S95 Succesor

[RafaelA]

More and more dissapointed. I like sharpnes of the p300 images, but there was to much noise in all ISO. Lack of ISO below 160 is also not so good.

Now after returning P300 I am testing Samsung WB2000. Calors are to pale, not so convienient to use like p300. Need more to learn. You can not get good picture from the beginning, eaven on Auto. Shutter time to long.

Prefocusing take to long time, and when wb2000 take photos, shooting object could b already outisde the shooting area. So far I could not find focus locking option.
I am afraid that wb2000 will be also returned. But what else (below 200g)

Is there focus locking option in P300?

 

[tkbslc]

Time to just get the S95, man. It's what you want! Clean crisp 720p is more than adequate for anything you'll shoot with a compact camera.

 

[blue_skies]

The Casio FH100 is rumored to have the same BSI CMOS sensor:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1001&message=35721214&q=tl350+fh100&qf=m

If so, the FH100's relative high placement score is an indication of the better IQ:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/page24.asp

However, I have noticed that Casio's Exilim Engine 5.0 uses a lot more noise suppression than their 4.0 engine, which does not always help the picture. Maybe you can tell us how the Samsung compares?

• On a side note, I found an indoor workaround by using the flash in 'on' and 'soft' settings. It lowers the ISO to 400, and produces warm and evening-like images that are virtually noise free.

If a 22mm2 1/2.33" BSI CMOS sensor comes close in IQ to the almost 2x larger, 43mm2 1/1.7" CCD (S95) sensor, then I cannot but wonder what an S96/S100 would produce with a 1/1.7" BSI CMOS sensor . . .

On the other hand, the superzoom (and larger DOF) that the smaller sensor yields is also attractive . . .

 

[Glenn72]

Full HD isn't something I would be too concerned about. The new Canon point and shoot cameras do 1080P full HD. The trouble is, they use CMOS sensor with serious rolling shutter artifacts, where the video will skew. You see this a lot in iphone and Flip camera videos.

The S95 has a CCD sensor. Although it's only 720P, for me the CCD sensor makes a huge difference. It's enables me to shoot handheld without any kind of skew, and get shots that just wouldn't be possible on any other point and shoot camera with a CMOS sensor.

I have a bad feeling though, whatever camera replaces the S95 may have a CMOS sensor. Regardless, I will be sticking with the S95, and already plan on buying a second as backup.

 

[webshark3]

Ok, this is interesting. I didn't even really think about the CCD/CMOS stuff. I've been careful to avoid panning/zoom on my Canon HF11. But sample footage taken with s95 seems less "disorienting." It must be the rolling shutter. lol

I need to look into it closer. Thanks a lot.

 

[PaulRivers]

Full HD isn't something I would be too concerned about. The new Canon point and shoot cameras do 1080P full HD. The trouble is, they use CMOS sensor with serious rolling shutter artifacts, where the video will skew. You see this a lot in iphone and Flip camera videos.

The S95 has a CCD sensor. Although it's only 720P, for me the CCD sensor makes a huge difference. It's enables me to shoot handheld without any kind of skew, and get shots that just wouldn't be possible on any other point and shoot camera with a CMOS sensor.

I have a bad feeling though, whatever camera replaces the S95 may have a CMOS sensor. Regardless, I will be sticking with the S95, and already plan on buying a second as backup.

Both types of sensors have their disadvantages. Certainly one may be preferable based on the kinds of videos you take.

The video from CCD sensors (the s95 specifically I have experience with) has a vertical purple line any time there's a bright light source against a darker background. If you're shooting indoors there's almost always bright light sources, so you can get quite a few purple lines just sitting in your video, which obviously did not exist in real life.

Just saying that it's a tradeoff, both have their flaws.

 

[PaulRivers]

Are you thinking of a different picture? I'm not seeing it in those

There are some parts of the image that are similar, but compare the grass for example.

I can see what you mean in the grass, though while the s95 is better there I definitely think making claims about it being "many times better" or "watercolor painting" is way, way, way over exaggerated (though I believe those claims were made by another poster, not you).

Also, P300 does not support RAW, so this is the best you are going to get from it. The RAW files on both the S95 & LX5 will give you better results than the sample JPEG shown here.

That's not...necessarily true. I mean if you could turn off the sharpening and noise reduction in-camera you might be able to do better (might).

I have to admit though, that the lack of RAW is what keeps me from trying out the camera for myself. It might be worth it for me to lose the slightly better detail from the s95 in exchange for 8fps (I think? it's faster, I know that) and better video, but I do like being able to tweak everything (especially the white balance) in RAW, as well as being able to completely turn off noise reduction if I want to.

 

[larsson]

Are you thinking of a different picture? I'm not seeing it in those

There are some parts of the image that are similar, but compare the grass for example.

Also, P300 does not support RAW, so this is the best you are going to get from it. The RAW files on both the S95 & LX5 will give you better results than the sample JPEG shown here.

Yes, the grassdetails are nonexistent in the p300 pic. But if you don´t care about details then the P300 takes really good pictures.

 

[PaulRivers]

Are you thinking of a different picture? I'm not seeing it in those

There are some parts of the image that are similar, but compare the grass for example.

Also, P300 does not support RAW, so this is the best you are going to get from it. The RAW files on both the S95 & LX5 will give you better results than the sample JPEG shown here.

Yes, the grassdetails are nonexistent in the p300 pic. But if you don´t care about details then the P300 takes really good pictures.

I'll say the same thing I said in the other thread on this topic - if you look at the edges of the shots, you'll realize they're not taken at exactly the same position with the exact same zoom level. There's an entire tree on the left side that's in one shot but not in another.

And when that happens, you can't compare fine details on grass and such between 2 cameras - one camera can easily have more detail just because it's slightly closer to the grass than the other one.