Canon is Bringing Back a Point-and-Shoot From 2016 With Fewer Features and a Higher Price (theverge.com) 61
Canon will rerelease its 2016 PowerShot Elph 360 HS point-and-shoot camera as the PowerShot Elph 360 HS A in late October for $379 -- $169 more than the original's $210 launch price. The camera retains the same 20.2-megapixel CMOS sensor, Digic IV Plus processor, 12x optical zoom, 1080p video recording, and USB Mini port.
The new version switches from SD to microSD cards and removes Wi-Fi image transfer and direct printing capabilities. The rerelease comes after celebrities including Kendall Jenner and Dua Lipa popularized the original model on social media. The camera will be available in black or silver only; the original purple option has been discontinued.
The new version switches from SD to microSD cards and removes Wi-Fi image transfer and direct printing capabilities. The rerelease comes after celebrities including Kendall Jenner and Dua Lipa popularized the original model on social media. The camera will be available in black or silver only; the original purple option has been discontinued.
People who will buy a camera bc a celeb uses it... (Score:5, Insightful)
...probably aren't going to do their research, and will be willing to buy a shittier version for a higher price.
This camera is a fashion accessory for shallow people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I am still fond of the A430.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there are many people who will buy a camera despite the celeb endorsements, but they usually buy something more capable than a pointNshoot.
Re: (Score:1)
Happy to be Canon right now. This is similar to when a celebrity dies, demand rises sharply for their book/movie/music, bookstores/streamers make money.
Re: (Score:2)
I am one of those people who really don't like cell phones.
i bought my first (and only) smartphone in 2020, to use it as a camera -- because I couldn't find a new point-and-shoot camera in the stores to replace my old broken one! During the first two years, I didn't even have a SIM card for it.
Back in 2020, I would have loved to have something like the original PowerShot Elph 360 HS.
Today though...
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just pick a random person to say that to?
A question the emperor might always ask (Score:3)
Re:A question the emperor might always ask (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A question the emperor might always ask (Score:4, Insightful)
So since the old camera was $210, it's still more for less, just not as much more as it looked at first glance.
Re:A question the emperor might always ask (Score:4, Insightful)
GPP was looking at inflation. Tariffs on imports from Japan add a further 15%, and then the markup is down to about 15%.
$286 (Score:1)
The national sales tax is going to really start to show up in the economy come October. That's when companies run out of supply that they stockpiled at the start of the year before the trade war started.
Prices are going to skyrocket right before Christmas. It's going to be rough.
Re: (Score:3)
A good chunk of that $100 is inflation, some of which predates tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
A good chunk of that $100 is inflation
Just what do you think the term "2016 dollars" actually means? Think about that for a moment.
So, less for more? (Score:2)
Not even AI?
They didn't learn (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the many reasons phones killed physical cameras was the headache of transferring photos to services like flickr, facebook, and other sharing mediums. Getting rid of wifi is going the wrong direction, it needs wifi, direct print, a GPS for geotagging images, and direct streaming to sites like twitch, youtube, and twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly yes. I have a few Canon DSLRs and an EOS M-series mirrorless. I don't really use them as much as I would prefer simply because it's awkward. They take much better photos but since there's no option for a cloud backup even if manually triggered, I'm left with finding a local solution that is always going to be more cumbersome.
Canon had tried, sort of, to develop ways to offload pictures wirelessly, but it was always cumbersome or required buying extra equipment. It wasn't as simple as choosing phot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
JFC, you people can't be bothered to plug a USB cable into the camera and the computer and transfer the pictures over? Kids today, sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
I have used a USB cable from the camera to copy to the PC. It's dog-slow. It's about the worst transfer speed I've seen. Honestly I have no idea how the EOS Webcam Utility that they developed during COVID-19 actually worked.
Thing of it is, if I am out and about taking photos I will have my phone on my person. I probably won't have a laptop. At-best it's cumbersome to copy photos.
Re: (Score:2)
I currently have to use B) with my Canon, but I'd sure love to be able to do A) Best for me would be to put the camera in "transfer" mode and have it show up as a filesystem on my laptop. Just like a USB stick.
Re: (Score:2)
The third option is to remove the SD card and use a dedicated SD card reader in your laptop. I personally use an old compact camera as an SD card reader because it charges over USB, whereas my DSLR runs down its battery when it's plugged into my computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not everybody has a computer anymore.
