S95 vs SX230? Any recommendations or the big difference between the two models?
1002182
These two cameras are both good at what they do but are different in the needs they are designed to address. Your needs (atleast mine) would direct me towards one or the other. You say absolutely nothing about your needs or intended uses so there little else I could add. The zoom range, video resulotion, flexibility, and size differetiate the two. The S95 has a marginal image quality and low light advantage at the expense of lower video resolution and a much shorter telephoto.
1036668
I'd like to suggest the sx40 because it's fabulous. However, it is larger than the sx230 and won't fit in the pocket. The smaller you get the less perfection a camera has, whereas it can't possibly please every need. But canon has done decent job trying to fit in a fast camera with 7FPS [really cool, but a smaller file size]. I find it hard without a viewfinder to shoot birds in flight other than off a limb. This camera is small, so without high shutter speeds fast moving animals can be blurred. You really have to have a good technigue on small cameras. The sx230 is a little faster than the rest of the pack.
948237
I recently bought the SX10IS and it's a nice camera, zoom is kind of noisy for the price, so I am sending it back and waiting on the SX1IS to come in. I want the faster burst rate, the HD movie quality and the remote control features.
2234811
Yeah the biggest complaint for the SX200IS was the automatic flash every time. I'm gonna wait to see if that has been fixed in the SX210IS before I go ahead an order. Looks like a great improvement in every other area!I'm glad I held out on getting my super-zoom point and shoot! Within the last few weeks Nikon, Fujifilm, Canon, and Panasonic all announced their Spring 2010 models. There are some real good options out there!
494403
I owned both the G11 and the SX20...I decided to keep the G11 and sold the SX20 because for my needs the G11 fit the bill. If you need a high zoom all the time then definitely go with the SX20. I had the G9 which I loved it and decided to upgrade to the G11 it's the best camera I have own. I just went on a Caribbean Cruise and took over 1,000 shots and couldn't be happier with them all. The proof is in the photos so you can start with this post on my photoblog and use the calendar or click on the next post and see the results yourself. If you have any questions you can leave me a comment with your email address... http://www.photoblog.com/lynnsgallery2/2010/02/09/st-thomas.html
937044
Performance wise, there is no noticeable difference. The SX910 has a 5 yr warranty vs the SX900's 3 yr which is due to them "cherry picking" or "binning" the best NAND chips for the 910.
694542
I'm happy with my SX100, not familiar with the G9. SX100 doesn't have a rangefinder so that could be an issue for you. Uses SD cards and 2 AA's
1426268
I have both. The S95 is more of a photography toy to me, in a good way. I like tinkering with all the settings to try (keyword try) to take photos that are above and beyond amateur. Six months ago when the S95 was still $399, I would've recommended the S8100 because it'd have been cheaper and would've taken very decent pictures. Plus, the S8100 has better zoom and is faster (CMOS sensor). But, given the S95 and S8100 are about the same price now, I'd go with the S95. If you're taking sports photos outside, the faster CMOS of the S8100 sensor doesn't have much on the S95, especially since you can adjust the S95's shutter speed to make it faster. But, keep in mind the S95 does not have continuous shooting speeds the S8100 does. The S8100 has a continuous mode that can capture several photos in one second. The S95 simply cannot do this. As for low-light indoor shots, both are good. The S95 has a bright f/2 lens so it definitely helps with low light shots. And the S8100 was designed to do well in low-light situations. I have a HD camcorder so the 1080p video on the S8100 wasn't a selling point. However, if you don't like carrying around a camcorder and a camera, the S8100 doubles as a great camcorder. As for the quality of the video, neither the S95's 720p nor the S8100's 1080p has anything on the true 1080p quality videos of a real HD camcorder. I guess in the end, the tie breaker would be how much fun you could have with the S95, especially if you like manipulating camera settings to get the perfect shot. The S8100 is more of a pick up and shoot camera. I have both and I definitely use the S95 more. My significant other holds on to the S8100 because I gave it to him (if that's any further indication of which one I'd pick).
15744
Canon s95 has the best image quality of all cameras mentioned above (CCD sensor).If you want better video mode than you have to go with CMOS sensor cameras (sx230, 300HS).The s95 and sx230 have full manual controls.
