I have had a camera exactly like this one for over 10 years and loved it.......this replacement camera is perfect and works well.

This functions like a digital camera from 1992 or something. Expected more from Canon.The resolution is absolutely terrible. Every photo looks like a webcam photo. And don't even try taking any shots at night!Pros:- pretty to look at, it's a very attractive camera- compact size, easy to carry aroundCons- feels very flimsy- does not take high resolution photos- does terrible at night

Not worth the price that it was advertised for. I would not recommend this product to anybody. DO NOT BUY!

I bought this camera about 18 months ago to take with me on a trip overseas. I was looking for a low priced camera so that I wouldn't be too worried if it got stolen, that also took decent pictures, had good battery life so that I wouldn't need to hold back with picture taking and that was also reasonably compact.The price is obviously pretty good. I'm not a photography expert, but for this price range I was very happy with the picture quality. Sometimes in low light the camera has trouble focusing properly. But I was mostly taking pictures outside during daytime and so that was quite rare for me. The colour in the picture almost always came out very accurately for what was being photographed (some cameras seem to produce pictures that are more yellow than the object appears in real life, for example... this camera seemed very accurate with colour). Sometimes in low light, I find that the camera modifies the amount of light captured so that the picture comes out looking more light than it actually was. This made the scene a little unnatural looking to me. I solved this by pointing and focusing the camera on a lighter area, and then pointing the camera at the object I actually want to photograph before taking the picture. I found this to be a good solution, and for a low priced camera, I am happy to concede a small fault like that. You have fairly limited control over the picture. However, I found the camera's automatic controlling of all of the parameters to produce a quite good picture about 98% of the time. It also meant that I could take many pictures spontaneously. I think this is a great "point and shoot" camera.I was very happy with the battery life! I think I averaged about 400+ pictures per charge, at full resolution. I kept the flash off all of the time because I think that most flash produces an unnatural looking picture. This would have helped battery life. I took this camera into the arctic circle during February and got more than 800 shots from a single charge. Maybe the cold conditions helped this?This camera has also held together well. I don't think I have ever dropped it, but it has experienced some use in heavy rain and fairly heavy use (average of about 100 shots per day) for about six months. It's still working perfectly and I've noticed no reduction in battery performance. The buttons don't feel like they have worn down in any way.For the price I think this is a great camera and I have been very happy with it.

I was looking for a pocketable video recorder + camera to complement my DSLR and camcorder. I wanted something that I could have with me when I didn't feel like or think I needed to take my larger camera and/or camcorder. I especially wanted to be able to take short video clips of my children since they are at that young age where everything they do is cute and adorable. I ruled out the Flip video as a unitasker: unable to take pictures, no optical zoom, limited recording memory, no resolution other than HD (1280x720). My old computers stutter and choke when playing back these high-res files so I can live without HD.I bought and tried the Sony W350 as well as the Nikon S3000. I returned them both. This was not an apples-to-apples comparison, but close. I didn't play with the Nikon much when I realized how poorly it encoded video - soft, lacking in detail, and lots of visible encoding artifacts. The Sony was very attractive based on its specs, and I had high hopes for it. Unfortunately, it also had disappointing video performance. The Sony appears to use a shallow depth-of-field and so it relies heavily on its auto-focus to keep the subject sharp, near or far. However, the focus was slow, many times it would not focus on my intended subject. Even with stationary subjects, it would focus and then _lose_ focus. When it was in focus, the recording was lacking in detail and texture - I attribute this to noise reduction or the encoding smearing or smoothing them. The optical zoom worked while recording, but the microphone picks up the sound of the zoom motor. As a camera, the Sony was pretty good. It felt a little snappier than the Canon, the face detection locked in more robustly, and the smile detection worked and was fun to use. There is optical distortion on the left and right hand sides of the image. It tended to apply noise reduction very aggressively above ISO200, resulting in soft and smooth images. At IS0200 or less, the images were still softer than I'd like, and under bright daylight conditions, the colors were too saturated and a little unnatural for my taste. The flash was uneven. For standard mug shots, it exposed the subject well. For anything else, it was a crap shoot - either underexposing, or blowing out certain details of anything that was too close.The Canon SD 1300 surprisingly made far superior video recordings even though it only recorded at VGA (640x480). (Basically, the Sony's bigger numbers, 1280x720 vs 640x480, sadly didn't result in better quality.) I think it used a larger depth-of-field so more things were in focus. It never lost focus the way the Sony did, and when it had to refocus, such as going from near subject to far subject, it did so quickly. The encoding also retained much of the detail and texture. (And because it records only at VGA, it plays smoothly on my old computers.) In both cameras, exposure and white balance was very good. The video noise was comparable between the Sony and the Canon - a truly subjective opinion and a bit unexpected for the Canon. Unfortunately, you cannot operate the zoom while recording. Audio is mono, not stereo, but I don't think I matters because I find it hard to believe that you can get good stereo sound from two mics that are mounted as close as they are on these compact cameras.As a camera, the Canon was in many ways the opposite of the Sony: no optical distortion, very detailed and sharp at low ISO, reasonable at higher ISO, the flash was more even under all conditions. It didn't always recognize faces, but it still focused accurately. It doesn't have smile detection - not a big deal. It doesn't have a panorama mode - again, not a big deal. In both Sony and Canon cameras, I found the metering to be very good, and rarely blowing out highlights or shadows. Both were comparable at wide angle White balance was also very good. The camera starts up and focuses quickly. It's not as fast as my SLR, but good enough.I like the Canon's user interface, though it has some small issues. I appreciate the flexible playback modes: you can view the histogram and file info or zoom in. (I'm accustomed to doing this with my SLR to ensure good exposure and focus and make adjustments to my shooting if necessary.) The D-pad is multi-function with direct access to flash setting, timer, focus mode, and exposure compensation. I did wish I could substitute ISO setting for focus mode. Sometimes if I move too quickly or double tap a button, I end up in the general function menu instead of the direction specific ones or vice versa. However, I do appreciate all the functionality in the D-pad, I just have to be more deliberate. I like being able to set the volume for different sounds it uses. I like how it fades between pictures in playback mode. I've accidentally turned on the camera in my pocket because the power on/off button is relatively large, raised, and easily depressed.At the time I bought this from Amazon (Dec'10), it was being sold at a great price so it was also very good value.

I am (was) a huge Canon fan. I've owned quite a few Canon models and recommended Canon to everyone who asked my opinion. However this SD 1300 IS model is a very disappointing camera. This is a replacement for my wife's older Canon SD 1100, however I'm very displeased with the picture quality of this camera. The picture quality is dismal at best. All the pictures are grainy and the focusing is way off. It did not matter what mode I selected the same results were happening. I called Canon's support and had it replaced. Canon's support was very patient and insightful. The replacement camera is a refurbished one, it works a little better, the focus is better however the pictures in Auto mode are still poor quality. The pictures look grainy and the colors are dull. In manual settings the pictures are better however the pictures in daylight without flash have a little grainy look to them. The colors are not as dull in manual settings. I was told by Canon's representative that the new Digic 4 chip that this camera uses has been programmed to use higher ISO in AUTO mode. In manual mode I tried selecting a lower ISO on the camera and still I can see a little grain in the pictures. I would definitely not recommend this model to anyone. I hope the new HD models are better, Canon claims to have the graininess fixed in the new models.

I love this camera. I had the SD 1100 before so I knew going into this product that it was going to be great. Also the shipping was super fast. I ordered at 9pm on Friday and had the camera delivered at 10 AM on Monday.