How is the SD 990 ISO in relation to the SD 790 ISO?

I recently had the Canon Powershot 790 ISO. Perhaps it was a defected camera, but everytime I took pictures with it, I was disappointed when uploading.

BAD IMAGE STABILIZATION!!
Images are blurry (which I can also notice if I zoom in on a picture on my camera screen)
Color is smeared and distorted
Terrible Lighting
Bad red eye reduction

After editing each picture in programs such as Adobe Photoshop, iPhoto and Pisca, I've had enough.

I had the earlier model in the past (SD 770), and had no problems with it until I received a lens error that would cost me more than I paid for the camera. The SD 770 had the same scene settings, so I don't believe I'm the error behind the camera!

My next thought was that perhaps it's my computer?

I have a MacBook Pro, however it's not the newest model. I've updated my system to the newest software this year, including all my programs.

I wonder if maybe my laptop is messing up my pictures the more I get involved with cameras of higher performance? I don't print from my laptop, but I do upload them onto the laptop to edit, share online, and put on CDs to have printed.

I'm so fed-up with the camera that I've been reading camera reviews to try and find the best point and shoot. I'm not interested in trying to figure out why the camera isn't working for me anymore, I'm more interested in replacing the dang thing!

I'm looking for a small point and shoot, that produces quality pictures. As much as I'd love a g10, that's not in my ballpark, and cannot fit in my purse.

Is the Canon 990 ISO right for me?

I take a lot of indoor AND outdoor pictures. Such as night clubs, trees/flowers, city buildings, beach, night (bonfires), fireworks, and portraits of family/friends & pets.

Its not your laptop. Indeed the 790 IS has problems with blurry Auto Focus with the AiAF setting and Noise(Well actually loss of detail ,AKA blur, at high ISO settings due to over aggressive noise reduction) at high ISO settings...

If you are married to using Canon brand cameras the SD 880 (It produces less artifacts than the 990....) is what I would replace the 790 with instead of the 990... If you aren't married to the idea of using Canons I would look at (In this order) the Olympus Stylus 840, Lumix Lx3 , and Fuji f200 EXR

Part of your problem with reading reviews is "best" is subjective. Some people would say best means more MP- however more MP with a 1/1.7" sensor or worse yet 1/2.3" sensor will mean more noise at higher ISO settings (AKA worse performance in low light). The speed of the lens also tends to be slower with shorter lenses. Some people would say best is the number of bells and whistles. Some people would say best is the zoom range of the lens, never mind that the more range a lens has there is greater chance for aberrations... Anyhow you get the idea.

Basically what it sounds like how you define best is; good picture quality, color reproduction, and minimal noise/loss of detail due to noise reduction at high ISO settings in a slim or traditional Point and Shoot form factor. Basically when reading reviews and such you want to look at the test pics and look at full crops at ISO 400 and above.

Also before you toss the 790- set the Autofocus to center and give yourself 1.5-2 feet with the zoom at full extension (5cm min focal length my foot- you only get that with the lens fully retracted... it is really 18+ inches , they buried that in the back of the manuals, and AiAf is more pain than what its worth) .... The same goes for all new Canon compact cameras...

Yes, that sounds like me! My friends call me a "camera snood" because I'm picky about pictures. Perhaps I should have received my bachelors in Photography instead of Public Relations? Ha ha.

Should I aim for a camera that has higher pixels then, in order to produce a high quality picture? I'm only worried they won't look as nice on my computer. Is there a setting on most cameras to change the size of the picture it will upload?

The 990 is a 14.7, whereas the 880 is a 12.1. The 790 (what I had) was a 10.1 mega pixels.

From what you're saying, as long as I get a newer model, I should be happy with the quality picture it produces.

I heard Olympuses don't do well indoors. I have a few friends who use 2 separate cameras because they were unhappy with how their Olympus performed at outdoor events in the summer. With summer here, I need to be careful!

I spend a lot of time on the beach, however I heard that waterproof cameras are just as bad. Do you happen to know if this is true? I heard Olympus has a nice waterproof model.

