An In-Depth Look at 4 Ultra-compact Digicams
by Stephen Caston on July 18, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Final Words
Throughout our time with these 4 cameras, it became very clear that the strongest performers were the Canon SD400, Nikon S1, and Sony T33 (we'll get to the Olympus IR-300 in a bit). These 3 cameras were very competitive with each other in numerous aspects. In terms of speed and responsiveness, the Canon SD400 and Sony T33 were incredibly impressive. Both had very fast startup and cycle times. In addition, both cameras proved to have outstanding battery life. With respect to image quality, both the SD400 and T33 had the highest resolution capability. Bringing the Nikon S1 back to the discussion, all three cameras proved to have very good auto-focus and shutter lag performances. In addition, all three cameras have AF-assist lamps for focusing in inadequate lighting. Both the Canon SD400 and Nikon S1 have very good continuous drive modes. Also, they are the only cameras in the group with manual white balance as an option. In our field test with these three cameras, the Canon SD400 produced the best looking images. Next in line was the Nikon S1, which did a decent job reproducing fine details, but had a fuzzy quality to some of its images. The Sony T33 had rather average image quality, but its images were frequently characterized by fuzzy details.The reason why we have been delaying the discussion of the Olympus IR-300 is simply because it is so different from the other three cameras. More specifically, it is not really on par with the other cameras. Although it is not an absolutely horrible camera, it is nowhere near as good as the other ones in this review. To begin with, it is the slowest camera out of the bunch in nearly every respect. It takes a bit over 4 seconds to start-up and take a picture, nearly a full second to focus and take a picture, and had some of the slowest cycle times out of all 4 cameras. In terms of resolution ability, the IR-300's performance is on the low side of average. However, its real image quality issues stem from the over-compression of its images. This results in jaggies and JPEG artifacts. Some of the other issues that we experienced with the IR-300 had to due with its lack of features. For example, the camera does not offer ISO control, manual white balance, or an AF-assist lamp. In addition to the absence of these still image features, the IR-300 has an outdated video mode offering a maximum resolution of 320x240 at 15 fps. We should remind you that the Nikon S1 does only a bit better than this. The S1 offers video at 640x480, but only records at 15 fps.
Another important thing to keep in mind when comparing these cameras is build quality. Both the Canon SD400 and Sony T33 have a solid metal body and feel well-constructed. The Nikon S1 and Olympus-IR 300 are made of plastic. The Olympus IR-300 lens makes a very audible noise whenever it zooms in or out. This, in combination with the plastic body, makes it feel poorly-constructed when compared to the sturdy build quality of the Canon SD400 or Sony T33. When we look at the prices of these cameras, the Canon SD400 is the most expensive at approximately $355. The Nikon S1 and Sony T33 are priced around $330. The most affordable camera of the bunch is the Olympus IR-300 at approximately $305. Considering that there is only a $25 difference between the Olympus IR-300 and the Nikon S1/Sony T33, we feel that there is no reason to even consider the IR-300. We were most impressed with the Canon SD400 because it consistently showed some of the best performance and image quality out of all 4 cameras.
| Canon PowerShot SD400 | |
| Pros | Cons |
| - Excellent resolution - Very fast startup time - Fast shutter lag and focus - Fast cycle time - Very impressive continuous drive - Exceptional movie mode - Manual WB - AF-assist lamp - Metal body |
- Images become soft at ISO 400 - Some purple fringing |
| Nikon Coolpix S1 | |
| Pros | Cons |
| - Good resolution - Fast startup time - Fast shutter lag and focus - Very impressive continuous drive - Manual WB - AF-assist lamp - Decent battery life |
- Images become soft at ISO 400 - Some purple fringing - No metering options - Below average movie mode at 15 fps - Plastic body |
| Olympus IR-300 | |
| Pros | Cons |
| - Acceptable resolution - Decent battery life - Affordable price |
- JPEG artifacts (high compression) - Slight yellowish cast in sunlight images - No ISO options - No manual WB - Fairly slow shutter lag and focus - Slow startup time - Slow cycle time - No AF-assist lamp - Outdated movie mode - Plastic body - Lens noise when zooming |
| Sony DSC-T33 | |
| Pros | Cons |
| - Incredibly fast shutter and focus lag - Excellent resolution - Retains detail at ISO 400 - Very fast startup time - Very fast cycle time - Exceptional movie mode - AF-assist lamp - Very good battery life - Metal body |
- Fuzzy images - No Manual WB - Must use duo pro cards for Fine video mode - Annoying tripod adapter |
Thanks again to Newegg.com for loaning us the Canon PowerShot SD400, Nikon Coolpix S1, Olympus IR-300, and Sony DSC-T33 for review.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
35 Comments
View All Comments
stephencaston - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link
Thanks for catching that Jarred, I've fixed it now.Tujan - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link
None of these cameras seem to get that soft lime-green colored square. Top right.What IS the true color of that 'Engineering Bldg.?
