Canon s95 vs. Nikon s8100: I compared close focus, zoom, low-light, candid and still shots and every single one of them was better with the Nikon -- with the possible exception of a very tight, low-light shot of a painting I did with the Canon, which...
1190973
I agree. I looked really hard at the S95, would have been happy to spend the extra bucks to get better photos in all conditions. But the 3X zoom was a bummer for me - when I can get just about as good photos with the S8100 with a super slick 10X zoom. Unless you are really a professional photog as need that extra f2.0 lens, I would say bite the bullet and take it back, again.
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
1507230
S120 is great in low light, with a faster lens it would be a better option over s90
1672718
Hi Ram, I was also undecided between a Sony and a Canon. I went with a Canon and I am very happy. I used to have a Sony Cybershot and was generally happy. I am much more happy know with the quality and built of my Canon SD1000. I checked expert reviews before buying my camera. In this case, it seems that the SD1000 is better rated than the Sony DSC-W80. Here are some links to reviews and a summary of expert ratings: Canon SD1000: http://www.smartratings.com/review/photography/digital_cameras/1144 Sony DSC-W80: http://www.smartratings.com/review/photography/digital_cameras/1323
922251
I agree. I looked really hard at the S95, would have been happy to spend the extra bucks to get better photos in all conditions. But the 3X zoom was a bummer for me - when I can get just about as good photos with the S8100 with a super slick 10X zoom.Unless you are really a professional photog as need that extra f2.0 lens, I would say bite the bullet and take it back, again.
6580
I have an S95 which has is basically similar internally to the G12. It's far better indoors and in low light than my Nex 5 which produces very dull pictures lacking color indoors without a flash. The Nex 5 18/55 has a 3.5 lens therefore let's far less light into the sensor.
1312580
The S95 has a bigger sensor than the SX230, so that in itself is a big plus for the S95.I have owned the SX230 and wasn't too impressed with its white balance and high ISO photos in low light.
1125802
SD series is more for the "point and shoot" crowd whereas the Sxx series offers more exposure adjustability for better creative control. The Sxx series also generally has larger image sensors which creates more interpixel spacing which reduces light bleeding between pixels thus reducing noise. (The "larger" reference is in reference to physical size of the sensor not pixel count.) As for whether the S90 takes better/clearer pictures the answer is most likely yes but how much better is going to be based on the situation. In low light situations the answer is a definite yes as the S90 has an f2.0 aperature which allows twice as much light as the f2.8 of the SD1200. This combined with the larger sensor will allow the S90 to take better low light pictures. Some other differences favoring the S90 are the 28mm wide angle lens and flash range. The 28mm lens captures an image roughly 25% wider than the 35mm lens on the SD1200. Flash distance increases from 14 to 21 feet at wide angle setting. The downside of the S90 is size. It is considerably larger and heavier than the SD1200. As for the reddish tones, this is a function of Canon cameras. It can be minimized however through proper use of the white balance/lighting type settings in the camera. I hope this helps. (note: Sxx refers to the S10 through S90 series not the S100 through S500 series which were point and shoot models.)
1222638
I would recommend reviewing the reviews of both cameras on www.snapsort.com/explore. This site provides a comparison of the two cameras and ranks the Canon as #1 and the SL1000as number 8 in the category of superzooms. Snapsort provides a scoring chart for various features of the cameras, and allows an evaluation of the features that are most important to you for each camera.Liz Hancock
1338309
I think I am going to opt for the S95, but the DMC-LX5 has just a tad better specs (longer batter life, closer focusing, more frames-per-second, broader range of shutter speed), but the S90 just looks so much better and the front user-defined adjustment ring may just be enough -- all at a lower price.
1312578
S95 is for serious and budding photographers--people who spend time tweaking images in a good photo program. It has has better lens with wider aperture (for great low-light shots) and is a "faster" camera. The SX230 was Canon's first serious shot at all the smartphone photographers (who don't have an optical telephoto lens).
1419977
I had a film SLR before the Canon S50. Now I only want a smaller camera that takes great pictures. The S95 probably is a great choice.
1283832
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_Coolpix_S8000-vs-Nikon_Coolpix_S8100 http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1283918475.html http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/digital-cameras/nikon-coolpix-s8100/11326.html Seems the major upgrade is to the sensor, allowing for improved low-light pictures. I'm looking forward to getting this one as well.
