Question about the ELPH line

<p>In another thread I was pointed to the PowerShot line for a feature that I want(date imprint). The ELPH 520 HS is advertised as a 10.1 MP camera, which is a rather low count today. However, the specs say the following:<br>

Type - 10.1 Megapixel, 1/3-inch CMOS<br />Total Pixels - Approx. 16.8 Megapixels<br />Effective Pixels - Approx. 10.1 Megapixels<br>

This is the first time I see the distinction between the so called Total Pixels and Effective Pixels. Does the CMOS processor have something to do with it and why? I can pick up the PowerShot ELPH 115 @16MP for just a little bit more but it says it comes with a CCD sensor. Not sure what I am losing with this choice. So, 10.1MP CMOS or 16MP CCD?</p>

<h1 > </h1>

<p> </p>

<p>You should look at the effective pixels. Check on dpreview.com for the image size for a given camera. The one you mention is 3648 x 2736, which is 10.1mp. I would hazard the guess that most sensors are now CMOS - I think it's necessary for video.</p>

<p>[[This is the first time I see the distinction between the so called Total Pixels and Effective Pixels. Does the CMOS processor have something to do with it and why?]]</p>

<p>This has nothing to do with CMOS vs CCD. This is a decision by Canon to put a 16MP sensor in a camera but only give you 10MP of output. Likely it's a result of the lens they're using only covering a portion of the total area of the sensor. </p>

<p>Why would they do that? Doesn't Canon have the proper lens that actually fits the camera? Is anybody else doing this? Very odd.</p>

<p>[[Why would they do that? Doesn't Canon have the proper lens that actually fits the camera? Is anybody else doing this? Very odd.]]</p>

<p>The lens fits the camera fine. The point and shoot market has very thin margins for manufacturers. It was very likely an economic decision not a photographic one. </p>

<p>This seems to indicate that as well: </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>it turns out Canon is using a 16.8-megapixel sensor, but only drawing a 10-megapixel image from the sensor. Canon tells us this same sensor is found in the 320 HS, but that camera uses most of the sensor's image area. In order to achieve the very long zoom range in a small package, Canon said they made the lens with a shorter backfocus distance, which creates a smaller image area on the sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/520HS/520HSA.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/520HS/520HSA.HTM</a></p>

<p>They probably got a good deal from Sony for buying (x) number of sensors. Thin camera == different optical requirements, why spend extra money on a different batch of sensors? </p>

<p>Rob hit the nail on the head! I actually owned this camera for a very brief period, about 2 months before selling it. While its size is nice, the controls felt very flimsy and the image quality was not very good. Pictures were noisy at low ISO settings. It's amazing that such a long zoom is crammed into such a small package, but the output was not satisfactory at all for me.</p>

<p>Well then, what about the A-series? The A2500 has a 16MP sensor, same total and effective pixels, similarly dimensioned, a more believable zoom range and the date stamp I am looking for. They are quite a bit cheaper too. The ELPH appears to have metal body though. That is definitely a plus for me. </p>

<p>What price range are you talking about, out of curiosity? There are other, much nicer PowerShots for decent prices that I think perform much better. My favorite PowerShot (I mention it so often that you'd think I was a Canon salesman! I'm not, by the way...) is the SX280 HS which has a metal and plastic construction and a 25-500mm zoom lens. It has a 12.1MP sensor and it's the first Canon with the Digic 6 processor and it performs beautifully. ISO performance is great through 800 and very good at 1600, surprisingly so for a small sensor compact. This is where the 12.1MP is an advantage over the 16MP. The ISO range is 80-6400. It's a very sturdy and compact camera that will fit in your pocket and works wonderfully as a do-it-all camera as far as PowerShots go. While I love my G15 and while it produces better image quality than the SX280 HS, the 280 has IQ that is still excellent and the focal range is far more versatile. They run anywhere from $229-$299 depending on where you shop. As for the A-series cameras, once upon a time they were great PowerShots with manual control and a lot of capability built in but lately have become cheap feeling and very minimalist, in my opinion.</p>

<p>I am looking at $150 tops. I looked at the SX280 but it is on the large side for my use. My camera has to be small enough to slip into my pants pockets. You are right but the A-series. Just looking at the pics is enough to give you the sense you describe.</p>

<p>Well, at that price point the Elph 520 might be your best option. Perhaps you should try it to see if it meets your expectations. You may like it much more than I did. Apparently enough people do to make it a pretty popular little camera, but the SX280 (and SX260 before it) performs much more to my liking. As far as size, the SX280 actually fits into my jeans pocket quite nicely. It's thicker than my iPhone for sure, but about 1/4 inch narrower and about an inch shorter. You might also look at the Elph 100 HS (it's a little older, released in 2011) and the Elph 110 HS. Both are good performers and easily slip into a pocket. Don't get caught up in the "more pixels" madness, by the way. The fewer actual pixels on a sensor that small, the better the noise control should be.</p>