I was told the Powershot S400 is outdated junk...

...so I set forth to prove them wrong.
Here are a few test macro shots from my new (used) S400.

Feedback is appreciated since I am still trying to get the hang of a mostly automatic camera. It's a lot of fun honestly trying to trick it into doing my bidding, without the benefits of aperture priority control shooting. I kind of wish I had this little gem earlier. Its imaging sensor really seems to be in the sweet spot of sorts... 4Mpix is plenty for what i am trying to do with it.













Thanks for looking!

Nice detail. I got this info from the database. check out the price.
Ed

tsoutij said:

(Pre-PMA 2003, 14:00 GMT: Canon has today announced the new PowerShot S400 Digital Elph / Digital IXUS 400. This new Digital Elph / IXUS has a four megapixel sensor and a three times optical zoom lens. The design is overall cleaner and smoother and uses a new 'Super Hard Cerabrite' (what a mouth full) finish which is supposedly a mix of metal and ceramics. The S400 isn't just good looking there's a lot more packed inside than was available on previous Digital Elph / IXUS models including nine point AiAF, a wide ISO range and a 2.5 fps continuous shooting speed. List price: $599 / €629.)

Click to expand...

--
NewYorkEd



SHUTTERBUGS
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=34199234
The Naked City
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=34999582

especially if you are not really going to print larger than say 8 x 12, then you don't NEED more than 4mp.

tsoutij said:

...so I set forth to prove them wrong.
Here are a few test macro shots from my new (used) S400.

Feedback is appreciated since I am still trying to get the hang of a mostly automatic camera. It's a lot of fun honestly trying to trick it into doing my bidding, without the benefits of aperture priority control shooting. I kind of wish I had this little gem earlier. Its imaging sensor really seems to be in the sweet spot of sorts... 4Mpix is plenty for what i am trying to do with it.













Thanks for looking!

Click to expand...

Mine still works and I give it a spin every now and then. It is hard to beat that image quality especially with small prints.

Sarah Joyce

Whoever told you the S400 was "junk" is nuts! It was one of the most prized little pocket cams ever made. Images from it were and still are stunning! I think the prime reason is the very low megapixel count. I firmly believe that most people don't need much more than 5mp for regular size images or Internet viewing.

I wish the next version of my S90 would lower the pixel count even more (in addition to addressing the ergonomic issues). People will continue to pay big bucks for those earlier cameras and you can see why . . . less truly was MORE !!!

There are a few things I dislike about the S400. The screen is a bit small (but I always use the OVF), I wish there were more manual controls, and if it used SD cards it could be a bit slimmer.
However, there is one major thing I like about it, the Image Quality:





If Canon made a model like this, with the same build quality but with a bigger screen and slimmer body (taking SD cards) and about 6-8Mp I'd buy one immediately. None of the current IXUS range come close to the S400 in either build quality or image quality.

--

Member said:

Photographers feel guilty that all they do for a living is press a button. - Andy Warhol

Click to expand...

Thanks everyone...

Master Yoda said:

Whoever told you the S400 was "junk" is nuts! It was one of the most prized

little pocket cams ever made. Images from it were and still are stunning! I think
the prime reason is the very low megapixel count.

Click to expand...

I have to admit that before I started this project I was not expecting much with one of these little Canon point and shoots. But not having used one of Canon's earlier models for very much I was shocked the first time I loaded up my freshly shot images. The good dynamic range and exposure settings made me think "This project is going to be easy."

BG454 said:

I wish the next version of my S90 would lower the pixel count even more (in
addition to addressing the ergonomic issues). People will continue to pay big

bucks for those earlier cameras and you can see why . . . less truly was MORE !!!

Click to expand...

I was rather surprised at the prices on eBay. Not cheap- but certainly not expensive. If faced with the decision for a brand new point and shoot or one of these little S series cameras I think I would opt with the older camera pretty much every time. The picture quality is impressive, and the older ergonomic issues can be endured.

MisterBG said:

There are a few things I dislike about the S400. The screen is a bit small (but I always use the OVF), I wish there were more manual controls, and if it used SD cards it could be a bit slimmer.

Click to expand...

Yes, the screen is small, but I consider it "good enough". I would agree with you though. The usage of SD cards is almost a non-issue to me though, I just liked that the S400/410 series used a relatively larger 1/1.8" imaging sensor.

BG454 said:

However, there is one major thing I like about it, the Image Quality:

Click to expand...

That is a pretty shot...

BG454 said:

If Canon made a model like this, with the same build quality but with a bigger screen and slimmer body (taking SD cards) and about 6-8Mp I'd buy one immediately. None of the current IXUS range come close to the S400 in either build quality or image quality.

Click to expand...

I am in agreement with you about this. I would jump right away for a new compact little S400 series camera with a larger LCD screen- even at "just" 6MP.

This little camera feels almost good enough to be a new model though... it supports FAT32 (I have a 16GB CF card in there) and the user interface is almost snappy enough that I can live with its oddities... I have a feeling though that the main reason this camera is "fatter" has to do with its larger imaging sensor and not the fact it uses bulkier CF memory.

Next up, I want to try some more "impossible" shots like sports action, and more low light work.

tsoutij said:

Next up, I want to try some more "impossible" shots like sports action, and more low light work.

Click to expand...

I've never tried any real action shots with it, but here's an example of it's low-light performance. I think this was actually hand-held, elbows resting on the river wall. The exposure was full auto and the shutter speed was down to 1/8 sec so any blurring is camera shake, not poor image quality. I've just cropped the top and bottom slightly and lightly compressed the jpeg, otherwise exactly as it came out of the camera.





--

tsoutij said:

Photographers feel guilty that all they do for a living is press a button. - Andy Warhol

Click to expand...