2073936
I just read your posting and it has been a month since you put it up so I don't know if your still interested in a comparison, so I will keep it brief. I got the X100 in July and the S95 a year ago but by coincidence I just took some test shots in the back yard this morning to compare the two as I will be using both at a BBQ on Sunday. The S95 looks good until you see it next to the x100. The X100 is the first digital camera I have owned where the photos look a bit more real than the other digital cameras I have used. I also have a Nikon D7000 and did some test shots while on vacation using it and the Nikon 12-24mm lens ( set at 23mm) and the X100 looks better, sharper than the $1000 Nikon12-24 lens. There are some down sides as is mentioned on many websites, but you can get used to them, or at least I did. On the video, I like the S95 by far as it is easier to get usable footage. The X100 is sharper and cleaner by a little bit, but the focus is not as good as the S95. The X100 is a great camera for what it is, and I really like mine.
305171
The new G11 is an improvement over the G10. But I don't think it's on the same level as the LX3, mainly because of the lens. I think the upcoming Canon S90 is a direct competitor to the LX3. It has a small and compact form factor like the LX3. And it has a fast f/2 lens like the LX3. However, it doesn't have a hot shoe. And it doesn't shoot HD video. And no viewfinder either. I've had the LX3 since the beginning of the year. And I plan on selling it after the S90 comes out. The LX3 shoots fantastic low light pictures. But daylight pictures are average. I think Canon has the better image processor overall. Also, the auto focus on the LX3 seems slow to me. My other gripe is that menu system isn't intuitive on the LX3. Canon cameras are extremely easy to use and changing the settings is a breeze. I love the exposure and ISO dials on the G10 and G11. It's a much better/easier camera to operate. But the size is a little too big for me, as a daily carry-around camera. And it still has a somewhat slower lens. I just think it's odd that Canon gave the S90 a fast lens, but not the G11. Maybe they'll get it right on the G12?
1887675
I've owned the 1400 IS for 8 months now, and have been dissapointed. Photos are not consistent, and not crisp. In fact, I regret buying the 1400 IS and in hindsight would have opted for the S90/S95.
1709886
I've been debating this also, the ss2300 has great reviews and a much higher MSRP, so it appears to be a better deal. But if this is basically the same but only a newer model maybe this is my best bet.
876664
Brad - I don't think you can go wrong with either camera. Add to for your consideration the Sony HX5 - it's on a par with these two. I looked long and hard at all 3 of these, researching specs and comments, as well as trying them out in camera stores, etc. I finally chose the S8100, although only coming out in September the amount of reviews is sparse - but even compared to the S8000 earlier model the improved S8100 proves to be a great camera. One thing I really like is the heft and feel of the camera, as well as the professional and high quality look and detail of the camera. It's a joy to take photos with this camera. The photos from it are stunning.
154005
To L. Jones : I have a new SX230HS, and this was an excellent post ! You are right on. I also have a feeling you are a Canon support rep., but thanks anyway ! You are right, some people believe there is a magic $200 camera out there, the size of a disposable, and the performance of a Canon DSLR. I think the SX230 is a very usable unit.A lot of $100 cameras can stop motion outdoors, but I'm not aware of any $200 camera that can in low light unless you use flash.
106956
i think s95 is compelling if u want better pictures and control. since s95 has the bigger sensor (better pictures) and the PASM (better control). but really, the 4000 is a true P&S wif some kick-ass hardware baked in.
163530
I have had several G series (G7 and G9) and am now working with the s90. Although these are earlier models of the ones you are looking at, the general pros/cons remain the same. The positive for the S90 is that it is great for low light (F 2.0 and in-between ISOs of 125 and 160).The bad news is that the image quality of the s90 is just not the same as the G series. Prints that are crops or over 24x30 inches have too much pixellation to be exhibited professionally. However, if you print at 8x10 inches or smaller, the s95 should be fine for you.As for me, I'm planning on returning to the G series with my next camera purchase. I have had several G series (G7 and G9) and am now working with the s90. Although these are earlier models of the ones you are looking at, the general pros/cons remain the same. The positive for the S90 is that it is great for low light (F 2.0 and in-between ISOs of 125 and 160).The bad news is that the image quality of the s90 is just not the same as the G series. Prints that are crops or over 24x30 inches have too much pixellation to be exhibited professionally. However, if you print at 8x10 inches or smaller, the s95 should be fine for you.As for me,... » Read More I have had several G series (G7 and G9) and am now working with the s90. Although these are earlier models of the ones you are looking at, the general pros/cons remain the same. The positive for the S90 is that it is great for low light (F 2.0 and in-between ISOs of 125 and 160).The bad news is that the image quality of the s90 is just not the same as the G series. Prints that are crops or over 24x30 inches have too much pixellation to be exhibited professionally. However, if you print at 8x10 inches or smaller, the s95 should be fine for you.As for me, I'm planning on returning to the G series with my next camera purchase. « Show Less