Survey: 11 ultra flat cameras (page 11: Canon Ixus 50 / SD 400, Casio EX-S500)

Canon Ixus 50

From the beginning, the Ixus series was the most popular of the numeric world. It constantly adds to its rewards and testers recommendations. But here, and Canon has been challenged, the competition is here and it even surpasses the champion.

Let’s start with the positive aspects. The Ixus 50 is fast and has improved compared to the last generation. This one goes fast, very fast and the monitor located on the back is wide and good. Menu access is quick and intuitive and all in all this is a very pleasant camera to use.

However, it isn’t the best in all categories.

For example, noise level rises quickly by sensitivity. Four cameras (Fujifilm, Kodak, Panasonic and Sony) are better and more efficient for corrections.

It isn’t the fastest. Fujifilm and Sony are as good or even better.

The Ixus’ success was due to (amongst other things) the fact that it could easily fit into your pocket. In terms of bulkiness, the Ixus 50 is average, but is a heavy weight compared to the Casio and Sony cameras.

The white balance is not as good as the Kodak’s and Fujifilm’s,

With a 5.1 cm diagonal, the Ixus 50 monitor is the smallest of all. 8 cameras have 6.4 cm monitors.

Finally and most of all, the Ixus 50 doesn’t have a stabilizing device. The presence of this function for Panasonic is a real plus. This camera seems to be one generation ahead of the Ixus, which has to work with a flash indoors. The FX8 takes sharp pictures at up to 1/8 second and this changes everything. If their price were equivalent, choose without any hesitation the FX8. Unfortunately, for Panasonic and fortunately for Canon, there is a $60 (100€) price difference and it’s up to you to make your choice according to your budget.

Casio EX-S500

Lovely! This camera doesn’t pass unnoticed. Its extreme thinness is already impressive, but nothing is like the reaction you’ll get when you turn it on and the zoom expands to twice the width of the camera. Of course an internal zoom like the Sony T7’s would have been preferable because it’s better protected, but here it is more a visual treat.

The S500 is also introduced as one of the few cameras with a stabilizing device. Be careful here as it’s a “numerical stabilizing device”. Generally (with camcorders and a few cameras) numerical stabilizing devices use a part of the sensor for the photo and the rest to compensate for movements. This is the reason for the noticeable reduction in photo resolution.

Here is another problem. If the camera sees that the shutter speed is too slow to take a picture without a tripod, it automatically changes to a higher resolution. The activation of this stabilizing device even resorts to sensitivities unavailable manually. Pictures are taken in 400, 800 or 1600 ISO (the last two are commonly used indoors). The problem is that the noise level is already quite strong from 200 ISO and at 800 and 1600 ISO results are quite mediocre. It is possible to print small formats with a few defects and a significant reduction in detail. This is totally different from the capabilities of the Panasonic FX8, equipped with an optical stabilizing device.

Stabilizer OFF, 50 ISO

Stabilizer ON, 1600 ISO

With this explained, the camera loses this supposed advantage. It is, however, still elegant and thin and we can’t blame you for wanting to buy. You will also have to know two more disadvantages. Like other compact cameras of this type this one “burns” brighter areas, a little more than the average. We often noticed white spots in pictures taken outdoors, nothing too serious but it’s best to know. Finally and most of all, this camera is slow between two pictures. In normal mode, you will have to wait 4 to 5 seconds. In principle, the burst mode helps to get around this problem but not with this camera. The result is a slow one picture every 3 seconds.

We have to point out that as usual with ultra flat cameras, accuracy is a bit lower than the bulkier models such as the Canon Ixus 50 or Kodak V550. Sharpness and level of detail correspond more to a very good 4 rather than a 5 megapixel. This is already a great result compared to the low bulkiness.