SD4000 vs S90 vs ZS6 - Evening indoor shots

Ok...this may not be the greatest way to compare but I uploaded some photos to Snapfish. Of course it won't show the extended info and the images may not display quite as nicely as they do here. I uploaded in full res but who know what Snapfish actually does to them to display them. The "low" file numbers are from the S90 and the "high" file numbers are from the SD4000. You will need a Snapfish account (free) to view them.

As you can see in some cases the images were quite close, other cases the differences were somewhat dramatic and at times the SD4000 delivered a better image. For example, the very first photo of the large wine bottle I feel the SD4000 delivered the better image. It was both crisper and had less noise than the image from the S90. But the camera box photo from the S90 is clearly much crisper. The indoor image of the LR/DR is crisper from the S90 but the shot from the SD4000 is more accurate in terms of lighting and color. Outdoors, the photo of the yellow flower shows a pretty dramatic difference with the photo from the S90 being so much crisper the shot from the SD4000 actually looks out of focus. Perhaps it was as it was quite windy that day. The landscape shots of the backyard are also much better from the S90.

Hope this helps.

http://www1.snapfish.com/snapfish/thumbnailshare/AlbumID=2277500012/a=104783654_104783654/otsc=SHR/otsi=SALBlink/COBRAND_NAME=snapfish/

Schaf

Once again, Schaf-

Many thanks for all of your efforts and support of this SD-4000 and S-90 comparison. Unfortunately the Snapfish (a great idea) link did not work.

Sarah Joyce

Bummer Sarah. I just tested the Snapfish link and it seemed to work fine for me. You do no need to have a Snapfish account to view. It is free to create. If you already have one and the link did not work, I am at a loss.

If there is still interest at the beginning of July, I will re-post here when I can.

Schaf

Ok I uploaded the same set to Flickr. Unfortunately it crunches everything down to 1024 x 768 for its "large" size. Actually that may not be so bad because what it demonstrates is that when these images are viewed at screen size versus zoomed to 100% the difference between the two cameras are minor. The S90 has a slight edge in clarity and color saturation in most but not all situations. I would submit that the difference is pretty minor unless one is a pixel peeper. But, that is simply my subjective opinion and I know others here will have a differing opinion.

If one is simply viewing and appreciating a photo instead of analyzing it, I think it would be hard to be disappointed with the images from either camera. Especially when you compare the SD4000 to others in ITS class as a point-and-shoot versus comparing it to things like the S90 or G10. To me, they are not really the same class of camera and not the same target market. So while I have found my personal comparison SD4000 and S90 interesting and helpful in my decision process I feel it is not really a fair comparison.

For anyone pitting the SD4000 against the S90 all I can say is take both cameras home and see which one works best for your particular need. The indoor performance and size of the SD4000 is tough to beat and for many people this is going to be an ideal camera, especially if HD video is a requirement. For me personally, the S90 turned out to be the better choice as in the end like many other forum participants it came down to my desire to get the absolute best image quality I could for $350. To achieve that I was willing to take a slightly larger camera than I was originally looking for, one that perhaps requires a bit more work to get the best result and one that does not do HD video. In terms of image quality, is seems at the end of the day size does matter. The tiny cameras just do not quite deliver the same image quality as the larger or even only slightly larger cameras such as in the case of the S90. It seems even just a slightly larger lens makes all the differences in the world.

The SD4000 and S90 are both great cameras and in my personal tests both of them produced better images than the other cameras I have tried out in the past 8 months such as the Lumix ZS3 & ZS6, Nikon S570 & S640, Fuji F70EXR and Canon SD3500. The S90 and SD4000 are also the most flexible in a wide variety of lighting conditions. All of those in the list above basically failed me indoors with normal residential lighting, especially when it was dark out. You know, those cases where many people do simply want to put it on Auto to get a quick photo of a family event.

I believe I have set the Flickr link so anyone and everyone can view.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47434316@N02/

The lowest file numbers are from the S90 and the higher file numbers are from the SD4000. The paris are all presented with the photo from the S90 first followed by the photo of the SD4000, with the exception of the yellow daisy that puts the SD4000 photo first. Flickr uploaded it backwards for some reason and would not let me change it. Hopefully these images on Flickr are helpful.

Schaf

After comparing the SD4000 and S90 samples on Imaging-Resource.com, I have to disagree with various conclusions in this thread. The image quality difference between the two cameras is tiny.

1) There is not a significant difference in detail due to noise reduction.

2) The S90's lens has a bit more contrast and maaaaybe a bit more clarity.

3) The image processing on the two cameras seems identical.

