Looking for a Canon pocket camera

<p>I have a 20D & 50D. Also, a Panasonic Lumix pocket camera. I like having the small pocket camera to carry around. Yesterday, my grand daughter dropped and broke my daughter's pocket camera. This gives me the opportunity of giving her my Lumix. I'd like to stay with Canon. Can you suggest a good pocket Canon - under $500.</p>

<p>S95, of if you have large pockets G12</p>

S95 for a pocket camera. I've done a load of research as I'm about to buy one myself. S95 wins by a small margin over

the Lumix LX5. G12 if, as Peter says, you have big pockets.

<p>I'm a fan of the waterproof Canon D10. Image quality is pretty good, and it's nearly indestructible. It's waterproof to 30 feet.</p>

<p><em>>D10 vs. S95</em><br>

As a user of both D10 (the bulbous waterproof) and S95 I must say that in terms of features and IQ (RAW anyone..?) the S95 wins by a country mile and, with careful and thoughtful use, can produce truly outstanding results. And S95 is a truly pocketable camera. D10 works fine for snapshots, both above and underwater.</p>

<p>Just got a S95 and early days yet but I am very impressed :-)<br>

David</p>

<p>Opps - double post<br>

D</p>

<p>I have the S95 on order with Adorama, but they're backordered. I'm looking forward to receiving it, though...I've only heard good things about this camera. I don't plan to use it extensively, but it will come in handy in places where it's awkward or impractical to carry a DSLR.</p>

<p>The Powershot cameras are all pretty decent. I notice that even lots of Nikon shooters use them.</p>

<p>Some of the older Canon pocket cameras even take CF cards instead of SD. If you can live with a decent 5MP, they can be handy since you don't have to pack a bunch of different media.</p>

<p>I shoot with a 5D II but recently, I purchased an S95 to carry in my bag. I got tired of carrying all my gear the whole time while traveling. </p>

<p>The S95 is smaller than the G12. At their widest focal length, they are about the same. The S95 has a 3.8x zoom while the G12 has a 5x zoom. They both shoot in RAW and the lens for the S95 is a f/2.0-4.9 while the G12 is f/2.8-4.5. You can also get a waterproof housing for both the s95 and the g12. The G12 has a hot shoe for an external flash and an optical view finder.</p>

<p>I didn't need all the bells and whistles of the G12. That's what my DSLR is for. I wanted something compact for dinner or outings where carrying a large camera bag is inconvenient. Whatever your choice is, you can't go wrong with either the s95 or the g12.</p>

<p>I have last year's S90. The S95 is almost exactly the same but with improved video and a slightly more grippy finish. It's shockingly good for a P&S and the F2.0 lens and decent high ISO make it truly useful in low light. I think ISO 800 is actually a little cleaner than my old 10D! And, unless you wear skinny jeans, it easily fits in a pants pocket. The only gotcha is the controls are tiny and it's so small it's tricky to hold.</p>

<p>My experience with the D10 is interesting. I bought it about 2 months prior to a trip to Bermuda to shoot underwater. During the 2 month period it had 3 malfunctions that were rapidly corrected. I got my underwater shots in Bermuda. Then I returned to the store that I bought it from, told them of the malfunction and asked them for a replacement. They didn't have one handy so they gave me my money back. My need for the camera was over by that point so I kept the cash. Now, I'm thinking about re-buying it.</p>

 

<p>+ whatever count we are up to for the S95 (I have had the S90 for over a year now and am still surprised at the quality it can give).<br>

The G11/12 has a proper viewfinder and a flash hotshoe but the sensor is the same as the S95. The reason I spent the money on the S95 (as opposed to one of the cheaper ones) was the option to shoot RAW.</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of night sports. So I got the ELF 4000 to carry around my neck for close shots that my 70-200 won't get. At night I think it is shooting about 6/sec maybe more depending on the lighting. I don't use a flash with my MKIII when shooting sports but it is great to have the one on the 4000 for kids and cheerleaders. The sencer is cmos (not ccd as in the S95) and that makes it shoot faster. I got it from Adorama for about $280/with extra battery and case. So far it seams to be tuff and shoots good at cold soccer games! Check it out, Bill</p>

<p>BTW the ELF 4000 also has an f2.0 lens! Bill</p>

<p>Add my vote for the S95. I had an S90 for about a year and took about 1,000 pictures with it. My daughter-in-law was taking a trip to Washington DC so I "loaned" her my S90 and bought an S95. Within its performance boundaries both the S90 and the S95 are as good as my D90. In particular, low light performance with the f2.0 lens is really good. They also, as has been mentioned, very "pocketable". The S90 has some ergonomic issues which mostly have been corrected in the S95. </p>

