Canon A95

I bought one for my daughter recently from www.amazon.co.uk

A great little camera with a glowing review from www.dpreview.com

Carrigman



"Jack" <jackhovi RemoveThis @yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:kyu2f.10022$dl2.1312@fe08.lga...
>A couple of questions?
>
> Has this model been discontinued? If so, what replaced it?
>
> My wife damaged her A75 and Canon wants approx $120 to fix it! Canon
> offers a refurbished A95 for $150.
>
> Any advice. There dont seem to be many places that are carrying the A95
> for less than $300 except for Ecost.
>
> TIA for any help...
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:05:14 -0400, Jack wrote:

> A couple of questions?
> Has this model been discontinued? If so, what replaced it?

I believe that it has been discontinued. The new version is the A610/A620.
The A610 sells for around $300.


> My wife damaged her A75 and Canon wants approx $120 to fix it! Canon
> offers a refurbished A95 for $150.

That is not a bad deal in my opinion.

-Mike
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

"Jack" <jackhovi.DeleteThis@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:kyu2f.10022$dl2.1312@fe08.lga...
>A couple of questions?
>
> Has this model been discontinued? If so, what replaced it?
>
> My wife damaged her A75 and Canon wants approx $120 to fix it! Canon
> offers a refurbished A95 for $150.
>
> Any advice. There dont seem to be many places that are carrying the A95
> for less than $300 except for Ecost.
>
> TIA for any help.

Any camera that hasn't been discontinued will be some time after you buy it,
so don't get hung up on that issue. The A95 is currently not discontinued.
It's a very fine camera and that looks like a good price and since canon did
the refurbishing should be as reliable as if new.

Dave Cohen
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

Jack <jackhovi.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.nospam> writes:

>Has this model been discontinued? If so, what replaced it?

>My wife damaged her A75 and Canon wants approx $120 to fix it! Canon offers a
>refurbished A95 for $150.

That seems like a good deal, particularly since the A95 is *not* simply
a more recent version of the A75. The A95 replaced the A80, which has a
larger CCD and flip-out LCD that the A75 lacks. The A95/A80 is a better
camera than the A75.

Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

"Jack" <jackhovi.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:kyu2f.10022$dl2.1312@fe08.lga...
>A couple of questions?
>
> Has this model been discontinued? If so, what replaced it?
>
> My wife damaged her A75 and Canon wants approx $120 to fix it! Canon
> offers a refurbished A95 for $150.
>
> Any advice. There dont seem to be many places that are carrying the A95
> for less than $300 except for Ecost.
>
> TIA for any help...

Bought my A95 a few months ago for $259.99 from Buy.com, but checking just
now I see they show it as "currently unavailable from the manufacturer."
That usually means discontinued.

Check the Canon site to see what replaced it. It's been so hugely popular a
model it's hard to believe there isn't *some* replacement.

"Refurbished" can mean almost anything. I've bought a few refurbished items,
and they ranged from fine to okay to no good. Make sure you *can* return it
if you do decide to try a refurb.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b DeleteThis @dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:871x2rux5a.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "Neil Harrington" <not DeleteThis @home.today> writes:
>
[ . . . ]
>>
>> Bought my A95 a few months ago for $259.99 from Buy.com, but checking
>> just
>> now I see they show it as "currently unavailable from the manufacturer."
>> That usually means discontinued.
>>
>> Check the Canon site to see what replaced it. It's been so hugely popular
>> a
>> model it's hard to believe there isn't *some* replacement.
>
> Yesterday, the Canon site still showed the A95.

Today too, but I don't know if that means much. I've often seen
mfr's/importer's sites carrying models that had in fact been recently
discontinued. Checking Adorama just now I see that they list only refurbs
for the A95. Dollars to donuts it's discontinued, though I don't doubt it's
still in some smaller sellers' stocks.

The A610/A620 models seem to be the replacements.


> And all the models
> that might possibly be considered replacements don't meet my goals --
> they take weird new-fangled memory cards (meaning I'd have to increase

Heh, well, SD cards can't very well be regarded as "weird new-fangled" since
they've become pretty much the standard. I suspect they're already
outselling all other types of memory card combined, and according to
projections I've seen their market share will only continue to increase, and
dramatically.

Canon and others are steadily abandoning CompactFlash except for dSLRs, and
even some of those are going the SD route.


