Confession. I've been holding out on you. In May my ideal camera came onto the market and I bought it. This is essentially what I already had in my Minolta X50 except better in two key respects. It has 7.1 megapixels instead of 5 and it is one of the new Canon ultraportables. For a while now, Canon has been dominating the digital camera space - and for good reason.
I was able to sell my X50 for $200 or so to a friend so it is in good hands. I took a loss there and turned around and paid the full $499 for the just released SD500. But hey. I was happy to get the extra 2 megapixels and a better sensor.
The SD500 is very limited compared to bigger cameras and almost certainly a clear notch inferior to Merlin Mann's (of 43 Folders fame) favorite the bulkier Canon A95 which only does 5 mpx.
What I've come to know is that the size of the sensor is the major determinant of how much light variability a camera can handle gracefully. Bigger, more expensive cameras have bigger, better sensors that can handle contrast and bright or dim light much better. This explains why tiny cameras have all sorts of *fun* features but still can't take a decent picture.
OK, they can take decent pictures in a narrow range of situations. The problem is that there is a huge variance in brightness in the real world. And you just can't get around that. Never say never, but lots of people are trying their best and there's a long, long ways to go.
One reason I didn't write about my new camera is because it still, even being the best ultraportable out there (probably), is limited in it's ability to take good photos. You can get great photos and they are worlds better than the typical phone cam, but there are issues.
The main problem you have to deal with is blurry pictures due to the fact that you need a long exposure to take a decent photo in all but the brightest conditions and during that time you are very likely to move the camera just a tiny bit. And you are hosed. If it is really bright out or you use a flash at optimal distance, the exposure is short and you are OK. But, the best photos tend to be in lower light (overcast skies) and that's when you are most likely to take blurry images.
However, part of being a skillful amateur photographer is to learn the limitations of your camera. To know it really well. And that's what happens if you are paying attention (and you don't keep replacing your camera all the time - doh!). You get excellent feedback -- even though you often can't see how bad a photo is when you look at a 2 inch screen. It's only when you blow it up on your personal computer screen that you see how bad it is. Even though I've gotten better and I take few really blurry photos, a lot of my photos aren't perfectly sharp. They are off a little bit.
Still. I'm happy with the 25% or so improvement I got with my new Canon. I'm loving it. I take my camera with me most of the time even though it is a major pocket filler leaving me with less room for my other two pocket filling devices -- my color ipod and my Treo 650. Cargo pants rule! Oh well, brains before beauty!
I'm still telling myself that eventually I'll get a bigger camera that can take good low light shots. But, I'm not a serious amateur photographer. I don't really want a camera that is hard to use and complicated. But I sure could enjoy an 8-12 x optical zoom, for instance. Meanwhile, I'll just admire those fancy big cameras that serious amateurs and professionals use.
Technorati Tags: camera, canon, sd500, photography, digitalphotography