s90 vs. LX3 At virtually the same price, what camera would be a better value? I feel like s90 would be a better fit for my needs for a compact walk-around camera that still takes great low-light pics. But, man, LX3 in stock, for less than 400, sounds like a bargain. s90 vs. LX3 At virtually the same price, what camera would be a better value? I feel like s90 would be a better fit for my needs for a compact walk-around camera that still takes great low-light... » Read More s90 vs. LX3 At virtually the same price, what camera would be a better value? I feel like s90 would be a better fit for my needs for a compact walk-around camera that still takes great low-light pics. But, man, LX3 in stock, for less than 400, sounds like a bargain. « Show Less
1111966
The low light performance of the s90 is astonishing. The s90 has a more versatile tele lens than the LX3. You can get a canon s90 for $380 or so now. I paid $440 in October 2009 just so I could get my hands on one. I love it so much. If the house were burning down, I'd grab it first. It is by far the most fun and versatile camera I've had.
2175660
I've had the LX3 for about a year and I'm anxious to get rid of it. It's not very pocket friendly for one thing. And I still dislike the complex menu system. It obviously takes fantastic photos, but I don't know how to say this... It's just not "usable". I like to carry my camera around and take quick and spontaneous photos. And with the LX3, this is just not possible.. bulky size, manual lens cap, slow start-up, slow focusing, clunky menus, etc. Don't get me wrong. The LX3 is a fantastic camera. And it has more creative controls than the S90, but it just doesn't suit my shooting style. I'm planning to get the S90 as an everyday camera, and a Canon DSLR for more composed and serious photos. The LX3 will be going on Craigslist soon.
347546
I bought the Xsi and then took it back and got the D90. All I can say is that, although I liked the Xsi, i am super happy with my decision to get the D90. I can't think of a better balance of quality and price. I shot my first wedding this weekend and the pictures were phenomenal. Good luck.
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.
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.
391685
I noticed that the SD 960 actually has a faster lens than the SX 200, but I much prefer the beefier body styling and extra zoom on the SX 200. I just wonder how much a difference F/3.4 compared to a F/2.8 in a compact camera like this would really make? I've also been thinking about picking up the LX3, but hearing you say you would trade in makes me wonder, have you found the F/2.0 lense to be a big difference compared to other compacts?
1893354
Hello Amy. I see that you've not gotten a reply yet for a few days. I own the Canon SX130is camera that is nearly identical to that of the next version, the SX150is. I even owned the previous model of mine now, SX120is. THe only reason for the upgrade was to get HD video and stereo sound. Other than that, I loved that camera too. I've not studied the others you are deciding on but just looked them over. THere's not a "night & day" major difference between them. Differences of 2x zoom power is not major IMHO. Frames per second in burst mode shooting is. Size may be a factor too. But I can tell you why I like my camera. A manual flip up flash allows unmistakeable control over the flash and keeps the camera from waisting power charging for a flash that you didn't need for that shot. The option of complete manual settings is a must. And the advantage of using AA batteries gives you limitless flexibility of power. Don't let the negative reviews tell you that you cannot take lots of photos with this camera. If you get some high capacity rechargable batteries and enough for an extra set, you'll be good. Several here have recommended Sanyo Eneloop brand cells. That they come precharged and hold that charge for extended periods of storage time. A friend of mine used them and swears by them. I use Ansmann 2850 mAh batteries (which are higher capacity) and they give me nearly 200 more shots in my Canon SX20is than what is rated in the camera manual.
1469932
I can't imagine that the SX40 couldn't take a better picture (sharper, better detail and colors in a range of lighting) than the s90, 95 or 100. The only thing you give up with the SX40 (and for some people, I know this is a deal breaker) is pocketability. But for those who don't care about that, it is an amazing (and very fun) camera.
1134719
Oddly enough, I ended up going with neither of these. I compared these to the Sony CX130. Picked them up in the stores and found the image of the Sony to be more brilliant. The Sony form factor was smaller as well which will be good for traveling. Best part is that it's only $350. It uses SD cards (no internal memory), but that didn't bother me since SD cards are so cheap now.
