#1 JS

I am missing all images!!!

12:26 pm - Friday, December 21, 2012

#2 ktvauve

Samples?

1:09 pm - Friday, December 21, 2012

#3 JS

Ok, I finally got it. For small prints, a great little camera.

9:35 pm - Friday, December 21, 2012

#4 Adam

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

#5 Christy Harper

what a great little camera

2:17 am - Saturday, December 22, 2012

#6 Mad Hungarian

Chinese crap.

2:02 pm - Saturday, December 22, 2012

#7 C Murdock

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

#8 Gerhard Salhenegger

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

#9 Salhenegger

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

#10 zebarnabe

Salhenegger,
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

#11 David

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

#12 C Murdock

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

#13 Joe Prete

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

#14 designworkhouse

wow!!great little camera. thanks

3:02 pm - Thursday, January 3, 2013

#15 Key Wester

I have this and it is a great little camera fell in love with it.

10:40 pm - Monday, January 28, 2013