HTC 10 Review
Sony RX10 III Review
Canon EOS M10 Review
Microsoft Lumia 950 Review
Nikon Coolpix A100 Review
Nikon Coolpix A10 Review
Fujifilm FinePix XP90 Review
Huawei P9 Review
Canon EOS 80D Review
Nikon D500 Review
Canon PowerShot SX610 HS
Nikon Coolpix S7000
Canon EOS 1300D
Canon PowerShot SX720 HS
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ70
Canon EOS 1200D
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ100
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V
I am missing all images!!!
12:26 pm - Friday, December 21, 2012
1:09 pm - Friday, December 21, 2012
Ok, I finally got it. For small prints, a great little camera.
9:35 pm - Friday, December 21, 2012
How can value for money be scored the lowest? It’s a $70 camera and you think we should expect more?
11:04 pm - Friday, December 21, 2012
what a great little camera
2:17 am - Saturday, December 22, 2012
2:02 pm - Saturday, December 22, 2012
The reviewer says the image quality is “great” when viewed at lower ISO’s, but that’s not true if you view the images at the pixel level on a screen. The images are blurry with heavy smearing of details due to noise reduction, and there is lots of purple-fringing. I’m guessing that the reviewer is printing images and basing his comments on the prints, but that’s not the way to judge image quality. Only on a screen can you align each pixel in an image to a pixel on the screen—you can’t do that with prints—so only on a screen can you judge the quality of detail. The quality of the details in the sample images is lousy, so the camera is lousy (as in camera-phone level lousy).
3:09 pm - Saturday, December 22, 2012
I agree somehow with Adam that value for money should be scored above average as one can really hardly gets a cheaper camera and for this price the little thing does quite a bit.
I got one for taking pictures through a telescope. It is working quite well as it is not heavy and the optics are good. The only thing I am missing is that there is no choice for exposure time shorter than 1 second. You have to rely on automatic time which is working most times quite good for the moon but not all for stars and planets. Whereas for stars with low magnification on the telescope (25 or 30 times) 1 second is still working, planets like Jupiter or Saturn are overexposed and you do not see any details like clouds on Jupiter or the ring of Saturn. For more magnification 1 second is too slow as stars or planets already starting to appear as lines instead of dots or disks because of the movement of the earth.
8:17 pm - Saturday, December 22, 2012
I got this little camera for taking pictures of sky objects through a beginnner’s telescope. I am generally quite pleased. The only thing I missed when buying this camera that there is no customer’s choice of exposure time when it comes to shorter times than 1 second. Between 1 sec and 15 sec you have choices in the night sky mode. That means that one can use only small magnification on the telescope and/or the camera. Otherwise the stars are not any more like dots but more like lines because of the movement of the earth. And planets are overexposed so one does not see any details like clouds of Jupiter or the ring(s) of Saturn. Taking pictures of the moon is possible as the moon is so bright that the camera’s choice of the time is working most of the times ok. I was quite pleased with open star clusters like the Pleiades, the Hyades, Praesepe or the area of Orion Nebula.
I agree somehow with Adam that the lowest score value for money is questionable.
8:50 pm - Saturday, December 22, 2012
Try CHDK, it’s available for 1.00b, 1.00d, 1.00e versions.
I have the feel that A1200 had better image quality, though, you really only need 8MP or less to most of prints expected from these cameras.
Anyone looking for pixel level perfection can go look in other side and budget…
10:23 pm - Saturday, December 22, 2012
This is actually a great little point and shoot camera. I bought one a couple weeks ago and have gotten some really great stills of birds at a local park here in Oregon. Truly a good deal if you are in the market for a new point and shoot camera.
1:40 am - Sunday, December 23, 2012
I’ll say it again: camera-phone lousy. You simply cannot squeeze 16 MP onto a tiny sensor and get anything but lousy image quality. I have a 7-year-old Canon point-and-shoot camera that has a 7 MP sensor that has better image quality than this. The images from this camera may look good when printed at normal sizes, but how many photographs get printed these days—one percent? Most people view their photographs on their computer or iPad or some other electronic device. And if you decide to look at the details of your photos, you’ll be disappointed.
