Customer Reviews

Canon PowerShot SD960IS 12.1 MP Digital Camera with 4x Wide Angle Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 2.8-inch LCD (Silver)

5 star:		(63)
4 star:		(28)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

My old tiny Casio Exilim 5 MP camera died- I loved that thing because it was so tiny and I took many more pictures because it fit in my pocket- and I had to get something for my trip to France. First bought the 970 thinking, ooh, 5x optical zoom. For someone used to ultracompact, that thing was huge and I didn't notice much difference between the 5x and the 4x or 3x zoom. I returned it and got the 960, which I stuck with. It is much smaller than the 970 though bigger than my old camera (won't fit in pants pocket too comfortably), but the wide-angle zoom makes a huge difference to the photos. I travelled with someone who had the 780, and we frequently traded the same shot with both cameras, and the picture quality was much better with the 960, though it is larger than the 780. The controls were easy to navigate, the viewscreen very wide/ large on the 960. The video quality is amazing. Aside from the size, the only downside was that it is a little slow to take repeat shots in action situations. However, the motion control is excellent and you can take shots while jogging without blurring. Sadly, I lost my new 960 at the airport (thankfully, I had downloaded the photos). I decided to replace it with the 780 because I'm not a photographer, thought having the very small camera would make up for the difference in picture quality. After 250 photos on the 960, and 2 days with the 780, I miss the wide-angle zoom and am considering getting another 960. It's not that much bigger than the 780, and the picture quality difference is significant.

The true market for this camera is someone who wants to have one device that is compact, shoots excellent quality pictures, and has the capability of capturing 720P HD movies.

It's a Canon, so the image quality is a given. Tons of examples on Flickr if you simply search for "canon SD960" or "IXUS 110". Colors are true, not highly sharpened, low chromatic aberration, and rich with detail. Do not, however, mistake this power of the DIGIC IV processor to be perfect and free of noise at high zoom or ISO above 400. Compared to its class, however, the results are just great for the price point.

But the odds are you are looking at this camera not just for its stills ability, but the fact that it can also shoot HD movies.

So how does the HD perform. Here, the optical stabilization and optical zoom make this a far better choice than it's nearest hybrid competitor, the Flip HD. The Flip is a fun, very easy to use device, but the lack of image stabilization in camera makes the output very choppy and prone to a "jello" wobbling effect. The Canon has a much smoother output. A strong performer in low light (but expect more noise) and a really excellent result in natural light. For samples, my best recommendation is to search Vimeo -- they have the best HD streaming of uploaded videos, and looking at results on Youtube (even if "HD") doesn't do the camera justice.

In practice, Mac users will be happy to see that iPhoto can handle the whole offload process -- stills and movies. Launch iPhoto, turn on camera and load what you'd like. The movie files are H.264, and can be quickly edited in iMovie or Final Cut.

One worthy note on shooting movie and zoom. You frame your shot and set focus with a half push of the shutter button. Press all the way to record. Once you start recording, you are set at your original zoom level and can not use the OPTICAL zoom to pull closer. Instead, the camera uses DIGITAL zoom to get closer. In practice, I found this did not produce a terribly degraded result, but it is worthy noting before you purchase the camera.

Mono mic on the camera, which pics up sound very well -- even on the crowded/noisy streets of NYC.

The cheaper Canon SD780 is very nice also if you are looking to save $50. The newer jog wheel and extra zoom, however, was worth the upgrade (IMHO).

Budget for one of the 8G or 16G SDHC cards sold on Amazon for 50+ minutes of HD recording. And probably worth buying a 3rd party second battery to have on hand.

Got this camera a month ago just before the Coachella festival, where I shot ~4GB worth of jpgs and ~2GB of video. I used max resolution for both and did not use the fully automatic modes and other gimmicks. Being an all day festival in the desert, I had plenty of opportunity to test the camera under harsh light, shadow, twilight and artificial lighting at night.

Video wise no complains; this is not a video camera and whatever you get out of it is a plus IMHO. I got usable footage of bands at night, with reasonable sound quality, and I suspect the image stabilization improved the shots, since I don't have very steady hands.

Still photography is another matter. I got plenty of purple fringes under sunlight and way too much noise under low light. Going beyond ISO 400 is reckless, and the lens stops down too much as you start zooming, making matters worse. 12MP is a marketing gimmick; you'll seldom get good enough quality shots that you can enlarge where such resolution would be needed; half the pixel density and much lower noise would yield plenty more enlargement worthy pics.

Controls are limited, you can tweak exposure compensation and sensitivity and that's about it. The flash is best for harsh sunlight situations. Having said that, this is a very compact point and shoot, with a very nice LCD and good focusing; a good camera for snap shots and 4x6 prints.

Unfortunately after 30 days of review and over 1000 pictures later I am returning this camera.

