A step up from the Canon S9000??? Would the purchase of the PIMA PRO 9000 be a significant upgrade?
859764
I made the mistake of using compatible ink in my s9000 and it started printing everything in pink. When I went to Frye's to buy a new scanner (did I mention that my old scanner died around the same time that the s9000 started printing in pink?), I found the PRO 9000. My portfolio was due for school last Thursday, and the thought of taking all my stuff to a print shop and paying $10/sq ft was enough to put me into a panic. When figuring in the cost of print shop printing, the PRO 9000 became affordable. I also got Fry's additional warranty which allows me to bring the printer back for service/replacement in the case that it breaks or stops working properly. I've printed all of my portfolio pages, and they look great. Even the ones that I printed on canson smooth bristol paper (it had some streaking, but that's what I get for not using the proper paper; it was sufficient for my immediate need). Printing on matte photo paper was SPECTACULAR! Why upgrade if you're not in a portfolio pinch? The s9000 had nice output, but the pro9000 is pretty spectacular. Also, you can print up to 14x17 paper, not that canon advertises this, but I've been doing it. The printer also closes up when it's not in use so there is no paper feed to allow dust and other miscellaneous crud to fall into the printer when it's not in use. I would only use the OEM printer cartridges with this printer. I've obviously had some bad luck using compatible replacement cartridges. Yes, they cost less, but I'm convinced that's why the s9000 only prints in shades of pink now.
501207
If you buy this make sure to update the software. I use a Canon iP90 with it after upgrading the software - it's great
1365207
Yes... I'm very happy with the sp570 that I'm using right now, which includes RAW and RAW+JPEG shooting, as well as a hot shoe. I was hoping Olympus would include a rotating LCD after Canon's new model. That would have been nice. I'm upgrading to an SLR shortly, but the specs on this are worth a second glance. 26x... wow. The Bird-Watching mode also appeals to me as a wildlife photographer, although I'm not sure how exactly it would work. I know the smile shot option on the 570 is utterly useless. But the predecessor, although much maligned, is a fantastic camera, so I guess we'll have to see.
1507229
Like the S90, it's decent at wide angle. At 24mm, it supports a maximum aperture of f/1.8 (so a little better). Plus, the newer processor will help reduce noise at higher ISO settings (again, a little better). For low light photography, you might look at a camera with a larger sensor like the Sony RX100 or RX100 II. I'd also look at the Panasonic LX7 if you need decent low light performance throughout the zoom range.
940338
I have upgraded my S90 to the new S120. I have used my S90 extensively as a second camera for traveling and decided to upgrade to the S120. I like the new camera size being smaller and the touch screen. Overall the S120 has a lot of new features which I haven't particularly used. The only gripe that I have is the image quality of the S120 is not as good as the S90. I taken alot of pictures with both and the S90"s pictures are sharper. It might not mean much to most people but I like my pictures razor sharp. My S90 is sharper than my 2 DSLR. Just my opinion.
1557442
Umm, the SD800 also uses a DIGIC III chip.So, with IS, it would reduce more blur than the SD 900.Btw, I have an 8MP DSLR, yet I still dont take that many shots at that 8MP, because they are just too big. I dont see the average point and shoot user taking advantage of 10MP that much. IS, yes it would definitely be useful, especially indoors. A lot of my wedding photos taken by friends were ruined due to motion blur.
15823
That's a great deal. The camara is amazing. It has a big sensor so the photos looks terrific. I lost mine (stolen) so I bough a Canon SD90 (which is an upgrade for that model) otherwise I would still use SD900.
1691038
Michael, I own a Panasonic DMC-FZ30. If I had the money I would switch to this S100 for one main reason, that being low light capability. The 30 is limited to ISO 400, I see the 50 can go all the way up to 1600 so that may do the trick. Other than that I'm quite happy with the 30. I've had it three years, taken 1000's of photos of which I'm pretty happy. However the low light limits me quite often. The 30/50 have sensors much smaller than the s100. I think Fuji would have been better off with the large sensor they used but with 8 megapixels which would have improved photo quality, especially at the higher ISOs. The megapixel race is one of the biggest problems in the digital camera arena today. There again the 50 and S100 aren't that far apart in the megapixel race but look at the size of the Fjui sensor - wow! I would enjoy the 2 1/2 inch LCD over the 30/50's 2". I wouldn't miss the rotating feature on the Panasonic as I mostly use it in vertical modes and the Fuji provides that. Another thing I'd want is better video. Even though the three cameras have the same specs I'm disappointed with the Panasonic results. The video from my 30 aren't as good as my wife's Sony W50 point-and-shoot. I guess I'd have to hold them in my hand to compare the Fuji 100 vs the Panasonic 50. My conclusion for you? If I had the 50 in hand already I wouldn't be looking to upgrade. The Panasonic is bound to have more noise due to the smaller sensor. The Fuji looks like it has less noise but there are rampant complaints about purple fringing although most say it only shows up on hard contrast shots. The Panasonic is better at purple fringing but worse on noise - choose your weakness. Battery life is awesome on my 30 and it is indicated to be lower on the S100. Are these differences worth the difference in price (50=$579 S100=$655 9/19/08 on Amazon). If it was me purchasing today I'd go for the S100. What did you decide?
