Canon PowerShot A3400 IS 16MP Digital Camera w/ 28mm Wide-Angle Lens + 720p Video (various colors) $70 + Free Shipping
 

Canon PowerShot A3400 IS 16MP Digital Camera w/ 28mm Wide-Angle Lens + 720p Video (various colors) $70 + Free Shipping
 

B&H Photo Video has Canon PowerShot A3400 IS 16.0 MP Digital Camera w/ 28mm Wide-Angle Lens + 720p Video (Black, Silver, or Gold) for $69.95 with free shipping.

<s>Amazon.com also has Canon PowerShot A3400 IS 16.0 MP Digital Camera w/ 28mm Wide-Angle Lens + 720p Video for $69.95 + free shipping</s>. Thanks DJ3xclusive

hows the built of this camera? does it feel cheap?

The "A" line of cameras is Canon's bottom end, so I wouldn't expect much from it, either build-wise or image quality-wise.

It's $70 though, so it's a "get what you pay for" scenario, really

Review got some 1 and 2 stars, anyone here got one cares to post some input?

"1/2.3-inch CCD sensor" <-- small sensor + CCD + bazillion megapixels = tons of noise on most indoor shots/dark environment.
Spend a few more bucks and get at least their 3 digit Powershot series (i.e. HS 110, etc).

Picture quality is Ok outdoor with good light. PQ indoor is not very good. The Sony W50 has a much better indoor/outdoor PQ.

PQ is the same for the Canon 2300, 2400, 3400, and 4000 line. I think you could wait for a better deal down the road. The Panasonic SZ7 was on sale at Newegg around BF for $80. That's my first choice for a sub $100 point and shoot cam.

I think this is a good deal. The slightly lower spec a2400 was this price from Adorama and went FP about 10 days ago. I bought that one as a gift, It has the same lens, and sensor, but lacks a touchscreen. I cannot comment these camera's picture quality from my own experience, but I can tell you that the camera is nice. The front is metal, the rear is made of plastic. It is pretty thin, but not as thin as Canon's SD line. The professional online reviews that I've read say that the image quality is well above average surprisingly good for the price, but a bit worse than Canon's more expensive SD line.

I have an two year old 10MP a3000, and I love it. The image quality on that one is superb. The lens quality on the a3400 is probably similar. But since the a3400 has 16MP, as opposed to 10MP from, image quality when zoomed in on a computer screen all the way will be worse. That's because more is being demanded of the lens, and because of the physics of small sensors. It's an unfortunate fact that consumers demand more megapixels, but megapixels just mean bigger picture file sizes. If you zoom in 90% of the way instead of 100% then the image will probably look great. You should also get better quality if you set the camera to take smaller sized image files, particularly above ISO 200. Pixel bucketing has improved results on other cameras.

The camera has real, physical and not digital, Image Stabilization. That is rare at this price point.

CHDK has not been ported to this camera yet, so extra features such as time lapse photos, via a firmware tweak are not available until and if some diligent hackers complete the port.

I've read through the 1 & 2 star amazon reviews. The first one guy may have really gotten a dud. But he's also expecting a P&S camera to perform well in poor lighting. None do. Other reviewers seem to be pixel peeping, and complaining about blurriness and grain. Any 16MP P&S will be grainy when pictures are viewed at 100% zoom. That is why most semi-pro P&S sized compact cameras have around 10MP. That's about the most MP's that you can put on a P&S sized sensor before you begin to start to lose quality.

incorrect 3400 and above has physical image stabilization not just digital which improves PQ compared to the lower models

anyway, bought one as a cheap xmas gift

1/2.3" CMOS isn't that much better. And it's not a few bucks, it's $130 on Amazon, making it TWICE as expensive. At $130, might as well go a bit more and get a m43 camera.

Charging can be a pain as you take out the battery and put it in a charger every time. No built-in charger. Not acceptable in 2012 or for my work. Many sub $100 cameras are like that. Beware.

How can you compare a fixed lens point and shoot and a M43??
Why not add a bit more and get a Leica or a 5D3??? The M43, Leica and 5D3 can't fit in your pocket and are marketed to different consumers.

Yes, the CMOS chip on the 110 HS will be much better in low light than the CCD chip on this camera.

Yeah, "much better" (1/2.3" CCD vs 1/2.3" CMOS, probably 1/2 a stop at best) for "a few bucks" ($60, price of the A3400). If that's your opinion, then I have nothing left to say. But if money isn't really a problem and you want portability, then by all means get the HS 110. Oh wait, screw that, get the RX100.

If "1/2 stop" is nothing to you, then you need to shut up coz you don't know anything about photography.

And if 1/2 a stop on a 1/2.3" sensor sub-$150 P&S means that much to you, then you need to learn to take better pictures instead of obsessing over camera specs.

*Here's where you pull out the "but my instagrams pics are so popular and get so many likes" retort.