> my cost to the extent of buying new memory cards, and then I'd not
> have enough anyway) and proprietary batteries. I want a snapshot
> camera that integrates with the serious kit, which means compact flash
> and AA batteries.

Just curious, what's your "serious kit" that takes AA cells? And why do you
want both cameras to take the same type of cards?

I've been using both CompactFlash and SD for quite a while and have not
found it a problem. What *is* a nuisance is the fact that many of my cameras
use Li-ion batteries, and the industry rule seems to be that every make and
model of camera must use its own size battery which cannot be
interchangeable with any other. (Well, that's an exaggeration, but only
slightly.) So for example I have four Nikon cameras and they take three
different sizes of Li-ion battery, and of course each size of battery takes
its own particular charger. Add two more sizes for my Minoltas, two more for
my Pentaxes, another for my Panasonic, another for my Canon S60 . . .

But as for CF and SD cards, no such problem. And they're practically dirt
cheap now and getting cheaper all the time, with sales and rebates. I don't
see how that can be an issue.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

On 12 Oct 2005 15:45:14 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:


>> What *is* a nuisance is the fact that many of my cameras use Li-ion
>> batteries, and the industry rule seems to be that every make and
>> model of camera must use its own size battery which cannot be
>> interchangeable with any other.
> . . .
> Yeah, that too, see my strong preference for AA cells.

>> But as for CF and SD cards, no such problem. And they're practically dirt
>> cheap now and getting cheaper all the time, with sales and rebates. I
>> don't see how that can be an issue.
>
> A SD camera will cost me over $100 more than a CF camera to leave
> me with the same amount of available memory. Since the P&S
> cameras I'm looking at are in the under-$400 range, that's a significant
> price bump!

But only for the first camera or two. CF cards are slowly being
phased out, so most people with large CF collections will have to
face the fact that some day they'll be forced to invest in different
card types. The CF cards you buy within the next year or two
probably won't be used in cameras you'll eventually be purchasing,
but any SD cards you buy today probably will. If change is
inevitable, I see no good reasons to continue expanding my
collection of CF cards that will too soon be relegated to use only
with my older, less frequently used cameras. As long as my future
cameras are able to use AA batteries, I don't care much about
whether they'll use CF, SD, xD or some other type of card. While
they may increase the cost of the camera they are used in slighty, I
expect that in time they'll be used in more than one camera.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

On 12 Oct 2005 23:53:06 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Sure, if you assume change away from CF is likely. But I don't. Why
> would a pro-grade camera want to give up CF? Bigger cards are
> available, micro-drives are available, and the size of the cameras is
> such that the very slightly larger card slot is completely
> irrelevant.

I agree that with DSLRs, card size is irrelevant. (see below*)
But the trend is away from CF, and even many pro grade cameras are
using non-CF cards in addition to CF. Adding to the pressure would
be all of the PDAs and mp3 players that use only small cards. Since
sales of CF-using pro cameras are a small fraction of all of the
cameras sold, it's only a matter of time before production slows or
ceases in favor of smaller cards. By the time that happens (at
least several years from now) you should be able to get SD cards as
large as, or larger than any CF card you currently own.

I'm not saying that smaller SD cards are better or more desirable
than CF, just that change is in the air, it's no big deal (if you
look at it from a longer time frame rather than just the next couple
of years), and the longer you stick with CF, the larger your
inventory of little used cards will be at some time in the not too
distant future.

* A recent suggestion in another thread to insure against
unfortunate accidents at a wedding shoot was to have an assistant on
hand to collect flash cards as they fill. It would be safer, more
convenient, and quicker if a DSLR 3 or 4 years from now used a quick
loading clip, holding 6 or 8 SD or xD cards, each card up to 8GB or
larger. You could manually select between cards (as some of today's
dual card cameras already allow), or have the camera automatically
switch from one card to the next as they fill. The same "card
carriers" could be use with CF cards, but with more difficulty and
at greater cost. And if added to Canon's flagship DSLR, perhaps
using the new Wi-Fi add-on, you've got a DSLR that might be hard to
tell from an MF camera. Some might say that's already the case.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

On 13 Oct 2005 10:53:44 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> I expect my S2 will be with me for the next decade or so, though it's
> likely to be joined by another DSLR sometime during that period. And
> I think it's fairly likely that that next DSLR will take CF cards.

