Canon SX170 upgrade from the SX160 - Probable death of the series

Dreadful move by Canon. This was a barely mid-level slightly large compact in a world where only the lowest level offerings typically feature AA batteries. Those who cherish the inconvenient Li-Ion power source are showered with options, have been for years and are more so in the last 3-4 as just about every manufacturer surrenders to complaints of 350 instead of 380 pics on a charge despite the considerable tradeoff to get those extra minutes.

The scarcity of AA cameras and abundance of lithium means Canon simply threw away a huge market by pitting themselves against an entirely new group of contenders for the small number of alluring items now left to talk about with the SX170.

Let's see,

1. Manual control for $200 or so: Panasonic, Sony, Fuji, Nikon and others.

2. 16x zoom: Everybody, and plenty further in even smaller bodies.

3. No tilting or articulating monitor with that moderate zoom, no AA batteries: Everybody.

4. Lack of a viewfinder: Yeah, everybody.

I guess that's why the price has been lowered. They destroyed this line altogether, leaving no reason other than saving a few dollars to buy. At $140 (it was $170 last time checked), it fits okay above the Canon A1400 with its 5x zoom and AA batteries, going for $90.

As for me, I am clinging to my Canon Powershot SX10. It operates terrifically on AA batteries, an option killed with the SX30 and all of them (SX40-50) since. The viewfinder experience was also effectively destroyed on the SX30, which has kept me waiting and waiting for anybody to whoop the SX10 with enough features to surrender my precious $2-each rechargeable AA batteries.

Panasonic came close with the fz200, though reports about slight softness of images speared that route. The Canon SX50 has that massive zoom, though a deplorable viewfinder down HALF the size of my SX10, it's uglier, the dreaded Li-Ion requirement and some other failing that is escaping me at the moment.

Anyway, if I had frequent need of a largish compact with manual controls, count me as one who would MUCH rather grab an SX160 (used or new) for the better battery choice than a newer SX170 even at a $20-30 dropped price. Who needs more things sitting around in a drawer that would cost $35 dollars JUST TO TURN ON one more time? Since I already have a stack of AA and AAA batteries (plus a charger in the van), an old camera in the drawer can be pulled out 10 years later and be used for free. Yup.

Oh yeah, failing to use the Li-Ion things is the surest way to kill the battery. So laying the camera into storage for a while is the surest way to place it on the probably never to be operated again shelf.

Let's take stock of what Canon has murdered recently by designing down:

1. The G12 died, I guess becoming a more limited G15 worthless nothing, no moveable back screen, no zoom improvement, the WORST viewfinder in modern history during the entire run.

2. Powershot SX20 was the last worthy offering in the line. Mine is the SX10, though the 20 was still okay despite losing a couple of cool items. The SX30 got dumbed down in vital ways while merely increasing zoom.

3. Powershot SX160 - No useful feature improvement, just the dopey battery change, a wee amount smaller. Don't they already have one in that category, an SX280 or something?

It seems that Sony has an interest in producing enthusiast level cameras that use common sense design. I am expecting professionals before long to be shifting in that direction. Nikon is at least competing. We shall see if Panasonic bothers with a successor to the FZ200. A recent dumbing down of that series is foreboding though. Then there's Fuji, offering really innovative stuff, yet failing to get the pictures sharp enough to match the features.

My rating of the Canon SX170: If free as a gift, nah, sell on eBay for a used or new SX160. The thing has no purpose on this planet. And for that reason, it warrants zero stars. I am giving half a star in order to keep anyone from thinking that part got overlooked.

Oh, I should add that the SX60 I tried took decent pictures, even at night. The SX170 might also. The problem being the aforementioned lack of measuring up to the competition in the category Canon dropped it into by removing the lone distinction from that pack.

You've denigrated two cameras I happen to own and like a lot.  The G15 is the first.  It has a lot going for it.  Fast lens for openers.  I have owned the G series since the G5, missing only the G10.  The G12 lens is slower; but it's also not as sharp as the one on the G15.  The G15 is also a little better at high ISO.  The loss of the articulated LCD was a minor thing for me; but taking that off to save weight and thickness means the G15 fits comfortably in a trouser pocket.  It will even slip easily into a shirt pocket, although it's a little heavy for that.

The second one is the Panasonic FZ200.  True, at the default settings it's a little soft; but set it properly and it's very sharp.

On the roof of a bar in Bar Harbor, Maine  SOOC

A roadside shot on top of Mt. Cadillac SOOC

Bar Harbor, the pier for cruise ship tenders SOOC Those tenders really are that color.

All three shots are straight out of the camera.  To get the best out of the FZ200 took a LOT of experimenting to find the optimum in-camera settings.  All of the earlier FZ series worked best at Noise Reduction -2, Sharpening +1.  Those settings look lousy on the FZ200.  What several of us use is NR -1, Sharpening -2, iResolution ON, and in addition, I set the WB to +2 steps Amber.  I have no idea what they were thinking when they set the parameters in the processor.  As it turns out, NR and Sharpening interact very strongly, so you can't use Sharpening in-camera to get a sharper image.

Now, lets talk about your beloved SX10.  As it happens I had one.  It was my next camera after my S5IS.  It's also the camera that caused me to try a Panasonic, an FZ28.  The SX10 has a slow lens at the long end, and chromatic aberration is as bad as it is in the S5IS.  At least the S5IS had a fast lens.  The FZ28's lens was a little longer (486 Vs 432 mm) than the S5IS's and nearly as fast over the 27-432 mm range  of the S5IS, only slowing to f/4.4 over the last 50 mm or so.  The long Canon zooms get slow rather quickly and then don't change much over most of the range.

As to AA cells, I do agree it's a shame they are disappearing.  My wife has a Canon A710IS.  A great little camera.  She wanted an OVF, and needs IS.  I wanted AA cells, so she wouldn't have to manage keeping rechargeables topped up.  We use the Energizer lithiums in the A710IS - 10 year shelf life, 550 shots on a pair in her camera, and they don't self discharge in the camera.  She doesn't take a lot of pictures, so whenever she picks up the camera, it's always ready to go.  Her case does have room for a spare pair.  I found a decent used one recently for $25 and bought it as a spare as Canon no longer supports them, and if it dies, another one is hard to find.

Just kidding about you denigrating the G15 and FZ200; but I did want to set the record straight on the 200.  If it isn't set up right, you'll not be happy with it.  Hence the bad reports.  But stick with it, and it's an excellent camera with a terrific EVF, an excellent f/2.8 lens, long battery life, and very good ergonomics and control logic.