1469933
Hi Morris. The S95 and S90 are unique. As a subcompact it can be carried in your pocket....SX40 no..no in the pocket. The S95 has incredible low light at wide angle and F2. I used it today to document and help identify some piping in the wall with available light. It was too awkward with the super zoom. This is why you need to bring 2 cameras when traveling. I actually carry 3 including a camcorder which I think is better for video then either super zoom or S95. Many people swear by the DSLR and that works for them
551072
The entire J- series is great so ou can't go wrong with either. The differences are subtle, but may be important -- depending on what you like. The J1 has a metallic body as opposed to the J3's plastic, and the J3 is a little thinner, so the J3 wins on lightness. The J3 has a bit fast lens, but it may not even be noticeable in practice. The J3 has few buttons on the back and you must go into the menu to access things that are easily accessible on the J1, but the back looks more streamlined. The one thing I absolutely do not like about the J3 is that the flash pops up automatically and must be stopped from doing so through the menu, whereas the J1 is only activated if you pop up the flash manually. I hardly ever use th flash so I hate having to de-activate it every time I shoot with the J3. So, while both cameras are superb, the J1 can be had for half (or less) than the J3. I am not sure the small improvements on the J3, and a little extra weight on the J1, are worth such a price differential.
2204729
The Canon SX10IS is much better than the Nikon P90, despite having a shorter zoom and less Megapixels. Image quality and responsiveness is what you should be looking for, and the P90 does not have either of them.I would look also at the Panasonic FZ28, specially if you prize weight - this is the choice I made, after testing Nikon, Canon, Panny and Olympus.
687250
I was in the same dilemma when these two products were announced. In the end I bought both and tried out... and finally returned the 4500 and kept the S95. I really liked the better PQ, wider lens, more powerful flash, and better low light performance of S95 over 4500.
2073016
Yes, your words are elegant. All I did was point to a fine review where you can compare the inferior images from the Rebel to SX1. If you want the real benefits of an SLR with video then go to a fine machine like Nikon D90. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX1_IS/
565035
Hi Heirloom Tomato,Thanks for sharing your experience with the Canon Powershot S90 camera with me. I haven't bought any camera yet so now it will be easier to make that decision.Thanks,Isabel
948241
Well, it's just the size of the sensor troubles me. What kind of picture is this going to take at even a 400 ISO? Nevermind 800 or higher.I just wonder if it's worth getting a camera this big when the sx200IS can be had for almost half the price, it's way easier to carry, and when you add the chdk firmware, will be almost as functional.I suppose if this were to be your only camera, but personally, I'd like to see what they do with the Rebel, either later this year or next. Or if I have a "rich uncle die", buy the 5D Mark II ;-)
1635760
It seems illogical I know, but I have seen this in camera pricing here many times before: when a new model comes out, the older model often INCREASES in price even if the new model is improved. My guess is that there's some policy of increasing price when existing stock run low, which will naturally occur when an old model is discontinued. Doesn't make a lot of sense in a case like this but I can't think of any other reason for it. As for which you should buy, the newer S8200 has a wider zoom ratio than the S8100 (25-300mm equiv. instead of 30-300mm), which may or may not be good news. The wider angle at the short end is certainly useful, but stretching the zoom ratio of a particular lens design sometimes results in some deterioration of performance. Not having the S8200 I don't know if that's true in this case. I have the S8100 and it is super sharp over the entire zoom range -- I think a bit sharper than my S9100, which has a 25-450mm (equiv.) lens. Also, the S8200 has a 16-megapixel sensor as opposed to the 12-megapixel sensor of the S8100 and S9100. That will be seen as an "improvement" by people who attach great importance to megapixel count; personally I do not see it that way and am really annoyed by this silly megapixel race, which I thought was over with. (Nikon and Canon have both LOWERED the megapixel count of some of their high-end compact cameras, with resulting improvement in picture quality.) I dislike the trend to pixel cramming in sensors really too small to make proper use of such megapixel count. In DSLRs it's different -- their much larger sensors can really use all those pixels -- but these tiny-sensor cameras cannot. It's mostly if not entirely marketing -- camera makers know most consumers will think the more megapixels the better the sharpness, so this supposed "improvement" will sell more cameras. So personally I prefer the older S8100, but again, that is not based on any personal experience with the newer model.