#258377 - 17/06/2005 02:50
SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
After seeing Loren's SD300 in action, I want one of these cameras. Doing the comparison chart at www.dpreview.com , it seems the only difference among those three models is the resolution of the CCD and the price. Are there any other more subtle differences between the models that I'm not seeing on their comparison chart?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258378 - 17/06/2005 04:39
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 12/02/2002
Posts: 2298
Loc: Berkeley, California
|
I recently picked up an s400 for some underwater photography and really found it to be quite a camera. The point and shoot market has really come quite a ways, and can do almost everything a real camera can. I don't really know what the differences between the s400 and the sd400 is, but it really seems like the difference is a few milimeeters and not taking the readily available compact flash cards. I had planned to sell my s400 and it's accompanying underwater case after my trip, but it was such a nice camera I'm tempted to keep it and sell my Casio EX-S2 instead, even though it would mean my "pocket camera" would grow quite a bit. Matthew
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258379 - 17/06/2005 09:42
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
They all have slightly different looking fascias and the SD200 is 15g lighter than the other two 
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258380 - 17/06/2005 13:35
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
But any functionality differences besides the CCD resolution?
See, here's my thinking. I don't care about the extra rez, I'd be most likely at 1600x1200 for most of the shots anyway. And that's lower than the lowest rez of the SD200. So if there's no other difference, then I'd want the cheapest of the three cameras.
I just don't want to buy one and then kick myself for giving up some other feature. Like, the continuous unlimited movie clips that you get on the SD300.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258381 - 17/06/2005 13:43
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2489
|
Get the most expensive. You can afford it - be good to yourself 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258382 - 17/06/2005 13:53
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
You can afford it
That's the problem. I can't. Remember how I said I lost my job a couple months ago?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258383 - 17/06/2005 13:56
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
veteran
Registered: 08/05/2000
Posts: 1429
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
Quote:
But any functionality differences besides the CCD resolution?
See, here's my thinking. I don't care about the extra rez, I'd be most likely at 1600x1200 for most of the shots anyway. And that's lower than the lowest rez of the SD200. So if there's no other difference, then I'd want the cheapest of the three cameras.
I just don't want to buy one and then kick myself for giving up some other feature. Like, the continuous unlimited movie clips that you get on the SD300.
Tony,
The SD400 has some modes that the 300/200 don't have. Color modes - you can do some really cool/funky in camera stuff like isolate a color and make it the only one that stays in color and turn everything else black and white. Or... you can swap colors or enhance colors. That's kinda cool, but not really TOO important. Some other new features are an "enhanced screen" - I think it auto senses the ambient light and adjusts its brightness based on that. Also, some other misc features like the ability to freeze the review screen until you hit the shutter button again after you take a picture (I use that mode). Oh yeah, also it supports USB 2.0 as the 300/200 doesn't.
I'd spring for the 400 if I were to re-buy one. www.bensbargains.net has amazing deals from Dell on the SD400. Check that site...
- Jon
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258384 - 17/06/2005 14:09
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: jbauer]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
you can do some really cool/funky in camera stuff like isolate a color
I could have sworn I saw Loren demonstrate that feature on his SD300. Or did we just talk about that at dinner and I'm imagining I saw it?
Don't care about that feature anyhow... Prefer to postprocess if I'm doing effects.
Quote:
Some other new features are an "enhanced screen" - I think it auto senses the ambient light and adjusts its brightness based on that.
Okay, that's a good one. Hm.
Quote:
Also, some other misc features like the ability to freeze the review screen until you hit the shutter button again after you take a picture
Okay, good feature. But I have a question for SD200/300 owners:
On my current ixus300, I can extend the review time to something like 10 or 20 seconds. Thus letting the last photo hang around on the screen for examination. Halfpressing the shutter button exits this mode early. This would be almost as good as the feature just described. Can the SD200/300 do that?
Quote:
Oh yeah, also it supports USB 2.0
I always get my own card-reader, I never connect directly to the camera. Not a factor.
This is good information so far, Jon. Thanks. Any other specific feature differences you can remember?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258385 - 17/06/2005 14:11
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: jbauer]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Also, don't forget to look over at the other vendors. Nikon, for example, has been aggressively discounting its point-and-shoots. B&H prices below:
Canon SD400: $344 (no memory card)
Nikon Coolpix 5900: $295 (including 512MB SD card, or $250 without a card)
Both are 5 megapixel cameras and have oodles of cool features.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258386 - 17/06/2005 14:13
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Bzzt. Form factor, form factor, form factor.
edit: Sorry, that was rude. What I meant to say was that the coolpix 5900 specifically doesn't give me the form factor I was looking for. It's possible another camera from a company other than Canon might meet my needs, and I'm willing to consider. Any other specific suggestions?
