The optical macro setting lets you get within 3cm of an object, but you can also use the digital macro to boost this
However, we were not convinced by the My Colors effects, which include sepia, black and white and the option to emphasise red, green or blue – file these under gimmick. We liked the fact that in movie mode you can zoom and there’s a nice time lapse function offering 1 or 0.5 frames per second shooting. The moving pictures offered smooth motion and there’s also an option to shoot compact movies (at 160 x 120 pixel resolution and 15 frames per second) for publishing movies online.
So is the Ixus 80 IS a mere cosmetic makeover of the Ixus 70 IS? Not quite. It’s got a few more pixels on its CCD and the red eye reduction and face detection systems seem better, but all in all, there’s not a great big difference between the two. We felt that the Ixus 70 IS was more an evolutionary model than a revolutionary offering and the same goes for the Ixus 80 IS.
The styling has changed but there’s not a massive difference under the bonnet. Manual control is very limited but then again, we suspect anyone buying this camera will be more interested in the way it looks and handles and that it can deliver decent picture quality when shooting in auto mode. And to that extent, the Ixus 80 IS delivers the goods in spades.
Canon Digital Ixus 80 IS compact camera
And where did my earlier comment go then?
A bit of critisism about reviewing a camera at least one generation old and ignoring the plethora of isus models releases since and it gets removed?
Full frame (wars)
Interesting article above, on '6mp is the optimum for compact cameras'.
I spent some time around the middle of last year looking at CC's and ended up getting the Ixus 70. From this review, and a quick comparison on Canon's site against this model, I really can't see any compelling reasons to spend the extra $A100 for the 80 over the 70.
As to full frame (35mm) sensors - there's pros and cons with this. I used to think the same way, but Four-thirds (wikipedia it) looks like a much better option to me now. I'm not invested with either Canon or Nikon high-end gear, so a new standard is a more attractive option than siding with either of those two company's lock-in approach anyway.
Fascinating article about four-thirds ("Full Frame Wars") over at : http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html - he writes especially coherently, doing an excellent history of 35mm and then some analysis of full frame sensors as well as looking at four-thirds.
I sort of agree with you.
More pixels in such a tiny area is pointless. I think we hit the highest resolution for a 'digital camera' a year or two ago.
I want my digital cameras to have BIGGER sensors. Yup, I want a 35mm sensor with the correct number of pixels in it (personally, I do not know how many that would be). ideally, a nice Mamiya with 35mm digital back along with a medium format digital back... oh wait.. dont' they have those already...?
Anyway, bring on the not-making-lense-ratios-more-complex digital cameras :o)
we don't want more pixels on small sensors
"indeed some might suggest that it’s just a smidgeon light on features, such as ... and more pixels on the CCD"