canon 950 vs 890: Other than the megapixel difference, does anyone have any advice as to which camera is better?
1815166
I'm having the same debate with myself! and as far as I can tell (novice!) the extra mega pixels won't make that much dif and I would rather have better zoom (personal pref) capabilites. I look for the increased ISO range now. From what people have told me, some of these cameras don't do so well in low light and the higher that no. is the better the pic will be with less light-that's if I understood it correctly! BTW, I have decided to get the 890, I believe it's the wide angle one of the two! good luck and enjoy-think about a warranty of some type-that was also encouraged by my photo buddies!
2284472
I'm running the same research and here's the comparison, WX1: in addition to the HD video, its 24mm wide angle is precious in daily shootings (indoors, group pics, ...). It also has 5x zoom. And the CMOS sensor is supposed to be a notch better than CCD. The build quality is good and it's smaller than S90 except the thickness. It's also $100+ cheaper than S90. Battery life is rated at 350 shots v. S90's 220. S90: Manual everything; RAW; F2@28mm; SDHC card; external flash. The DSLR advantages have been the interchangeability for lens and flash. S90 takes another bite on those claims while providing the convenience and accessibility. If you're going up from Point&Shoot, WX1 is the winner; If you're going down from DSLR after the form factor, you'll miss less features with S90. Either is a great camera that will take wonderful pictures in the right hands.
2066795
The fact that the 900 is cheaper on Amazon and elsewhere should tell you something. I've heard that the 900 was created to satisfy Canon marketing people who insisted on having a 10mp SD out there.
1023637
I have been going back and forth with the same question. I have read all the reviews and opinions I can find on both. After going to the local store and playing with the TZ5 and the 100 (since the 110 is not out yet) I did not find many major difference from the point of view of a novice user. The two main difference I noted were 1) the TZ5 is more compact and I really liked that, however 2) when I zoomed in with the canon on a small sign the image was crystal clear, when I did the same with the TZ% the same sign was very blurry, not even close to readable. This decided it for me. I went with canon.
488642
I originally bought the Sony W90 based on specs. My first one was defective. It took pictures, but only the pictures in very bright light were acceptable. I exchanged for another W90 and although better, it still had VERY high levels of noise even with flash. I returned that one and bought a Canon 800IS. The Canon has taken EXCELLENT pictures even in low light. The image stabilization works well and the pictures taken with ISO 1600 are about the same noise level as the sony at 400 and 800 ISO. At 800 ISO the Canon produces better pictures than the Sony at 100 ISO.For my money...The Canon is better hands down. I originally bought the Sony W90 based on specs. My first one was defective. It took pictures, but only the pictures in very bright light were acceptable. I exchanged for another W90 and although better, it still had VERY high levels of noise even with flash. I returned that one and bought a Canon 800IS. The Canon has taken EXCELLENT pictures even in low light. The image stabilization works well and the pictures taken with ISO 1600 are about the same noise level as the sony at 400 and 800 ISO. At 800 ISO the Canon produces better pictures than the Sony at 100 ISO.For my... » Read More I originally bought the Sony W90 based on specs. My first one was defective. It took pictures, but only the pictures in very bright light were acceptable. I exchanged for another W90 and although better, it still had VERY high levels of noise even with flash. I returned that one and bought a Canon 800IS. The Canon has taken EXCELLENT pictures even in low light. The image stabilization works well and the pictures taken with ISO 1600 are about the same noise level as the sony at 400 and 800 ISO. At 800 ISO the Canon produces better pictures than the Sony at 100 ISO.For my money...The Canon is better hands down. « Show Less
1273966
I finally bit the bullet & purchased the Canon Pixma Pro 9500. It's a little spendy, but if your budget allows it's a good choice. Myself I invested in a New Desktop & display, because all I've been using is a 15 inch Macbook Pro, & I wanted to actually do justice to the amazing images I get with the 50D.
1822121
These were my top two choices as well. I think they are both great cameras. I ended up getting the 950 because it is pocket-size, but they share many features actually. also, the G9 has more manual controls, it's for more professional type photos, not for just casual. I mean it could be for casual also, if you don't mind the bulkiness. But I think they are both good, it just depends on what you want to use it for.
