S95 vs S100/110

I own the S95, S100 & S110. I am chagrined at what I see! Are my eyes are deceiving me? The S95 has the S100/110 beat by a mile on IQ. (I know S95 has a CCD sensor, whereas S100/110 have a CMOS)

I compare the IQ on all three and the S95 consistently gives clearer and sharper images. This from my own comparisons.....and Imaging Resource Comparator's site.

And whats more the S100 is clearer & sharper than the S110. I bought the S110 because I got tired of waiting for the S100 to give the "Lens Error" message. I used the S100 in every imagineable circumstance: hot & humid, cold etc. So even though my S100 falls in the serial number range for affected units, it keeps on chugging with no "error." I guess I should be happy about that?

I usually sell my Canon/Nikon cameras after a few months when I buy the next iteration. Obviously I'll never be able to sell the S100! Who would want it? Maybe someone for $50 because Canon has guaranteed the fix.

My daughter and husband are going to Europe for a month and she wants to take the S100 with her. "If" it's going to fail it most certainly will on that trip. Her husband will take another camera (Nikon?)

I just can't believe the S110 is as poor as it appears to be in IQ. Needless I'm disappointed.

More and more I'm convinced to wait at least 6 months before buying Canon's S & G series Powershots, to see how they review by the "experts" before I buy.

It's sad it has come to that!

I don't know, every time someone uses phrasing like how one camera has another "beat by a mile" they always seem to end up meaning minor and obscure differences.

I don't know about the s110, but with the s95 vs s100 in real life, the s95 was a little better in daylight with jpg's, in raw it was about the same, at night or high iso the s100 had the edge -http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1110007

The imaging resource images do make the s100 look worse, but it's the noise reduction - the s100 (by default) loses a little detail vs the s95, but almost completely eliminates noise. Biggest down side is pics can look a little to glossy and it can look kind of unnatural with people and skin. But compared raw vs raw, with detail noise reduction turned off, the s100 has a slight edge at high iso in both reduced noise and extra detail.

PaulRivers said:

PaulRivers wrote:

I don't know, every time someone uses phrasing like how one camera has another "beat by a mile" they always seem to end up meaning minor and obscure differences.

I don't know about the s110, but with the s95 vs s100 in real life, the s95 was a little better in daylight with jpg's, in raw it was about the same, at night or high iso the s100 had the edge -http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1110007

The imaging resource images do make the s100 look worse, but it's the noise reduction - the s100 (by default) loses a little detail vs the s95, but almost completely eliminates noise. Biggest down side is pics can look a little to glossy and it can look kind of unnatural with people and skin. But compared raw vs raw, with detail noise reduction turned off, the s100 has a slight edge at high iso in both reduced noise and extra detail.

Click to expand...

Paul, yeah, you're right! Exactly so! I shouldn't be so sweeping in my complaints. I just got the S110 and I do like it very much. (no exaggeration) But I was suprised to see on this site:

http://snapsort.com/cameras/Canon-S100 plus of course Imaging Comparator,

that the S100 received higher marks, plus the IQ was thought to be better. And on my shots it seems like it is.

I'll keep the S110 and maybe the S100 will fail on my daughter's trip, then I can send it in. But even that's no guarantee. Gail had to send hers back, what? two times before they got it right.

It seems just a few years ago whenever you bought a new Canon, Nikon or Panasonic P&S it was a "fun" experience, and it was a better camera than before. These days you kinda have to hold your breath and hope for the best.

So now it's better to wait for the reviews.

I have the S90, S95 and S100. I like the S100 the best in picture quality, then the S95 and S90. I find even the S90 picture quality is excellent, considering its compact size and sensor size.

I looked at all 3 in the Comparometer, and the S95 is not noticeably better, if anything I think the S100 at ISO 200 and 800 is a tiny bit better. Background has slightly less noise/grain and there's at least as much detail in the S100 image as the S95.

I noticed the S110's corners are not quite as good (see the round scale and also the white threads in the lower right corner of Comparometer), but that could simply be camera to camera variation. I forget which version got a new wider lens...I think it got wider at some time anyhow.

I wonder if the corners get better at smaller apertures. I asked in a review eons ago, and the site owner tested smaller apertures and it actually did not help on whichever P&S camera it was. Not sure if that's always the case for all P&S cameras though.

Raymond88 said:

Raymond88 wrote:

I have the S90, S95 and S100. I like the S100 the best in picture quality, then the S95 and S90. I find even the S90 picture quality is excellent, considering its compact size and sensor size.

Click to expand...

Recently I've downloaded one (flower) picture from the latest G16 gallery, because it was very similar to one of my pictures taken with my S90. Indeed, the S90 picture is better - somehow cleaner. Both pictures were taken at the lowest ISO. Then I looked at some high ISO pictures and I must admit that the G16 pictures are better, though not too much. So, my conclusion is that at low ISO setting the S90/95 are still fully competent cameras and there is no reason to replace them with another camera having the same size sensor. If you need significantly better high ISO performance, then go for a larger sensor camera.

