Digital Camera - Canon S70

I had to buy a new digicam -

my previous Canon A70 (3mp) was worn out after 21 months and putting some 60K shots through it - it became unreliable I often missed shots because of its bad bahavior.

However I stuck and survived with the "devil you know" for my 3 weeks trip in China (photo links at bottom of post) and ordered my new digicam as soon as I got back.

It's a Canon PowerShot S70 (7mp) a little on the more expensive side - but I do a lot of photography - eg: I retrieved the thing last Tuesday (June/7/2005) evening from FedEx - charged the battery - went out that night to 3 venues and took 97 shots - by Thursday June/9 - I had accumulated a shot count of 371.



While the digicam is still new to me and the battery duration unknown - I carry a spare.

Of course it's hard to do comparisons since my most recent digicam the A70 was malfunctioning. However the operation of my new S70 seems smoother - perhaps a bit faster and more positive.

Like the A70 the Spot auto focus would often indicate it was not focussing in darker environments especially if the lens was zoomed even slightly - and it's exasperated by the fact P, Tv, Av modes can NOT be set to the multi-point AiAF, and can only be set on Spot focus.

However when the focus indicator flashes to show bad focus - I just point the thing at the same spot and pre-focus again - and even if the indicator light flashes I force the shot (because otherwise I can't take the shot and will miss a great deal)
and so far (touch wood) all of those shots which had the indicator say bad focus, all seem to be well focussed - at least to my satisfaction.........

The photo quality of the S70 - the much larger pixel count aside - seems much higher than I had experienced with the 3mp A70. I have taken some shots which I know would be pretty low in possibility of coming out well on the A70 - that have surprised me with the S70 quality.

Please take a look at this album all taken on my new S70

Swamp Cabbage 2005

and this album where there are A70 shots, and last 10 photos marked 050607 are on the S70

Electromatics 2005


in particular this telephoto shot (bad focus indicated) which I know would have a very low probablity of success on the A70 - was outstanding in its quality on the S70 (ISO100, Tv, 1/5 sec)

LeeGoodness050607.jpg

I decided on the S70 because 7Mp had been my target to replace film (ha-ha /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif remember those old arguments?) since it gives 10"x8" at 300ppi -
of course my previous 3mp A70 basically surplanted any film photography, because of its satisfactory quality up to 10x8, and mostly due to economy...... even my previous 2mp Digital ELPH S100 eventually displaced film too.....

However the reason for the S70 was that I needed a camera that I could literally carry everyday (I'm NOT kidding - I did this with the A70 and previous to that the S100 - in excess of 5 years now)

Much as I covet and desire a DSLR and was VERY tempted with the dropping prices of the original Canon Digital Rebel 6mp - the 7mp S70 with better tested resolution would curb that temptation - whereas if I bought the other digicam under consideration the Canon A95 some $150+ cheaper - that temptation would still very much be open .....

I might still consider the new Canon Digital Rebel XT 8mp - but I think for now the S70 is satisfactory - since it has the zoom range of (equivalent) 28-100mm probably ideal for my type of photography.......


FWIW - My China photos [all taken on an intermittently faulty Canon A70 (3mp) ] -

Beijing

Shanghai

WeiHai

The image quality is a little bit better on Rebel than Rebel XT. S70 is a good DC with quality image output, just a little bit large to carry around daily. My EDC is a Casio EX50, not bad for its price.

[ QUOTE ]
Emilion said:The image quality is a little bit better on Rebel than Rebel XT. S70 is a good DC with quality image output, just a little bit large to carry around daily. My EDC is a Casio EX50, not bad for its price.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks Emilion.

A DSLR would be just too big to carry on a daily basis.

I first started EDC'ing a digicam way back with the original (2mp) Canon Digital ELPH/IXUS S100 over 5 years ago - mainly because it was one of the smallest digicams available then.

After over 3 years of use the S100 got worn out, and I replaced it with a 3mp Canon A70 - a budget model - but the A70 had more exposure controls like shutter priority etc. which I eventually used a lot.

My new Canon S70 is still eminently portable in a belt pouch - which is my prefered mode of carry (even with the tiny S100 Digital ELPH).

The S70's handling like the A70 is a lot better than the S100 Digital ELPH, since they are both a bit bigger - but not too big to be easily portable - for me literally on a daily basis.

