Reader's Comments

I bought the Canon SD400 from Best Buy today, and I have to say: it was a bad decision. A lot of the reviews on the web were right; the LCD screen is very fragile. Mine is already scratched. Luckily, I bought the 4 year plan, but I'm not sure if scratched or cracked LCD screens are covered. I will find out soon. In any case, can anyone recommend another ultra compact digital camera that doesn't have issues with the LCD screen?

-- Alexander Peter, January 15, 2006

Hi, many thanks for your great site. I have tried the Kodak Z740 and then the Z650 and found them both great performers. I don't feel good about the apparent wobblynes of the lens, when extended, but that is normal I was told. The newer Z612 has image stabilisation and 12X zoom, I wish had waited for that. I started with a Kodak "twin-twenty" film camera 40 years ago and I'm glad Kodak have kept in the frame with these digitals.

-- MIke Bluestone, May 13, 2006

Regarding the criticism of the Canon A6xx cameras' battery: Short version: I get four and five hundred shots per charge, and AA batteries weigh <1 oz. each. Longer version: I have used an A620 since November 2005. I used the first set of alkaline batteries for two weeks and 138 shots, and only changed them because I went on a four day ski trip and wanted fresh batteries. Those bateries lasted beyond the trip, and over 200 shots. With NiMH AA batteries I recharge about every two weeks, and recently shot over 500 photos on one charge.

-- Bruce Johnson, July 26, 2007

Think that you are missing the Fuji S6000 in the category of the best non-SLR camera. Same sensor as the legendary F30, but in a far more versatile body. Lacks IS, but more than makes up for it with superb high ISO performance and superb image quality.

-- Daniel Klein, September 29, 2007

Don't forget the Sigma SD14. I just got one and I have to say that it was worth it. I traded a perfectly good, almost new 400d with the 17-70 IS and 60mm Macro lenses. I think the IMAGE QUALITY is very much superior to anything using the Bayer system. While it might not have ell the "bells and whistles" it is a damned site easier to operate. It took me about 15 minutes to learn how to use it. Many other cameras are so complex that it defeats the purpose of taking photos. At ISO 50 I think the images rival the 5d and certainly the old Kodachrome 25. Compared to others, it may have some perceived shortcomings. The camera does not pretend to be all things for all people. Sigma does have a few dud lenses. But so do the other brands. I had a 17-40 Canon that never seemed as sharp as the Sigma 17-70. The camera is best used for portraits, landscapes, fine art, industrial, and advertising photography. It is more for the ılow foodıpeople out there. Just think of it as something like a film camera without a motor drive. That took a moment or two to wind... and for forget you had to change film every 36 exposures. The sd14 gets about 64 high very high quality frames per gigabyte far cheaper that with chemical processes. 20 years ago I would have given my eye teeth for such a camera. My only gripe is that I wish the batteries lasted longer. If you are careful, as with any make, you can get superior lenses from Sigma. Think about it. I have. There are many technical articles that influenced this decision. Be that as it may!

-- John Maitland Graves, November 5, 2007