As an avid Canon user (Canon AE-1, S500, and S550), I decided it was finally worth the effort to upgrade out of the world of slow compact flash and go with the latest and greatest. What I found was a major disappointment.

PROS:
-Size of the camera is great for your pocket. It slips neatly away and is easy to retrieve.

-When pictures are clear, they look great for a point and shoot.

-I enjoyed using the wheel interface along with the actual UI that is on the camera.

-The HD movies were great both on the computer and played directly to my 46" Samsung LCD

-Transfer speed to the computer was very fast, especially since I am comparing it to my last camera that was the S550.
-Battery life was great as well as compared to my S550. At least twice as much use from the 960.

-The HD video constantly adjusted the white balance during capture which was very nice.

-Screen was clear and well integrated into the body of the unit.

NOTE: I didn't hear any strange sounds when zooming in/out using the movie mode (during playback).

CONS:
-Bright daylight images would show purple fringing around diffuse edges such as hair, trees, water, etc... Was made even worse if zoomed.

-In AUTO mode the camera constantly thought it should go into MACRO mode and pictures consistently were blurry. This was even worse at night, and absolutely HORRID if you gave the camera to a 3rd party to take a picture. 3rd parties usually don't use the method where you hold the button halfway so the camera can figure out what's going on. So feel free to instruct that 3rd party if you like and then you *MIGHT* get a clear picture half the time... and at night you might get 1 out of 10 that are clear. Even some of the daytime pictures that did not display the MACRO mode in AUTO came out blurry.

I'm so disappointed in this camera since I had such high hopes for it. I researched for at least 8 hours over a period of 4 weeks before I made my purchase. The Canon SD960IS suffers from great ideas implemented without the final touch that would make it worthwhile.

Take my review with a grain of salt; however, I would steer clear of this one until they fix the CCD so it doesn't have nasty purple fringing (which my s500 and s550 never had) and when they fix the firmware in AUTO to go back to manual macro mode.

About me: I am not a professional photographer; however, I would consider myself very capable. I have developed my own pictures, when I was shooting black and white, in my own darkroom. Also, I am the person that is always called by friends and family when they have a technical question. If I wanted to take slow pictures where I have to think about shutter speeds, exposures, f stops, etc.. I'll gladly go by the Canon Digital SLR and take the time. This purchase was not for that. I want a camera that I or anyone in my family can take halfway decent pictures without thinking too much about it. At this point my S550 did a much better job.

8-4-09 Update: I think it's time to update my review. I really do love the video this camera shoots. If that's all I wanted it for, this would be a 5-star product. But over time I am getting more and more disappointed with the quality of the photos. Maybe my unit is a dud, but the noise seems to be getting worse. I just think that an outdoor photo, taken in full daylight, should NOT be a noisy as the pix from this camera are. I miss my SD550. I may have to just suck it up an switch back, or look for something else to use as a point and shoot for when I don't want to carry my XTi around with me.

==================================

I finally upgraded my SD550, which was getting pretty beat up and tired. I was really looking for a >3x optical zoom (4x isn't a huge improvement, but it's enough for a 12.1mp camera) I actually really like the layout on this one, the huge screen (I never used the viewfinder on the 550) and the playback button at the top right.

The HD video quality seems good to me (I have a more expensive HD videocamera, so this for me is not going to be used when I know I want to shoot a lot of video), but I found the controls for playback confusing (it's not clear at ALL just looking at the camera that you have to press up on the control wheel and THEN press the set button. The 550 used Set/Set to playback. I have to be careful not to use Set/Set because the first Set launches the delete function (!)

I also found the purple lines caused by bright lights to be much more harsh on the 960 than they ever were on the 550. In fact, I had to go back to the 550 to see if it even did that (It did). It's just more noticable on the 960 but that could be because it's filming in HD. There are no purple lines when I am taking still photos (even if you see it on the viewfinder) so you just have to be extra careful about pointing the camera toward the sun if the sun is fairly low in the sky.

I'll update this review as I have more feedback.
======
Update to review on 4/15: I still like the camera, the HD video quality is AMAZING, but as a pixel peeper, indoor shots tend to be REALLY noisy. Now maybe I shouldn't be zooming that far in on a 12 megapixel image shot indoors, but it is something I want to warn people about. I'm going to try printing one of the noisy shots to see what it looks like when compressed down into a 4x6 size. I also find some of the shots blurrier than I'd like. Like the other reviewer, this was a move from an sd550, and maybe that is just the greatest pocket camera ever, because both of us are a little disappointed with the quality when you compare the two. If the video wasn't so much better, I may have exchanged this one. As of this moment, I'm at about a 3.5. Will be taking it on vacation next week. More feedback to come.

