Sample Shots
Click for cropped image at full resolution
We were pleased with the results you can get in macro mode. Note the scratch marks on this €1 coin.
Telephoto (top) and wide-angle
We were a little disappointed with the camera’s wide angle setting, which is equivalent to a 36mm lens on a 35mm camera. There is a panoramic stitch mode, although it’s no substitute for a wide angle lens in our view.
Night Snapshot mode before (top) and after
There are 20 auto functions to choose from, including Night Snapshot, which as these pictures show, does make a considerable impact when shooting scenes in low-light.
COMMENTS
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!
'scuse me!
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.
Hm...
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