4) The SD4000 macro mode can focus much closer and with better corner sharpness.

After trying out the SD4000 for two weeks and about 500 photos and now the S90, I have to agree the difference in image quality between the two are minor.

In my test macro shots, I would say clarity and focus was about even between the two. The only edge I would give to the S90 in those cases is that the colors seems a bit better with the S90. This seems to be a somewhat common comment that the colors on the SD4000 do not seem quit as saturated as on the S90.

Indoors, I probably prefer the SD4000 slightly. For the landscape shots though, about 50% of what I take, the S90 is delivers a much crisper image and more detail for items off in the distance.

They are both great cameras.

Schaf

I do want to add that at least in my test samples, the S90 delivers the sharpest image most of the time, though it is certainly not that much sharper frankly. In some cases such as the macro shots both cameras delivered very sharp images and some not so sharp images. If one really analyzes them and views at 100%, the S90 has an edge in clarity that becomes obvious when viewing the same shots from each camera side-by-side, as I have done. But, we could all drive ourselves crazy by over analyzing these images to pinpoint minute difference between two great products.

I have no loyalty to either camera, or to Canon for that matter. I will make no claim that my tests are anything close to what the professional reviewers do or even many of the participants here. I am just a person who enjoys taking photos. I have been frustrated with my aging A95 for a couple of years now and I went shopping for a replacement. I started that process last November and now finally 8 months later and about 2000 photos later I have settled on the S90 because I felt of the cameras that I have tried in the general $150 - $350 price range it delivered the best image. I should note I was able to buy the S90 for $340. Given what the SD4000 delivers for at its current price of $350, I don't think I would be wiling to pay $400 for the S90. The difference is just not that great. But, at virtually the same price the S90 has the edge in image quality.

Schaf

Something else I just noticed is the continuous shooting mode on the SD4000: 3.7 fps vs. 0.9 fps on the S90. Wow!!! I use this feature on all cameras to obtain blur-free shots at night (or for taking pictures of babies and people who won't hold still). Just take a bundle of shots and pick the best one.

I don't own either camera, but they both seem really good. I wish Canon would speed up their autofocus though instead of slowing it down. (Seems to me previous models focused faster.) Nikon compacts have nearly instant focus now, but I don't like their image processing and they have no f/2.0 compacts.

There are both really good. They each have their strengths. I have not used the burst mode. You may have already seen my posted photos of each, but in the event you have not here is a link to the albums. It is less than scientific but a reasonable comparison.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6201733844/albums

Schaf

In terms of overall operational speed....the SD4000 "feels" quicker than the S90. Again, the difference in speed is minor and for what I do the S90 is plenty fast, and MUCH faster than my A95.

The Nikon Cameras, starting with last years S640 and now this years Coolpix Sx000 models all have very faster operational speed and quick Auto Focus. I did not try any of this years models but I was unhappy with the indoor photos from the S570 and S640. That said, for a super tiny and inexpensive point-and-shoot both of those cameras are decent and quite clean up to about ISO 800 and a 5x optical zoom.

The Sony DSC-TX7 and Sony HX5V have very fast burst modes, rated at 10fps at FULL 10.2mp resolution. I don't know for sure, but it appears that Canon may be using the Sony CMOS sensor used in these two cameras in the SD4000. At least that is what one concludes after reading the chatter on the Web. I tend to believe it as Canon does not indicate in the marketing of the SD4000 that it is a Canon sensor, only that it is a CMOS sensor. Personally I don't think that that is bad. Sony is very experienced in digital imaging products.

The Sony HX5V is very close in size to the S90 and also has a 10x zoom. That said, from what I have seen the indoor performance does not seem on par with the S90 and the outdoor shots seems a bit soft due to over aggressive noise reduction. Neither Sony Camera provides an Aperture or Shutter Priority mode but they do offer Sweep Panorama and some interesting low light modes.

If the high burst rate is a top requirement, both of these may be worth checking out and there is some Father's Day promotional pricing in effect now.

Schaf

Thanks for the snapfish comparison demonstration Schaf: I found it very helpful. To me the s90 just gives out that certain "something" that makes them more appealing than those SD4000 shots which somehow look more "ordinary" or P&S by comparison. But it is close.

Agreed RKral,

After I had an S90 home for a day and still had the SD4000 it became obvious that, while they are VERY close, the S90 produces the better images overall most of the time.

I LOVE the size and flexibility of the SD4000. To me, it is very cool how you can slip into your a pocket a camera that delivers such outstanding images and have the bonus of HD video.