In terms of image quality - and putting aside the obvious pixel count differences - the A70 images at ISO50 & 100 was better than the S100, similarly my new S70 images are visibly better to my eyes than those of the A70 under similar circumstances - I have taken some good S70 shots that I know the A70 may have in all likelihood failed on.

Thanks,

I mentioned that my new Canon S70 seemed to give better images than the A70 - discounting the obvious fact the S70 has many more pixels.

What did I mean?

Well, although I said it subjectively - even I wasn't too sure how to show this quantitatively.

I tried an ad-hoc experiment - taking the following photos -

Canon S70 (7mp)
7mp with SuperFine JPG
7mp with Fine JPG
3mp with SuperFine JPG
3mp with Fine JPG

Canon A70 (3mp)
3mp with SuperFine JPG
3mp with Fine JPG

With both cameras I zoomed to the maximum telephoto (S70 = 100mm, A70 = 105mm equivalents - so the A70 lens is some 5% longer - resulting in a full-frame which is linearly 5% larger - everything else being equal) and took all the photos within minutes of each other:



I then cropped the tiny area marked in red - to get:

100% crops compared - top row SuperFine JPG, lower row Fine JPG -

The 3mp images from the S70 seem better than those from the A70 -
Notice I can see very little material difference between the SuperFine and Fine JPGs in any of the pairs.

The 7mp crop was DownSampled to get approx the same size as the 3mp image crop -

Here the downsampled 7mp image does seem better than those from the A70.
They should in theory be the same as the 3mp images from the S70......

3mp images from both the S70 and A70 were UpSampled to the same size as the full 7mp crop - and sharpened to bring out the details -

This is the most telling image since one can see better.
The Upsampled 3mp image from the S70 is not quite on par as the original 7mp crop -
but in practice printed, one probably would not see that much difference.
Any of the S70 images seem to me to be better than those from the A70.

What do you think?

Comments please?

UnknownVT,

I know your previous camera was an A70. Did you also look at the Canon A95 before buying the S70? If so, what made you choose the S70?

I'm kinda looking at both the S70 & A95 and leaning towards the A95 since it can use AA batteries and I can use the Compactflash card from my old Kodak.

Thanks!

[ QUOTE ]
Wutda said: I know your previous camera was an A70. Did you also look at the Canon A95 before buying the S70? If so, what made you choose the S70?

I'm kinda looking at both the S70 & A95 and leaning towards the A95 since it can use AA batteries and I can use the Compactflash card from my old Kodak.

[/ QUOTE ]
The A95 was also a very serious consideration - especially since I already have the rechargable AA NiMH and compact flash cards from the A70 ....

This is what I said in my opening post in this thread -

[ QUOTE ]
UnknownVT said: I decided on the S70 because 7Mp had been my target to replace film (ha-ha remember those old arguments?) since it gives 10"x8" at 300ppi -
of course my previous 3mp A70 basically surplanted any film photography, because of its satisfactory quality up to 10x8, and mostly due to economy...... even my previous 2mp Digital ELPH S100 eventually displaced film too.....

However the reason for the S70 was that I needed a camera that I could literally carry everyday (I'm NOT kidding - I did this with the A70 and previous to that the S100 - in excess of 5 years now)

Much as I covet and desire a DSLR and was VERY tempted with the dropping prices of the original Canon Digital Rebel 6mp - the 7mp S70 with better tested resolution would curb that temptation - whereas if I bought the other digicam under consideration the Canon A95 some $150+ cheaper - that temptation would still very much be open .....


[/ QUOTE ]

The S70 comes with a rechargable Li-ion battery and charger.

and one can buy a replacement Li-ion rechargable battery for the S70 (NB-2LH) for about $15 which is rated at 1500mAh (vs. the 720mAh of the Canon branded one)

[ QUOTE ]
UnknownVT said:

and one can buy a replacement Li-ion rechargable battery for the S70 (NB-2LH) for about $15 which is rated at 1500mAh (vs. the 720mAh of the Canon branded one)

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa.. where? Have you tried them and are they good batteries? I have some of the old Canon ones (540mAH).

I have an S40 and a Rebel XT, both of them share the same batteries. The S40, and I believe its successor the S70, are good compact cameras. As I learned from my XT, lenses do make a big difference, so it's likely your S70 has a better lens and improved processor over your old camera, hence the better images.

[ QUOTE ]
KevinL said:
[ QUOTE ]
UnknownVT said: and one can buy a replacement Li-ion rechargable battery for the S70 (NB-2LH) for about $15 which is rated at 1500mAh (vs. the 720mAh of the Canon branded one)

[/ QUOTE ]
Whoa.. where? Have you tried them and are they good batteries? I have some of the old Canon ones (540mAH).