Re: They didn't learn (Score:2)
I prefer to put the memory card in a reader. I don't want to screw with networking to my camera. If I did, I would have bought one of those SD cards with Wi-Fi.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"They take much better photos but since there's no option for a cloud backup even if manually triggered, I'm left with finding a local solution that is always going to be more cumbersome."
Wifi SD cards exist and will let you transfer photos from camera to computer.
Re: (Score:2)
The. Camera. Has. Wifi.
It just doesn't work the way that it should. The newer camera has both bluetooth and wifi. Again, they don't quite work right. They don't just do what people used to sending pictures they took on their phones to their PCs or to other phones expect them to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Feels like when older tech goes viral on TikTok it's a nostalgia trip for the old way of doing things. "Put a card in a thing to read it? So wacky! How did live back then?!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's people paying a premium, honestly probably old people, in order to have fewer features so they don't have to wade through them.
Like a really expensive version of a flip phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Old people ? People who follow Dua Lipa and the Jenners/Kardashians on social media ?
Those old people ?
Re: (Score:2)
Time Marches on buddy. Time Marches on.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck. I'm several decades older than that.
Please excuse me, I'm going to go write my will now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>The GPS unit I got for motorcycles also uses USB Mini, at USB 1 speeds
It's GPS, what are you expecting the GPS system to provide you with that needs more bandwidth?
Re: (Score:3)
Standalone GPS units require maps. An upload of just roads might not be that large a download, but include terrain, trails, gas stations, restaurants, etc. and the downloads get to be quite large and cumbersome at USB-1 speeds. Especially if you are planning a trip across multiple countries, as isn't that rare anymore on motorcycles. It took about 2 hours on a hotel WiFi for me to load Mexico and all of Central America's data onto my GPS unit (osmAnd on a rugged phone, actually) when I started my trip..
Re: (Score:2)
It's GPS, what are you expecting the GPS system to provide you with that needs more bandwidth?
Map updates.
Re: (Score:2)
USB mini is a shitty, breakage-prone port. That alone is reason to use USB-C instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Not counting USB Mini. It is not the later USB Micro, no, it is the USB Mini that I associate with PS3 sixaxis controllers. The GPS unit I got for motorcycles also uses USB Mini, at USB 1 speeds.
Mini USB is a way better connector than micro USB. I don't understand why they would cripple a device in this day and age with USB 2.0 speeds and a legacy connector when you can use USB-C, though.
Then again, I also don't understand why Canon hasn't figured out that cameras should be able to charge their own batteries when plugged in. Not that I wouldn't take a charger with me when traveling, but it's handy to not have to use it, and to be able to unplug the charger from my laptop or phone and plug in my c
Re: (Score:2)
They're also giving up chance to charge camera buyers a Subscription fee after a 90 day trial, for a cloud-based upload connector service where the camera sends your images to Canon's servers and presents you a sharing menu to distribute your photos to all those sites.
Re:They didn't learn (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the many reasons phones killed physical cameras was the headache of transferring photos to services like flickr, facebook, and other sharing mediums. Getting rid of wifi is going the wrong direction, it needs wifi, direct print, a GPS for geotagging images, and direct streaming to sites like twitch, youtube, and twitter.
As a Canon 5D Mark IV user, I'm just going to say this: I blame Apple. Entirely.
Most of the people who have the disposable income for these things use an iPhone. The iPhone tethered Wi-Fi experience *sucks*, because there's no way to tell it "Use this network ONLY as a non-routed network". It forces you to route all traffic out Wi-Fi. That means when you connect to the camera, you lose Internet service. So you connect, transfer the files, and disconnect.
And it is flaky as heck. Every so often, the phone realizes that the Wi-Fi network has no network service, and makes it really, really hard to ever join it again.
All Apple has to do is open up their peer-to-peer networking to third parties, then get Google to adopt the same standard, and all this goes away. But because Apple loves their proprietary standards so much, foolishly believing that this somehow gives them a competitive advantage rather than making their products suck to use, we end up with a heinous user experience reminiscent of the early days of Palm.
It doesn't help that IIRC 802.11n requires additional hardware for a link to be able to achieve full speed, and IBSS mode in a camera likely would not support that, so you'd probably end up with 802.11g speeds in practice, but at least the setup process wouldn't involve futzing with it for a full minute every time.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the many reasons phones killed physical cameras was the headache of transferring photos to services like flickr, facebook, and other sharing mediums. Getting rid of wifi is going the wrong direction, it needs wifi, direct print, a GPS for geotagging images, and direct streaming to sites like twitch, youtube, and twitter.
