what's the difference in the sd 450 and the sd 1100

I need to fine a replacement for my canon sd 450. So far I haven't had any luck. Is there anyone that has had a sd 450 that now owns a sd 1100is. I want to know is it as good as the sd 450. I could take pictures in an absolute black dark environment. Is there anything on the market even close to the sd450. I loved that camera!

The SD1100 is higher megapixels, more optical zoom, and better image processing. I think if you liked the SD450, you'll love the SD1100.

Thanks! I bought the canon sd 1100 and I took it back. It didn't take pictures as great as my canon sd 450 in low light settings. I am not sure why this is the case. The same thing happened when I purchased the canon sd 1000, i had to take that back as well. Why is it that this camera doesn't take great pictures like the canon sd 450? Is it something that I am doing within the settings?

That's easy. More MP isn't necessarily better. In fact, more often than not, more MP makes a chip less sensitive, not more. Let me explain:

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 without a corresponding increase of chip size, 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.

And when you consider at 99%+ of pictures are usually snapshots, you don't even see the benefits of that much MP unless you're enlarging to 11x14 or above. So what's the point? I mean, it's like driving a Ferrari through town. Sure, you can do it and it's cool and all, but you don't get to experience any of that horsepower you've paid for.

You are fantastic! And your answer makes so much sense. Thank you so much you will never know how much you have helped me!!!