The 1 1/7 CCD's seem to do quite well in daylight, seems to be more detail and better color on the s95 than the s100/s110 from I've seen. Also the lens in the s100/s110 seems more prone to blurring and distortion, see these shots to see what I'm talking about with the s110 s110 test image

If I'm paying $300+ for a camera, having frosty distorted images on simple photos like these is not acceptable. Look at the pole and the wires on the right side. The s95 was alot sharper in this regard, and one could say there were compromises made with the new lens design. CCD's do perform slightly better in daylight at low ISO, but, the CMOS sensors quickly gain the upper hand once ISO rises. I'm not sure why the greens,yellows, and oranges seem more muted with the new sensors, perhaps it's just the changes Canon has made over the years after the Digic III chip which resulted in cooler looking images at AWB and Daylight WB settings. If I had an s95 I would probably not see a reason to upgrade if I didn't do alot of high ISO shooting or video. The s95 has an F2.0 lens at the wide setting which certainly helps to keep the ISO down. I personally dont see the s110 being worth its premium price tag. I got a 330hs and have found the image quality equal to or better than what I've seen the s100/110 with sharp images at all focal lengths, no fuzzy distortions like with the s100/s110. The advantage of course is manual control which the s100/110 offer, and a much faster lens at the wide angle. But yeah hold onto that s95. I still use an a620 because I love the daylight images!

The difference between S95 and S100/110 may not have much to do with sensor (CCD/CMOS), but more to do with the lens quality. It is more difficult to design a high-quality fast zoom lens with 24mm wide-angle coverage.

I agree it's only valid to compare them at the same zoom and aperture settings.

The "Comparometer" tool is the best way to compare different cameras at different ISO settings. All 3 camera models are nearly identical it seems to me, and the sharpness differences could be random sampling errors/differences.

I looked at Steve's text image of the military cannon using S100 and S110. His S110 image is slightly overexposed, and S100 a bit underexposed perhaps, so it's hard to fairly compare them.

His framing (zoom setting or distance from subject) is not exactly the same for the two shots - the gun appears larger in one shot.

I prefer the S100 shot, but the exposure difference is probably the reason for my preferences. Colors are more accurate and edges seem sharper.

I then loaded the S95 image (CCD sensor)...it is more saturated (manufacturers use less saturation in general to help hide color noise - that's why higher ISO images have less saturation).

The grass is sharper, but might just be differences in the JPEG processing or where the camera is focused. S95 seems a tad better than S100, S110 seems worst...but each image was taken on totally different days, so it's an invalid yardstick.

A studio test shot (the Comparometer tool) is the way to seriously compare two cameras.

Also, DxoMark tests cameras objectively for dynamic range and noise.

CNY_AP said:

CNY_AP wrote:

I looked at Steve's text image of the military cannon using S100 and S110. His S110 image is slightly overexposed, and S100 a bit underexposed perhaps, so it's hard to fairly compare them.

His framing (zoom setting or distance from subject) is not exactly the same for the two shots - the gun appears larger in one shot.

I prefer the S100 shot, but the exposure difference is probably the reason for my preferences. Colors are more accurate and edges seem sharper.

I then loaded the S95 image (CCD sensor)...it is more saturated (manufacturers use less saturation in general to help hide color noise - that's why higher ISO images have less saturation).

The grass is sharper, but might just be differences in the JPEG processing or where the camera is focused. S95 seems a tad better than S100, S110 seems worst...but each image was taken on totally different days, so it's an invalid yardstick.

A studio test shot (the Comparometer tool) is the way to seriously compare two cameras.

Also, DxoMark tests cameras objectively for dynamic range and noise.

Click to expand...

True and the comparomter shows little difference. Steve's does use auto mode alot which can result in more iffy focus. I think the s100/110 are neat cameras, but unless their price is reduced, it just doesn't seem to justify spending $100+ more versus a 330hs. Of course with the S120 coming in October I expect prices to drop on those older models. As for comparing the s100 and the s110, I think the colors look warmer and richer on the 110, and the corner sharpness is better, at least when I look at the House shot on the comparometer, the s110 has sharper corners. The testers noted higher sample variations with the s100, and lets not forget the dreaded lens error problems with it. I would like to see more outdoor test shots used, and at different focal lengths. Of course having only used the s100 & 110 in stores and seeing images online, I won't discount the possibility I am underestimating the capability of these cameras.

panamforeman said:

panamforeman wrote:

I compare the IQ on all three and the S95 consistently gives clearer and sharper images. This from my own comparisons.....and Imaging Resource Comparator's site.

Click to expand...