"Camera snood?" Interesting vocabulary your friends have. "Camera snob" I'm familiar with.

The pixel deal isn't quite as straightforward as a lot of people think. More isn't automatically better. I doubt you'd be able to tell the images apart between the two based on a difference of 2.6 megapixels. As is so often the case with questions like this, the first answer is "it depends." It's true that for people who only make 4x6 prints, or mostly send pictures via e-mail, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have more that 7 or 8 megapixels. BUT if you want to make larger prints, or make prints of a small portion of the image, then it does make a lot of sense to have more pixels.

Now, I don't know what the reviewers are talking about when they refer to problems with the 790. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that I was very satisfied with the images I captured with mine. The reason I got rid of it was that I wanted an optical viewfinder and manual control. (Canon claims the 990 has manual control but it really does not.) My first impression was that the 990's images weren't quite as good, but I must stress that this is purely a subjective impression.

No, we can't guarantee you'll be happy with the images from the new model. There are so many factors that go into whether someone will be "happy" with the images they get. For example, if the controls are hard for them to use, they make mistakes using the camera. They may not wait for the autofocus to lock in, or the autofocus may lock on the wrong thing. They might not notice some little icon on the display that's warning them that the image stabilization can't compensate sufficiently. The individual camera you get may not be "up to snuff," though that would be unusual.

I'd be very very suspicious of anyone who told me something like "Olympuses don't do well indoors." That kind of generalization is seldom correct. One model may have problems with its flash, or poor low-light performance, or something, but even that sort of thing would not apply to the entire line (or even series) from a given manufacturer. That sounds like the sort of bunk that a salesperson will say when they have some reason to "push" one camera over another.

It'd be nice if it were simple, if someone could just give you a straightforward answer. Sadly, you've got to do a lot of homework and hope for the best... oh, and try to do business with a merchant with a generous return policy.

Expecting good picture quality from a camera is not not "Snobish" at all.

Indeed it is complicated. More Mega Pixels alone does not guarantee a better picture and quality is more of a ratio of MP vs Sensor size. The more MP placed on a small sensor the more noise and less accutance you get with the camera because each diode in the sensor is exposed to less light energy. By contrast when you have 2 cameras with the same size sensor the one with more MP but the same amount of noise and small artifacts on the screen at full crop, then the camera with more MP will print less noticeable noise and artifacts becuase they are magnified less when printed. Anyhow you only need 6-7 MP to print an acceptably clear print at 8X10 at 300 DPI and you need 14+ MP to print a 11 X 14 print while you need 23+ MP to print a 13 X 20 . If you are putting them online or through email more than 4-5 MP makes no sense as the screen can't display resolutions above that. If you crop and expand the photo through photoshop/[name your editing software] then this magnifies the noise and aberations from the lens so more MP only makes sense if you are getting very clear photos in the first place, which you don't get with small sensors + more MP.

High MP cameras with small/"medium" sensor sizes (More than 7-8 MP ) tend to produce more noise at low light levels because each diode is exposed to less light energy. The noise looks like little flecks and they are either removed by the camera's digital processor (especially true of Canon Cameras) or can be removed in software installed on your computer- Removing the noise almost always destroys detail. Sensor with high resolution but low accutance will produce images with lots of detail, but it will look "flatened" and the detail won't be apparent to the eye. Adding more MP to the 1/1.23" sensor lowers accutence.

Most 1/2.3" CCD cameras produce either a fuzzy mess or unacceptable noise for most people at ISO 800 or higher. So you could just say almost all compact digital cameras do poorer in low light indoor situations than larger sensor cameras (Like SLRs/ film).

Basically what I am telling you is more MP on a small sensor will make the camera produce worse results in sharpness above 8MP and 1/2.3" or smaller sized sensor with traditional CCD technology.

