what to upgrade to from sd4000

been reading dpreview for years. typically prefer smaller sized cameras for use with hiking, backpacking and skiing but the image quality limitations are starting to annoy me.

had a g7 which I was generally happy with but switched to the sd4000 for HD movies and carry-anywhere/anytime ability. the sd4000 does a decent job on photos but I am looking for better quality jpgs and possibly RAW since I am just starting to play with Aperture.

I print some photos but nothing larger then 8x10 and do shoot video occasionally, generally outdoor scenes, dog playing, skiing down a run (need to get a gopro)

if I stay with a small camera, it would probably be the s100 but according to dpreview i gain only a little improvement in image and less performance in exposure, focus accuracy, & optics(!?)

maybe the SX260HS?

been also considering cameras like the G1X and maybe going for a larger sensor with the Nex-5n ... (i know this is the canon forum no flames please). I realize I will give up some portability but wondering if the tradeoff is worthwhile for the image quality

wondering if anybody else has faced the same challenge and what direction they took or any advice ?

Best to get the camera that captures the best image quality. If you can get used to a little bulk the SX40 is fantastic. But if you need RAW recording then grab the s100 ot the GX1 if its in your budget range. The G12 is probably going to get a price drop soon. Another great choice.

Hope this helps.

The sd4000 had a bit of a reputation for soft photos at low iso compared to cameras before it. I think the s100 would be something of a step up - thought with all these things, the difference in good light is small.

The sx40 wouldn't be any better than the s100, if it would be there's something seriously wrong.

The g1x might be actually better, but I'm not sure.

If you're comparing numbers on the reviews, it's been discussed numerous times that...unfortunately, the numbers hardly mean anything. Apparently they're only comparable for reviews done at exactly the same time. For example, the t2i and t3i use the exact same sensor, but if I remember right the t3i gets worse scores. It has something to do with being compared to other cameras, and the t3i coming out later and having more competition. Bottom line - you can't actually compare the review numbers.

thanks for the feedback. I agree that the sd4000 is soft. turned out to be disappointing compared to the g7 but reinforces your point about comparing cameras that have been reviewed at different times.

I have read people love the sx40hs and wondering how the new G1x will compare from an image perspective. The focal length of the sx is compelling but the size of the G1X is preferred.

The sx40 should have worse image quality than the s100, despite the body being larger, it has a slightly smaller sensor and complicated optics because it's a superzoom.

The g1x should have better image quality than the s100, as the g1x has a much larger sensor and a short zoom.

I'm not saying the sx40 is a bad camera, but it's main advantage is it's incredibly long zoom range. I mean - it seems to have great image quality - "for a superzoom".

Though to be fair, all of these definitions are relative. As I think I mentioned, in good light the differences are the kind of thing you usually only see when pixel peeping comparison shots. It kind of depends on how picky you are about sharpness, pixels, etc. But that should be the order -

1. sx40
2. s100
3. g1x

I've been reading every G1X thread and article I can track down and got my hands on a PS100 yesterday.

Fortunately, I have a couple months before it is critical (trips) so hopefully dpreview has a full review on it .. especially since they just did the panasonic gx1