1257208
You would not get a good answer, here of all places with so many opinionated people.Only recommendation I can give is try both cameras in store and see which once you find comfortable to use. Both are great cameras. And really similar in performance. Can't go wrong either way.I've heard/read that Lumix is slightly better. But I have the S90 and I can't imagine how any P&S; can be better than it (aside from S95/S100) in the same category. I love the controls on it especially the customizable ring.
542770
Both are nice cameras. I own a700 and a900, bought the a99, difficult to get used to. Totally different beast. If you get one, do not get rid of the 700 until you are convinced. Joe
1254696
The shutter speed of this camera (look for ISO number) is very good for a point & click...one of the best. The 16 mp has a much slower shutter speed (lower ISO) and from what I read, takes horrible pictures.SIZE ISN'T EVERYTHING! (megapixels, that is)
660621
The D4 is a very good camera. The D4s is slightly better at high ISOs. Its seem to track focus on moving subjects a bit faster. Go to DXO website and they do a great comparison on cameras and you can compare the two cameras. The picture quality is the same I think over all again with some improvement at high ISOs. I do not know what you shoot or how you photograph so it is very hard to give advice on upgrading. If I had to do it again, I think I would stay with the D4 and which I still use right along with the D4s and wait for the next big change in camera bodies.
1211753
Shad, since I have only used the 999 I really cannot compare it to the 899, but suspect some of the features I have found useful on the 999 most likely do not exist on the 899. There are some very good features driven by what I believe has to be complex software programing that I am sure do not exist on the 899.
1418537
So glad I found this post as I'm in the same boat and just printed out the specs on both cameras. I'm curious as to which camera you ended up getting and how you like it? My original intent was to upgrade from my Canon Powershot due to a long lag time in between being able to shoot the next picture now that my kids are in sports, but I would still like clear nice pictures. What did you get and how do you like it?
786038
I'm having the same debate with myself! and as far as I can tell (novice!) the extra mega pixels won't make that much dif and I would rather have better zoom (personal pref) capabilites. I look for the increased ISO range now. From what people have told me, some of these cameras don't do so well in low light and the higher that no. is the better the pic will be with less light-that's if I understood it correctly! BTW, I have decided to get the 890, I believe it's the wide angle one of the two! good luck and enjoy-think about a warranty of some type-that was also encouraged by my photo buddies! I'm having the same debate with myself! and as far as I can tell (novice!) the extra mega pixels won't make that much dif and I would rather have better zoom (personal pref) capabilites. I look for the increased ISO range now. From what people have told me, some of these cameras don't do so well in low light and the higher that no. is the better the pic will be with less light-that's if I understood it correctly! BTW, I have decided to get the 890, I believe it's the wide angle one of the two! good luck and enjoy-think about a warranty of some type-that was also encouraged by my photo buddies!
2124488
My dilemma was mainly the SD770 or SD790. I didn't like the 1100 because it was too small, cheap feeling, only 8MP (I was upgrading from a 7MP), and I thought the colors were gimmicky.To me, the 770 is a grownup version of the 1100, but the 790 is a different class. I only wish the 790 had a viewfinder and even though I'm now used to the dial, I still wonder if I'm not doing something right when I use it for pics. I haven't been out on a big trip yet though, so the real test is still to come.
1721987
I have a Lumix DMC-FZ18 and a Canon SX10. I wanted to buy a camera that was a little better than the FZ18 and wait a little longer for a DSLR. Picture quality on the Canon is not as good as the Lumix. Image stabalization on the Lumix is also noticably better. I have already taken over 300 photos of the same scene with both cameras for comparison. I should have upgraded to the Panasonic DMC-FZ28 as it is getting great reviews from everyone on the web.
1540762
I can't decide between the SD750 and the Cannon 1100..the 1100 is a better price and has image stabilization, but I love the look and feel of the 750 as well as the way the pictures look..have you used the 1100 at all? What made you go for this camera a year after it was released once u dropped it the first time? did you not want to upgrade?