My top needs right now are: Form factor like the SD200/300/400 series, 3x zoom or better, fast response times, and decent indoor/lowlight shots. I've personally seen the 300 take a proper lowlight shot, and it's response times are mind-blowingly fast.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258387 - 17/06/2005 14:19
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
veteran
Registered: 08/05/2000
Posts: 1429
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
Quote:
This is good information so far, Jon. Thanks. Any other specific feature differences you can remember?
A few other things I can think of...
It looks slightly different. The ring surrounding the front lens is grey and not silver... I don't care, but it is different...
Also, it allows you to set the self timer to whatever you want - up to 30 seconds.
Oh yeah, you can zoom (digitally only though) when in movie mode.
Just found this: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021701canon_sd400.asp
- Jon
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258388 - 17/06/2005 14:29
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Okay: Nikon 5900: 150g (without battery) Canon SD400: 130g (without battery) Nikon S1: 118g (without battery, and $360 at B&H) My dad has the Nikon 7900 (same camera as the 5900 but with 7 megapixel sensor). It fits handily in a pocket. If you really care about those extra 20 grams, then there are a variety of other cameras in the same price range as the SD400. Personally, I'm most intrigued by the brand-new Casio EX-S500 or Panasonic Lumix FX8 which both have image stabilization built in. I'm toying with getting something along these lines to toss into the diaper bag so we've always a semi-decent camera with which to take gratuitous baby pictures.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258389 - 17/06/2005 14:31
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: DWallach]
|
veteran
Registered: 08/05/2000
Posts: 1429
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
Quote:
My dad has the Nikon 7900 (same camera as the 5900 but with 7 megapixel sensor). It fits handily in a pocket. If you really care about those extra 20 grams, then there are a variety of other cameras in the same price range as the SD400. Personally, I'm most intrigued by the brand-new Casio EX-S500 or Panasonic Lumix FX8 which both have image stabilization built in. I'm toying with getting something along these lines to toss into the diaper bag so we've always a semi-decent camera with which to take gratuitous baby pictures.
I compared the SD against those and other cameras and finally decided on the SD. Do your own research... They are all good cameras, but ultimately it's a decision based on your own criteria...
But the SD is better...
- Jon
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258390 - 17/06/2005 14:49
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
It fits handily in a pocket.
It's more than just that. It's often gotta fit in the same pocket with my key-wallet or my cell phone. My ixus300 barely fits this bill, and the SD200/300 are significantly smaller and more comfortable and would handle that role even beter. That bulge on the Nikon just gets in the way.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258391 - 17/06/2005 16:16
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
I love my SD300 too. Just a quick suggestion: remember that useless bag that came with your Karma? It works pretty well as a bag for the SD300 when carrying in your pocket. Definitely want to avoid scratching your LCD.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258392 - 17/06/2005 16:20
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
veteran
Registered: 08/05/2000
Posts: 1429
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
Quote:
I love my SD300 too. Just a quick suggestion: remember that useless bag that came with your Karma? It works pretty well as a bag for the SD300 when carrying in your pocket. Definitely want to avoid scratching your LCD.
I use this: http://www.timbuk2.com/tb2/catalog/categories.t2?categoryId=13
Works really well also, especially if you use a messenger bag or similar as it attaches to the strap.
- Jon
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258393 - 17/06/2005 16:55
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
I've been keeping my ixus300 in various pockets and other unprotected places, and its LCD never got scratched, at least not in any way that bothered me.
My feeling about portable gadgets like cell phones, MP3 players, and digital cameras is that they're meant to be used, and that means getting scratched sometimes. I don't mind if there are some scratches on the casing or LCD. So I don't bother with protectors or bags for my portable gadgets.
The convenience of being able to yank it out of my pocket and take a quick shot is more important than whether the LCD is pristine. In fact, that's the same reason that the form factor is so important to me, and the same reason I want a quick response time. That means more chance I'm going to have the camera with me when the opportunity for a shot comes, and more likely to get the shot because I'm not fiddling with a protective case.
(The wrist strap, on the other hand, has saved me from losing or seriously damaging the camera numerous times, so it stays. Well. Except for the time that the mounting plate that holds the wrist strap came unscrewed. That was a scare.)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258394 - 17/06/2005 17:01
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/12/2001
Posts: 5528
|
Quote:
My feeling about portable gadgets like cell phones, MP3 players, and digital cameras is that they're meant to be used, and that means getting scratched sometimes. I don't mind if there are some scratches on the casing or LCD. So I don't bother with protectors or bags for my portable gadgets.
You will want a case for the newer IXUS models as they're made out of something called "Celabrite" which marks very easily. I've got black smear marks on my S500 from where it was rubbed against something which I can't get rid of.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258395 - 17/06/2005 21:21
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3826
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
|
Quote:
I've been keeping my ixus300 in various pockets and other unprotected places, and its LCD never got scratched, at least not in any way that bothered me.