S400 and S500 were great in its time and produced fantastic photographs with its relatively large 1/1.7 sensor. I used to own S400 and I still have wonderful photos. But the time moves on, lets not kid each other. From the pure image quality standpoint, yes, it would be good because of large sensor, but

1) at the age of 3-inch-display p&s, who'd want to compose and then review photos on that tiny display these days?

2) battery life is a joke compare to current p&s (I remember always carrying 3 batteries with me)
3) iso only goes up to ISO400.
4) No IS.

All are major nuisances, but the tiny display would be the killer for me. I would not want anything with display less than 2.5 inches.
--
Current gear: Nikon D300, Nikon D80, Canon XSI, Panasonic ZS3, Canon SD870IS.

The display doesn't bother me as I don't use it. If they would apply some modern wizardry to the image processing with the larger sensor and 4mp rating it might be amazing what they could get out of it at higher iso settings. I assume many of the S400's had a problem with a component. Mine had died a year or so ago, but then read about a service bulletin and sent it in and they fixed it free and paid shipping both ways just a month or so ago. Mine has travelled with me on vacations and business trips since it was new and still does a great job. It had the same sensor as the G3 and comparable image quality. I had both back then and my son still uses the G3 and I still have the S400. And I fully agree that 4 mp is all most anyone needs. MP's are marketing gimmicks.

Absolutic said:

S400 and S500 were great in its time and produced fantastic photographs with its relatively large 1/1.7 sensor. I used to own S400 and I still have wonderful photos. But the time moves on, lets not kid each other. From the pure image quality standpoint, yes, it would be good because of large sensor, but

1) at the age of 3-inch-display p&s, who'd want to compose and then review photos on that tiny display these days?

2) battery life is a joke compare to current p&s (I remember always carrying 3 batteries with me)
3) iso only goes up to ISO400.
4) No IS.

All are major nuisances, but the tiny display would be the killer for me. I would not want anything with display less than 2.5 inches.
--

Click to expand...

You know, I totally agree with you about the first two- The shortcomings of the display and battery compared to modern day cameras is glaring. I think this is why I enjoy trying to squeeze good images out of this camera. I guess it's sort of like trying to run a Morris Mini Cooper against the new BMW Mini and beat it on fair and square on lap times.

As far as the ISO though, I have a gut feeling that ISO400 is actually more sensitive than is actually stated- though I have no meaningful way of measuring that. The lack of higher ISOs doesn't bother me too much personally. The same with lack of IS. That's just my preference though.

Funny how things work out... the newly released Ixus 300HS seems like it has the sort of specs we are looking for in a compact P&S...

Yeah, drop the megapixels down to about 6mp, and I'd buy it.

Did anyone really say "junk"? I can agree with "outdated" (for reasons stated in this thread) but "junk" seems strange. Most people I know agree with that it produces excellent pictures. I still use mine from time to time.

One advantage of the small screen is that your thumb gets plenty of space, thus making the camera easy to hold.

tsoutij said:

As far as the ISO though, I have a gut feeling that ISO400 is actually more sensitive than is actually stated- though I have no meaningful way of measuring that. The lack of higher ISOs doesn't bother me too much personally. The same with lack of IS. That's just my preference though.

Click to expand...

ISO400 on your S400 is actually ISO640. ISO200 is ISO320. Multiply the value with 1.6.

I too own an S400 but it is not the same machine as it used to be before the sensor died and got repaired. I used to take magnificent photos with it. I don't care about the lcd and battery life. I think it kind of had a little IS system too but it became too sensitive to camera shake after the repair. Probably they firmed things too much inside the camera. I from time to time think of finding one for sale that had no repair.

Yes, 300 HS looks very interesting and can become a classic too.

voz said:

Did anyone really say "junk"? I can agree with "outdated" (for reasons stated in this thread) but "junk" seems strange. Most people I know agree with that it produces excellent pictures. I still use mine from time to time.

One advantage of the small screen is that your thumb gets plenty of space, thus making the camera easy to hold.

Click to expand...

Sadly, I know a good number of people who are fooled into believing that each iteration of new digital camera technology means that the past models are rendered instant "junk". I'm guessing this is a lot of carryover thinking from computer related hardware, where that kind of thinking definitely holds more water. The people who called the S400/410/500 "junk" are acquaintances of mine who work in the IT field, so i'm not surprised by that attitude.

Even I can say I bought into that sort of thinking about digital cameras for a while, until I realized what is latest and greatest may have more megawhatzits, but not necessarily be the best overall performer.

And yes, the S400 series cameras are definitely much easier to hold than their newer large-screen siblings. It's a nice by-product of the dinky LCD screen.

To give you an idea of how good the early Sxxx series of Canons was, I have actually gotten photos accepted by istockphoto.com which I took with my Canon S230.

I'll post links if anyone is interested.

Yep, that 1/1.7 sensor was nice......

That is the reason I am about to send my Fuji F11 (1/1.6 SuperCCD sensor) to Precision Camera Repair, even though they claim $95 to fix it. I figure the low light shots will be superior to most modern p&s.
--
Current gear: Nikon D300, Nikon D80, Canon XSI, Panasonic ZS3, Canon SD870IS.

donquijote said:

tsoutij wrote:

Click to expand...

h.

donquijote said:

ISO400 on your S400 is actually ISO640. ISO200 is ISO320. Multiply the value with 1.6.

Click to expand...

what is your authority on that? Why multiply by 1.6????? First time I am hearing it.
--
Current gear: Nikon D300, Nikon D80, Canon XSI, Panasonic ZS3, Canon SD870IS.

theranman said:

Yeah, drop the megapixels down to about 6mp, and I'd buy it.

Click to expand...

Why not buy a Fuji F200EXR then?