I have an S40 and a Rebel XT, both of them share the same batteries.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bought two spare generic NB-2LH replacement batteries from SterlingTEK - found via Pricegrabber.com

Listing at SterlingTEK for their NB-2LH batteries rate them at 1200mAh -

BUT the two I received are both marked 1500mAh.


I can't say for sure if these are more than double the capacity of the Canon original NB-2LH - as I've only had them for a few days and I think Li-ion batteries like NiMH need a few cycles to attain full capacity (please correct me if I'm wrong) - but SterlingTEK seems to have a good rep.

[ QUOTE ]
KevinL said:The S40, and I believe its successor the S70, are good compact cameras. As I learned from my XT, lenses do make a big difference, so it's likely your S70 has a better lens and improved processor over your old camera, hence the better images.

[/ QUOTE ]

The S60 (5mp) and the S70 (7mp) both use the same lens which is (equivalent) 28-100mm - this was one of the major attractions to me.

Even though the lens on the A70 is no slouch - I do think the one on the S70 is better - as most of the thorough reviews seem to bear out -

Review Sample Images on Imaging-Resource.com

and

dpReview.com on the Canon S70

But there are also improvements to the sensor and overall image processing.

Here's another set of photos from the Canon S70 -

Howlin' Wolf Fest - 2005

You might notice the date of these photos - they were taken on the same night as those of the Swamp Cabbage - at a different venue.........

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many thanks for all your kind comments -
I do so enjoy being on this forum because of the responses I get -
y'all seem to encourage me with my obessive complusive behavior! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

More comparison tests - this time of the macro/close up ability - cropped area shown in Red

Dollar bill and coins -
Flash ON - 7mp Fine JPG


NO Flash - 7mp Fine JPG


Compared to Scanned at 300dpi


100% crops - the Canon S70 image had about 2.75x the magnifcation of the scanned image -

Notice there is some overall softness to the 100% images from the Canon S70 - the Flash ON shot shows lower brightness due to the reflection of the quarter choking down the exposure overall.

Resized Canon S70 crops to match the scanned image -
this is kind of more realistically what one might see on print -


Here on the resized comparison - although there is a distinct color tint difference between the scanned and the two Canon images - the definition and detail are terrific - there is absolutely NO post processing - other than the resizing. Amazing.......

Ever since I was able to afford cameras - I always longed for a compact/pocketable camera that would match the quality (first), and some of the flexiblity of my SLRs. With 35mm some point & shoots came close - but I always felt some lack of confidence - more so than when I was using the SLRs.

But without being conscious of it - I think with the Canon S70 I may have finally realized that dream of carrying a pocket sized camera that could almost match the quality and everything I can do on an SLR -
with more confidence -
since I can review the images immediately after I've taken the shot........

Thanks all your encouragement guys.

[ QUOTE ]
UnknownVT said:
I bought two spare generic NB-2LH replacement batteries from SterlingTEK - found via Pricegrabber.com

Listing at SterlingTEK for their NB-2LH batteries rate them at 1200mAh -

BUT the two I received are both marked 1500mAh.


I can't say for sure if these are more than double the capacity of the Canon original NB-2LH - as I've only had them for a few days and I think Li-ion batteries like NiMH need a few cycles to attain full capacity (please correct me if I'm wrong) - but SterlingTEK seems to have a good rep.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I've had some time now to try out the batteries -
the two I got come NO where near their labelled capacity -

I received the batteries on Wednesday June/8 they were labelled with SterlingTEK.com and at 1500mAh! which I thought was amazing - needless to say I was very pleased.

BUT having used these batteries over the last week or two compared to the original 720mAh Canon NB-2LH (also new) -

I found that on average the SterlingTEK LN63 (NB-2LH equivalents) labelled at 1500mAh - gave 181 shots on my Canon S70 for my typical usage.

BUT the orignal Canon NB-2LH battery supplied with the camera (also new) rated 720mAh gives on average 222 shots.

I was expecting about DOUBLE the capacity from the SterlingTEK 1500mAh LN63 -
instead I am currently getting 20% LESS capacity -
in other words these LN63 1500mAh batteries seem to be closer to 590mAh capacity
(which is significantly lower than the original Canon NB-2LH capacity of 720mAh).