I made this mistake. All of my past Canon camera LCD's NEVER had a scratch on them and I kept them in my pocket all the time.
HOWEVER... my SD300's screen is pretty messed up just from carrying it in my pocket with my cell phone, and I've actually treated it better than my others. This screen seems to have an antireflective coat or some sort of film that scratches REALLY easy. When I say scratch, I don't mean gouge... the platic is actually perfectly smooth without a scratch on it, but the coating is really screwed up and it makes viewing images in any sort of sunlight really annoying. I've attached a crappy cell phone cam shot of the screen... sucks but what I'm talking about is sort of visible.
Point being... I HIGHLY recommend you get one of those sheets of plastic film and put it on your LCD. I'm pretty pissed about mine. I'd never had this issue with my other Powershots so I didn't even bother. Doh.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258397 - 18/06/2005 06:41
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 12/01/2002
Posts: 2009
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Quote:
But I have a question for SD200/300 owners:
On my current ixus300, I can extend the review time to something like 10 or 20 seconds. Thus letting the last photo hang around on the screen for examination. Halfpressing the shutter button exits this mode early. This would be almost as good as the feature just described. Can the SD200/300 do that?
Yes. I don't have my SD300/Ixus 40 here but I'm sure it's selectable in seconds. You can also press the Func button and it will stay there indefinitely until you half press the shutter button.
As for the comparisons I would expect the SD400 to have extra features over the 200/300 merely because it's a newer model.
_________________________
Christian
#40104192 120Gb (no longer in my E36 M3, won't fit the E46 M3)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258398 - 18/06/2005 18:04
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: Shonky]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
As for the comparisons I would expect the SD400 to have extra features over the 200/300 merely because it's a newer model.
Maybe. The new SD500 certainly has a completely different case design. Perhaps it has other new features under the hood that don't appear in the earlier cameras.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258399 - 18/06/2005 19:15
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: DWallach]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 931
Loc: Minnetonka, MN
|
Yeah..i know from personal experience my SD400 Canon LCD scratches very easily.....It is a good camera though....it is very fast...turns on very fast and focuses very fast.....The SD500 adds a couple of other picture 'modes' (ex. fireworks, snow- I think)...but I would go with the SD400. The only bad thing is that in low light situations (ex. U2 concerts), it blurs really easily, but that is the same with most non-SLR digital cameras)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258400 - 19/06/2005 02:12
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
member
Registered: 12/08/2001
Posts: 175
Loc: Atlanta
|
Quote:
Okay, point taken, I'll find some of that clear static sheeting, then
I picked up an LCD protector for my SD400 from www.daproducts.com - the 'oly for $6. I've seen some reviews saying that the LCD can break easily so I bought it just to be safe.
Also, Target has a good Samsonite case for the SD400 for $3.99!
One thing: the battery cover is a little flimsy. I would avoid opening it a lot to remove the SD card. You may want to use the camera to get the pictures instead of an external card reader.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258401 - 21/06/2005 12:27
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: Folsom]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 931
Loc: Minnetonka, MN
|
The battery cover does seem flimsy. However, the cover for the USB port seems flimsier....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258402 - 22/06/2005 14:55
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: Folsom]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 931
Loc: Minnetonka, MN
|
Is your LCD protect really clear....as in you don't even notice it is there? I really need to get one for mine....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258403 - 23/06/2005 11:59
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: burdell1]
|
member
Registered: 12/08/2001
Posts: 175
Loc: Atlanta
|
It is pretty clear. I did smudge it a little when I put it on so I'll have to take it off to clean.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258404 - 23/06/2005 13:14
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
I used my brother's SD500 extensively in May while in Cuba. I have no reason to believe you wouldn't be as happy with the SD400 if resolution isn't high on your list of concerns.
The lens is very good (sharp, decently fast), the processor/firmware very snappy, pictures have superb color and it takes excellent (better than excellent) underwater pictures (this is a good measure of low light and focus performance).
My only wish were that the mode dial and tele/wide controls were swapped. Anyway, he printed about 400 pictures from our trip - and he didn't take that many more while we were away. Goes to show that the vast majority of shots came out quite well.
If you need to take low light shots of distant subjects (too far for the flash), like any camera, use a tripod or other support device. The flash was respectably powerful for a small camera though.
Bruno
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258405 - 23/06/2005 14:18
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I have no reason to believe you wouldn't be as happy with the SD400 if resolution isn't high on your list of concerns.
Actually, I'm thinking I'd be happy with an SD200 or an SD300.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#258406 - 25/06/2005 13:59
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Those two should be fine as well. Lower resolution sensor, but I'm sure they have to maintain the overall quality of the other models to be part of the same line. I won't be buying another medium-sized camera for a while (to replace my Nikon E5700), but I may pick up something like the SD500 sooner or later. It's a much nicer size to take absolutely everywhere. And did I mention the underwater housing? Bruno
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
.jpg){kind=link}