A quick tour of the camera’s body reveals the power button, the shutter button and zoom ring on top. At the back is an optical viewfinder which sits on top of a 2.5in LCD. To the right are a mode dial, printer and playback buttons, and below these are a control dial, plus Display and Menu buttons. A plastic cover on the right side of the camera body covers a mini USB port, and at the bottom is a flap for the lithium-ion battery and SD/SDHC card.
There's an optical viewfinder as well as an LCD
In addition to all those pixels, the Ixus 980 offers a 7.7-28.5mm f2.8-5.8 lens, equivalent a 36-133mm lens on a 35mm camera; 3.7x optical zoom; image stabilisation system; face detection with a clever twist (see below); shutter speed range of 15-1/1600s' ISO range of 80-1600, with an optional 3200 setting; a ton of playback and image manipulation effects, including red-eye reduction and iContrast, a sort of digital fill-in flash effect that can be used while taking a shot or during playback for correcting under-exposed subjects; movie recording in both VGA and QVA resolution at 30f/s; 20 auto modes, including night shot and panoramic stitching; and last, but definitely not least, manual control.
Yes, you read that correctly – the Ixus 980 offers manual focus, exposure and shutter speed, albeit with one or two limitations. That said, it’s a darn sight better than the limited manual control offered by the Ixus 970.
In terms of handling, the Ixus 980 takes around two seconds to wake up and prepare for action. Shutter lag isn’t bad, although there was the occasional pause when shooting indoors. The menu button is used for selecting basic settings, such as flash and face detection, while the mode dial, function button and control dial are used for changing parameters. It’s not a bad system, but it is a little fussy.
Decent manual control set-up included
For some reason, Canon has put the Program AE and manual settings together on the mode dial, so you then have to use the control dial to select manual - PAE is the default setting. In manual mode, you can select from a wide range of shutter speeds, but aperture settings are limited to a choice of two. For example, if you’re shooting at the extreme end of the telephoto range, you can select an aperture size of just F5.8 or F16.
Next page: Sample Shots
The more pixels, the better
Sheesh, am I tired of the same more-pixels-is-a-marketing-department-ploy rants.
More pixels allow you to :
-increase the focal length (give me a 100Mpixel photo taken at 100mm and I'll make it a 5Mpixel photo at 1000mm -or whatever-) yeah I know not depth-of-field-wise, but also with lower risk of shake
-increase the sensitivity (give me a noisy 100Mpixel photo taken at ISO 3200 and I'll make it a sharp 5Mpixel photo at at ISO 100 -or whatever).
- improve IS capability (use/waste more of the sensor area to allow for shake correction)
So go after small sensor sizes and noise as much as you want, since those should indeed be scrutinised, but I say bring on the 100Mpixels sensors!
Uhhmmm, isn't this a consumer rather than professional or keen amateur photographers camera? From a 'snapper's aspect the images are fantastic - I'd love one of these little beauties to use for 72dpi images of items for sale on my website - I have over 180,000 of them.
Let's get real, if you sell A3 image prints, invest in a professional camera. If what you want is to be able to pop a camera in you pocket, snap the kids on the beach or take a few more than halfway decent pictures, this is a great tool.
Negativity is a curse and there seems to be a fair amount on this thread
The same consumers who demand 14 megapixels...
...will downsample their pics to 0.8 megapixel to share them on FaceBook.
Yeah, thanks for the 100% crops.
The ones here did not convince me at all. I wonder what the ISO was when those were taken, because even the seemingly well-lighted shots look noisy. And except for the macro example, they are also a bit blurry/lacking detail -- in my DSLR (Pentax K10D) experience, that's the noise reduction's fault, for which RAW is the answer (and you later choose how much, if any detail you want to trade for lower noise). So I guess noise reduction must be the culprit here too, what with the stupid 14 Mpix count. Useful for crops, in my opinion, but what goods are crops that look crap?
My Canon SX100 IS (8 Mpix) @ ISO 80 or 100 is *very* clear. And it has 10x zoom (36-360 in 35mm), which is the minimum I want. AND for a much lower price. It's maybe a little fatter than the Ixus 980, but still pocketable if you're not too small/wear tight clothes.
I would rather recommend that people buy the SX110 IS that came out recently instead. Still point and shoot if you want, much better manual controls of everything. Only downside I see compared to the Ixus: no optical viewfinder.
@ac - Try the equivalent 870 for wide angle
she prefers wide to long.
Apparently likes them small both ways from the videos