[Note: both the SterlingTEK LN63 labelled 1500mAh batteries have been fully charged, and have had more than one charge/discharge cycle before I took my shot counts]

It would seem fairly unlikely that these two LN63 batteries are BOTH FAULTY??

I have just written to SterlingTEK with these results and am awaiting a response.

Absolutely the S70 is superior in every aspect to the A70, no argument there. The S70 is a good compromise for a lot of people. The 7 megpixel G6 is superior in many aspects but is bigger and more expensive. Yet the S70 has much more features then the smaller 7 megpixel SD500. Don't forget the S70 has RAW which although tedious can be very useful, particularly for adjusting the white balance after the shot was taken.

The A95 represents a good value for the money as it can be had for under $300 in many places now.

Congratulations I'm sure you'll enjoy your camera. I own a Digital Rebel 300D and a S400 myself.

Thanks for the honest assessment of their capacity /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

For a moment I was surprised by figures of 1500mAH. I believe the NB-2L/LH use none other than the famous rechargeable CR123s as their power source, bundled together with a protection circuit and control electronics. To date we haven't been able to get more than 800mAH out of those yet.

There's a reputable battery vendor in town selling NB-2LH equivalents (third party), but they maxed out at 800mAH. The official Canon-issued NB-2LH that came with my Rebel XT is 720mAH, as you have noted.

I kinda did the opposite from you, I traded up to a digital SLR from a P&S camera. Agreed the size is one thing, but I love the power and control.. and the ability to fire off more than 400 shots on a single battery pack /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/drool.gif recently, (before I got my XT) I had the chance to learn two things: 1. you can never have enough CF 2. you can never have enough battery and, as to how the lesson was delivered to me: I ran out of BOTH. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twakfl.gif

[ QUOTE ]
KevinL said:For a moment I was surprised by figures of 1500mAH. I believe the NB-2L/LH use none other than the famous rechargeable CR123s as their power source, bundled together with a protection circuit and control electronics. To date we haven't been able to get more than 800mAH out of those yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many thanks for that informative response Kevin.
Interesting that the NB-2LH may be based on the RCR123's - in which case I can't realistically expect much more than about 720-800mAh capacity out of them - so the original Canon NB-2LH would seem pretty much near the max.

Yes, I was amazed at the 1200mAh rating in the ad - and then to receive those batteries with a label marked 1500mAh - was like almost too good to be true . /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/huh.gif

The $14 I paid for each battery even at my estimated much lower rating of 590mAh would still seem fairly "good value" -
but I probably would not have bought them if they listed at only 590mAh.....

But to be fair, I think I should reserve any judgement or further comments until I hear back from SterlingTEK on this huge discreprency in battery capacity.

I bought the S70 for Christmas, but returned it in March for the 20D, I wasn't happy with the focusing capabilities and it has low light issues too, I bought the SD500 for the pocket camera and the 20D for the serious stuff, overall I really enjoyed the S70, but it's shortfalls led me back to the SLR--- I'm so happy I did it, it's a lot of money, but the difference in speed, focusing, and ease of use (no fumbling with small controls) make it well worth the upgrade.

How big is the S70 compared with the S100?

What is the ISO range available?

Did you consider the even smaller SD300/400/500?

I still have an S100 and am sort of thinking of upgrading. The S100 isn't really EDC'able. I haven't wish for a really really EDC camera, so I've been thinking I can live with the A510's slightly larger size in order to use AA cells. But a tiny camera is tempting too. I used to EDC a Minox submini film camera and that was lots of fun.

[ QUOTE ]
paulr said:How big is the S70 compared with the S100?
What is the ISO range available?
Did you consider the even smaller SD300/400/500?
I still have an S100 and am sort of thinking of upgrading.
so I've been thinking I can live with the A510's slightly larger size in order to use AA cells. But a tiny camera is tempting too.

[/ QUOTE ]
The S100 is noticably smaller than the S70 (to me)


BUT the S70 is still eminently portable and fits my hands better.

The S70 definitely handles better than the S100 except I prefer the collar round the shutter zoom control on the S100 and A70 over the thumb operated toggle switch of the S70.
The A70 has better handling because of the battery grip/bulge/handle.
The Canon S70 feels slim in the hand - something like a quality but heavy/dense cell phone.

Operation of the S70 exudes quality - everything feels smooth - try the difference between zooming the lens - the A70 and S100 almost seems to grind. But then that's to be expected the S70 is more expensive than the A70 - otherwise they are very similar in their operation. The S70 may be a bit faster.

