Canon Powershot A1000 IS
See rating based on
344
user reviews
Submit your own Canon A1000 IS review!
HQ Grade: A-
| A | is outstanding and exceptional, rated in the top 10% of digital cameras. |
| B | means they are good, with some standout features. |
| C | means they are mediocre, and probably more trouble than they are worth. |
| D & F | mean they are absolutely awful or old. Avoid at all costs. |
- 5 out of 5
- 5 out of 5
Submit your own Canon A1000 IS review!
This camera is ranked
- 3rd of 92 in Point and Shoot
- 13th of 102 in 9 and 10 Megapixels
- 14th of 27 in Powershot
- 21st of 82 in Canon
- 2nd of 86 in Under $150
Ask
Have a question about the A1000 IS?
Enter it here:
(You can enter more details in the next step)
Answered!
September 22, 2008 9:02 PM
Report Abuse
Did you find this question
helpful or
not helpful?
helpful or
not helpful?
This question has been answered!
September 26, 2008 3:57 PM
2
0
0
Report Abuse
Did you find this answer
helpful or
not helpful?
helpful or
not helpful?
September 26, 2008 5:34 PM
7
0
0
Brandon is right. It's way too easy to fall into the "more megapixels mean better pictures" trap. In fact, more megapixels may actually be worse for you. I came across an interesting article today about how more mega pixels is not necessarily a good thing. According to Image Engineering – a company that does testing of digital cameras for photo magazines in Germany – the quality of digital pictures has steadily decreased since the state of the art was six megapixels back in 2004. And because they don’t have a “dog in this hunt,” they put forth a compelling argument for buying new digital cameras with less mega pixels and not more.
The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, there’s more data on the chip, but the chip can’t absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since we’re talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply aren’t being made.
Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format. The result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better."
In the end, relying on a smaller MP that can balance all these needs may indeed be a better answer.
The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, there’s more data on the chip, but the chip can’t absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since we’re talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply aren’t being made.
Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format. The result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better."
In the end, relying on a smaller MP that can balance all these needs may indeed be a better answer.
Report Abuse
Did you find this answer
helpful or
not helpful?
helpful or
not helpful?