1879028
Not quite sure of your question on "better", but I will try to answer. This is not a high end DSLR, but it holds its own in action shooting with excellent clarity. As for limited/low light shooting, I was amazed in what it does without the flash. I have been using a Sony compact disc camera with optional with a fish eye lens for several years taking low light pictures . I most often had to use some form of lighting to get a good shot. The fish eye lens interfered with the flash causing major shadowing. The SZ+31, under the same limited light, gives excellent wide angle pictures WITHOUT a flash and little need to touch-up. We also have a mid-level Canon DSLR that was supposed to replace the Sony. The SZ-31 actually has more features with less bulk and is very user friendly. We are using the SZ-31 infinitely more than the other two. Here is the best clue: My wife does not take well to ANY gadget---until we bought the SZ-31. She loves this thing and so do I.
1469934
I own both the SX30is and S95. Of course the 95 can do RAW and the 30is can't so that is one thing to take into consideration if you do a lot of Photoshop work. Even with it's fantastic zoom tests (see this test I've posted elsewhere:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C1e05eKoiEI still like the sharpness and versitility of the 90 - and end up using that for most of my friends and neighbors shots, parties etc. Both cameras have their place and Canon has done a great job.I spent many years hauling around an F1 and various lenses. It's so nice to have these two cameras, both of which fit in one bag, to do almost everything my old films SLRs did. I am very pleased. I own both the SX30is and S95. Of course the 95 can do RAW and the 30is can't so that is one thing to take into consideration if you do a lot of Photoshop work. Even with it's fantastic zoom tests (see this test I've posted elsewhere:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C1e05eKoiEI still like the sharpness and versitility of the 90 - and end up using that for most of my friends and neighbors shots, parties etc. Both cameras have their place and Canon has done a great job.I spent many years hauling around an F1 and various lenses. It's so nice to have these two... » Read More I own both the SX30is and S95. Of course the 95 can do RAW and the 30is can't so that is one thing to take into consideration if you do a lot of Photoshop work. Even with it's fantastic zoom tests (see this test I've posted elsewhere:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C1e05eKoiEI still like the sharpness and versitility of the 90 - and end up using that for most of my friends and neighbors shots, parties etc. Both cameras have their place and Canon has done a great job.I spent many years hauling around an F1 and various lenses. It's so nice to have these two cameras, both of which fit in one bag, to do almost everything my old films SLRs did. I am very pleased. « Show Less
309946
The SX120 at ISO 800 and 1600 is way better than the SX110, this is the biggest difference I've seen. Search for some reviews that have the same shots at ISO1600 for both cameras and compare the two side by side and it'll jump out at you. I'm not so sure the slightly smaller sensor has much difference, sensor technology improves very slowly too, so maybe it has better signal to noise ratio even though it's more MP on a slightly smaller surface area.I don't like the SX200 for a bunch of reasons, the always up flash is annoying. It has a slower lens than the SX110/120, and it's way more expensive. The SX120 at ISO 800 and 1600 is way better than the SX110, this is the biggest difference I've seen. Search for some reviews that have the same shots at ISO1600 for both cameras and compare the two side by side and it'll jump out at you. I'm not so sure the slightly smaller sensor has much difference, sensor technology improves very slowly too, so maybe it has better signal to noise ratio even though it's more MP on a slightly smaller surface area.I don't like the SX200 for a bunch of reasons, the always up flash is annoying. It has a slower lens than the SX110/120, and it's... » Read More The SX120 at ISO 800 and 1600 is way better than the SX110, this is the biggest difference I've seen. Search for some reviews that have the same shots at ISO1600 for both cameras and compare the two side by side and it'll jump out at you. I'm not so sure the slightly smaller sensor has much difference, sensor technology improves very slowly too, so maybe it has better signal to noise ratio even though it's more MP on a slightly smaller surface area.I don't like the SX200 for a bunch of reasons, the always up flash is annoying. It has a slower lens than the SX110/120, and it's way more expensive. « Show Less
1031820
i am also looking for a good indoor shooting digital...not slr, smallhow about the canon s95, the newest one?