An actually small compact?

It's time to change my compact, but I have difficulty picking one. I need one that's *actually* small. I used to have a SD450 and upgraded to a SD890IS. The latter is noticeably larger and heavier. It nagged me at the time but now that I am carrying a DSLR when I think I'll make pictures I won't take it anymore.

What I want:

• size: 3.4"x2.1"x0.85" (SD450) is much better than 3.8"x2.3"x1.1" (SD890IS)
  
• high iso performance nice to have
  
• would be nice to have min. 28mm focal length equivalent or lower
  
• I also like the 3-way master switch better than buttons for image preview that the SD890 has that always get pocket-dialed
  

• zoom, long focal length
  
• video
  
• IS
  

We have an SD1400 and it is insanely small and provides good results. High ISO, well it is a compact with a small sensor so don't expect miracles.

The 300HS looks like a SD1400 with 1080p, but since you said you don't care about video I would save the cash and get the 1400.

300HS is the ticket, video needs or not, due to the sensor as well as the slightly
better texture of the camera, much easier to hold while still being quite small and
pocketable too !
G2

I just can't see $100 more value in the 300HS over the SD1400, and that's the price difference lately.

You don't think the 300HS CMOS sensor will do better than the SD1400 in high ISO?

The SD1400 is, for me, far too smooth a body, I found it to be quite hard to hold,
especially compared to the 300, gave my SD1400 to the wife, but if I had the $$
to do so, I'd pick her up a 300 also.
G2

uOpt wrote in post #12370632
You don't think the 300HS CMOS sensor will do better than the SD1400 in high ISO?

Well, I guess Canon wants you to think it can do better with it's HS CMOS sensor vs a CCD sensor on the SD1400. They both have the same DIGIC 4 processor. I haven't seen any head to head comparisons.

Actually the 300 HS also has a slight wider lens at 24mm FF equivalent versus the SD1400's 28mm.

I think if high ISO is even on the criteria list, you are looking at the wrong camera category. The 300HS might be a little bit better, but isn't going to be good at ISO 400+

tkbslc wrote in post #12370967
I think if high ISO is even on the criteria list, you are looking at the wrong camera category. The 300HS might be a little bit better, but isn't going to be good at ISO 400+

It's in the mini-compact category. I drag around the DSLR when I can.

Anyway, since all compacts suck at high ISO it is even more important to get one that sucks less, no?

I am just saying neither are really up to the task. If you weigh 200lbs, is a raft that supports 125lbs better than one that supports 100lbs? No, because you'll sink in either one! Even if you get the 300HS, you won't be comfortable shooting above ISO 400, so does it really matter if it looks slightly less awful at ISO 1600?

I consider "high iso" == "highest decent looking ISO"

I could bump it in PP otherwise.

Here are reviews for both;

http://www.DigitalCame​raReview.com …ew=canon+powers​hot+300+hs

http://www.digitalcame​rareview.com …ew=canon+powers​hot+sd1400

Dennis

I just got the SD1400 and love how conpact it is.

tkbslc wrote in post #12370967
I think if high ISO is even on the criteria list, you are looking at the wrong camera category. The 300HS might be a little bit better, but isn't going to be good at ISO 400+

Actually...I'm not sure that's true.

Someone pointed out to me that...well, here's the specs for the 500hs -
http://www.dpreview.co​m …1020715canonixu​s310hs.asp

Sensor
- 1/2.3" type back-illuminated CMOS
- 12.1 million effective pixels

Specs for the 300hs - http://www.dpreview.co​m …1020712canonixu​s220hs.asp
Sensor
- 1/2.3" type back-illuminated CMOS
- 12.1 million effective pixels

They look like they might use the same sensor, which if they did would have the same high iso performance, and since the 500hs has similar iso performance to the s95 (though it likely lacks a little extra detail), the only difference might be the f2.7 vs f2.0 lens for low light...