S40 vs G2, My Observations on Both Cameras

• Scotty

Daryl Maskell said:

Hi all on the Canon Forum,

Just my observations on both the G2 and the S40 to anyone
interested in the on-going debate on both cameras.

I have had the G2 for a month and shot hundreds of pics, the G2 is
a great camera, if slightly bulky.

The image quality is excellent, noise is low, ca's are slight,
resolution is excellent, colour saturation is slightly under
saturated, but accurate, battery life is very good, focus has
problems locking on to peoples faces.

I now have the S40 which also is an excellent camera for its size.

This is how I found it compares to the G2 with a Side-by Side
comparison.

The image quality is "almost" as good as the G2, except for
slightly soft/blurred edges to the edge/corners of the frame, (may
be due to small lens)

Slower lens on S40, darker images on telephoto extreme.

Resolution is about the same. Image jpeg size is similar, CA's are
slightly stronger, image noise is increased slightly in some shots.

Colour saturation is slightly stronger and more vivid than the G2
and fairly accurate, flash is not as powerful as G2, has problems
filling the frame or over-exposes subject if too close.

Focus, problems like the G2, locking onto peoples faces

Battery life is not as good, requires more frequent charges

It seems to me that the S40 is an excellent alternative to the G2,
where "size and image quality" is important to the user and can
easily be carried in a coat pocket, comes to life quickly by
sliding the lens cover back, takes excellent "quality" pictures
virtually on par with the G2, is easy to use is full auto or manual
mode and also,

If you are willing to lose the flip out screen of the G2, the
faster lens, the remote control, the external flash mount, the
longer battery life, the additional size and weight, then the S40
is the best alternative, it is an excellent camera in its own right.

Hope this helps anyone interested in comparing the S40 to the G2

Just my observations while in possession of both cameras.

Regards

Daryl Maskell

Click to expand...

Scottyee said:

Hi Daryl,

In addition to the 'flip out twist' LCD screen on the G2, the G2's
LCD screen has anti-reflective coating whereas the S40 does not.

Can someone please provide an LCD image quality comparison of
the G2 & S40 LCD screens.

1) Does having the anti reflective coating make a BIG difference in
viewability? Full sunlight, Indoors, etc?

Click to expand...

Scottyee said:

2) Are there any LCD pic viewing features (9 at a time,
enlarging/panning a specific area (3x zoom), slide show, etc)
available on the G2 not included in the S40?

Click to expand...

jamieo said:

Scottyee said:

Hi Daryl,

In addition to the 'flip out twist' LCD screen on the G2, the G2's
LCD screen has anti-reflective coating whereas the S40 does not.

Can someone please provide an LCD image quality comparison of
the G2 & S40 LCD screens.

1) Does having the anti reflective coating make a BIG difference in
viewability? Full sunlight, Indoors, etc?

Click to expand...

I had a S40 for a few days before changing it for a G2 (I wanted a
camera that I could learn more about photography rather than a snap
style camera - by that I don't mean any disrespect to the S40
though!!!).

From my experience, the flip out screen on the G2 is a big bonus,
it just makes life easier and things more usable.

However, the as far as the anti reflective coating on the G2 goes,
I don't rate it that much. I find you have to be quite square on to
the G2's screen to really see it. The S40 on the other hand had a
much better screen IMHO as you could view it from a much wider
angle.

So for me I've not noticed any difference with the coating. I
prefer the G2's flip out usability, but I think the S40 had a
better actual screen.

jamieo said:

2) Are there any LCD pic viewing features (9 at a time,
enlarging/panning a specific area (3x zoom), slide show, etc)
available on the G2 not included in the S40?

Click to expand...

Not that I remember. The screens are very similar size too (maybe
identical?)

Jamie

Click to expand...

JAlonzo said:

Scottyee; I'm curious to understand why you believe you can learn
more about photography using the G2 vs. the S40?

Click to expand...

• Scottyee

JAlonzo said:

jamieo said:

Scottyee said:

Hi Daryl,

In addition to the 'flip out twist' LCD screen on the G2, the G2's
LCD screen has anti-reflective coating whereas the S40 does not.

Can someone please provide an LCD image quality comparison of
the G2 & S40 LCD screens.