The S70 like the A70 has ISO Auto, 50, 100, 200 and 400
(I think all the Canon Digital ELPH range now have adjustable ISOs).

--------------------------------------------------------
I wanted to see how changing the ISO sensitivity affected the image quality on the S70.

Using the same "Test Tree" and the S70 zoom extended to maximum (ie: 100mm) I took shots at ISO100, 200 and 400 - with Fine ansd SuperFine JPG. Also ISO50 with SuperFine JPG as a control - using the same tiny 105x105 pixel crops (as shown in the previous post) -


I could see very little significant difference between ISO100 and ISO50 SuperFine or Fine JPGs.

ISO200 starts to show some image degradation in terms of loss of detail, quality and noise. But again I could not see a significant difference between Fine and SuperFine JPG versions of the ISO200.

I feel that the ISO400 shots to be marginal - for me - probably for use in emergencies only - there is even more loss of detail, quality and noticable noise. But again I could not see any significant difference between the Fine and SuperFine JPG versions.

For me I'd be happy to shoot my shots on Fine JPG - normally at AutoISO (most probably ISO50) for the Scene Modes and Full Auto (it's the only ISO setting available) and for P, Tv, Av and M modes at ISO100.

SuperFine is not necessary using more storage space than needed for my typical usage and quality requirements -
If I really wanted maximum quality - then I would use the RAW format.

I would use ISO200 if needed but understanding there will be noticable degradation.

I would avoid ISO400 unless absolutely necessary - but I would probably shoot some at ISO200 just for backup.
---------------------------------------------------------

I did look at the SD range - BUT I use the manual controls a lot - one of my standard usage is with Shutter priority (Tv) and those tiny SD series don't have it.....

The A510 the latest 3mp replacement for the A70 and A75 - would seem a very good choice considering the street price.

It's great using only 2AA batteries and it is small seemingly comparable to the S100 - but has lots of manual controls as well as ISO setting - it's a great camera for the price -

The only real down side is that Canon have switched to SD cards for storage for their smaller p&s type digicams,
and although 2AA batteries seem very nice. the real downside is the recycle or shot to shot times using flash - the 4AA and better still Li-ion batteries are much quicker -
but those all are minor or even moot points for most people.

Thanks. I wonder if the high ISO settings work better at lower resolution. You mentioned the S70 has a 3MP setting. Does it go even lower, like 1MP? Can you take an ISO 400 shot at 1MP?

[ QUOTE ]
paulr said: I wonder if the high ISO settings work better at lower resolution. You mentioned the S70 has a 3MP setting. Does it go even lower, like 1MP? Can you take an ISO 400 shot at 1MP?

[/ QUOTE ]
In theory using the smaller sizes or lower resolutions should reduce the noise - as the camera basically still takes the full sized/resolution image and then DownSamples it - thereby reducing the noise (auto-corrolation of random noise).

The Canon S70 does not have a 1mp mode -
These are the S70 image sizes -
L = 7mp
M1 = 5mp
M2 = 3mp
M3 = 2mp
S = 640x480

S is pretty useless except for quick e-mail or web shots.

2mp is what I regard as minimum practical size - being able to print sterling quality 6x4 (at close to 300ppi) and satisfactory 10x8 at about 150ppi.

3mp is really entry level these days - giving good quality 10x8 at about 200ppi - the long held concensus for print quality - although there are many who would argue for the magical 300ppi/dpi or even 400ppi.......

7mp gives the magical 300ppi/dpi on 10x8 prints - and manages 400+ppi on 8x6, or about 15x12 at 200ppi (and at 150ppi it can reach 20x16) - however it is mostly overkill for most people.....

ISO400 smaller size/resolution tests -

Target

Crop area shown in red.

All in SuperFine JPG to eliminate any question of compression degradation.

7mp ISO50 shot as a control/benchmark.

100% crops (no post-processing) -

7mp ISO400 looks pretty noisy - in comparison to the ISO50 shot - detail is lost.
5mp ISO400 - noise a detectable
3mp ISO400 - seems less noisy
2mp ISO400 - hard to see any noise - but image is pretty small for the crop
640x480 ISO400 - just for interest the crop area is too small for any real judgement - BUT

Go back and look at the full frame Test Target -
that's at 7mp ISO400 - which we can see from the crop is pretty noisy - however resizing it down to the web presentable 450x338 - makes all the noise disappear - that photo has adjustment in brightness/contrast and sharpened - which would all emphasize noise.