AiAf is about worthless for focusing on smaller objects (smaller than a face or so) at the edge of the min focal distance of the lens- AKA you are shooting Seashells or flowers. It almost always will focus on what you don't want it to- bringing it into focus while blurring what you want it to (The good news is you don't have to use it). Once again you must set the camera to center AF and in some cases focus lock then bring the camera back into position. This is because AiAf is actually designed for the processor to focus in on things like faces and people and larger blocks of color... If you have a model with manual focus (Many Canon cameras do offer this) then you can try to use manual focus instead (One of the reasons I like the Canon A series- they offer control over just about every setting on the camera- although the controls could use some improvement of manual focus). The above two techniques are more advanced techniques though.... Right up there with using Macro Mode to get a shallow DOF from a compact camera or magnification to get apparent DOF from a compact.

I'm not looking for a professional camera such as the g10 or any bigger. Unfortunately it seems as though every person I talk to thinks I should spend the extra 200+ and get it!

I'm from the Chicago-land area, travel a lot, and need something that I can easily fit with me at all times. Unfortunately, a DSLR won't fit my needs! Although the g10 is the smallest camera of that quality, I'd have to carry it around my neck or carry a bigger bag, which is not what I'm looking for when I'm always on my feet.

Pictures in nightclubs, indoor concerts, dark restaurants and outdoor festivals rarely come out.

I don't plan on enlarging any of the pictures I will be taking. I would go with a smaller 7-8 MP camera, however it seems as though all the cameras on the market today are a 10 MP or higher!

I'm looking for a sharp, accurate image. I'm tired of blurred faces and smeared color throughout the picture! I spend way too much of my time editing pictures in Adobe Photoshop once I've uploaded them, and am still never happy with the final product.

Reviews seem to favor the Canon 990 for "high quality pictures," however I've heard that the newest Nikon's will pick up the function I should be using to help improve my picture taking. This is assuming I'm the error behind the newest point and shoots. I'm not a photographer, and follow the "scene settings" option, but still don't have any luck. I've had several point and shoot cameras in the past that I never had these problems with, however I had other problems such as lens errors and moisture inside the camera.

This time I thought I'd do more research, and ask professionals on what they'd use if they were going somewhere where they'd have to use a smaller camera, such as a point and shoot.

What would you buy your college kid, wife (who travels on business but doesn't have much experience with cameras) or relative? You wouldn't buy the cheapest one on the market, because they'd be sending you pictures of them while they're away. But at the same time, you wouldn't trust them using a DSLR because they may either break it, or not know what they're doing.

Steve, I very much appreciate your comments comparing the G10 and SD990. The wisdom of your suggestion that one needs to "be sure to look for what meets your needs and shooting preferences" can not be over-emphasized. I'm finding myself feeling distinctly grumpy about having to go to the G10 to get the combination of image quality and features I want, since it's a significantly larger (and heavier) camera than the one I started with (the SD790).

There's just something about some photographers who constantly want to get more image out of less camera. There were those crazies who thought they could get a decent picture with a tiny little 4"x5" negative, ignoring the well-established wisdom that 8X10 was necessary; then there were poor deluded fools who tried to convince people that the pictures they took with those little 35mm toys could be taken seriously as photographic art.

Rachel in my hunt for my perfect camera I keep coming back to the G10 as well, but I just can't afford the pricepoint. Perhaps you should look at the Lumix LX3 it is constantly compared to the G10, dpreview have done an in depth review and highly recommend the camera, it has a lot of great functionality and control or you can just bang it on auto, and it is also smaller than the G10.

The 990 is averaging $300, an entry level SLR goes for $450 or less.... Any of the entry SLRs would beat out the 990 or G 10 in low light.... Anyhow Sigma has a camera out on the market that uses a full ASPC sensor and is smaller than a SLR (Basically a poor mans Rangefinder with permanent prime lens) . You can purchase a digital Leica M8 Rangefinder right now (You won't like its cost though)

I don't know... perhaps they will bring back 2/3" sensors. Anyhow performance in low light and ultra-compact (And relatively inexpensive)... Lumix Lx3, Ricoh Cx1, and Fuji f200EXR.

Olympus has said they will be releasing a micro 3/4" sensor compact.... Perhaps see what they come out with.

