Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon Powershot D20 - Ridiculous Design

Go to last post
P

Photographist

New member
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
FR






I think Canon designers should be photographers,
instead of being... I don't know what !

They designed a D20 that looks like... nothing.
Just good to give to a child as a toy to play with.

We don't ask Canon to make cameras with a very original design,
we just ask them to make a usable design,
the result being a camera you'll not be ashamed to take off your jacket,
a camera your friends will not laugh at
because it looks like it has been bitten by a shark !

It's not so difficult to make a camera that looks... like a camera.
I tried to redesign it, it took me 10 minutes !

What do you think of this new design ?

Best regards.
 
Photographist said:
What do you think of this new design ?
Click to expand...
I like it a lot better than the old one (D10 with the funky lens bulge and strap attachment point), and frankly I don't care one bit what a camera looks like, I care how it works and how easy it is to use. This looks to be fine in both areas.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
The only design feature I see that I'd question is the placement of the flash, which will garauntee significant red-eye. Hopefully the firmware will take care of that.

But I'll wait to see some samples from this thing before I judge it. It's all about IQ and handling.
--
-------------------------------------------------
No Signature.
 
It looks like a waterproof camera, yeah, a bit like a kids toy, but that's not horrible in a waterproof camera...I like it better than the d10 design. At least it has some sort of style (even if that style is "I'm at the pool").
 
PaulRivers said:
It looks like a waterproof camera, yeah, a bit like a kids toy, but that's not horrible in a waterproof camera...I like it better than the d10 design. At least it has some sort of style (even if that style is "I'm at the pool").
Click to expand...
But only the blue one says that. What about this one?



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
I like the gray one fine, myself...I mean, I would probably take issue with it if it wasn't waterproof, but being waterproof I don't have a huge problem with it at all...

I mean - I do prefer the Sony tx10 which just looks like a - camera. :D

 
As long as fashion does not compromise function, and that fashion can contribute to usability, and add beyond the more boring looking, then funky/snazzy looking is GREAT!!

Why NOT, most cams are boring looking, and shape really can add to usability!! Ever grip a camera with neoprene scuba or snow ski gloves on ?

Ever sniff a man's armpit or the butt of a dog, sorry off topic! :)
--
The Light is Right - Take that Shot!!

Check out my photo galleries @
http://picasaweb.google.com/TauPhoto
 
The shape is the least of the problems.

(althoug for red eye it probably is an issue)

The biggest issue is that canon went from a bright, class leading, F2.8 lens in the D10 to relatively dim lens starting at F3.9 in the D20.

I'm sure the new sensor is better but what good is that if the lens is a stop slower?

With the D10 canon made a stand out camera that refused to compromise optical quality, even when it resulted in one of the stangest shapes on the market.

With the D20 canon has basically copied the competion. Other than the resolution of the senor spec for spec the D20 is the Nikon AW100 all over again...

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-D20-vs-Nikon-AW100/specs
 
PaulRivers said:
keeponkeepingon said:
The biggest issue is that canon went from a bright, class leading, F2.8 lens in the D10 to relatively dim lens starting at F3.9 in the D20.
Click to expand...
Oh wow, it is f3.9, that is...crazy...
Click to expand...
What's weird is that it's also the fastest of the Canon compact cameras at its long end.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
ljfinger said:
What's weird is that it's also the fastest of the Canon compact cameras at its long end.
Click to expand...
The difference between f/3.9 and f/4.8 is less than 2/3 of a stop. By contrast my Elph 500HS is f/2-f/5.9 - more than three stops between the short end and the long end.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
PaulRivers said:
keeponkeepingon said:
The biggest issue is that canon went from a bright, class leading, F2.8 lens in the D10 to relatively dim lens starting at F3.9 in the D20.
Click to expand...
Oh wow, it is f3.9, that is...crazy...
Click to expand...
These cameras have similar (or identical) sensors to the D10 and D20. Looks like more than a one-stop difference to me.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
ljfinger said:
These cameras have similar (or identical) sensors to the D10 and D20.

Looks like more than a one-stop difference to me.
Click to expand...
I would say that the one on the right looks like it has a ton more noise reduction applied to it. It works fine for the balls, but the wood area starts to lose some noticeable texture.
 
PaulRivers said:
ljfinger said:
These cameras have similar (or identical) sensors to the D10 and D20.

Looks like more than a one-stop difference to me.
Click to expand...
I would say that the one on the right looks like it has a ton more noise reduction applied to it. It works fine for the balls, but the wood area starts to lose some noticeable texture.
Click to expand...
Look more carefully - much of the real wood grain shown in the right image is a blurry mess in the left image, and much of the "texture" in the left image is actually noise.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
PaulRivers said:
I did look closely, but my opinion differs from yours in that regard. :-)
Click to expand...
You've got to be kidding. Look at the arrows.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
With the arrows I can see more clearly where you're coming from, fingerprints in a reflection are tricky as the slightest difference in reflected light can show or hide them, but I do see what you mean.

But where I'm coming from is that I've seen that same style of noise reduction on my s100. Sometimes it's fine, other times it's...when you do fabric, wood, etc, it looks like it just got rid of the noise (though it also makes things look a little...glossy). It's when you look at people's faces that you can really tell that you definitely lost something somewhere.

Be sure to click on it twice to view full size - which one of these looks like it may or may not be a good picture, and which one of these looks like he put on a ton of makeup and concealer?





And whether I'm right or not, that's what I think of when I saw that comparison - I do think it's getting rid of some of the texture along with the noise.
 
The weird edge may disappoint someone, but it is distinctive and does not seem to affect the usability. Pure aesthetics - some care, some not. I don't.

Speaking of design elements that do make a difference, I'd like to point out:
  • the dedicated video button, apparently incorporating a red light
  • a large button that looks very easy to operate even with gloves... It is not marked, so maybe it is context dependent
  • the D10's lens bulk is gone... and f/2.8 is gone too
Speaking of lens aperture, I am afraid that this is a design compromise to reduce the thickness. Compared with the D10, you have less light, but a better sensor, a better image processor and more pixels. The balance should be positive.

For the rest, the specs seem to be aligned with the (best) competitors.

I can't wait to read the review!
 
PaulRivers said:
With the arrows I can see more clearly where you're coming from, fingerprints in a reflection are tricky as the slightest difference in reflected light can show or hide them, but I do see what you mean.

But where I'm coming from is that I've seen that same style of noise reduction on my s100. Sometimes it's fine, other times it's...when you do fabric, wood, etc, it looks like it just got rid of the noise (though it also makes things look a little...glossy). It's when you look at people's faces that you can really tell that you definitely lost something somewhere.

Be sure to click on it twice to view full size - which one of these looks like it may or may not be a good picture, and which one of these looks like he put on a ton of makeup and concealer?
Click to expand...
It's always difficult to know what is real texture and what it noise. The right way to do this (and I didn't do it either) is to shoot a reference shot with a good camera at a low ISO (I'll do that with my 5D at ISO 100 in raw) so you can see what it real and what is not.

Just to be sure, please note that the two shots I posted were shot at a whole stop different ISO.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top