Canon Powershot S110 or EOS M?

Started Nov 22, 2012 | Questions thread
Lk400
Regular MemberPosts: 100
Like?
Re: Canon Powershot S110 or EOS M?
In reply to PaulRivers, Nov 30, 2012

PaulRivers wrote:

Peter Berglund wrote:

Thanks everyone!

It seems like the recommendations are either a) none of the above (get a true DSLR) or, b) get a Nikon 1.

I have pretty much ruled out getting a full sized DSLR since I wouldn't have it with me. I will read up on the Nikon 1 cameras. Is the cconsensus here that the V1 for example takes way better pictures than the S110 to motivate the price in terms of dollars and size?

Thanks

-- hide signature --

Peter

The s110 isn't going to cut it for an active child. I have the s100 and the shutter lag is pretty slow (no one seems to know exactly if it's improved on the s100), and the sensor performance isn't quite going to be up to snuff for indoor lighting with an active child. It might be an option if it was the only choice, but the Sony rx100 is only slightly thicker, and better for both sensor performance and autofocus lag.

The EOS-M *is* the most compact camera you can currently buy with a dslr-sized sensor, and a compact prime lens (the f2.0 lens). But apparently with the f2.0 lens, it's autofocus isn't as fast as a dslr.

The Sony rx100 is the best truly compact camera you can buy for your purposes. It's autofocus is rated by imaging resource to be faster than several dslr's. It's sensor size is the same size as the Nikon 1 - essentially obsoleting the Nikon 1 completely. It's lens is f1.8 which is close to the best you can get on a compact (there are a few with a better lens, but they have a worse sensor, the rx100 still edges them out for being the best).

The other option is to get m43rds with their prime lens - their low light performance isn't quite as good as the EOS-M, but it's close, and they have a reputation for faster autofocus. Like the Panasonic gx1 with the f1.7 20mm prime.

I'd rate them like this:

Size (from best to less good):
1. Sony rx100
2. EOS-M & m43rds

Low Light Performance (from best to less good):
1. EOS-M
2. m43rds
3. Sony rx100
Autofocus Speed (with a compact prime for the mirrorless options):
1. Sony rx100
2. m43rds
3. EOS-M
Cost:
1. Sony rx100 - $650
2. m43rds - Panasonic gx1 with f1.7 prime - $800
3. EOS-M w/f2.0 prime - $800
I think those 3 are your best options. There are other options, but I don't think they're as good. Canon makes a g1x with a large sensor, but it's autofocus is dog slow. The Nikon 1 series has been essentially obsoleted by the rx100, which is smaller though it uses the same size sensor. The Nikon 1 may have faster frames per second, but the rx100 is already 10fps or something - how much faster can one get? Plus the Nikon 1 is more expensive, it's bigger than the rx100 - and will give you the same low light performance at best. Sony also make the NEX, which has a dlsr-sized sensor and responsive autofocus - unfortunately they still don't have a *compact* prime lens that's f2.0 or better...sigh.

Anyways, I think it's between the Sony rx100, m43rds with f1.7 prime, and the EOS-M, if size if your priority. The rx100 is the only one that's small enough to carry in your jeans pocket - it's going to bulge out from your pocket a bit (it's not as sleek as the s100 by a small amount), but having a funny looking pocket is a lot better than the m43rds or EOS-M sizes which are big enough to be pretty awkward to walk around with in a pocket.

Very good summary - totally agree

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow