Is the A40 worth buying???

Is the canon A40 worth buying?

I heard from some guys on the forum saying that A40 has a serious problem on its focus. I'm a newbie and just want a DC for family use. A40 has good appearance and good price. Anyone here can tell me if the A40 is worth buying. Or recommend some others to me.

thank you!

fred king said:

Is the canon A40 worth buying?

I heard from some guys on the forum saying that A40 has a serious
problem on its focus. I'm a newbie and just want a DC for family
use. A40 has good appearance and good price. Anyone here can tell
me if the A40 is worth buying. Or recommend some others to me.

thank you!

Click to expand...

Hi, I've got an A40. It's a good camera IMO, but you do need reasonable light to get the autofocus to work properly. I've had some very good indoor people shots, and also some very bad ones. Other digicams may have a better AF system but they have other shortcomings. The A40 can give spectacular results for an entry level digicam. I bought an A40 and took it back because I wasn't happy with it. After trying another 5 different cameras I went back to the A40.

Good luck with your choice,

Rob

Check out....

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinions.asp?prodkey=canon_a40

fred king said:

Is the canon A40 worth buying?

I heard from some guys on the forum saying that A40 has a serious
problem on its focus. I'm a newbie and just want a DC for family
use. A40 has good appearance and good price. Anyone here can tell
me if the A40 is worth buying. Or recommend some others to me.

thank you!

Click to expand...

fred king said:

Is the canon A40 worth buying?

I heard from some guys on the forum saying that A40 has a serious
problem on its focus. I'm a newbie and just want a DC for family
use. A40 has good appearance and good price. Anyone here can tell
me if the A40 is worth buying. Or recommend some others to me.

thank you!

Click to expand...

thank you for your introduction.

I just quickly shot 27 auto pictures around the interior of my house (with and without flash) and paid no attention to the focus lights. Only one was out of focus and it was shot at problematic 13mm zoom setting. Several shots had camera shake at 1/10 sec., but were in focus. I think it is worth buying.

fred king said:

Is the canon A40 worth buying?

I heard from some guys on the forum saying that A40 has a serious
problem on its focus. I'm a newbie and just want a DC for family
use. A40 has good appearance and good price. Anyone here can tell
me if the A40 is worth buying. Or recommend some others to me.

thank you!

Click to expand...

I bought this camera and ended up returning it a few days later.
I had problems with the terrible autofocus indoors, plus the LCD
screen was not very good in low light either ("noisy" image) and
finally the problem with the slight viewfinder misalignment.
However, for this price, I consider it a good camera, and you
should consider it if manual control is important for you.

Other cameras you could consider:
Fuji Finepix 2600 for about the same price
Nikon Coolpix 2500 and Canon Powershot S330 (a little more
expensive, but the S330 is well built and if its autofocus
is better -- which I don't know -- you'll have a nice little
camera with good picture quality)

jo

The Fuji Finepix 2600 has poor low light shooting, which is something I want to do.

The Nikon Coolpix 2500 has no viewfinder, which is something I use.

I don’t believe The Canon Powershot S330 takes auxiliary lens, which is also something I want.

I also wanted to keep the price under $300 and have a camera that could do a lot of things. As fast as digital cameras are becoming outdated, I wanted to buy the least expensive camera that had manual setting and a quality picture. This was the only camera I found that met all my criteria.

jotasz said:

I bought this camera and ended up returning it a few days later.
I had problems with the terrible autofocus indoors, plus the LCD
screen was not very good in low light either ("noisy" image) and
finally the problem with the slight viewfinder misalignment.
However, for this price, I consider it a good camera, and you
should consider it if manual control is important for you.

Other cameras you could consider:
Fuji Finepix 2600 for about the same price
Nikon Coolpix 2500 and Canon Powershot S330 (a little more
expensive, but the S330 is well built and if its autofocus
is better -- which I don't know -- you'll have a nice little
camera with good picture quality)

jo

Click to expand...

TerryG wrote:

I must be missing something. I have an A40 and have never had any issues with it. On the contrary, I am very impressed with the consistantly high quality it delivers - sharp, high dymanic range and well saturated natural colors.

Focus issues? - Never had any,even in very low light.

PLease note, as with any other camera, even film cameras, you need to give the AF more time when the light its low!! Do this and I'm sure you will get well focused results every time as I do. You may get camera shake though, as the shutter speed will be long in low light.

I wonder if some users are mistaking this for poor focus ????

Other plusses of this neat little camera are very good battery life (and AAs to boot)!!
Also the auto lens cover is a great feature.

This is one of Canon's best as far as I am concerned

Phil

TerryG said:

The Fuji Finepix 2600 has poor low light shooting, which is
something I want to do.

The Nikon Coolpix 2500 has no viewfinder, which is something I use.

I don’t believe The Canon Powershot S330 takes auxiliary lens,
which is also something I want.

I also wanted to keep the price under $300 and have a camera that
could do a lot of things. As fast as digital cameras are becoming
outdated, I wanted to buy the least expensive camera that had
manual setting and a quality picture. This was the only camera I
found that met all my criteria.

jotasz said:

I bought this camera and ended up returning it a few days later.
I had problems with the terrible autofocus indoors, plus the LCD
screen was not very good in low light either ("noisy" image) and
finally the problem with the slight viewfinder misalignment.
However, for this price, I consider it a good camera, and you
should consider it if manual control is important for you.

Other cameras you could consider:
Fuji Finepix 2600 for about the same price
Nikon Coolpix 2500 and Canon Powershot S330 (a little more
expensive, but the S330 is well built and if its autofocus
is better -- which I don't know -- you'll have a nice little
camera with good picture quality)

jo

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Phil

Phil

I think there are two issues that the complaints are about:

Low light focusing: Some owners have a problem aquiring a focus in low light before the picture is taken. Note that the IR assist beam only flashes briefly to acquire the focus. On the A20 the beam stayed on longer I have read. From reading various message boards it seems that some A40s have more trouble than others. My own will sometimes not lock in a normally lit room with lots of contrasty things in the room. My pictures come out in focus because the flash and the red eye flash help the camera focus when the shot is actually taken. Many of the reports come from owners who have experience with digital cameras, so it does not seem to be entirely ‘operator problems.’ There may be some sample defect problems, as the web reviewers have not reported this problem.

Secondly the 13mm zoom focus problem:

I did not know I had this problem until I did a test. The next to the last zoom step, 13mm or (85mm on a 35mm Camera), will always give a soft image at all distances including close-up. Try taking pictures of trees at full telephoto and then at 11.3mm zoom step and at the 13.4mm zoom step. If you look at the pictures on your computer at 100% you will see that 13mm zoom is soft. I had a lot of problems getting the zoom stop at the correct step, the motor seems to keep running when you take you finger off, but anyway try the test and report back. You can tell which zoom step you are in by going to the M mode and looking at the F/ stop. 16mm is F/14, 13mm is F/13, 11mm is F/11, 9mm is F/10, 8mm is F/10, 6mm is F/9, 5mm is F/8. I hope you do not have the focus problem. If you don’t, then that would indicate that it is a sample defect problem.

I have also found something else about the camera that may be of use to other. I found that I can immediately take a flash shot after the green light stops flashing in the auto and program mode. However, in the M mode, I have to wait 10 full seconds or 7 seconds after the green light stops flashing. I believe that in the M mode, all of the power is expended by the flash and requires 10 seconds to recharge. In the Auto and Program mode, the camera saves unneeded power for the next shot and does not require the extra seconds to recharge. I had thought that my camera was defective and was playing dead, until I figured out what was going on. I hope this is helpful to someone.

I have ordered the Conversion Lens Adapter and will report on my findings. I have already found that the linier polarizing filter works ok on the A40 and the circular polarizing filters are an unneeded extra expense.

I found this camera to have the biggest bang for the buck for under $300 camera and I am looking forward to using it on our trip to France in the fall.

TerryG in Arizona

rpant wrote:
The A40 can give spectacular results for an entry

rpant said:

level digicam. I bought an A40 and took it back because I wasn't
happy with it. After trying another 5 different cameras I went back
to the A40.

Good luck with your choice,

Rob

Click to expand...

Which other 5 did you test?

I've been comparing the A40 to DX3900 and so far, the Kodak produces better pictures, more consistently, and there is NO issue of soft focus, low-light problem, or blinking orange light camera shake warning.

OTOH, the A40 has a slew of features the Kodak does not have. But I'm left wondering, if basic picture taking requires so much work, are those features worth it?

TerryG said:

Secondly the 13mm zoom focus problem:

I did not know I had this problem until I did a test. The next to
the last zoom step, 13mm or (85mm on a 35mm Camera), will always
give a soft image at all distances including close-up. Try taking
pictures of trees at full telephoto and then at 11.3mm zoom step
and at the 13.4mm zoom step. If you look at the pictures on your
computer at 100% you will see that 13mm zoom is soft. I had a lot
of problems getting the zoom stop at the correct step, the motor
seems to keep running when you take you finger off, but anyway try
the test and report back. You can tell which zoom step you are in
by going to the M mode and looking at the F/ stop. 16mm is F/14,
13mm is F/13, 11mm is F/11, 9mm is F/10, 8mm is F/10, 6mm is F/9,
5mm is F/8. I hope you do not have the focus problem. If you
don’t, then that would indicate that it is a sample defect problem.

