There’s also a Quickshot function, which lets you set a range of parameters on the LCD screen - such as flash, exposure compensation and white balance - before taking the shot through the viewfinder.
In terms of performance, the Ixus 980 was very good, with fine detail, contrast and colour reproduction. So did the extra pixels make a difference to the picture quality? Yes, but we suspect that the Digic 4 processor played a bigger role. The iContrast feature is nice to have, but there was little need to deploy it, either while shooting live or in post-production.
Better than its predecessors
In terms of noise, those extra pixels didn’t seem to have had an adverse effect on the amount of noise generated, which must be down to some hard work by the Digic 4. As expected, noise begins to become apparent around ISO 400, but even at 800, the levels are not too bad.
The face detection system was fast and accurate, and Canon has cleverly combined it with the self timer. So, instead of setting the self timer and then racing to get in the frame, you can set up Face Self-Timer and then nonchalantly stroll into position, because the Ixus 980 won’t take the shot until it detects an additional face - yours. We tried it and it works well, although be warned, in this mode, the 980 fires off three consecutive frames. Macro shots were impressive too, as was the continuous shooting mode of around 1.3 f/s.
However, there were a couple of disappointments. We wish Canon had given the Ixus 980 a lens with a better wide-angle setting. Yes, there is a panoramic feature that will help you stitch a spread of shots together, but you shouldn’t have to deploy this in order to squeeze in a little more side detail. Red eye was a problem in a number of shots, but that said, the Ixus 980 has one of the best red-eye correction systems we’ve used, allowing you to select individual eyes for processing.
There’s a lot to like about the Digital Ixus 980 IS, not least its ability to produce really good images. There’s enough automation to help the beginner produce good results and enough manual control to satisfy many enthusiasts who don’t want to step up to a DSLR. After the disappointing performances of the 960 and 970, Canon is back on track. ®
More Compact Camera Reviews...
Canon Digital Ixus 980 IS compact camera
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