Canon PowerShot 600

Add to: 
User reviews (8)
3.68
0.5 megapixels | 50 mm
Average rating: 3.68
5 stars
(1)
4 stars
(5)
3 stars
(2)
2 stars
(0)
1 stars
(0)

Most helpful user reviews

The list below shows the five most helpful user reviews. See all 8 reviews...
Andrew Adams
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: Andrew Adams posted on May 16, 2001 UTC

Opinion: This camera was way ahead of its time; the Type III PCMCIA card and the 340MB HDD's available made for vacation capacities that today's cameras only dream about.

Problems: .5MP image quality. 'nuff said

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
Richard O. Titus
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: Richard O. Titus posted on Sep 23, 2001 UTC

Opinion: Used the camera for about two years, exclusively for EBay images - The macro ability was quite decent although the optical RF frame markings proved difficult to read and annoying to use - Seemed to have decent battery life - Sold it on EBay to a PowerShot groupie who had several others

Problems: The computer transfer link was unpredictable at times. The transfer took extra time to use and pushed me over to a Mavica which, oddly enough, seemed to have a lesser lens

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: Unknown user posted on Nov 19, 2001 UTC

Problems: sir my canon powershot shows er4f. it does not snap any shot. is there a problem.can u help me.i have tried buying a new batteries.but it still shows the sign.need a urgent help.thanks

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: Unknown user posted on Dec 16, 2001 UTC

Opinion: Wow, this was my first "real" digital camera, and I picked it up in 97, back in the stone age of digital photography. I got the Powershot 600 because it was by far the best image quality/storage capacity/features available at the time, and frankly it's really held up well in the past 4 years. Image quality is good in most situations (excellent macro capability: http://munk.org/index.php?newsid=62) except in low-light situations, where it fares poorly unless you have optimal stage lighting (example: http://munk.org/index.php?newsid=39). Nowadays, at .5 megapixels the quality is "average" compared to other cameras available, but considering that almost every camera made back then would rate as "poor" to "bad" nowadays, that actually is a good point. (:

The sound recording capability turned out to be really cool to have in suprising situations, and unlike most camera sound recording modes, the PS600 allows you to record as long as you hold the button down (not limited to a 2 or 4-second "voice notation" like every other camera I've seen). as a sort-of underground journalist this came in extremely handy for taking quick notes, or even recording entire interviews on the spot! I am sorely disappointed that no other camera since has had this simple and suprisingly useful capability.

Battery life is good to excellent, and even though the rechargable packs the PS600 uses are hard to find nowadays, they are available and practically last forever if kept in good condition (don't leave it sitting in the charger for a month, in other words). with 2 charged battery packs and a 32mb CF card, I can get in a good 250 shots in a location. perfect for the sort of stuff I do. Paired with an old copy of Ulead Cool 360 and a tripod, this camera is amazingly good at producing panoramas too! (http://munk.org/panorama.php?panid=13)

now, in 2001-2002, this isn't the best camera to have if you're only going to have one, but as a "throw-in-the-pack" camera, it's really ideal, even today. If you find one used, snag it and search the web for a couple battery packs and you'll find the PS600 is a great travelling companion. The thing is really built like a tank, and mine has shrugged off a lot of punishment (barroom photography in a mosh pit is about as demanding a test as you can ask for. other cameras don't like beer splashes and hard knocks very much.)

Problems: no lcd screen at all (I consider this a bonus in this particular camera. I just shoot a couple hundred shots and cull the bad ones out later. no lcd means better battery life.)

not good in very low-light situations.

nowadays the resolution is considered pretty average.

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report