly smaller. But it has got anti-shake which is essential with a camera of this type. Pocket cameras are too small to hold properly and without a viewfinder cannot be stabilised easliy (against the face) so camera shake is a problem. It also has a handy illuminator so you can see what you are photographing in the dark. It also came with a 200 shot card.
The point is that I only paid £100 for this camera and I believe it was much better value for money.
Posted Wednesday 7th November 2007 15:30 GMT
Anonymous Coward
32MB card #
Amusing - I bought a Canon compact camera back in 2003 which came with a 32MB (CF) card!
This topic is closed for new posts.