engadget.com — Like the recently announced Sanyo HD2, the PowerShot TX1 packs a 7.1 megapixel CCD into a tiny little package capable of capturing 720p HD video as well -- but unlike the $700 HD2, Canon is hanging just a $500 pricetag on this model.
Feb 22, 2007 View in Crawl 4
chazzer3Feb 22, 2007
I'm sure there'll be a EU/US version made, although probably not for many years! Charlie -
reconfluxFeb 22, 2007
I bet it'll still have that low light problem that all Canons seems to have.
rmad1949Feb 22, 2007
I own a Canon PowerShot S40 (4.x megapixel) and a PowerShot S70 (7.1 mp). The updated S70 has glass lenses. The sort of new released updated PowerShot S80 (8.x mp) all have the same body size. They all record video, the S70 and S80, 720 vids but they suck. I love my S70 camera because 1. photo pixel size make for large enough photos for a nice 8X10. 2. it fits into my front pocket. What I don't like is 1. too many setting for a point and shoot. I'm a novice, not a pro. 2. The vids suck!! But if you need a quickie, poor quality vid to send mom that will be watched and tossed, okay, fine.You want a nice point and shoot photo, get the classic style bodied PowerShot S80. They are $500 or less if you look around. If you want a video, go buy a camcorder.
starguyFeb 22, 2007
I bought an Aiptek camera with the same form factor, and I have to say, its not very pleasing to use. You really need a viewfinder, a mic input, and you are constantly messing with that little joystick in the back (which is cumbersome) to to set video camera settings for exposure, mode of operation, etc. It just feels unnatural to shoot video by looking at the view screen, esp in bright light, and you are looking down at it, or holding it way up in an unnatural vertical position. On these units, it would of been a better design, to turn the thing horizontal, and hold it like a flat brick, with the flat side facing upward and not against your face (like most brick cameras), and make the display embedded and used only for watching playbacks of videos and pictures, and then put a small box viewfinder on it so you could hold it like one of those old kodak camera looking through a view finder, with a button on top to start and stop recording, and with the mic facing forward. And most importantly, with no "boot time", or need to press the on button... just grab it, point it, and press the record button on top, and again when you want to stop.
topher06Feb 22, 2007
Why not put a phone in it and call it a day. Why should cellphones incorporate low quality cameras, but cameras not incorporate low quality cellphones?
hunglowangFeb 22, 2007
lamtd, that's digital zoom not optical zoom that you can perform while recording.
Closed AccountFeb 22, 2007
"as far as i'm concerned 13 minutes of video might as well not even be a feature."If you want to record more than 13 minutes of something, your really better of using a "real" video-camera. For the odd video, the video of cameras is fine, but for anything remotely serious, it's not really a good idea to use a stills-camera's video mode...And it's only 13 minutes (I'd assume) on the highest quality setting, for less-important stuff, use lower quality-settings, or wait for higher capacity cards to be come avalible, or bring a laptop and cardreader with you and dump the cards when it's full.Besides, the fairly-high-end HVX200 (High-end in comparison to this camera, atleast) camera that use P2 storage basically work the same way - You have a 4GB card, you fill it up, and either dump it onto a computer, or onto a "P2 Store"). But, even on a $4000+ camera - it can only record 8 minutes of footage (At 1080/50i), so 13 minutes isn't bad..Still, the camera looks interesting, I'd be nice to see footage from it, though..- Ben
textalonFeb 22, 2007
Let's see some output pics....otherwise its crap.