That and I don't need to replace my camera. This is a serious problem with people who just want a slightly better camera with an actual focusing lens for something better than potato photography. I have an old Canon point and shoot from 2012 that still works as brilliantly as it did the day I bought it. It takes far better shots than you can with a phone and is small enough to fit in my pocket. In particular it's good for motion photography as I tend to use my camera most when I go to somewhere like a car/a
Canon Elph with AA batteries (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I still keep an old 12MP Canon digital camera. It's a travel model and I like it because it uses real SD cards, has a nice 35-50mm optical zoom built in, and best of all it runs a shocking long time off lithium AA batteries. 12MP is still plenty for snapshots and such.
Here's the thing: My phone has the same resolution (or 4x the resolution at 24mm), with a 13mm to 77mm optical zoom range (in fixed increments at 13, 24, 48, and 77) and doesn't require me to manage storage. It runs all day for multiple days, realistically, and doesn't require me to carry an extra device.
Yeah, having reduced depth of field from a larger sensor would be nice, but a 1/2.3" sensor won't give you enough of that to make that much difference.
This one is at least a superzoom camera (25mm–30
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing: My phone has the same resolution
Your phone has the same number of pixels. With a much smaller lens and smaller CCD, I would be surprised if your phone has the same resolving power. Phones generally do a lot of post processing to denoise and sharpen images, but the post processing makes it look nice but doesn't add information.
Re: (Score:2)
Phone cameras tend to be limited by the size of the sensor and optics though. There are some Chinese brands that do much bigger sensors and optics, with huge camera bumps to match, and the results are noticeably better. Still not as good as larger, dedicated cameras though.
Phones have to use a lot of tricks to overcome their small size. For example, a small sensor means fewer photons reaching each pixel, so in low light they need a longer exposure and software stabilization. It works amazingly well, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Phone cameras tend to be limited by the size of the sensor and optics though. There are some Chinese brands that do much bigger sensors and optics, with huge camera bumps to match, and the results are noticeably better. Still not as good as larger, dedicated cameras though.
That camera uses a 1/2.3" sensor, with an 29mm surface area. The main camera on my iPhone 15 Pro is a 1/1.2" sensor with a 75mm surface area. Make no mistake, this is a glorified cell phone camera with added superzoom optics. To the extent that you get better images, it is because of the zoom range. For around-the-town photos, it has both lower resolution and a third the surface area of a two-year-old top-end Apple phone, and probably significantly worse dark noise and banding, assuming it is still buil
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I skate. There are situations where I don't want to use my phone such as setting it up to do photos or video of an outdoor rink. I don't want to have my phone damaged or stolen in those cases. So, it's not simply a technical bake off with my iPhone.
Most folks just use a GoPro for stuff like that, or on the opposite end, actual camcorders, but sure. Leaving a video recording running when you're not there is definitely a reasonable use case for a standalone camera.
Unfortunately, this is a Canon still camera, so it has a really crappy maximum recording time limit. I can record video on my phone for hours. I can record video on a Canon still camera for only half an hour. And the ELPH 360 at least used to have an even lower time limit (like 18 minutes)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I use a Insta360 for most skating but the Canon street camera still comes in handy. I have other cameras like my full-frame Sony that I use for serious photography. I use a mini tripod with my little Elph. I don't need someone to hold it. If I did, and they steal or break the camera at least I still have my phone.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying it's not useful for video, just that for the price of one of these, you can buy two unlocked Samsung Galaxy A16 phones, or better, two unlocked and refurbished S22 phones. You'll probably get comparable pictures with either of those at all but the longest extreme zooms *and* they can record video for probably a couple of hours on a charge or more, rather than 40 minutes.
Phones are cheap, and you don't have to actually have service on a phone; you can just buy one and use it
Is the CEO from Hollywood? (Score:2)
Looks like we're going to get tech reboots now?
LOL, I'm a dinosaur (Score:2)
I have a Powershot A640 I bought in '06 or '07. I don't recall. It kind of sucks in low light and lacks image stabilization. Otherwise I'm pretty happy with it. It isn't broken, so it hasn't been replaced. 10 MP is fine for me. I'm not a pro so I don't need more. I heard some of these cameras might be considered "vintage" now, but the last time I checked mine's not worth much so I just use it for its intended purpose. The case I used to attach to my belt wore out before the camera, so now I toss it i
removes Wi-Fi image transfer ... (Score:2)