I feel the SD4000 generally does a better job indoors when set to Auto than the S90, even though the images are not quite as crisp. In some cases though the SD4000 delivered the crisper image. Indoor the colors seem just a bit more natural to me than what I have gotten thus far from the S90 (when set to Auto). Outdoors however, the S90 gets the most accurate colors.

After all of the analysis though, for all but the most discriminating owners I think people would be happy with the results from SD4000. But as you said, it IS after all a point-and-shoot.

Schaf

To my suspicion, most of the IQ difference is when shooting in base ISO(outdoor) where the S90 uses 80 vs 125(SD4000) am I correct? When shooting with the same ISO, the IQ is closer...That's why you should not use AUTO when doing a comparison. You should never use AUTO at all actually.

Actually indoors, both cameras when set to Auto "generally" choose not to use the flash and the ISO levels were a fair bit higher than base. Indoors in my house with normal residential lighting the SD4000 seemed to, in most cases, do a better job of getting the white balance and exposure correct. The S90 often, but not always generated the crisper image. Outdoors, the S90 usually delivered the most accurate color and exposure, but it did not beat the SD4000 100% of the time.

Not that they are magazine quality shots or even all that interesting, but I took about 500 test shots with SD4000 and about 200 with the S90. I tried to search out things that I thought would be difficult for a camera to capture correctly or that would show its ability to focus or not. After looking at (well, I should say analyzing) all of those I decided on the S90 as the majority of the time it seems to generate an image that is at least slightly sharper with more accurate color. Is this due only to ISO? Probably not.

Many others have commented that the focus of the SD4000 is a little soft and the colors not as saturated as typical Canon products. While m (Auto only) test shots would seem to confirm this to some extent, the difference are really quite minor and the S90 is not always the "crisp picture" winner and indoors not always the best color. So, probably even a generalized statement such as the S90 is crisper or the SD4000 is soft is not completely correct. I have a number of cases where the SD4000 deliver the crisper image. The vast majority of the time though the S90 does a better job at color.

In my test the two cameras never choose the same F-stop, ISO or shutter speed so this likely impacted the results and the perception of clarity or lack thereof. I also probably did not have the focal length set exactly the same. Clearly my tests were not scientific but I thought good enough to see how each camera would perform for me in the manner in which I intend to use it....that being much of the time in Auto.

As far as using Auto or not, for many people the use of Auto is not only valid option but it is also a requirement. I have read plenty of posts related to the SD4000, S90 and other cameras where people have indicated they prefer to use Auto or frequently rely on using Auto when they don't really have the time to get the camera set just right for a shot. So really, having an Auto mode that works well in a wide variety of conditions is a feature that many value. An really, if a manufacturer is going to include as an option they really should try to get it to work reasonably well. I have noted that even in many of the reviews from the professional they often pop the cameras in Auto for some of their tests.

Many people, including myself, are not experienced or knowledgable enough to know precisely how to set the camera for the best shot and get the best exposure, DOF, etc. If one is an "Auto only" shooter then based on my experience with both cameras I feel the SD4000 will prove to be the better choice. Even if the image amy not be razor sharp, the results are consistently good and very reliable. The S90 it seems will take a bit more work, which is just fine for those that don't mind that.

At my present skill level, the S90 is frankly overkill. But, I choose it over the SD4000 in part because I decided for me it is time to quite being an "Auto only" shooter and learn how to use the available controls. But, when my wife picks up the camera I will simply have her put it in Auto if I am not around to check how I have the camera set. So while not using Auto mode works for some, it will not work for everyone.

The beauty of a forum like this is that those of us that are not so experienced or knowledgable can come and learn from those of you that are. A resource like this is frankly more valuable and a lot more fun than most books.

Schaf

The reason I think this is an important thread and that the auto mode is important to discuss on the s90 is that as much as we want the manual controls there are so many times when many of us need to quickly use the auto, especially with this type of smaller camera. If a camera performs similar to the s90, has similar specs (f2) but trumps it in AUTO, I'm interested. However your shots, to my eye, really look better on the s90 (and yes I understand there are different settings becuase they are both in Auto) but that's the point:

The end result to my eye in most of the shots I saw looked more pleasing (a lot more pleasing side by side) from the s90.

Agreed RKral,

I probably don't perceive the difference between the SD4000 and the S90 quite as great as you apparently do but in general it does generate a better image and that is why I kept it.