I'm sure the next DSLR (released within the next year or two, at
most) will take CF cards. But the ones released several years after
that, certainly by the time another ten years have passed, probably
won't use CF cards. You may think that they will, but time only
will tell. If they still do, your current large cards may be as
useful in them as 8MB and 16MB cards are in today's cameras.


> Why would it be more dificult or more expensive to handle CF cards
> that way? They're a nice simple rectangular shape.

With a not so nice interface using many fine pins and holes,
requiring more expensive, complex sockets. Less than a day ago
someone mentioned a problem he had with loss of files on his CF card
that was probably caused by a bent pin in his CF card reader. Even
if you've never had this problem, others occasionally do, and it's
one of CF's weaker points. A single bent pin could disable the
entire camera.


>> * A recent suggestion in another thread to insure against
>> unfortunate accidents at a wedding shoot was to have an assistant on
>> hand to collect flash cards as they fill. It would be safer, more
>> convenient, and quicker if a DSLR 3 or 4 years from now used a quick
>> loading clip, holding 6 or 8 SD or xD cards, each card up to 8GB or
>> larger. You could manually select between cards (as some of today's
>> dual card cameras already allow), or have the camera automatically
>> switch from one card to the next as they fill. The same "card
>> carriers" could be use with CF cards, but with more difficulty and
>> at greater cost. And if added to Canon's flagship DSLR, perhaps
>> using the new Wi-Fi add-on, you've got a DSLR that might be hard to
>> tell from an MF camera. Some might say that's already the case.

> But nobody will do that, anyway; what they'll do is wifi/bluetooth to
> a separate storage module (or two).

Not what I was talking about. That could be done at home, in the
shop, office, wherever. But if on the job, and using the ability to
quickly change from one internal card to another (saving the time to
power down and physically replace one card with another) a pro isn't
about to take the camera out of service while it uploads 20GB or
more using wi-fi. Card readers are slow enough as it is. How long
do you think either would take, especially Bluetooth? I'm talking
about a camera with sufficient storage that even most pros could
shoot for an entire day without having to replace a single card.
They'd be able to do that later in a less hectic, secure location.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b.DeleteThis@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:87ek6pbegn.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> ASAAR <caught.DeleteThis@22.com> writes:
>
>> On 12 Oct 2005 23:53:06 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>> > Sure, if you assume change away from CF is likely. But I don't. Why
>> > would a pro-grade camera want to give up CF? Bigger cards are
>> > available, micro-drives are available, and the size of the cameras is
>> > such that the very slightly larger card slot is completely
>> > irrelevant.
>>
>> I agree that with DSLRs, card size is irrelevant. (see below*)
>> But the trend is away from CF, and even many pro grade cameras are
>> using non-CF cards in addition to CF. Adding to the pressure would
>> be all of the PDAs and mp3 players that use only small cards. Since
>> sales of CF-using pro cameras are a small fraction of all of the
>> cameras sold, it's only a matter of time before production slows or
>> ceases in favor of smaller cards. By the time that happens (at
>> least several years from now) you should be able to get SD cards as
>> large as, or larger than any CF card you currently own.
>
> I don't know of any pro-grade cameras that don't accept CF cards
> currently. (I don't consider the Nikon D70s a pro-grade camera).

The D70s does anyway. It's the D50 that doesn't.

But the writing is on the wall. That D50 is a harbinger for SLR memory card
types.


>
>> I'm not saying that smaller SD cards are better or more desirable
>> than CF, just that change is in the air, it's no big deal (if you
>> look at it from a longer time frame rather than just the next couple
>> of years), and the longer you stick with CF, the larger your
>> inventory of little used cards will be at some time in the not too
>> distant future.
>
> I expect my S2 will be with me for the next decade or so, though it's
> likely to be joined by another DSLR sometime during that period. And
> I think it's fairly likely that that next DSLR will take CF cards.

Better buy it *early* in the next decade, then.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

On 13 Oct 2005 17:25:20 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> As you say, time will tell. The question is, *why* would they switch?
> Each professional getting an updated camera will prefer CF for the
> same reason I (not a professional, but greedy) will. There seems to
> be a strong incentive to keep the pro cameras CF. And as long as CF
> stays ahead in the size sweepstakes, that's another reason.

