Roundup: Compact Digital Cameras : Canon PowerShot A1100 IS
6. Canon PowerShot A1100 IS
What remains of the viewfinder
From generation to generation, the optical viewfinder that used to equip all PowerShots has gradually disappeared. Beyond the very top end G10, the A1100 IS is now the last in the range to keep this accessory.
This one is narrow and imprecise. However, given the high reflectivity of the screen, it will come very much in use in strong sunlight.
Six months after the PowerShot A1000 IS, Canon has renewed its entry-level compact. It is largely unchanged, the main innovation being the gain from 10 to 12 megapixels, and the new Digic 4 chip that is there to improve image processing, especially high sensitivity images.
Handling
- PowerShot A1100 IS...
The casing of the A1100 IS has not really evolved from that of its predessor. All the elements are there but with a very plastic finish. With the bulge on the side being identical to the old model, there are no surprises with the handling; at the very most, the chrome coated bar down the front gives a better grip for the middle finger. The distribution of commands is identical to the previous model, which certainly isn’t a bad decision: the position of buttons is clear, and the handling presents no difficulties.
In contrast the 6.4 com screen, limited to 115,000 points is, according to current standards, very poor indeed. The vertical angles of vision are among the narrowest we have seen and the lack of definition is manifest even at an armslength. As remarked on the A1000 IS, the use of the same screen six months down the line is real a fault.
As on the SD960 IS, you’ll note that the camera is slower than the previous generation. Slow to start-up, the focus on the telephoto lens is better, but it is very slow between two photos: the wait is one second longer. Is this down to the processing of the two extra megapixels? Or processing of noise? Whatever the reason, you’ll have to wait more than three seconds between two images.
Image quality
In this domain, the camera doesn’t do badly. Moving up to 12 megapixels is one thing, but image processing generation is another. The results are above average and we didn’t note any major faults; sure there are problemes in strong light, but this is a fault common to all current compacts (although Ricoh and Fuji will soon be launching solutions that we’ll be studying in this area). Precision is good, including the periphery, thanks to an effective autofucus even in low lighting and effective stabilization. Colors are faithful to the brand tradition: automatic white balance is effective and retains an agreeable warmth.
Noise processing on the new Digic 4 is however very different to that on the previous Digic III. As of 800 iso, the image, already grainy but still precise, is smooth and exempt from superfluous noise. It’s the same at 1600 iso, where the image noise only appears slightly, but where figures become unreadable. In spite of having 2 Mpx less, the A1000 IS can handle more detail at this iso.
You’ll get a file that you can develop on A4 that is well defined and not at all grainy. The reframing maniacs will dislike this automatic smoothing--they might prefer to manage the noise with specialised software, or with black and white for example, but this new trend does correspond to the A1100 IS general consumer target.
The camera is faithful at VGA definition. Don’t expect miracles, although it does handle itself honorably. The zoom is inactive during image recording, replaced by a digital zoom of doubtful quality.
| Canon PowerShot A1100 IS | |
|---|---|
| Pluses | Minuses |
|
|
| There was one thing that should have been replaced on the A1000: the screen. Unfortunately, this hasnt been done. The increase in megapixels also causes a noticeable slowing between one photo and another in burst mode. The camera remains easy to use, affordable and gives quality photos, but it is really no improvement on its predecessor. |  |
should have classified the cameras to at least price and/or final rating. i got discouraged to read.
should have classified the cameras to at least price and/or final rating. i got discouraged to read.
When you say classified, what do you mean? Do you mean the pages should go in order of price, or in order of rating? Such as the cheap ones at the beginning and the expensive ones at the end OR the best cameras at the top and the worst cameras at the bottom?
i meant group them by chosen price ranges/brackets or any feature you think is relevant since comparison between cameras is just difficult with the present format wherein it is only possible to compare models of a certain brand.
It would have been nice if all the cameras were given scores (yes I know this is very subjective, but so are all the comments and pro/con sections). Idealy they would be given su scores as well (i.e. a still picture score, a video score, a asthetics score, a usablity score, maybe some others) and then the cameras could be sorted by those scores with links, maybey a short blurb at each camera in the sorted list. Another thing that would be very usefull to myself and I assume other readers is a features table that allows us to compare all the cameras.