Click to expand...

I don't have the A40 but I have the S330, which I thought was almost functionally identical to A40. But I think I may be wrong now after reading about some A40's Zoom focal length values. The two cameras may be very similar functionally but not identical, at least zoom step value wise.

I notice the following with my S330: from Full Wide to Full Tele, there are 7 Zoom steps. MY S330's focal lengths at these Zoom Steps are:

5.4mm Full Wide
6.6mm
7.9mm
9.5mm
11.4mm
13.6mm
16.2mm Full Tele

I don't have the 13.4mm Zoom step on my S330. With S330, the one zoom step before the Full Tele is 13.6mm instead (of the 13.4mm on A40).

And I don't SEEM have the Out Of Focus problem at 13.6mm on MY S330 as reported on some A40s at 13.4mm - put it another way: my shots at 13.6mm with MY S330 are not any SOFTER than shots at 16.2mm and 11.4mm with MY S330. (However, most of MY S330 shots are not as sharp as my other digital cameras'.)

Larry 2 said:

I've been comparing the A40 to DX3900 and so far, the Kodak
produces better pictures, more consistently, and there is NO issue
of soft focus, low-light problem, or blinking orange light camera
shake warning.

OTOH, the A40 has a slew of features the Kodak does not have. But
I'm left wondering, if basic picture taking requires so much work,
are those features worth it?

Click to expand...

Very well said. Can't say it any better, but I can say more. I have a similar experience and share exactly the same sentiment.

I don't have an A40, but I have the S330 which is quite similar to A40 functionally. I bought the Canon S330 at $350 and Kodak DX3600 at $225 (supposedly for my son) at about the same time. I had to struggle for a while before decided to keep the S330. On the other hand, I had no doubt whatsoever to keep the Kodak DX3600 from the beginning, even it has only 2X optical zoom.

Recently, I took both cameras to an elaborate wedding event that lasted about 2 to 3 days. Outdoor, indoor, from morning to night, noon ceremony, outdoor afternoon reception, garden party, bright light, strong backlight, shadows, evening indoor hotel banquet, dim light, flash photos, dance, other indoor/outdoor day and night activities..... all sorts of conditions. I took over one hundred photos with each camera.

The lowly Kodak DX3600 consistently produced better images.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the Canon S330 more while USING it (but I might not want to use it as much for quick snap shots). The S330 is small, well built and with many things to play with that I adore the camera. That is why I am keeping it. I am pretty sure that many other people who have more experience with cameras, such as professional camera reviewers and the likes, will also like the S330 (A40) better and dislike the Kodak (for lack of certain "features").

I can put it this way:

If you enjoy results and enjoy viewing good pictures, then get the Kodak DX3600.

If you enjoy the ACT of taking pictures and enjoy making necessary adjustments before taking pictures, then get the Canon S330/A40.

I enjoy both and therefore I have both cameras in my household.

I can say more.

If you want to take technical photos or want to pull off some very difficult shots and have some time to set it up, the Nikon 990/995 are very good. But I wouldn't like to use the Nikon 990/995 to take snap shots because their zoom mechanism, AF, ..... while extremely precise, are painfully slow.

If you want a digicam that is very much SLR like, with a huge 10X zoom (with which you will discover a whole new artistic aspect of digital photography that you might not know before), Image Stabilizer (with which you can take some indoor shots without using flash), and all around features, you will like the Olympus C2100UZI / E100RS. But they are just a little bit too big (actually not that big) to carry around everywhere.

So, the Canon S200/S330 (A40) and S30/S40 are small enough to be carried everywhere AND can do everything too? I wish they are more narrowly defined. Instead of squeezing some "professional" features into the small cameras to win points from professional camera reviewers and ending up compromising some BASICS, Canon should be paying more attention to the smallness and carrying everywhere purpose of these cameras and therefore focusing more on the CONVENIENCE, the BASICS, and the ability to take quick and great snap shot aspect of these cameras. What I consider BASICS are good and fail safe AF (95%+ focused and sharp pictures) and good AUTO WhiteBalance so that post-camera processing will not be necessary - and these small Canons don't seem to do too well.