I believe I've already answered that question. Even today the
percent of the CF market captured by pro DSLRs is small compared to
that of most other cameras, PDAs and mp3 players and other devices
that don't use CF cards. When this percent drops below 1% of all
flash card sales (and it's probably not too far from that now), the
manufacturers of flash cards will have little incentive to keep
producing them. Camera manufacturers may be able to twist arms a
bit to keep them in production, but only for so long.

Two other reasons why CF cards might be dropped. Manufacturers
would profit from having their production dedicated to fewer card
types. Store owners and distributors would also appreciate this, as
average inventory levels could be reduced with fewer card types to
keep in stock.


>> Even if you've never had this problem, others occasionally do,
>> and it's one of CF's weaker points. A single bent pin could disable
>> the entire camera.
>
> The pins aren't on the cards, though, they're in the socket.

And the socket is in the camera. And in the type of "future"
camera being discussed (with 6 or 8 cards) that would greatly
increase to probability of failure. It happens occasionally with
cameras just as it does in card readers and PDAs. If that happened
to me, I'd wish the bent pins were in the card, and not in the
camera. Other card types don't have this problem.


>> Card readers are slow enough as it is. How long
>> do you think either would take, especially Bluetooth? I'm talking
>> about a camera with sufficient storage that even most pros could
>> shoot for an entire day without having to replace a single card.
>> They'd be able to do that later in a less hectic, secure location.
>
> The bluetooth destination rides in the camera bag or in a belt pack or
> something, it works fine on the job. Problem is that current
> bluetooth is way too slow.

And if bluetooth ever gains enough speed, I doubt that CF card
carrying cameras will ever see it. <g> But seriously, how fast is
the current Nikon and Canon Wi-Fi solution? How long would it take
to (as I asked) transfer 20GB or more? A lot longer than swapping
cards by hand, and even for that task many active pros use an
assistant to minimize camera down time. A camera containing the
previously mentioned "6 or 8 SD or xD cards, each card up to 8GB or
larger" would hold from 48GB to 128GB, possibly more. As I said,
easily enough for a full day's work. For non-pros, that would be
enough for an extended vacation. And if it's important for some
pros to deliver images before the end of the day's work, a camera
could easily be designed to allow it to continue to take pictures
using one card while the contents of others are transferred via
Wi-Fi. The lab (or whoever) would get what they need in a timely
manner, and the originals would remain in the camera as insurance in
case something bad happens to the copies. I'm glad that this is a
theoretical discussion, as there are no guarantees such a camera
will ever see the light of day, even in the somewhat near or distant
future when new CF cards are no longer for available. <g>

But cameras using multiple cards would seem to be desirable for at
least one other reason. Think of how many times you've read replies
from people urging the use of multiple smaller cards, to prevent the
"all eggs in the same basket" scenario where a failure to a single
card would result in total instead of partial loss of images. This
way a person could choose to use smaller cards and have the
additional security of keeping them all in the camera, instead of
having to swap them as they fill, which introduces more risk.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b.TakeThisOut@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:87k6gh9hrj.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> ASAAR <caught.TakeThisOut@22.com> writes:
>
[ . . . ]
>>
>> > Why would it be more dificult or more expensive to handle CF cards
>> > that way? They're a nice simple rectangular shape.
>>
>> With a not so nice interface using many fine pins and holes,
>> requiring more expensive, complex sockets. Less than a day ago
>> someone mentioned a problem he had with loss of files on his CF card
>> that was probably caused by a bent pin in his CF card reader. Even
>> if you've never had this problem, others occasionally do, and it's
>> one of CF's weaker points. A single bent pin could disable the
>> entire camera.
>
> The pins aren't on the cards, though, they're in the socket.

That's his point, isn't it?

Actually I suppose it's pretty hard to bend a pin, as the CF arrangement
seems designed to guide everything into place pretty safely. But I
understand it has happened.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95 

Jack wrote:
> A couple of questions?
>
> Has this model been discontinued? If so, what replaced it?
>
> My wife damaged her A75 and Canon wants approx $120 to fix it! Canon
> offers a refurbished A95 for $150.
>
> Any advice. There dont seem to be many places that are carrying the A95
> for less than $300 except for Ecost.
>
> TIA for any help...
Yes, it is discontinued and replaced by the A600 series. Too bad since
the hugely successful A95 and it's lesser variants were damn fine P&S
cameras. I'd take the refurb.

Ron

--
And it really doesn't matter if
I'm wrong I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong.

Lennon & McCartney
 >> Stay informed about: Canon A95