Canon PowerShot A75

Add to: 
User reviews (46)
4.37
Amazon reviews (137)
4.00
3.1 megapixels | 1.8" screen | 35 – 105 mm (3×)
Average rating: 4.37
5 stars
(23)
4 stars
(19)
3 stars
(4)
2 stars
(0)
1 stars
(0)

Most helpful user reviews

The list below shows the five most helpful user reviews. See all 46 reviews...
CJC
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: CJC posted on Jul 18, 2004 UTC

Opinion: What can I say, this is a great camera, and the price enforces this as well, I paid AUD $291. The canon A75 can be as manual or automatic as you want it to be. It's easy to use once you've read the user guide. The camera runs on four AA bateries, which last for ages. I went away and took about 300 photos on one set of bateries (2000 mAh NiMh Rechargeables). Plenty of modes for most situations. LCD screen clarity is exceptional, and start up time is good. If you have a fast CF card the camera takes minimal time to save photos. The Direct print feature is great, nice and fast. Overall a great first camera!

Problems: There are only a few minor problems that I have experienced they are as follows:

· No rechargeable bateries came with the camera
· No DC power cable with the camera
· When taking video you cannot zoom (must be set before you start )
· No histogram until after you take a shot

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
Seismo
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: Seismo posted on Jul 19, 2004 UTC

Opinion: I bought this camera as a smaller (pocketable) alternative and back-up for my Minolta Dimage A1 for two main reasons: it takes the same CF cards (so I don't have to invest in SDs or whatever), and it can use either NiMH or alkaline AAs (so I can use this if I'm away from a power source to recharge for extended periods).

I think anyone who has used a digicam before will find no troiuble finding their way around this one - and for novices there's a fully auto mode that makes it as near to using a fim-based compact as can be - just point, zoom and shoot. On the other hand there's plenty of control for anyone with more experience/knowledge.

Overall, no regrets over this choice, despite the minor points noted below.

Problems: Strong colours can get blown out (values of 255) . Colour saturation and contrast can be toned down (together) but then the picture may need to be post-processed to get some saturation back.

The LCD screen is nice and clear but hard to see in bright daylight; be aware that the FOV of the optical viewfinder is a bit narrower than the LCD (which is more or less "true").

As the previous reviewer noted, there is no "live" histiogram (prior to shooting).

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
Smasher
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: Smasher posted on Jul 19, 2004 UTC

Opinion: I got this cam to replace my old Oly D510, which disappeared about 9 months ago. It supplements my G3, which is a great cam, but not as portable. So this cam can use the Oly's AA batteries, and the G3's CompactFlash modules.

I've had this camera for about two years now, and it's still going strong. The more I use it the more I like it, and I keep discovering its capabilities long after purchase.

The lens is very sharp (it seems to focus better than my G3), the white balance and dynamic range are much better than the Oly's, and the power consumption is much better, too. (I frequently go a few days of shooting between battery charges, something I could never do with the Oly.)

It handles very well, its controls are quite well thought out (it seems much better than the A60/A70), and I LOVE the manual control options. The flash doesn't wash out the image; images retain their dynamic range even when using flash. Slow sync flash works quite well, too. I've been getting more and more accustomed to using this camera in full-manual mode, and the results are fantastic.

It's a very nice compact camera, easy to stick in a bike bag, always there when you want it, always dependable. A little more dynamic range would be nice, but for snapshots outdoors in daylight, you really don't need any more camera than this.

Prints from this camera are excellent. (I'm using a Canon i9000D.)

Problems: Canon seems to favor highly saturated colors in its processing, and sometimes the results are almost cartoonish. (Still, it's much better than the Oly, which tended toward the yellow or red side of things.) I haven't really played around with the other image options (neutral tones, sepia, etc.), so I can't say whether switching to a non-default processing option will help.

White balance sometimes gets confused, especially in mixed-light situations. Sometimes the camera resets to factory defaults, though I have no idea how or why. It's a little scary and annoying when it does.

A "U" mode would be nice (user-defined settings), but not having it isn't a show-stopper. There's no RAW or TIFF quality option, but it's not really that kind of camera.

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
patrickgordon
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: patrickgordon posted on Jul 28, 2004 UTC

Opinion: This is my first digital camera. I'm quite pleased with the photos I'm able to take. The macro has been especially enjoyable--I love taking photos in my garden, and the colors and crispness have been superb. I've also enjoyed exploring the variety of semi-auto and manual settings available--quite a lot of power compared to a Nikon Coolpix 3100 I played around with for an afternoon. I especially like the semi-auto (e.g., scene mode, P mode) that enable me to get great effects without having to get too bogged down in details.

Problems: The soft plastic cover for the DC-in jack does not stay closed--it sticks out and snags on things (the corresponding USB port cover does stay in place, though).
I wish the camera body felt a little more solid--the plastic flexes a bit sometimes when I handle the camera. Finally, the LCD is great in shadow, but virtually useless in bright light (and the optical viewfinder does not display the full frame that will be captured).

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report