I brought the Canon 960is on a Mediterranean cruise this summer and there is no other camera, video or still, that I would have rather had. For my money this is simply a terrific little camera that will give you terrific stills and better video than you ever thought possible with a great-looking, no-hassle Point 'n Shoot. The stills were very sharp (the image stabilization is very good) and the colors were accurate and vivid. I sometimes choose the Vivid Colors or Positive Film setting for more color 'punch' and it never looked overly saturated or grainy. The Canon 960SI feels well balanced and yet solid in your hand, and is light enough to not make you feel weighed down when you easily slip it into your pocket. I also often choose to use the Wide Angle (16:9) format rather than the normal picture format because I shot a lot of vistas, and this worked out quite well.

OUTSTANDING VIDEO, BETTER THAN 'FLIP'

For me the true revelation of this camera though was the video. It shoots in 720p HD, no that's not 'true' HD and a 1080p camcorder will certainly shoot better video, but the video is still quite stunning, it will look wonderful on your large HD TV, and outshines the standard 480i DV camcorders of just a few short years ago. When I got back home I edited the movie clips to really sweet results that got lots of compliments. The biggest drawback over a dedicated camcorder is that the sound, while acceptable, is not outstanding and not stereo. However, if you are considering the very popular FLIP MinoHD or FLIP UltraHD this camera is by far the better choice. I bought the Flip Ultra and played with it for awhile but the lack of Image Stabilization made it nearly impossible to shoot any type of video without it being quite jittery-looking unless you used a tripod. The fact that the Canon 960is is a better choice for video and just happens to shoot outstanding stills makes this a no-brainer over any FLIP camera.

NICE TOUCHES

In the menu you'll find a setting called 'i-Contrast' which will give you good detail on faces even if they're strongly backlit. I found this very useful and hardly ever used fill flash. I kept it on i-Contrast and found the results on all photos pleasing, though if you're going for a dramatic contrast effect you'll want to turn i-Contrast off.

This is the 1st Point 'n Shoot I ever used where ISO 1600 produced viewable photos. Off course there's some grain and some artifacts, but much less than other cameras I've used and in extreme low light you'll get usable stills and movie footage.

I generally used P (program) mode as I like to tweak, but the 960 will do quite well left to it's own devices on Auto Mode, which is very good if you DON'T like to tweak. Auto Mode also automatically knew if I wanted to shoot a close-up and switched to Close Up Mode automatically.

The Canon 960 will go from Turned Off to Ready To Shoot in a little under a second. This was true for Movie Mode as well. Nice.

Battery Life was outstanding. I would generally take over a hundred pictures a day and shoot several minutes of video and I never felt the need to carry an extra battery. The battery also charges pretty fast, in a little over an hour.

If you explore Program Mode you'll find Long Shutter Mode which was especially good for taking dramatic night vistas. You'll need to have a small tripod though (like the Flip tripod) as the shutter will remain open for about a second. However you'll have wonderfully detailed night shots as your ISO can be as low as 80.

NO BIG COMPLAINTS

Continuous Shooting Mode was just OK, shooting about two frames a second. After all, it does have 12.1 megapixels to write. Still, this is the one thing that could stand improvement.

Some early reviews complained of the 960is's new menu as difficult to master, but this is no serious drawback. It did take perhaps an extra day for me to get comfortable enough with the menus to quickly adjust a setting, but now it's second nature.

I also had read about "purple fringing" -- again not a major issue for me as when I compared the pictures to those I shot with my Canon SD1000, the fringing on the SD1000 was far more noticeable and that camera was a former PC Magazine Editor's Choice. As of now, I consider it the Canon SD960is the ultimate Point 'n Shooter.

I understand they say that everyone's eyes are different, and every camera looks different to every eye. HOWEVER, I have used, owned, tested and bought enough cameras over the past 4 years to know one simple thing:

DO NOT USE PORTRAIT, INDOOR OR AUTO FOR INDOOR PHOTOS OF HUMAN BEINGS for this SD960 model, or likely for any other newer model Canon with SmartAUTO feature.

MY Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FS7 (see my other review) has been a stellar performer for all around stills & videos in WVGA (I don't have need for full HD due to fact that I watch my vids on my MacBook, not a 60" TV). And the file size is smaller than full HD.

After reviewing hundreds of crummy INDOOR photos from this SD960 today (yes, I bought after reading amazing reviews online about the high quality, bright 2.8 aperture 28mm lens) I then decided to play around with the settings.

I'm supposed to meet Jon Bon Jovi tomorrow in Costa Rica and wanted to make sure this little camera was set PERFECTLY for a fast, on the fly shot with the rock star! No time to horse around with settings or ask Jon, "hey dude.... wait a minute.... need a re-take". I plan on buying the new Panasonic LUMIX FX7 but stuck with this little Canon this week.

