Canon S95 vs. Nikon Coolpix S8100

[mchong75]

I'm in the process of looking for a new P&S camera and I'm looking for anyone who has any exposure of have considered the following cameras.

My choices are:

Nikon Coolpix S8100
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-S8100-Zo...8797216&sr=8-1

Canon PowerShot S95
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerSho...8797512&sr=1-2


Reasons to consider the Canon S95

Much wider aperture f/2.0 vs f/3.5
Much larger sensor 1/1.7" 7x5mm vs 1/2.5" 6x4mm
Shoots RAW Yes vs No
Has boost ISO 12,800 ISO vs None
Better wide-angle 28 mm vs 30 mm
Smaller 99x58x29 mm vs 104x60x30 mm
Lighter 193 g vs 209 g
Longer exposures 15s vs 4s


Reasons to consider the Nikon S8100

Higher resolution movies 1080p @ 30fps vs 720p @ 24fps
Significantly more zoom 10x vs 3.8x
Much higher resolution screen 921k dots vs 461k dots
Has a CMOS-family sensor CMOS vs CCD
Shoots significantly faster 10 fps vs 1.9 fps
Significantly better macro capability 1 cm vs 5 cm
Much faster max shutter speed 1/4000s vs 1/1600s
Cheaper Around $285.00 vs $380.00 Range


So, for a P&S camera with the ability to shoot RAW and 12,800 ISO really that necessary or even an advantage? 12,800 ISO range is very high for a P&S. Not even DSLR is even capable to producing a nice image at that range.

I guess after writing this thread, I in coincidently made up my mind that Nikon has a better P&S for the price and the features that are more usable in the real world.

Unless you guys have any other inputs on S95......

[a lamp post]

... If money is not an issue, it's not even close which camera is better.

But I'd say you're joking comparing those two cameras anyway, considering your equipment in the signature.

[mchong75]

It's not about the money. It's about convenience, features and quality which I'm comparing to.

Why is it a joke comparing these two cameras?

[a lamp post]

I'm sorry, but I still think you're joking here.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by a lamp post

I'm sorry, but I still think you're joking here.

Then spell out the characteristics of the two cameras that, in your view, make the decision a no-brainer.

[tmwag]

The Nikon stands out (to me) because of the frame rate and price. However it only shoots 5 fps at full resolution which is still impressive..past that.... Personally I desire RAW, a faster lens, and larger sensor over a longer zoom, higher res LCD and full HD (which doesn't matter to me one way or another). I'd be interested to see a full review on the Nikon though

[a lamp post]

Originally Posted by Jon

Then spell out the characteristics of the two cameras that, in your view, make the decision a no-brainer.

Now you're joking, I'm sure. Right?

I mean, someone with equipment like we can see in his signature certainly knows what he wants in the first place. Well, he should - lol.
Secondly, he gave us two links that don't work - LOL.
Third, look at his questions and priorities: "it's not about the money, but features and quality" - unless by "quality" he means weather sealed and body of plutonium, I'm going to assume he is talking about IQ. Is it stupid of me to presume that, again, someone using all that pro equipment should know the difference between sensor sizes (1/1.7 vs. 1/2.3)? Not to mention Aperture range (2.0 vs 3.5 at wide end) and ability to shoot RAW? More megapixels and smaller sensor in Nikon - never a good thing if we're after quality/IQ, especially in low light. Buttons, front ring S95 has... But, again, all of that should be self-evident.

I mean, what are the advantages of Nikon camera according to the specs he wrote? Better video (ok, how important that is to the guy vs image quality?), longer zoom vs wider (who knows what is more important to the poster and how usable those cameras are at the longest zoom ranges?). Nikon is cheaper - lol. Duh! With a reason, if you care about image quality.

It's a joke because mentioned cameras are not comparable really - one is for serious photographers wanting something pocketable, that shoots RAW and with probably the best IQ in ultra-compact camera at this moment; other is just another small sensor, long zoom, HD video compact in a sea of similar cameras.

Comparing S95 with LX5 or EX1 would've had much more sense. Plus, all of this has no sense at all since we have no idea for what the poster needs the camera and what he is planning to shoot with it. Is it going to be a gift to his daughter or wife or grandmother or he is considering it as a decent replacement for his 5D? lol

Gimme a break.

[Jon]

Wrong. If you come here to contribute, you're welcome. If you come here to make snide remarks, you're not. You were not contributing with your snide remarks, and that's not an attitude we appreciate here. That was written with my Mod hat on. Bear it in mind in the future.

[mchong75]

Originally Posted by a lamp post

Now you're joking, I'm sure. Right?

I mean, someone with equipment like we can see in his signature certainly knows what he wants in the first place. Well, he should - lol.
Secondly, he gave us two links that don't work - LOL.
Third, look at his questions and priorities: "it's not about the money, but features and quality" - unless by "quality" he means weather sealed and body of plutonium, I'm going to assume he is talking about IQ. Is it stupid of me to presume that, again, someone using all that pro equipment should know the difference between sensor sizes (1/1.7 vs. 1/2.3)? Not to mention Aperture range (2.0 vs 3.5 at wide end) and ability to shoot RAW? More megapixels and smaller sensor in Nikon - never a good thing if we're after quality/IQ, especially in low light. Buttons, front ring S95 has... But, again, all of that should be self-evident.