Now that my camera search has finally ended and I am out of "test shot" mode I have taken a few real photographs with the S90 with the intended purpose of getting a "good photo." So far, I am impressed. A couple of the shots have turned out so, I actually can't believe I took them! The colors are nicely saturated without being overly so, the images are crisp and detailed without looking over sharpened. All photos have been outdoors so far and results even in Auto are excellent. I have taken a few in Program mode, but primarily to access the Exposure Compensation which I personally find quite useful.

I will say that I much prefer the size, weight and handling of the SD4000 but when on travel I usually wear shorts with cargo pockets and the S90 slips in those just fine. if only I could find just the right case for the S90. One that is snug enough, but allows room to easily get the wrist strap in. Any suggestions?

As far as the SD4000 goes, I still think it is a great camera and am quite impressed with it. I would argue that for many, many people that are not quite as critical about image quality as may of the participants here it will be an outstanding camera for them, particularly if small as possible and HD video are requirements.

Schaf

Did you ever consider the Panasonic LX3? Comparison shots between SD4000 and the LX3 were very very different (much better, cleaner on the Panasonic), esp. at higher ISO, but in general as well.

Personally I am trying to decide between the three (S90, LX3 and SD4000). S90 not having HD video is a bummer for me, as well as the relatively slow lens (only shoots at 2.0 at the very wide end and quickly gets much slower). At its slowest, the LX3 beats both Canons (Panasonic lens is 2.0-2.8 while S90 is 2.0 to 4.9 and the 4000 is 2.0 to 5.3).

Video is also very good on Lumix, but the cons are small zoom and potentially size (although too small and it's hand cramp city imo)

Would love to hear thoughts on if you or others considered the LX3 as well?

I briefly looked at the Lumix LX3 as well as the Canon G11 early on. While both are not significantly bigger or heavier than the S90 they are and both are and they are clearly not "pocketable." As it is, the S90 is really both larger and heavier than I personally wanted. So really for me personally it is as much about size and weight as it is about image quality. Video is not a big deal for me.

I am not sure what the price is, but for my needs for a "small" camera the SD4000 and S90 are both on the upper end of what I want to spend. When on travel the risk of loss, theft or damage is always there.

Having tried both the Lumix ZS3 and ZS6 I would certainly consider the LX3 if I was searching for that class of camera. Even though I have selected the S90, I still think for the very small size, image quality and inclusion of HD video the SD4000 is really tough to beat. If I could justify owning an S90 and SD4000 I would have them both.

Schaf

DanK♂ FP6900 said:

I am always amazed by these comments "it's not for pixel peepers". Is it marketed by Canon or any other camera maker or just your personal opinion? It's only natural to look at full resolution images and everyone does it, just not everyone wants to deal with it.

Click to expand...

Everyone certainly does not do it. That behavior is reserved for professional reviewers and the truly anal retentive. You're not going to be printing posters from a 1/2.33" (or similarly sized) sensor. If User X is going to print no larger than 5x7 why would he/she care what the image looks like at 100%? Some people do it anyway, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic.

Razr said:

DanK♂ FP6900 said:

I am always amazed by these comments "it's not for pixel peepers". Is it marketed by Canon or any other camera maker or just your personal opinion?

Click to expand...

"Pixel-peepers" is polite talk for "Anal-retentives".

DanK♂ FP6900 said:

It's only natural to look at full resolution images and everyone does it,

Click to expand...

"Everyone"? Not bloody likely.

Click to expand...

ha, great minds .... +1

schaf said:

I don't know for sure, but it appears that Canon may be using the Sony CMOS sensor used in these two cameras in the SD4000. At least that is what one concludes after reading the chatter on the Web.

Click to expand...

It is indeed a Sony sensor. Canon certainly did a better job with it than Sony did. So did Casio for that matter. Oh the irony ...

DanK♂ FP6900 said:

Neither Sony Camera provides an Aperture or Shutter Priority mode but they do offer Sweep Panorama and some interesting low light modes.

Click to expand...

Sweep panorama is fun, easy and extremely well done but the final product isn't very impressive imho.

schaf said:

Many others have commented that the focus of the SD4000 is a little soft and the colors not as saturated as typical Canon products.

Click to expand...

That is one of the downsides to that Sony BSI sensor. Canon surely did a better job with it than Sony, but every camera that uses that sensor demonstrates a bit of under-saturation and often problems in very bright light.

Probably one important factor for those considering a camera such as the SD4000, while there are others in that general price range that take a slightly better picture than the SD4000 produces in my opinion outstanding images and it is just a blast to use! I have settled on an S90 which is a great camera...but somehow it does not have quite the same "fun factor" that the SD4000 did. I believe people that are after a point-and-shoot camera, even a full featured one like the SD4000, want it to be fun.

Schaf