SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ?
Posted by: tfabris
SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 02:50
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?
Posted by: matthew_k
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 04:39
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
Posted by: andy
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 09:42
They all have slightly different looking fascias and the SD200 is 15g lighter than the other two
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 13:35
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.
Get the most expensive. You can afford it - be good to yourself
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 13:53
Quote:
You can afford it
That's the problem. I can't. Remember how I said I lost my job a couple months ago?
Posted by: jbauer
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 13:56
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
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 14:09
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?
Posted by: DWallach
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 14:11
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.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 14:13
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.
Posted by: jbauer
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 14:19
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
Posted by: DWallach
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 14:29
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.
Posted by: jbauer
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 14:31
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
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 14:49
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.
Posted by: JBjorgen
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 16:16
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.
Posted by: jbauer
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 16:20
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
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 16:55
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.)
Posted by: tman
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 17:01
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.
Posted by: loren
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 21:21
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.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 17/06/2005 21:24
Okay, point taken, I'll find some of that clear static sheeting, then.
Posted by: Shonky
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 18/06/2005 06:41
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.
Posted by: DWallach
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 18/06/2005 18:04
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.
Posted by: burdell1
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 18/06/2005 19:15
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)
Posted by: Folsom
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 19/06/2005 02:12
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.
Posted by: burdell1
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 21/06/2005 12:27
The battery cover does seem flimsy. However, the cover for the USB port seems flimsier....
Posted by: burdell1
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 22/06/2005 14:55
Is your LCD protect really clear....as in you don't even notice it is there? I really need to get one for mine....
Posted by: Folsom
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 23/06/2005 11:59
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.
Posted by: hybrid8
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 23/06/2005 13:14
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
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 23/06/2005 14:18
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.
Posted by: hybrid8
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 25/06/2005 13:59
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
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 25/06/2005 14:24
One thing I want to verify in this thread... Assuming that I've got a high speed memory card, will movie-mode be continuous/unlimited on all of these models? (200 through 500)
Posted by: jbauer
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 25/06/2005 14:25
Quote:
One thing I want to verify in this thread... Assuming that I've got a high speed memory card, will movie-mode be continuous/unlimited on all of these models? (200 through 500)
Yes, I've read some reports that a NORMAL speed works ok, and others that say that a normal doesn't cut it. I got the Sandisk Ultra II 1GB.
- Jon
Posted by: StigOE
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 25/06/2005 15:14
I picked up an Ixus700 today, which I'm also going to get an underwaterhouse for when I go diving after the Empeg meet...
Stig
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 26/06/2005 23:56
Thread wrap-up:
Picked up the SD200 at Beastbuy today, the difference in price for the higher models was too much for me. Also got a second battery and a 512 high speed memory card. Wanted a gig, they didn't have any in stock. The 512 looks to be enough for me for now.
Boy oh boy does this little camera ever kick ass. I love everything about it. The software has all the features I want and more. Including ISO control, something that was missing from my ixus300.
Lurve this little camera. Just lurve it.
Thanks for all the information and advice.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 27/06/2005 00:09
Okay, not closing this thread quite yet....
Quote:
I picked up an LCD protector for my SD400 from www.daproducts.com - the 'oly for $6.
I looked at the website and it scared me. Said something about attaching it with adhesive.
Really all I need is some of that static cling stuff... adhesive worries me.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 27/06/2005 00:14
Never mind. Had a piece of static decal left over from a totally different thing that I think I can cannibalize to the right size. No purchase necessary.
Posted by: robricc
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 27/06/2005 00:24
Quote:
Wanted a gig, they didn't have any in stock.
I have a 66x 1GB SD card I'm looking to get rid of. Used for about 30 minutes.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 27/06/2005 00:51
Oh really? PM me.
Posted by: Folsom
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 27/06/2005 12:52
Quote:
I looked at the website and it scared me. Said something about attaching it with adhesive.
The adhesive is a couple strips of thin double sided tape. It shouldn't be too hard to take the protector off. I'll try taking it off sometime since I didn't get the protector on without smudging it.
Posted by: JBjorgen
Re: SD200 vs SD300 vs SD400 ? - 28/06/2005 10:50
I got mine in today (da protector). It's thicker than I thought. I'll try to get a picture or two.