There has not been a camera, let alone a small camera, that can do it all.

To sum it up:

If you are a beginner, or anyone who wants to enjoy results and viewing or printing great images (snap shots up to 8x10'" in print) right away, then get a Kodak (DX3600, 3900 or 4900).

If you like to PLAY with cameras, enjoy the process more than results, then get the Canon S330/A40 (S200 may be better for a smaller size). Their images are quite acceptable too after you learn and get used to the camera (particularly you may need to adjust the White Balance under various indoor lighting conditions if you don't want to do post-camera processing in PhotoShop or with other software).

I'd be interested in which other cameras you've used or have that give sharper pictures. I'm a tad concerned about the A40's reputation and need guidance on an alternative.

Whoops! Just read your subsequent post... interesting your experience does match mine as does your judgment about the camera's user and market niches!

I would add that the Kodak cameras also have a decent range of manual controls. For example, the DX3900 has exp. comp, ISO, shutter speed, white balance settings!

I've taken incredibly good constellation shots, with its 16 second exposure time.

So there's a lot to play with the 3900 as well as doing point and shoot.

OTOH, the like the movie, stitch, exp comp showing on the LCD!!, 10 x picture review, much faster review of pictures, and even fast shutter speed options.

Also, the A40 has a real 3x zoom, whereas the 3900 really only has 1.7x!

What about the 4900? 1.7x or 2x?

Kodak really could garner a huge market share by introducing a 2 or 3 megapixel camera with movie (& audio) and a real 3x optical zoom. Its exposure and focusing system and color reproduction are great. They just need to get the rest of the camera put together.

Larry 2 said:

I would add that the Kodak cameras also have a decent range of
manual controls. For example, the DX3900 has exp. comp, ISO,
shutter speed, white balance settings!

I've taken incredibly good constellation shots, with its 16 second
exposure time.

So there's a lot to play with the 3900 as well as doing point and
shoot.

OTOH, the like the movie, stitch, exp comp showing on the LCD!!, 10
x picture review, much faster review of pictures, and even fast
shutter speed options.

Click to expand...

I think you meant to describe what you like about the A40/S330 in the last paragraph above.

lorenzo said:

Also, the A40 has a real 3x zoom, whereas the 3900 really only has
1.7x!

What about the 4900? 1.7x or 2x?

Click to expand...

Not sure. But I am pretty sure that it is 2x on the DX3600 since its focal length goes from 5.6mm at full wide to 11.2mm at full tele.

lorenzo said:

Kodak really could garner a huge market share by introducing a 2 or
3 megapixel camera with movie (& audio) and a real 3x optical zoom.
Its exposure and focusing system and color reproduction are great.
They just need to get the rest of the camera put together.

Click to expand...

But we are in the Canon forum here. Perhaps you should instead say that since Canon S330/A40/S30 are already 2 or 3 megapixel cameras with movie (& audio) and a real 3x optical zoom, it shouldn't be too hard for Canon to focus on improving exposure, focusing system and color reproduction. If they can't do it all, then obviously the exposure, focusing system and color reproduction are more important.

I think Canon's problem was probably created when they improved the digicams' dynamic range performance (capable of showing details in shadows and avoiding blow outs), they ended up sacrificing focusing and auto white balance (both have to do with sensing).

sloppiness of my cut and paste!

should have read

w3 said:

w3 said:

OTOH, as tot he A40, I like the movie, stitch, exp comp showing on the LCD!!, 10
x picture review, much faster review of pictures, and even fast
shutter speed options.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Don;t know whether the overrated optical zoom affects all Kodaks or not!

w3 said:

w3 said:

What about the 4900? 1.7x or 2x?

Click to expand...

Not sure. But I am pretty sure that it is 2x on the DX3600 since
its focal length goes from 5.6mm at full wide to 11.2mm at full
tele.

Click to expand...

Just saw a review that said 2x optical

Yes, you are right!!

w3 said:

But we are in the Canon forum here. Perhaps you should instead say
that since Canon S330/A40/S30 are already 2 or 3 megapixel cameras
with movie (& audio) and a real 3x optical zoom, it shouldn't be
too hard for Canon to focus on improving exposure, focusing system
and color reproduction. If they can't do it all, then obviously
the exposure, focusing system and color reproduction are more
important.

Click to expand...

Interesting:

w3 said:

I think Canon's problem was probably created when they improved the
digicams' dynamic range performance (capable of showing details in
shadows and avoiding blow outs), they ended up sacrificing focusing
and auto white balance (both have to do with sensing).

Click to expand...