12:46 pm - Sunday, December 23, 2012
What a cute little camera! I do wonder how they got 16MP into this tiny camera, but for the money, I think it’s great. I would carry this camera, at $80.00 the pictures look very good to me. Mark passed on this review, but Matt did a great job! I find it very surprising that it’s got an optical viewfinder and full HD, and it’s better looking than the competition. I think carrying it in your pocket wouldn’t bother the controls either, a common problem with small cameras. I really like this one. Hint, Hint!!
Oh, I’m here to say from the staff at photographyblog.com we want to wish our readers a safe and very HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
to you and your families. It’s been another tough year, but it’s over now so let’s hope that 2013 will be better. People, please remember to drive safely, it’s not worth rushing around just to save a few minutes. Better to get there in one piece! I must say that writing to you guys and helping you through your camera troubles has been fun, despite the few rough spots it was well worth it and I wish you all the best! Well, I’ll see you guys next year. Good Luck,
... Joe Prete
11:55 pm - Monday, December 31, 2012
wow!!great little camera. thanks
3:02 pm - Thursday, January 3, 2013
I have this and it is a great little camera fell in love with it.
10:40 pm - Monday, January 28, 2013
Hard to believe some of the comments on here. It’s like buying a Toyota Corolla and complaining that it’s not a Rolls Royce! What on earth are you expecting for $80 bucks?
6:25 pm - Monday, August 12, 2013
Don’t expect much. The video quality is unacceptable. I had the video freeze frame upon playback while the sound played normally. This camera would be good for utilitarian purposes, as in taking eBay photos.
1:32 am - Tuesday, October 8, 2013
The reviewer despises the optical viewfinder, but this was the main selling point for me. On bright days you cannot see the screen on the back of digital cameras, which makes them all but useless.
I gave been super satisfied with my little camera and its results. It is ideal for me!
7:51 am - Sunday, May 4, 2014
You have found one of the very best buys in Digital Photography.
Everyone who owns one of these loves this little camera. Me too!
… Joe Prete
9:16 am - Sunday, May 4, 2014
I might have gone on to say that the end results are splendid, too. No doubt a really high end product might give you pictures you can blow up to the size of a wall, but the photographs this camera produces are crystal clear at the normal enlargement sizes ... And it is all so EASY!
Then there is the battery life, which is astonishing. My previous rechargeable vivitar always let me down. This one never does.
It has that viewfinder! Not completely accurate, but quite good enough for me, an amateur snapper. I can quite see why everyone loves it!
5:40 pm - Sunday, May 4, 2014
Sorry, the comments were down for almost 2 days on this thread, Mark just fixed it. I was going to say that this camera would have sold better, if Canon had priced it higher. When I told people about it, they thought that I was kidding. I have 2 now, the older one, I keep in the Glove Box of the car. It’s good to know that it’s there, in case of an accident or emergency. I think they are still in current production, so some people somewhere see it’s value. When they are finally discontinued, and the price drops further, I think I will pick up another. … Joe
9:14 am - Tuesday, May 6, 2014
i have had this camera for a year all ways in my pocket when i go out, have now got about 100 a4 photos, have also got a fuji finepix s4300 which i never use. been taking photos for over 60 years
3:34 pm - Thursday, May 22, 2014
Ieneke van Houten
I love taking pictures, but have no patience for the technical stuff. Point and shoot, indeed. I got this camera because I like having a view finder and to replace the Canon Powershot A 560, which I loved. Much of my photos are documenting the garden. Somehow, I cannot get the thing to do macro consistently. The pictures are not nearly as good as those I took with my old camera. Disappointed.
3:25 am - Sunday, June 1, 2014
2.7 inch LCD,
Canon PowerShot A1300 review
Camera Reviews ·
Camera Buying Guide
Camera Buying Guide
Lens Reviews ·
Photography News ·
Best Digital Cameras
Best Digital Cameras
Best Compact Cameras
Best Compact Cameras
Photo Gallery ·
© Copyright 2003-2016 Photo 360 Limited