1) Does having the anti reflective coating make a BIG difference in
viewability? Full sunlight, Indoors, etc?

Click to expand...

I had a S40 for a few days before changing it for a G2 (I wanted a
camera that I could learn more about photography rather than a snap
style camera - by that I don't mean any disrespect to the S40
though!!!).

From my experience, the flip out screen on the G2 is a big bonus,
it just makes life easier and things more usable.

However, the as far as the anti reflective coating on the G2 goes,
I don't rate it that much. I find you have to be quite square on to
the G2's screen to really see it. The S40 on the other hand had a
much better screen IMHO as you could view it from a much wider
angle.

So for me I've not noticed any difference with the coating. I
prefer the G2's flip out usability, but I think the S40 had a
better actual screen.

JAlonzo said:

2) Are there any LCD pic viewing features (9 at a time,
enlarging/panning a specific area (3x zoom), slide show, etc)
available on the G2 not included in the S40?

Click to expand...

Not that I remember. The screens are very similar size too (maybe
identical?)

Jamie

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

• G2 supports 'Pan Focus ' exposure mode whereas the S40 does not.
• The S40 includes a 'voice annotation' feature whereas the G2 does not.

• Scotty

JAlonzo said:

jamieo said:

Scottyee said:

Hi Daryl,

In addition to the 'flip out twist' LCD screen on the G2, the G2's
LCD screen has anti-reflective coating whereas the S40 does not.

Can someone please provide an LCD image quality comparison of
the G2 & S40 LCD screens.

1) Does having the anti reflective coating make a BIG difference in
viewability? Full sunlight, Indoors, etc?

Click to expand...

I had a S40 for a few days before changing it for a G2 (I wanted a
camera that I could learn more about photography rather than a snap
style camera - by that I don't mean any disrespect to the S40
though!!!).

From my experience, the flip out screen on the G2 is a big bonus,
it just makes life easier and things more usable.

However, the as far as the anti reflective coating on the G2 goes,
I don't rate it that much. I find you have to be quite square on to
the G2's screen to really see it. The S40 on the other hand had a
much better screen IMHO as you could view it from a much wider
angle.

So for me I've not noticed any difference with the coating. I
prefer the G2's flip out usability, but I think the S40 had a
better actual screen.

JAlonzo said:

2) Are there any LCD pic viewing features (9 at a time,
enlarging/panning a specific area (3x zoom), slide show, etc)
available on the G2 not included in the S40?

Click to expand...

Not that I remember. The screens are very similar size too (maybe
identical?)

Jamie

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Daryl Maskell said:

Hi all on the Canon Forum,

Just my observations on both the G2 and the S40 to anyone
interested in the on-going debate on both cameras.

I have had the G2 for a month and shot hundreds of pics, the G2 is
a great camera, if slightly bulky.

The image quality is excellent, noise is low, ca's are slight,
resolution is excellent, colour saturation is slightly under
saturated, but accurate, battery life is very good, focus has
problems locking on to peoples faces.

I now have the S40 which also is an excellent camera for its size.

This is how I found it compares to the G2 with a Side-by Side
comparison.

The image quality is "almost" as good as the G2, except for
slightly soft/blurred edges to the edge/corners of the frame, (may
be due to small lens)

Slower lens on S40, darker images on telephoto extreme.

Resolution is about the same. Image jpeg size is similar, CA's are
slightly stronger, image noise is increased slightly in some shots.

Colour saturation is slightly stronger and more vivid than the G2
and fairly accurate, flash is not as powerful as G2, has problems
filling the frame or over-exposes subject if too close.

Focus, problems like the G2, locking onto peoples faces

Battery life is not as good, requires more frequent charges

It seems to me that the S40 is an excellent alternative to the G2,
where "size and image quality" is important to the user and can
easily be carried in a coat pocket, comes to life quickly by
sliding the lens cover back, takes excellent "quality" pictures
virtually on par with the G2, is easy to use is full auto or manual
mode and also,

If you are willing to lose the flip out screen of the G2, the
faster lens, the remote control, the external flash mount, the
longer battery life, the additional size and weight, then the S40
is the best alternative, it is an excellent camera in its own right.

Hope this helps anyone interested in comparing the S40 to the G2

Just my observations while in possession of both cameras.

Regards

Daryl Maskell

Click to expand...