Oh, I just had an interesting thought. It may be totally wrong, but I've kept puzzling over why Rachel would say "I was disappointed when uploading." She speaks of editing the pix with other software, so that argues against my theory, but I'm going to put it out here anyway just in case someone else has run into the same thing and been bothered by it.

When you download your images from the camera using Canon's software, the pix first appear in a low-resolution version. They look badly out-of-focus, and generally crummy. For some reason, it takes the software awhile (like 2-5 seconds per image) before it finishes processing the images and they start to look acceptable. It goes through this process every time, no matter whether you've looked at the images previously. This is clearly very processor-intensive, and I'd guess that if your computer is slow, or burdened with a lot of other processes at the same time, or doesn't have a lot of RAM, it could take a long enough that you might give up before the process completes.

As I say, this may not be what Rachel is talking about, but...

Its called interlacing and most software does it... It might be, but is unlikely...

It could also be the Auto focus on the 790. Canon redid its focusing routines and called it AiAf... they made it the default. You don't notice the blur on the LED so much but do notice it at full crop on the computer. When you look at the photo everything is slightly blurred except for one thing is in complete focus... the one thing you didn't want in focus. Setting it to center focus helps. You can also set focus lock and move closer or farther away by a few inches while staring at the LED screen to fine focus it.

You also get Wonkiness because Canon claims the min focus in the specs is the min focus at wide angle but the min focus actually changes along the length of the zoom- not a problem if you are shooting 3-5 feet but is a problem up close.

Anyhow the above two reasons are why you see a lot of negative reviews for Canon's A and SD lines from (The last 2 years) some users... They just can't put thier finger on it though. Its not so much a problem if you are shooting people at 3+ feet but is for non-people up close, Eg Flowers/Leaves/small seashells or items for EBay.

I have never used Canon software when uploading pictures. I have a mac, so iPhoto immediately detects the device and begins to upload for me.

When I started being disappointed with pictures, I chose to open the flashdrive icon on my desktop, and pull up the pictures manually, then opening them in programs such as Picasa and Adobe Photoshop to edit and over-write.

Would you recommend using the camera's software over iPhoto, Picasa or Adobe Photoshop?

As previously mentioned, I may have just had a defected camera. I had several point and shoot cameras growing up, as well as when I was a student in college, however I did not come across "photo errors" until blurs and smears with the Canon 790.

The reason I questioned my laptop was because the images seem to be clear on my camera screen. If I used the zoom while reviewing a picture, I could notice some blur, however nothing close to what my computer produced. At that time I was wondering if my computer's technology was having a hard time keeping up to the devices I was plugging into it.

Well, so much for that thought.

For what it's worth, I too use a Mac. I used iPhoto for a while and decided I didn't like it as much as the Canon software.

Hmm. Well that's something I will consider when I purchase my new camera.

Can't hurt to try yet another program, ha ha!

Rachel, one of the things to keep in mind is that if your computer opens the JPG file at the full resolution it will have blur and smearing. The reason is that at full 10-15 MP resolution that is like looking at the image in 24"x36" printed size. It is sometimes good to view your digital photos in full resolution, but that is not what they will actually look like when printed at 4x6, 5x7, or even 11x14. Cameras these days are recording so much detail with the higher resolutions that viewing them full size gives the impression that images are "fuzzy" or "blurry." Try viewing your photos at say screen size resolution and I think you'll notice that they should be sharp and infocus if the camera is any good at all. Viewing full resolution is a good way to compare camera images as the amount of "smear" or "detail loss" in low contrast areas is very evident. But the reality is that when printed to normal sizes much of those "huge full resolution differences" will never be noticeable when printed.

So check to see what your photo program is opening the picture as "full resolution" or at a more viewable/realistic size and see if that helps clear up things alot.

Another thing to keep in mind is that computer monitors and printers aren't usually calibrated properly for accurate display of digital photography. This means that unless you have them calibrated, the image will look differently from the camera's LCD to the computer monitor to the printed image. In addition, the monitor image is projected, while the printed image is reflected. This means that color standards aren’t accurate on screens vs. printing. (called “Gamut”) Calibration of the monitor and the printer has to be done, and then have the color profile applied properly. It’s a house of colorful cards. There are gadgets out there that will let you calibrate the printer and and adjust the monitor to match the printer (even if it looks off on the display), but it's much easier to have things printed professionally if you’re looking for an accurate color.

