Canon A2000 IS

In our extensive lab tests, the A2000 presented a decidedly mixed bag of results. It did very well for color accuracy, low light and video, but really struggled with noise levels, white balance and resolution.

Color (10.40)
To test for a camera's color accuracy, we shoot the industry standard GretagMacbeth chart under strictly controlled lighting conditions. This chart is designed to have precisely reproduced color values for each swatch, which allows us to measure any deviation from these known values using Imatest image analysis software. You can see the result in the image below, where the outer ring of each color represents the captured color, the inner rectangle is the chart color corrected for luminance, and the inset is the original chart color.

 

The GretagMacbeth chart analysis produced by Imatest

The test results can also be expressed in the graph below, where the ideal color is shown in the square, the captured valu in the circle ,and the length and direction of the line between the two indicating the difference. As you can see the A2000 did very well in skin tones and light greens and blues, but had a bit more trouble with cyan (point 18), yellow (point 16) and magenta (point 17).

The A2000 did very well in capturing color

Resolution (7.33)
Rather than just counting the megapixels, we look at the actual resolution delivered in captured test images. We photograph an industry standard resolution chart under bright 1700 lux studio lighting, then run the resulting images through Imatest, which gives us the number of line widths per pixel height (lw/ph), a measure of image sharpness.

A close-up of the industry-standard resolution chart we use for testing as captured by the A2000

At its best performance, the A2000 grabbed 1771 lw/ph horizontally with a tiny amount of over-sharpening, and 1751 lw/ph vertically, with noticeable under-sharpening. As you can see in the comparison chart, this is an unimpressive result, below what we see in most other point-and-shoot cameras.

White Balance (5.20)
A camera needs to be able to adapt to the different colors of light cast by different sources. Our brains naturally compensate for the yellower light provided by a tungsten bulb over a fluorescent, but a camera needs to be programmed to do so. This can be accomplished through an automatic system, or the photographer can choose from a number of provided presets that mach various light sources. We test both these methods by shooting under different lighting sources, then using Imatest to see how well the camera compensates. You can see the results below, but keep in mind that these images are highly exaggerated, and you won't see this level of difference in reality.

Auto White Balance(6.54)
The A2000 did very well under flash illumination, and slightly better than average under fluorescent. However, the automatic white balance system did remarkably poorly working with daylight illumination and tungsten bulbs. Note that the charts shown below show exaggerated results to illustrate the color shifts produced: you wouldn't see this level of difference in your actual photos.

Preset (3.86)
Using the white balance presets, the A2000 fared better under daylight and tungsten, but worse under fluorescent. Even with the sources that did improve using manual presets, it's still a poor performance.

Exaggerated White Balance Errors (Presets)

Fluorescent Preset WB - Fluorescent Illumination

Cloudy Daylight preset WB - Daylight illumination

Tungsten preset WB - Tungsten illumination

Overall, this is a sub-par result for the PowerShot. Normally, we'd expect to see the camera perform better under presets than it does on auto, but with the A2000 this was true only under two light sources, and then just barely.