Daryl Maskell said:

Just an update to my observations to both cameras.

Having had the G2 for a month and the S40 for a week now and
comparing both cameras side by side, I'm afraid the G2 wins the
debate and the S40 will have to go back for the following reasons.

The S40, I found is an excellent "Sunny Day" camera that you can
take anywhere, It is small, fairly light and takes excellent
"outdoor Photos"

The problems I found compared to the G2 was as follows:

1/ Image badly distorted/blurred towards the edges/corners of the
frame, mainly at wide angle.

2/ Very,Very Dark images indoors if the zoom is used from wide
angle to max, in both full auto or manual setup mode. Flash in
use.(very slow lens)

3/ Flash underpowered, will not fill complete frame, brighter in
middle, falls of sharply to edge of frame, not even exposure.

4/ Flash overexposes if subject is reasonably close, flash will not
step down with zoom. If subject is about 3 meters away, flash is
not powerful enough.

5/ AF, focus has great dificulty focusing on peoples faces, worse
than G2.

6/ Battery life not good, cannot charge battery in-camera, no ac
power adapter/charger like G2

7/ Manual focus tricky to use with children, time taken then child
moves.

8/ CA.s (puple fringing) mild to strong in high contrast shots

9/ Image noise at iso 50/100 stronger than G2 at same.

Sorry all, but I gave both cameras the same tests, if the S40 came
out the same as the G2, I would have kept it as I realy liked the
size and "outdoor" image quality of the S40, but given its
limitations and loss of all the G2 standard features and the very
poor indoor images of the S40, it went back to the dealers today
for a refund.

My conclusion, the S40 is an excellent "outdoor" camera in its own
right, But not a match for the G2.

Sorry any potential S40 owners, I am keeping my G2

Kind Regards

Daryl

Daryl Maskell said:

Hi all on the Canon Forum,

Just my observations on both the G2 and the S40 to anyone
interested in the on-going debate on both cameras.

I have had the G2 for a month and shot hundreds of pics, the G2 is
a great camera, if slightly bulky.

The image quality is excellent, noise is low, ca's are slight,
resolution is excellent, colour saturation is slightly under
saturated, but accurate, battery life is very good, focus has
problems locking on to peoples faces.

I now have the S40 which also is an excellent camera for its size.

This is how I found it compares to the G2 with a Side-by Side
comparison.

The image quality is "almost" as good as the G2, except for
slightly soft/blurred edges to the edge/corners of the frame, (may
be due to small lens)

Slower lens on S40, darker images on telephoto extreme.

Resolution is about the same. Image jpeg size is similar, CA's are
slightly stronger, image noise is increased slightly in some shots.

Colour saturation is slightly stronger and more vivid than the G2
and fairly accurate, flash is not as powerful as G2, has problems
filling the frame or over-exposes subject if too close.

Focus, problems like the G2, locking onto peoples faces

Battery life is not as good, requires more frequent charges

It seems to me that the S40 is an excellent alternative to the G2,
where "size and image quality" is important to the user and can
easily be carried in a coat pocket, comes to life quickly by
sliding the lens cover back, takes excellent "quality" pictures
virtually on par with the G2, is easy to use is full auto or manual
mode and also,

If you are willing to lose the flip out screen of the G2, the
faster lens, the remote control, the external flash mount, the
longer battery life, the additional size and weight, then the S40
is the best alternative, it is an excellent camera in its own right.

Hope this helps anyone interested in comparing the S40 to the G2

Just my observations while in possession of both cameras.

Regards

Daryl Maskell

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

TQT said:

In answer to your question, while the S40 has a lot of features it
is true that the G1/G2 is more adept at letting user experiment,
the small size and lack of an independent LCD for data display does
not help. I can also mention

1 - External flash - a major part there is experimenting with dual
flash, lighting angle balance etc. very difficult with the S40 (and
its pre flash make it difficult to use a slave).

2 - Additional lens - again a crucial part of photography,
composition and perspective can only be learnt using different
focal length

3 - Filter - need I say more ?

4 - Macro attachment

Click to expand...

jamieo said:

Canon make an underwater case for it. When I looked into it it
seemed I'd be better off with a Ikelite housing for a G2 (more
expensive though)

Click to expand...