_____________
Which,or how well do these cameras work to create DVDs. How to determine this.Wich propietor has the best software. Wich software suite works best with wich camera to do so ? [ ]
.........
Most reviews miss this aspect of features for a camera.I've read for example,codec articles,wich tell of specificities of 'formats,and playback. Generally what you do with your output depends on how you want to use it though.Then what playback device/medium is wished to use. Some formats do not work so well with creation of DVDs.Or authoring. Those wich are most ubiquotous will give you most satisfaction for your camera.
You might think that for example,that favorite movie you caught would be great to send to grandma. You can't capture it again though. However its an extra step to re-process the capture. So quality count of a good camera becomes the question of being able to edit from its usable format.What each uses,and how well it keeps the original intented quality for the use you want it to.
Some Cameras will use the MPEG4 format for example.However the utility of editing this format to DVD is difficult to find exact detail from any reviews. In trying to keep of what you see is what you have using the Camera.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
You link for the Sony movie clip is broken. You've got a ".jpg" at the end of the file name. The Canon looks pretty nice, though I'm still holding out for SLR. Give me a few more months....Thatkid - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
number 21 it is possible i actually took a hard looka t my camera as well nikon sometimes uses diffrent metals in there cameras im speaking from my experiance using there profresional cameras and they feel plastic but i did open the bettery lid and its a pretty thick metal shell. But you are right it defenately feels diffrent from the sont and cannon. the sony is brushed stainless teel i belive and is ver hard. the canon sd400 feels great its a small and dense feeling camera. they are very diffrent and when compared to the feel of these cameras it deos feel as if it were plastic but compare it to your mouse of keybaord or some sort of video game controller and youll see its a wierd metal.stephencaston - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
#19, thats interesting. The sample we reviewed definitely felt like plastic and made a plastic sound when I tapped on the shell with my fingernail. It felt nothing like the solid metal of the SD400 or the T33. It didn't even feel cool to the touch after leaving it in air-conditioning like metal should. Perhaps the body is made of a very thin metal surrounded by plastic. Either that or you and I received different versions.PrinceGaz - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
That Canon SD400 certainly looks very nice, not as high a resolution as the top-end SD500 but a bit smaller and lighter than it which is important to me. If I needed a replacement camera, that would be the one I'd go for.It's worth noting that in the UK (and maybe other countries) the Canon SD400 is called the Canon IXUS 50, but apart from the name is otherwise identical.
Thatkid - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
the nikon is made with an all metal body if you want to refrence that see Http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25529the bottom of the page says in bold compact super slim metal body. i know this also because i own one.
my friend has a SD400 weve done all the posible real life senario test possible night time shooting in clubs both get the same exact looking prints some small discrepensies in color cast in the pictures but other then that same performance on both awsome cameras. one thing this article didnt mention is the annoying yellow cast in all the sony t33 pictures sony may advertise 1000+ shots for the t33 but with flash and normal usage checking you pics and that kinda stuff maybe 100 - 150 shots on one baterry. i had the t33 and returned it when i took a picture of the best buy roof only to find it looking extremly orange.
IceWindius - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Canon wins again, go figure. My A85 farking rocks, I love it!ShadowVlican - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
w00t canon wins again, happy i choose an A95rubikcube - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Been in the market for a camera for a while and was considering the digital rebel xt for quality concerns. After I read this review, I decided that the quality wouldn't be that different, so I ran out and bought the SD400. Thanks for the great review.