Canon EOS IX Lite

all in all an awesome camera but dissapointing only because of what this camera COULD be. i think canon and all the other companies kind of scrapped the whole APS format witch sucks for anyone that owns this camera. with some more film speeds and better (less expensive) processing the APS format would have kicked some serious ass. My entire portfolio is comprised of shots entirely from this camera and has never really let me down. it's a shame this was the first and last of the APS-SLR line. it could have been a great thing. i highly recommend this camera for begginers (it's great to grow with) and ANYONE that wants to use the APS format.

mid roll rewind all the awesome stuff that comes along with APS the best (the only) bang for the buck when it comes to SLR-APS

reprints/enlarging is a night mare come true. lack of film speeds is discouraging. low light pics are a challenge to master. maaaaybe a faster auto focus.

canon rebel 2000

In a nutshell, I couldn't be happier with the camera. My photography history started with a Pentax Auto 110 SLR, then moving to the Canon A1 my dad passed down to me when he upgraded. While I always enjoyed taking pictures, lugging the brick of an A1 around with the 50-250 Tokina zoom, flash, 28mm lens, Motor Drive MA (and 12 AA batteries!) tended to discourage casually taking the camera *anywhere*. I serendipitously ended up with an APS Minolta Vectis for a while, and managed to take some really nice shots with it. When I decided to give photography another go a few weeks ago, I purchased a Canon Elph Z3, but much as I enjoyed carrying a decent camera in my pocket, I wasn't happy with the ergonomics or the experience of taking photos through an itty-bitty viewfinder. In the process of doing some research on a replacement, I discovered the APS SLRs, and headed to eBay to find an IX Lite. A few days later, I had the camera in hand (with the Canon 35-80) and was very happy. A few days after that, I picked up the Sigma 28-200 Compact lens, a very small Tamrac bag (just big enough for the Camera+lens and my Nikon mini binocs) and now have a great camera with a lot of capability in a very light, portable package. I've shot a couple of rolls with it (1 color, 1 B&W), and I'm *very* happy with the results. Walking around NYC, it was great being able to swap rolls depending on subject, and the camera performed flawlessly, even taking a couple of great long exposures of the evening NY skyline given extra "mood" by the haziness from the Quebec forest fires. Developing costs can be expensive, but I'm using a Kodak lab and getting the Picture CD as well. I've used Photoshop for years and would love to have gone full digital, but a digital camera in this league is still many hundreds of dollars more expensive. The IX Lite gives me the best of both worlds - fairly compact with great image quality - though I wish I could get an economical PhotoCD instead of the JPEGs that Picture CD provides. I never moved very far away from "P" mode on the A1, but I like that the IX Lite gives me a lot of room to grow, with multiple special-purpose modes (sport, portrait, close-up, etc) and the ability to move to full-manual as well. I've already experimented a lot more with this camera than I ever did in the past, mainly because it's so easy to carry around with me and be

Small size and weight Compatible with entire AF lens line Great auto modes + full-manual capability APS features - mid-roll change; H, C, and P modes, prints exposure info on back of print

All APS-related - expensive to develop, enlargement limitations, grain in P mode. Would like to see a bit of metal in construction, but that would add weight, so......

Pentax 110 SLR Canon A1

Haven't needed to use

Good to look at and use, small and light to carry around - but suffers from running cost and image quality weaknesses of APS. I used this toy for 2 years and then sold it.

Neat, handles well, compatible with all EF lenses.

APS, APS and APS - and lack of eye-controled auto-focus, the key advantage of Eos cameras over Nikon. Why save body weight at expense of image quality when most of the weight is in lenses anyway?

Pentax ME Super - and (larger) Pentax KX, Canon Eos 5 and (huge) Leica R8.

n.a.

I got this lens because I was upgrading from my Canon ELPH Jr. I told the store clerk that I was tired of the slow AF and wanted an APS camera that would help me progress in photography. This was the recommendation. And for its price, this camera is really a good buy. I really liked the way this camera supports all of the APS features I''ve always wanted to have.

lightweight construction small size make it a good travel companion APS Easy to use and learn

APS (more a limitation on the film than the camera) - I don''t mind the smaller film size, it''s the lack of film choices that really gets to me. You''re essentially reduced to ISO 200 and 400 since ISO 100 is kind of hard to come by. B&W is 400 only from Kodak. Higher developing charges (another APS weakness not the camera''s)

Canon ELPH Jr. Canon EOS 7E

None

I was looking at an APS camera to supplement my Canon line of lenses. I do have a regular SLR, an RT, but found it bulky and gets heavier and heavier when you''re lugging it around all day. The body is very light indeed and the controls are easy to manipulate but you have to keep up with the features or you''ll forget. I have to keep reading the instruction book to refresh my memory. I''ve taken different types of pictures and some does come out grainy but acceptable, I believe that''s the fault of the film rather than the lens/camera combo. One thing I learned about using APS film is that I have to make every picture count due to the higher cost of the film and developing.

Lightweight, versatile, fast focusing (in bright light), selective focusing feature, creative controls, simplicity.

Slow focusing (dim light).

Canon EOS RT Minolta Vectis 20, MD, SRT

Haven''t needed.