<p>Shirt pocketable = Canon PowerShot S95<br>

Jacket or cargo pant pocketable = Canon PowerShot G12</p>

<p>They share the same large sensor.</p>

<p>Don't under estimate the A490/495. I use mine in conjunction with a dslr. It's IQ is a real sleeper.</p>

<p>I'm surprised nobody mentioned it yet: Canonet QL 17 GIII<br>

Small, lightweight, sturdy, quiet, cheap and has good (and fast) optics.</p>

<p>The S95 is a fine camera, but the Panasonic LX5 starts at 24mm. This (28 vs. 24mm) makes for a much bigger difference than minute changes in IQ between the two cameras. Also, for me, the LX5 is much nicer to handle than the S95.</p>

<p>Some capable reviews for you to study before making the plunge. Or, am I too late with these?</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1101/11012010updatehighendgrouptest.asp<br /><br />http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG12/</p>

<p>I agree with the S95/G12 rationale.</p>

<p>As an alternative (lower cost), consider the SX130IS. Does NOT shoot raw, but is a 12x zoom AND still retains manual controls. Did I mention it is cheap? I have an earlier SX110IS, and have been impressed with the photos.</p>

<p>Oh. . and next time I go to places with warm waters and snorkling. . I am ALSO buying the D10. I am done with the one use underwater film cameras.</p>

 

<p>I just got a LX5 and took it to San Antonio, Texas for a conference. I did not want to carry my dslr. Even though I have a rebel with a 50mm f 1.4, it is still a small lunch box around your neck when you are running around and talking to people, many of them customers.</p>

<p>I went with the LX5 because of its F2.0 to F3.3 lens. While I cannot get pictures like my rebel with a 50mm f1.4 prime in sharpness, there are many shots I would never get if I had the rebel. The autofocus is pretty fast even at low light (resturants with medium light). ISO 1600 with lightroom Noise reduction is usable.</p>

<p>I also tried RAW vs JPEG. While Lightroom handled the raw format without any issues, I went with JPEG in the end. I shot all in Aperture priority and a few in Manual. I did try the scene modes. They are ok but I like the "A" mode the best. I let the camera decide the ISO for me with the upper bound set to 1600.I only used the built-in flash a couple of time as a fill flash with its level set to -1 and it worked great.</p>

<p>The Menus are pretty nicely arranged and it is super fast. There is auto bracketting for HDR and it has two custom slots on the dial.</p>

<p>I did take a few videos. While its 720p, it is very good. You can zoom and autofocus while shooting video. My macbook pro did not like the ADCLight format. So I stuck with Motion JPEG.</p>

<p>The camera comes with a neck strap like a regular dslr. But I found this to be a pain. It got on the way of putting inside/out of a pocket. So instead I put on a PS3 Move hand strap instead so that I could put it around my wrist.</p>

<p>I took about 500 pictures and about 10 videos of about 1 min each on average over four days. I had to charge the battery once on the start of day 3.</p>

<p>I tried the Canon S95 at a best buy. It is a lot smaller but the lens is not as fast and I found the Autofocus/Overall cycle time to be a bit slower than the LX5.</p>

<p>I have posted some pictures here at:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=996058">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=996058</a></p>

<p>I have a larger set on flickr at:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightray/sets/72157625906222946/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightray/sets/72157625906222946/</a><br>

Hope this helps<br /> Cheers<br /> Arnav</p>

 

<p>Hi<br>

I just got the s95.. i am noticing the images dont seem very sharp at 100 or even 250 of a sec..i might not be as sturdy as i used to be holding the camera..but it seems they should be sharp at 250 of a second? maybe i got a funky one... i noticed the box didn't have a seal when i picked it up from the camera store.. but i guess they are hard to find now. since the earthquake and tsumani in Japan.. could it just be me? i am going to take it out into the bright sunshine and shoot some images to see about shaprness.. I am used to a very sharp old Nikon macro lens.. maybe too picky for point& shoot any thoughts ?<br>

thanks</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I just got the s95.. i am noticing the images dont seem very sharp at 100 or even 250 of a sec..i might not be as sturdy as i used to be holding the camera..but it seems they should be sharp at 250 of a second? maybe i got a funky one... i noticed the box didn't have a seal when i picked it up from the camera store.. but i guess they are hard to find now. since the earthquake and tsumani in Japan.. could it just be me? i am going to take it out into the bright sunshine and shoot some images to see about shaprness.. I am used to a very sharp old Nikon macro lens.. maybe too picky for point& shoot any thoughts ?<br>

thanks</p>