989001
I would get the Canon S95. It has a bigger sensor to collect light and a larger maximum aperture, the hole that allows the light to go in. This is the old fashioned way of getting better pictures. My next pocket camera will be something like the S95. Sony does good stuff and I have a Sony HX5V (and its great), and I go nuts taking pictures of my baby niece and my little nephew, but after learning more about cameras, I'd spend at little extra cash and get a camera that has a larger sensor and bigger maximum aperture. Shooting pictures indoor means less light that the camera can collect, so it best to have a camera equipped with the means to gather the most light it can get....if that makes any sense.
1028584
There is a useful post in another thread, the Canoscan 8600 vs. 8800 discussion--Vijay reported buying both the V500 and the 8800 and doing a side by side comparison. Canon won hands down.
940343
I have done just that; upgraded from the S90 to the S120 for the faster AF, brighter lens, and touch screen. Been quite happy with my decision since I upgraded without cost (employee incentive program).
1155938
The S95 (or in my case, the S90) takes far better macro shots than the X100. Focus is much faster and solid. But the X100 takes 'bokeh' shots much better than the little Canon. I'm keeping both as I believe they complement each other rather well.
182601
Jake,I wanted a camera that I could put in my pocket instead of lugging around my SLR equipment. I had the canon s95 before this which was slightly smaller took great shots but has a small zoom. This camera for its flexibility as far as manual controls, great picture quality, more than adequate video and of course 20x optical is a as good as it gets for the price. Depends on what you are looking for however. There are many times I cant tell the difference between the shots I have taken with my more advanced equipment and this one. Very pleased with my purchase. Feel free to ask me any other questions .Milt Jake,I wanted a camera that I could put in my pocket instead of lugging around my SLR equipment. I had the canon s95 before this which was slightly smaller took great shots but has a small zoom. This camera for its flexibility as far as manual controls, great picture quality, more than adequate video and of course 20x optical is a as good as it gets for the price. Depends on what you are looking for however. There are many times I cant tell the difference between the shots I have taken with my more advanced equipment and this one. Very pleased with my purchase. Feel free to ask me any... » Read More Jake,I wanted a camera that I could put in my pocket instead of lugging around my SLR equipment. I had the canon s95 before this which was slightly smaller took great shots but has a small zoom. This camera for its flexibility as far as manual controls, great picture quality, more than adequate video and of course 20x optical is a as good as it gets for the price. Depends on what you are looking for however. There are many times I cant tell the difference between the shots I have taken with my more advanced equipment and this one. Very pleased with my purchase. Feel free to ask me any other questions .Milt « Show Less
1198691
As someone who spent months in research (and finally decided on the NIKON) allow me to offer my advice: The NIKON P80 has a new sensor with 10.1MP (size 1/2.33" and a pixel density of 36MP/cm2). On its plus side, the small size (although it turns long when zoomed all in), the comprehensive menu and the overall built. On the minus side, the NIKON, although perfectly capable, will not take the best photo if left on Auto. The PANASONIC FZ18 has an older 8.1MP sensor (size 1/2.5" and a pixel density of 32MP/cm2). On its plus size, the impeccable LEICA lens system (and quite short even at maximum zoom), the handy joystick, the great image quality and the mechanical stabilization (the only one of these three that comes with it). On the minus side, the FZ18 is a bit larger that the P80 - and is bound to be replaced by Christmas. The FUJI S8100FD was never a contender for me. With a 10MP sensor (size 1/2.3" and a pixel density of 35MP/cm2) it is not too shabby. Yet, its overall design was not to my liking at all (of course that is a personal preference). The best advice a professional photographer gave me was this: choose the best lens and then the best sensor. Then make sure it is a camera for your level. The PANASONIC has the best lens whereas the NIKON has the best sensor (these cameras are still Point&Shoot, nowhere near the sensor sizes of a DSLR). Bottom line: if new to digital photography or do not care to be concerned with all the tweaking, go with the PANASONIC - it has a much better intelligent Auto (iA) function. If more experienced or would like to be more involved in taking a photo, go with the NIKON. Happy shooting!
571793
Thanks very much for your helpful response, sd940 it is. I'm upgrading from a Canon s230 (2002!) so I expect to be very pleased with the improvement!
1516436
I think that would be a better option than my DSLR. I'm planning on upgrading soon.
2043276
pika2000 said is nice and to the point. The APS-C sensor is that size that most DSLRs have. The next biggest sensor is a "Full Frame" but then you are looking at $2K+ for body only. Also good point - if you have no interest in learning how to use lenses - go with the RX100 - great camera.