That said, I DISCOVERED A SOLUTION TO CRUMMY INDOOR PHOTOS. I took dozens of comparison shots (most of my face :) and finally, finally found the answer to my frustration:

- First, turn OFF iContrast (do not leave on AUTO) in the menu - helps take away facial glare
- Second, go to P MODE which allows you to override Canon's horrible programming
- ISO = leave on auto, most indoor shots go to 250
- White Balance = change to Fluorescent (don't worry about light type where you are)
- My Colors = change to Positive Film - I tested them all against face, and this brings most natural, sharp tones
- Lastly, and the final secret to my success, change EXPOSURE setting to -1/3 (yes, this will help control Canon's obnoxious flash glare against the skin - in addition to shutting down iContrast)

* PORTRAIT setting was stuffing each photo at ISO 80, leaving a weird yellowish image
* INDOOR & P each used ISO 250 leaving better facial detail

Whomever is reading this owes me a beer! You cannot imagine the difference using this setting for indoor shots of faces and people. I have 3 images I need to post to prove the difference; PORTRAIT vs INDOOR MODE vs P MODE. You'll all agree the P setting (above) create a far superior photo from an amateur.

Canon should pay me a LARGE consulting fee for figuring this out. Perhaps, someone at Canon corporate will read this and change the settings in their pre-programmed menu for 2010/2011. The simple conclusion is: CANON HAS RUINED PHOTO QUALITY BY INTRODUCING TOO MUCH TECHNOLOGY AND SETTING ADJUSTMENTS. I look back at my 2005 Canon SD220 and many shots look BETTER than ones from newer Canon models. Hmmm...... case in point?

Please post COMMENT - love to hear everyone's results by doing their own "fine tuning".

Good Luck!

The pictures are bright and clear.

The 720p videos I've made so far are just amazing, especially from a tiny camera like this.

I initially wanted to purchase the Canon SD780 but decided on this model for several reasons:

1. Wide angle lens.

2. Bigger size. The SD780 was too small for me.

3. Controls are easy to use once you get used to them.

4. Widescreen LCD.

5. Battery life. I don't know about the battery life on the SD780 but the battery life on this one is long. Easily lasts 3-4 days.

If you're doing a lot of videos, I recommend getting a class 4 or class 6 16/32 GB SDHC card and a mini-HDMI cable. You'll be amazed at how sharp and vivid the videos are on a 1080p TV or monitor.

For the ones who have bad things to say about this camera, please take into consideration the price of it and the features you're getting.

I work in a graphics shop with professionals who deal with high res 1TB files. They have keen eyes. Everyone who saw the HD footage video from this camera was impressed.
I already have a Canon DSLR but this is a great pocketable device that takes excellent P&S photos. It doesn't compare to my DSLR but that is not the point, it gives you fabulous images for anything under $500 in the size of a cellphone.
In fact, the price of the camera is about the same price of a decent wide angle lens for my DSLR. Hence, the price of this camera was a no-brainer. 2.8 arpeture, 28mm wide angle lens. Enough said.

The HD video worked great with my Mac workflow. Final Cut Pro handled the files with no problems. Again, I showed the footage to my friends in the professional broadcast industry and everyone was impressed.
I second the recommendation that you should search Vimeo for some HD examples. Better yet, search for Cabel's review on the internet and download his original 720P Quicktime file.

I only stumbled over this camera after watching 4-5 hour footage of Sonny Webby, VADO hd, Flip HD and Mino examples. I was not impressed with any of them except for the Vado. A single purpose HD camera or a HD/12 megapixel point-n-shoot?
The other alternative is the Canon SD780IS bit for a little more money, you get a wide angle lens.

I wish Canon would get a clue and stop fighting the Megapixel war with the other manufacturers....they are all trying to cram too many mexapixel onto the tiny sensor and it shows with image quality. I'm a professional photographer and I've had several Canon point and shoots...my SD 870IS broke so I thought I would buy a new P&S. I bought this and tried it for a week and returned it. Image quality is okay in decent light, but really poor in low light. Waay too much noise. If canon had a clue they would step back to an 8MP camera and focus on high ISO performance. Stop trying to cram a professional amount of pixels into a cheap point and shoot already Canon! After i returned this camera I went online and bought a used SD 870 IS which is their BEST point and shoot of all time. Something happened when they went to the Digic IV on the 880 IS...

If Canon would simply focus on image quality and high ISO with 6-8MP camera they would own the market. But instead, they'll continue to crank up the megapixels that no one needs and ruin image quality....I have a Large format 60" printer and I can take an 8MP image and blow it up poster size...who needs more? If you need more, then you'll own a professional digital SLR...

I can't believe how much my old SD 870IS performs compared to all these new ones I've tried.

Get a clue Canon...Shock the market and come out with an 8MP PS that performs instead of a 12-14 megapixel piece of trash!