I LIKE the images from the s100 and s110 but I was not compelled to buy them. I've always found the s95 to offer something very decent when it came to Image Quality.

panamforeman said:

More and more I'm convinced to wait at least 6 months before buying Canon's S & G series Powershots, to see how they review by the "experts" before I buy.

Click to expand...

I choose to read the Canon publicity statements and pour over the specs of any camera before deciding if I would consider purchasing the product. I seldom buy a new camera unless I believe I will benefit by owning it. I USUALLY don't bother to wait for others to buy it and review the device - I buy for my own reasons because so many "pro" reviewers are more interested in web hits than accurate evaluations. If I'd listened to the reviewers, I'd never have bought the Pro1 or the G1X or the EOS-M camera, all of which have provided me with stuninng (in my opinion) and superb results under all sorts of shooting conditions. The S-Series in now in that speciality range... they are slightly more expensive than the usual releases but they are renowned for their image quality. In a pocket camera, this is important to me.

.

People ask me if I'm 'serious' when I explain to them why I have not upgraded my s95 to the "most recent" models each year. The thing is, there's not been enough improvement to warrant the upgrade. I intend to buy the s120 when it hits the shelves because I believe that the increase in features and capabilities make this a genuine cause to upgrade. I held off from the s90 until the bugs were identified and fixed, which was why I moved to the s95 in the first place. Not all cameras are equal, even if the specs are similar.
.
Meanwhile, I keep getting spectacular shots from my s95 and I don't do any Post Processing to the vast majority of pictures from this camera. What more can I ask for when it comes to a pocket camera? (Well, i suppose that better low light performance is on the cards with the upcoming s120).
.
Some shots I would have missed if it wasn't for the s95 in my pocket...




Taken yesterday... although it was whipped by my EOS-M with the 100mmL lens .




















One of the first shots I took with the s95 - straight out of the box.

--
Regards,
Marco Nero.
www.pbase.com/nero_design

Give your S95 to your daughter and trade the S100/110 in for the brand new S200 asap.

Cheers,

Tom

Marco Nero said:

Marco Nero wrote:

Marco Nero said:

panamforeman wrote:

I compare the IQ on all three and the S95 consistently gives clearer and sharper images. This from my own comparisons.....and Imaging Resource Comparator's site.

Click to expand...

I LIKE the images from the s100 and s110 but I was not compelled to buy them. I've always found the s95 to offer something very decent when it came to Image Quality.

Click to expand...

Honestly! Do you think that's because the S95 has a CCD sensor as opposed to CMOS in S100/110?

Marco Nero said:

Marco Nero said:

More and more I'm convinced to wait at least 6 months before buying Canon's S & G series Powershots, to see how they review by the "experts" before I buy.

Click to expand...

I choose to read the Canon publicity statements and pour over the specs of any camera before deciding if I would consider purchasing the product. I seldom buy a new camera unless I believe I will benefit by owning it. I USUALLY don't bother to wait for others to buy it and review the device - I buy for my own reasons because so many "pro" reviewers are more interested in web hits than accurate evaluations. If I'd listened to the reviewers, I'd never have bought the Pro1 or the G1X or the EOS-M camera, all of which have provided me with stuninng (in my opinion) and superb results under all sorts of shooting conditions. The S-Series in now in that speciality range... they are slightly more expensive than the usual releases but they are renowned for their image quality. In a pocket camera, this is important to me.

Click to expand...

I would and do agree with you. However, I do depend on others who own the camera I'm interested in. People that I have come to depend/rely on for an honest analysis, on this Forum and others....such as yourself.

Marco Nero said:

People ask me if I'm 'serious' when I explain to them why I have not upgraded my s95 to the "most recent" models each year. The thing is, there's not been enough improvement to warrant the upgrade. I intend to buy the s120 when it hits the shelves because I believe that the increase in features and capabilities make this a genuine cause to upgrade. I held off from the s90 until the bugs were identified and fixed, which was why I moved to the s95 in the first place. Not all cameras are equal, even if the specs are similar.
.
Meanwhile, I keep getting spectacular shots from my s95 and I don't do any Post Processing to the vast majority of pictures from this camera. What more can I ask for when it comes to a pocket camera? (Well, i suppose that better low light performance is on the cards with the upcoming s120).
.
Some shots I would have missed if it wasn't for the s95 in my pocket...

Click to expand...

I did have the S95 but sold it. I still have the S100 & S110. Use the 110 because I like the touch-screen. Fairly certain I will buy the S120, but hold off on the G16. I'm very happy with the G15. That is....unless you guys report that the G16 is a "huge" improvement! Well then, how could I resist.

Marco Nero said:

Taken yesterday... although it was whipped by my EOS-M with the 100mmL lens .




















One of the first shots I took with the s95 - straight out of the box.

--
Regards,
Marco Nero.
www.pbase.com/nero_design

Click to expand...