The blur may also be a result of shutter lag. It's the delay which happens between triggering the shutter and when the photograph is actually recorded. It's a common problem with point and shoot cameras. But there are ways to combat it.

1. Prefocus. Hold down the shutter half way to get a prefocus of the image you're shooting. When it changes, prefocus again. This will speed up your camera's performance during picture taking since it won't have to autofocus before it shoots the shot.

2. Use faster SD cards. Yes, there are faster cards and it does make a difference in writing the image file to the card. This is especially key if you're taking multiple or burst images.

3. Fresher batteries. Use alkalines at least. But I recommend using high energy batteries designed for digital photography. Varta is a good brand. They are usually sold in camera shops, are long lasting (because they are sold in small quantities) put out alot of energy.

4. Pan with the action. You can create some pretty cool shots by panning with your shot, focusing on your subject. This will create the effect of your subject in sharp contrast to the blurry background.

6. Stick with 100-400 ISO. Going higher will cause more noise/grain in your shots, particularly in darker settings.

Doing these, particularly prefocusing and panning with the action will cut your shutter lag by as much as 80%.

The highest resolution my monitor will go is 1792X1344 and I don't use that resolution (Nor do most people) ... You can do the math.... Anything more than 2.5 Mp is wasted with the monitor I am using.

The real question is when you print at the size you want do you see the smears? I would venture that you would at 8X10. If you shrink down the image to a small section on the screen it will look great even it it prints like manure. You will see those smears at 8 X 10. 14 MP will print a relatively clear shot at 11 X 14 at 300 DPI- so yes, you will see those smears... even more so with a 10 MP sensor at 11 X 14.

Couple of things to keep in mind here... If you have to shrink it down or only print 4X6 and the camera is shooting at a whopping .8 FPS with a very limited zoom that doesn't do well in low light, then whats the point? You probably are already carrying such a camera already.. its called a cell phone.

well, another thing to consider is that all software will open an image at 72dpi. That's why the image will look so big when you open it. But when you resize it (say, in Photoshop) resize it to a smaller size, but up the DPI. this will give you a sharper image as you make it smaller.

Wow, so much I didn't know about cameras!

Thanks for all your help, ALL of you! I'm going to relate back to this post/blog as soon as I get my new camera!

I do notice that when I adjust the option to "full size" on my computer - the image is close to perfect. However my computer shrinks the size - which must be messing up the overall photo all together?

I'll try to shrink the photo size on my camera settings before I start taking pictures!

Actually, you don't really want to do that. Setting your camera to a lower setting doesn't help either. Essentially, the image is reduced to the set quality after it has been processed by the CCD. As such, the light still goes through those pixels, only that after some basic processing steps pixels "thrown out" to make the image to the desired setting and size. This process is called "Choking" and that will cause Artifacting and noise. Additionlly, you'll also loose details of the recorded image.

Some cameras have written into their firmware a process called "binning," which merges the signals of multiple pixels to make larger pixels. Usually at a 4-1 ratio. This will essentially turn a 12-megapixel camera into a 3-megapixel camera. And that gives you the opposite problem of too many pixels on the chip ... you now have too few and as such, will run into artifacting instead of noise.

I'd recommend you download Google's Picasa. It's a very good, and free, photo editor and management tool. You should be able to take your images and, once they're imported, you can size and edit the photo as you need. But if you want more control, pick up a copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements. It's not too expensive at about $60.

I actually have Picasa! I used that with Photoshop to edit all my pictures with my last camera.

However it doesn't help blurring or smeared colors, which was my problem. All I could do was hit the black and white option, and hope for the best.

I bought the 990 this week! It will arrive by July 4th.

Excited to use it this weekend...wanted to say thanks again to everyone for their imput!