I then DownSampled every crop to the 2mp size -

All the images are comparable - if one wants to be fussy then -
5mp looks the worst.
2mp ISO400 with no resizing looks almost as good as the control 7mp ISO50 downsampled
7mp ISO400 downsampled is almost as good too
3mp perhaps just a little inferior........

[ QUOTE ]
UnknownVT said:
Here's another set of photos from the Canon S70 -

More comparison tests - this time of the macro/close up ability - cropped area shown in Red

Dollar bill and coins -


[/ QUOTE ]

Now we know what Vince has really been doing!

[ QUOTE ]
UnknownVT said: In theory using the smaller sizes or lower resolutions should reduce the noise - as the camera basically still takes the full sized/resolution image and then DownSamples it - thereby reducing the noise (auto-corrolation of random noise).

[/ QUOTE ]
For those who are still interested....
here's a bit of a leap to some assumptions -

I think by printing out images using something greater than about 300ppi/dpi may significantly reduce the apparent noise in an originally noisy looking image (eg: the 7mp ISO400 shot).

This is due to the visual "merging" of the pixels - which has a similar effect as downsampling - where the random noise cancels itself to a certain extent......

First a long introduction to put things into context -
if you want to skip this go down to the ** about print quality.

Intro -

In general downsampling (obviously) loses some detail - since the overall picture is smaller with fewer pixels to display the detail - this is loss of resolution (which USM cannot restore - no matter how much is applied.)

Visual "Sharpness" - which is how we normally judge quality - is also dependent on contrast and acutance -
neither of these two are normally reduced - so a downsampled picture will normally look as sharp as the full size -
and sometimes apparently sharper (with the understanding there is loss in resolution or detail).

If one looks at that 450x338 downsampled 7mp ISO400 image of the optical target (above) - it is very sharp looking (despite some very obvious loss of resolution/detail) - it looks far sharper than the original full sized image which has very prominent noise -
in the downsampled image the noise has all but disappeared and I have applied simple "Sharpen" in PhotoImpact 8 to the image - there does NOT appear to be an increase in noise either.......

Now this is a pretty extreme example to shoot at 7mp (3072x2304) to produce a 450x338 image - but that is actually what I do almost all the time - I shoot at 7mp for prints - but produce 480x360 images for the web.

This S70 at 7mp produced what is to me still a very noisy ISO400 image seems to downsample to a web sized image that appears virtually noise free - withOUT the use of any noise reduction software........

I can only infer from this there has to be a significant enough downsampling for there to be true reduction of noise (to the point of elimination) - as this unscientific ad-hoc experiment has shown -
5mp ISO400 image (downsampled in camera) seems pretty noisy still.
3mp ISO400 improves on the noise - but it is still visible
2mp ISO400 - which we know used the full pixels and downsampled in the camera - almost looks noise free.

Further experimentation by downsampling all the other 100% crop images to the 2mp ISO400 crop size showed that the original 2mp ISO400 image looks almost as good as the CONTROL 7mp ISO50 image downsampled to the 2mp size........

Sorry to sound so pedantic and picky but in practice I do this downsampling a LOT for my web shots (please check out the links in my sig - in 2005 alone I have already posted about 1,400 shots - my 2004 pages probably has over 2,000 photos) Like I already said - I always shoot at full (resolution) size and archive those images and downsample/resize to get my (much) smaller web images - so without being consciously aware of it - I am very experienced in this stuff.

** Print quality from noisy images -

The main point I wanted to bring out is what sites like Imaging-Resource.com have written about - print quality from higher ISO and apparently noisy images - seems to produce smaller sized prints where the the noise is reduced significantly.

ie: some noise will disappear when the image is printed at higher print resolutions.

A Noisy ISO400 7mp image from the S70 probably would print to about 10x8 without the noise too badly affecting the print - despite the original full sized image being very "Noisy"
- since the print is at about 300ppi/dpi - and that is like displaying the image on screen at about 31% -
like resizing the image to about 960x768 on screen - that's less than a 1mp image size.......
and we've seen from the ad-hoc experiment above that downsampling to about 2mp makes the prominent noise in the full 7mp (ISO400) image all but disappear - with (of course) some loss in detail.

Although printing the full sized image still uses all the pixels (including all the noise) -
I think the visual "merging" of those pixels printed at a high enough print resolution - like 300ppi/dpi effectly cancels some of the random noise

What do you think?
Your comments please.