Canon PowerShot Pro1

patch29patch29 Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 2,928 Major grins
edited March 27, 2004 in Cameras
B+H has the Canon PowerShot Pro1, any takers?

I am looking for a good in-depth review of this camera. I expect we will see a few soon. I held this camera at PMA in February and for a compact camera with a great lens this camera should fit the bill well. I am curious to see some images from it and what people think. I am tempted to buy one, but not at the moment. What photography finances I have set aside will go towards a 1D mkII.

Comments

  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2004
    patch29 wrote:
    B+H has the Canon PowerShot Pro1, any takers?

    I am looking for a good in-depth review of this camera. I expect we will see a few soon. I held this camera at PMA in February and for a compact camera with a great lens this camera should fit the bill well. I am curious to see some images from it and what people think. I am tempted to buy one, but not at the moment. What photography finances I have set aside will go towards a 1D mkII.
    Steve's digicams has a detailed review here.
    If not now, when?
  • patch29patch29 Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 2,928 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    Steve's digicams has a detailed review here.


    Thanks for a lead in the right direction. The link goes to a photo of a SEVEN bicycle. Is it yours? I have been looking to set a long distance touring bicycle, the Pro1 would be perfect to take along.
  • patch29patch29 Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 2,928 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2004
    Here is the link to the review.
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2004
    patch29 wrote:
    Thanks for a lead in the right direction. The link goes to a photo of a SEVEN bicycle. Is it yours? I have been looking to set a long distance touring bicycle, the Pro1 would be perfect to take along.
    Too much posting. Glad you found the review. My Seven is great. I've had it 5 years and riden it about 20k miles.
    If not now, when?
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2004
    Sounds like it shares the same problem as the Sony f828. Lotsa noise at the higher ISOs.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited March 26, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    Sounds like it shares the same problem as the Sony f828. Lotsa noise at the higher ISOs.
    The SEVEN shares almost no problems with any Sony product (except price, perhaps.)

    The Pro1 probably shares a lot of problems with the f828; I believe they use the same sensor. In any case, the high resolution and small sensor are bound to be subject to noise. And too much DOF. Still, these things are great for what they are great for: traveling light, shooting in day light, landscaes, macro.

    You'd think there'd be software that could fix the noise at the expense of resolution. After all the noise comes because individual pixels in the sensor are too small to get statistically significant reading in low light a short time. By combining information from adjacent sensors, you should be able to get back to the noise level of the 5MP prosmuers.
    If not now, when?
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2004
    I thought the Canon used a proprietary sensor. headscratch.gif DPReview doesn't Identify the maker. Nor does Steve's Digicams. The Nikon 8700 uses a Sony CCD sensor... is it identical to the one used in the f828? ne_nau.gif

    There was a thread here not too long ago about the problems with packing ever-smaller pixels on a sensor. I'm not technically inclined, but what you say is consistent with what came out of that discussion. One thing that sticks in my mind is that all pixels are not created equal: I read that the pixels in the Canon 1D are fatter and produce a better image than you might expect for 4mp.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2004
    My 2 bob's worth...

    The camera is right up there with the rebel in $ & size

    ....hmmm way too PUI to have an opinion so i'll back out now with a question. How does it line up against the rebel in CCD size ?

    Oh...im glad you have all asked...my new 80 gig HD is running well, i chickened out & got a mate to put it in for me & use my old 40 gig as an extra. It was only back about 14 years that my brand spanker Amiga 2000 came with a 52 meg HD ..1 meg ram (paid $280 for another 2 meg ram) & friends were looking at it in awe asking "what on earth are you going to do with all that space?"
  • kometkomet Registered Users Posts: 117 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    I thought the Canon used a proprietary sensor. headscratch.gif DPReview doesn't Identify the maker. Nor does Steve's Digicams. The Nikon 8700 uses a Sony CCD sensor... is it identical to the one used in the f828? ne_nau.gif

    There was a thread here not too long ago about the problems with packing ever-smaller pixels on a sensor. I'm not technically inclined, but what you say is consistent with what came out of that discussion. One thing that sticks in my mind is that all pixels are not created equal: I read that the pixels in the Canon 1D are fatter and produce a better image than you might expect for 4mp.
    Waxie, why would a "fatter" pixel be better?
    komet gives light so that you may find the way.
  • kometkomet Registered Users Posts: 117 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    My 2 bob's worth...

    The camera is right up there with the rebel in $ & size

    ....hmmm way too PUI to have an opinion so i'll back out now with a question. How does it line up against the rebel in CCD size ?

    Oh...im glad you have all asked...my new 80 gig HD is running well, i chickened out & got a mate to put it in for me & use my old 40 gig as an extra. It was only back about 14 years that my brand spanker Amiga 2000 came with a 52 meg HD ..1 meg ram (paid $280 for another 2 meg ram) & friends were looking at it in awe asking "what on earth are you going to do with all that space?"
    I remember a few computers ago...the salesman told me that the 240 meg HD would be all I would ever, ever need. I think it had 1 or 2 meg ram. How things have changed.
    komet gives light so that you may find the way.
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2004
    komet wrote:
    I remember a few computers ago...the salesman told me that the 240 meg HD would be all I would ever, ever need. I think it had 1 or 2 meg ram. How things have changed.
    OI !! dont you be hijacking this thread. lol3.gif Hows elvis going ? cameras ..cameras...cameras....with everyone going to raw these days it wont be long before we need 5 gig in a camera...in 5 years maybe 100 gig. im going to stop now & go & sit on the balcony & watch the boats go past
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    My 2 bob's worth...
    ....hmmm way too PUI to have an opinion so i'll back out now with a question. How does it line up against the rebel in CCD size ?

    From what I can see, the Pro 1 has a CCD sensor, while the Digi Rebel has a CMOS sensor. CMOS is said to be better than CCD's.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2004
    komet wrote:
    Waxie, why would a "fatter" pixel be better?

    I'm just recapping what I read.... it's like a bigger bucket captures more rainfall. The bigger pixel gets more information. I guess that's one reason why those in the know look askance of the whole megapixel race for digicams.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • kometkomet Registered Users Posts: 117 Major grins
    edited March 27, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    I'm just recapping what I read.... it's like a bigger bucket captures more rainfall. The bigger pixel gets more information. I guess that's one reason why those in the know look askance of the whole megapixel race for digicams.
    Thanks...myself being naive re: digi-cams...it is so easy to fall into the "more megapixel is better" school of thought.
    komet gives light so that you may find the way.
Sign In or Register to comment.