A70 Vs CP2500: Some findings

[Tweek]

Having played with the Canon A70 and the Nikon CP2500, I have some findings that suggest a bit of irony. I presume that most people would think the A70 would make a better camera than the CP2500 in many aspects. This is reinforced by a buyer a few days ago trying to force my pricing of the CP2500 down, cos he thinks paying $80 more can get him a A60 which is better.

However, I find that A70 is better only in terms of manual functions. Comparing the pictures taken of the same scene at the same time by both cameras, the CP2500 can capture details just a little less than A70, but it must be considered that the A70 has 3.2MP of resolution and CP2500 has only got 2.1MP. Colour wise, the CP2500 produced warmer colours which I prefer. Pictures taken by CP2500 has very noticeably less noise than those taken by the A70 at the same ISO. A70 pictures tend to be more on the softer side too. Build quality wise, the CP2500 wins hands down. The sturdy and tight construction is much more favourable than the A70's, which has joining edges which do not line up properly, and the joint areas move when you squeeze.

Since I was set to sell my CP2500, I'll stick to that, and stick to my price of $320. But no, I don't think A70 is very much better than the CP2500/3500 series....it just won on marketing.

The above findings are just my opinions to be shared with the greater community. There is no intention to put down any camera.

 

[marcwang]

I own an A40 powershot, and love it. I've had many chances with the CP2500, though it is easy to get good shots out of it, it is lacking in many aspects. I believe the newer A60/A70 are improved versions on the A40, and if they are...... they should be way better. This is my honest 2 cents....

Sharpness:
Comparable, but the A40 seems a tad bit on the soft side, just a tad bit.

Processing Time:
Way way faster, you turn on the A40, and u use almost immediately. Video processing time way quicker, then even the CP885. CP2500, must way for the cool looking logo to disappear first.

Autofocus:
CP2500 is quicker. A40 always seem to have a problem with focusing in poor lighting despite the AF assist. Hopefully A60/70 is better.

Buildquality:
The weight of the A40 is very assuring. Gives a very good quality camera feel. The dial on the back could be hard to turn though. CP2500 is good stuff too..... but too light to be taken seriously. But it makes slipping into the pocket way easier.

Viewfinder:
CP2500 has no viewfinder. In the blaring sun, the LCD is hardly visible. A40 like all good cameras has an adequate viewfinder, though not 100% accurate ( non are ).

Metering:
A40 has a spot metering mode, very useful for advance photographers. It also has an evaluative mode, which meters the whole scene for easier metering. Not sure what the CP2500 uses, but without an indication of where it is metering, its obvious its a very basic P & S camera. It does not have a indicated area of meter, like the box like thingy in the middle.

Whitebalance:
A40 blows the CP2500 away. A40 has a very wide range of whitebalance setting. It is very important for a digicam. Take a pic at night under normal street lamps, u get terribly red or blue images. So bad that you have to use B/W to save it. A40, even in auto wb setting, gets things correct all the time. Its probably one of its best features.

Modes:
A40 blows CP2500 away big time. With a manual mode, a P mode (semi auto), and a full auto mode.... versus the semi auto mode in the CP2500. U can vary aperture in the A40, together with shutter , from 1/1500 up to a whopping 15seconds ! CP2500 probably has not more than 2s or issit 8s ? whatever it is , its way below 15seconds.

BAttery:
A40 runs on 4 AA Nimh, cheap and last forever. CP2500 uses Li-ION , costly and runs short of the A40. Run out of batt, say goodbye.

Macro:
A40 sucks at macro honestly, 15 cm minimum distance is a disgrace. CP2500 probably better, not sure what though.

VErsatility:
A40 allows additional add ons like filter and stuff. I use a close up macro filter with it with great results, as well as polarising filter.

Looks:
Hmm.... . I dont know, but I feel A40 looks a whole lot better. If I'm bias, then probably the rest of the world is as well.

The bottomline:
If I want a P & S camera, I would get a A40. If I want a good creative cam, I would still get a A40. I'm not bias, its just better.

go to my pbase website to see what u can do with an A40. If an A40 is good, I would think the A70 cannot be worst. If marketing is in the question, I would think the CP2500 has undergone more of it. Just look at the number of SBS buses with it. I dont remember any A40 or A70 ads. It became popular merely because its good. Not that the CP2500 is a bad cam, low end Fujis are worse.... , its a good cam at that price. Easy to use, very easy to use in fact. Fool prove. U can even swivel it to look at yourself. But the A40 is just in a different league. Its more than just a P & S camera, its a G2 ... to a lesser extent, in 2.1mp guise.

FYI I am no pro canon, I own a Nikon SLR system.

 

[Tweek]

Thanks for your very detailed feedback. Yup I do agree with many of your points except for WB lah, CP2500 has quite a comprehensive range of WB options too.

Personally, while A60/A70 are more value-for-money options, I still prefer the 2500, perhaps due to the feel, the construction, the swivel lens and the image quality.

I'm still trying to justify my purchase of the A70, hehehe.