I mean, what are the advantages of Nikon camera according to the specs he wrote? Better video (ok, how important that is to the guy vs image quality?), longer zoom vs wider (who knows what is more important to the poster and how usable those cameras are at the longest zoom ranges?). Nikon is cheaper - lol. Duh! With a reason, if you care about image quality.

It's a joke because mentioned cameras are not comparable really - one is for serious photographers wanting something pocketable, that shoots RAW and with probably the best IQ in ultra-compact camera at this moment; other is just another small sensor, long zoom, HD video compact in a sea of similar cameras.

Comparing S95 with LX5 or EX1 would've had much more sense. Plus, all of this has no sense at all since we have no idea for what the poster needs the camera and what he is planning to shoot with it. Is it going to be a gift to his daughter or wife or grandmother or he is considering it as a decent replacement for his 5D? lol

Gimme a break.

I appreciate your opinion but not so much of a usable opinion....

I'm not going after shallow DOF or extreme creativity from a P&S.
I believe P&S are designed and catered for simplicity and ease of you. I don't shoot manual or looking to create similar photo quality from a P&S compare to my 5DII or the 7D no matter if they offer wider aperture / faster lens or the ability to shoot raw.

Like I said, I'm buying the P&S for casual shots where I don't need to lug around a DSLR. So, the ability to shoot RAW isn't top of my list of features to look for.
These casual shots aren’t something I’m spending hours in front of the desk editing for clients.

Have you personally used the S95 in the RAW mode and compared it to the JPEG files?

I also don’t know too much about P&S lens to really compare how much faster & better an f/2.0 lens would be compared to an f/3.5 lens where it would on a DSLR lens.

Also, you noted, Canon has a larger sensor. But once again, from a P&S camera perspective, does it make that much of a difference? Plus, Nikon has the CMOS sensor vs. Canon’s CCD.

Like I pointed out, from a P&S camera, the ability to take quality pictures, 1080p videos (Pocket size compared to my DSLR’s), faster FPS, faster shutter and better/shorter macro capability appears to me all wrapped up in a reasonable price for a P&S.

[mckinleypics]

American Photo just named the S95 as one of the top 12 advances of 2010 that change the game of photography. It was the only Canon product to make the list. Other devices included the Leica M9 and the iPad. I think if you are looking for a pocket sized camera, the S95 is the best out there, hands down.

[VPI]

I would have to say that the only complaint I have about the S95 is the zoom capabilities. Everything else has exceeded my expectations but the zoom has kept me from selling off the SX 210IS with its 14x optical zoom.

[tmwag]

Originally Posted by mchong75

I also don’t know too much about P&S lens to really compare how much faster & better an f/2.0 lens would be compared to an f/3.5 lens where it would on a DSLR lens.

Canon has a larger sensor. But once again, from a P&S camera perspective, does it make that much of a difference? Plus, Nikon has the CMOS sensor vs. Canon’s CCD.

Like I pointed out, from a P&S camera, the ability to take quality pictures, 1080p videos (Pocket size compared to my DSLR’s), faster FPS, faster shutter and better/shorter macro capability appears to me all wrapped up in a reasonable price for a P&S.

A faster lens (2.0 vs 3.5) allows you to use a lower ISO for better IQ and on a small sensored P&S.... lower ISO means less noise... couple that with a larger sensor (S95)..it gets better. The CMOS sensor allows for faster speed and additional circuitry. Which type of sensor (CMOS, CCD) delivers better IQ? The debate rages on I suppose.

IMO,a closer Canon equivalent to the S8100 is the SD4500. Full HD, 36-360 zoom, CMOS sensor, fast frame rate

[agresbach]

i was in the same bout trying to decide between these 2 except one big factor for me was the ability to optically zoom when shooting video. unfortunately none of the canon models are able to do it (w/out a hack) so i had to order the 8100. I would have been fine w/ the lesser zoom and 720p vs 1080p but not being able to zoom when shooting was a deal breaker for me. everything else about the s95 seemed to win hands down as I would have loved to pair it with my 7D as a companion. oh well

[ApGfoo]

Originally Posted by agresbach

i was in the same bout trying to decide between these 2 except one big factor for me was the ability to optically zoom when shooting video. unfortunately none of the canon models are able to do it (w/out a hack) so i had to order the 8100. I would have been fine w/ the lesser zoom and 720p vs 1080p but not being able to zoom when shooting was a deal breaker for me. everything else about the s95 seemed to win hands down as I would have loved to pair it with my 7D as a companion. oh well

my canon sx130 can use optical zoom while recording but my cam isn't in the same league with the s95 or s8100 in terms of still image quality.

as for OP, buy both and play with them and return the one you don't want before 30 days.

[dcorban]

While I agree there was some unnecessary mocking tone in some of the posts here, even as an amateur, I know that the S95 is the superior camera just from the specs given in the OP.

Look at the Nikon specs:
CMOS sensor? worse.
1080p video? unnecessary.
better LCD? have you seen the LCD on the S95? It's crazy good.
faster shooting? would you need this in a situation where you aren't using a DSLR?

If someone is determined to get the Nikon, it appears the only decision points are the zoom, the price, and the physical looks/handling of the camera.