Conveniently my sister was talking about her old beat up canon and wanted a new one just as I stumbled on this. She jumped on this and wanted me to grab her a gold one, thanks you OP
**$2 mp3 credit as well, You must redeem your credit (in one or more transactions) for Amazon MP3 by January 31, 2013. Customers may only become eligible for the $2 MP3 offer during the August 24, 2012 to December 31, 2012 11:59pm PST promotional period. Limit one promotional credit per customer.

fyi - the silver version is also the same price with free one day shipping

This is a deal forum, which happen to talk about this specific camera.
If you want to talk about my pictures, why don't you join me on a photo forum.
And I'll show you some pics taken with my 5D3, 600mm F/4, 200L F/2 IS, 85L 1.2 and my other lenses. Yes, 1/2 stop difference is BIG!!!! Noob!

Totally agree with you~

By the way, PowerShot ELPH 100 HS Refurbished (cmos) is $70.17 + tax + shipping from shop.usa.canon

PowerShot ELPH 300 HS Refurbished (cmos) is $89.69 + tax + shipping. I like this better than 100 HS.

Rep given! Bought 2, one black for dad and one silver for the in laws. Thanks bro! X mas shopping done!

Got the same one for my 6 year old son.

thanks

I got a Panasonic Lumix the same price a few months ago and absolutely love it!! takes great pics. and very easy to use, with nice lithium ion battery. This is it
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-L...onic+lumix

all you edgy photography peeps get a little over the top with this stuff!
these cheaper point and shoot cameras are great for us noobers who just dont care too much about settings and just want to point and shoot!

I think I'll pull the trigger. Where can I find a good deal for spare battery?

Nice price for a decent, basic camera. We paid $80 + $5 shipping the beginning of Nov just before a trip to replace a similar basic Nikon P&S camera which my better half had lost. Bear in mind that there will be the usual shutter lag and a bit more lag to load the picture into the card due to the larger 16 MG capacity. The touch screen is a nice feature not usually found in this price range. About the only thing I might consider if I had to do it over again is pay a little more for one of the other P&S models with a longer telephoto len.

Oh the battery life is so-so. Have ordered a cheap, spare one from eBay for $3.70. Haven't gotten it yet, so can't report on its quality. But then again it is just a spare. Just do a search for NB-11L.

too expensive

I had ELPH 300 HS, and sold it right away after few days using. The picture quality is acceptable. But the only thing i don't like it is that camera limit 10 minutes in 1080p video recording, and 59 minutes in 720p. Is it same with ELPH 100HS/110HS?

Anyone recommend the P&S Canon that is great in Picture Quality and doesn't limit video time, please. I really want to buy P&S camera one more time, but the last experience made me scary.

Disagree. What part of your "work" requires you use the camera as a charger? I would think most people would prefer to shoot with the camera and charge their second battery at the same time.

I don't think I've plugged in a camera in over a decade, if ever.

Ugh, I know what you mean. According to PhotographyBlog.com [photographyblog.com], this A3400 has a maximum video length of 29 min. 59 sec. when recording HD footage. It's stupid and pointless, and while I'm loving this great price, the limit is unfortunately a deal-breaker for me.

This one feature should be a deal breaker. I completely agree, it's insanity. I have an old Casio that does this and I need to input the time and date every time I charge the battery. It's really a terrible design.

For anyone complaining about the quality of this camera.... it's $70, wtf do you expect for that price?

Good deal, this usually runs around $100. I used one of these a little while back until it broke (someone spilled stuff on it), and it took nice pictures. Replaced it with an A4000, which is slightly better than this.

Maybe your Casio has a design flaw. I have an old Canon (Powershot SD600) and I take the battery out to charge. I think I've only had to input the time and date a handful of times (but probably because I forgot to do it the first time or some other reason not related to the battery).

I don't think the no built-in charge is a deal breaker.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/...on_a3400is

With that battery life, you bet I would want an external charger so I can charge up my spare batteries, especially when I'm traveling.

For the casual photographer, this camera is acceptable at this price. You want something better, you're going to have to pay a bit more.

Some cameras have battery backup, some do not. Either way it's a poor design to not have USB charging capability. Dedicated chargers are a thing of the past.

I guess it depends on your preference. I see people calling no built-in charger a deal breaker. I've seen people say no external charger capability a deal breaker. You can't please everyone.

Like I said, the average casual photographer is not going to care about this at this price. If I were to give this to my Dad, he wouldn't care. He's not technologically savvy like you and me, so it wouldn't matter.

I can buy an external charger after the purchase, but I am not tech savvy enough to install a charging capability in my camera when it doesn't come with one built in.

I'm pretty sure I'd rather avoid constantly having to plug in the USB to slowly charge the battery. Removable external charger is a touch better imo.

I have the Canon powershot SX260 HS and it also has only a 1/2.3" sensor (back illuminated CMOS) as well and it is a $300 camera (well $199 on sale). Most point and shooters will have exceptionally small imaging sensors regardless of price.

At least the 260 has only a 12 mp resolution so it will have much less noise than 16 mp with same size sensor -- although for some reason the A3400 is f 2.8 - f 6.9 whereas the 260 is f 3.5 to f 6.8 so theoretically the A3400 might be better in low light since the f stop usually determines how much light makes it to the sensor. f 2.8 lets more light in than f 3.5

Ive messed with an a4000 and an a2300. They take good pics, but take forever to do it. If you have good light and turn the flash off you might get a pic as soon as you push the button. Otherwise you'll need to hold the button down for about a second before you get the shot. Unacceptable of you have kids.

Gold or red is pretty,but out of stock now.