Oops, there's a small typo at the top of the SD200 review: Picture Quality: Good, 4.0-megapixel CCD Of course that should be "3.2-megapixel CCD". omr.

Omr: Thanks, we'll take a look and correct as needed. Forum Admin.

How is the picture quality of SD200 when compare to S410???.

How does the Canon SD200 compare with the Sony DSC W-1 which I saw at only $60 more than the Canon..

Greetings .

I wish to buy a small compact digital camera.

One of my main criteria is the ability to shoot pictures in low light conditions (or even night scenes) without flash.

I have read numerous reviews (including the excellent reviews on this site) but I still cannot make up my mind.

I hesitate between the Canon IXUS 40 (SD 300), the Canon IXUS 30 (SD 200) and the Nikon Coolpix 4200 (but it's almost too big).

What do you think ? .

Best regards from Paris.

Louis.

I'm split between the SD200 and SD300. I believe the stainless steel finish is more durable, yet I don't really feel the 4M pixels are a real advantage. I would like to know if noise is measurably lower, or dynamic range measurably higher on the 200 than the 300, as would theoretically follow from the 33% larger photo-sensor area. I'd also like to know if the lens is exactly the same, including coatings. I seem to see more flare around white highlights with the 200. I'm also looking at the Panasonic DMC-FX7, which seems to have a better lens, but too much resolution and contrast..

Hi Alfonso - I'm thinking about getting the SD200/300 as well. My understanding from reading the reviews out there is the image quality is a little inferior to the Canon s410, which is to be expected with the ultracompact cameras. So if image quality is your primary concern (like you are going to print 8x10 or bigger), you'd be better off getting a bigger and heavier camera. However, if you want the smallest camera available that takes quite good pictures (very good looking pics for your standard 4x6 snapshot size), then the SD200/300 is for you. Although both the s410 and SD200/300 cameras are fairly small, the difference in weight of the camera is a big deal when you are carrying it around (SD200 is about 105 grams whereas the s410 is 185 grams or so - you can look up the exact weights if you want). It's not that a couple of grams is heavy to life, but that difference in weight is quite a bit when you have it in a pocket on your shirt or in a jacket...believe me - lighter is better - you will take the camera with you so much more if it is not cumbersome.

However, the SD200/300 cameras just came out, so it might be worth waiting a couple of months to hear firsthand reports and see people's pictures with them. A good source for that is the www.pbase.com camera gallery where you can see real life shots with whatever camera you're interested in. Cheers..

I agree with your entire message. I am aware of the 400/410 and think it's a great camera, in many ways better than the SD200/300 for somebody with just one camera for multiple uses. But I'm looking for a very specific use, which you could call "spontaneous photography"; which requires having a camera I can carry at all times. The 100-120g weight range is ideal, and I agree that 200 grams can be a bit much, particularly in hot weather. This is why I'm not considering heavier models. I don't like cell-phone cameras or in fact cell phones, so that's out.

That said, I care about dynamic range and noise in the very small sensors used in these machines, and I'd rather have 3M pixels with better range than 5M with too much contras. In theory the fewer the pixels the better the range. My question was directed at whether this is in fact the case between these models or with respect to the Pannasonic. I also wonder if the SD200 optics are exactly the same as the SD300, or are somehow lower-grade. This said, I'm leaning to the 200 anyway.

I'm not saying it should be disposable, but I should be able to replace it without crying all the way to the bank..

Good points Alfonso - yes, these ultra compacts are best for candid work and a "take everywhere" kind of cam (btw, I have a digital rebel for higher quality stuff - very impressed with it for the most part - but it is too heavy and expensive to carry around for spontaneous shots). I too am leaning toward the 200 over the 300 as I read in one review the most common annoying feature of the 200/300 is the blurriness on the edges of the pics and that the 200 seemed to exhibit this less than the 300. And yes, it's cheaper - so if it gets dropped or beaten up or even stolen, it's not the end of the world. As for dynamic range, I'm unaware of any digicam having a significantly greater dynamic range from point and shoot models all the way up to the top of the line digital SLR - they are all get about 5 stops is my understanding (even the Fuji cams which supposedly address this don't really increase the dynamic range from what I hear). You might be talking about the tendency of some cams to oversharpen the jpgs (like the sony w-1) but Canon seems to work a pretty happy medium at this (as seen on my older S200 and on jpgs on the dig Rebel). Anyway, let me know if I'm wrong regarding the dynamic range issue as I think this is just the major current downside of dig/CCD photography..

I purchased the DSC W-1 at Sears in Canada for $399.00 CDN as they were out of stock of the Canon 75. I am considering returning the Sony for a couple reasons; 1. I use movie mode to email pictures of properties to clients and the Sony jumps from a 160 straight to a 640, while the Canon has something in between at 320 resolution. As well you can set the frame rate. Bottom line is that file size can be manipulated well so that MORE information is sent in a smaller file. 2.

Take a look at them for yourself. Although to be honest the pictures I have taken with the DSC-W1 are very nice. The Sony DSC-W1 has 5 MP vs 3.2 for the SD-200 or 4.0 for the Canon SD-300. That isn't important for me as 90% of my work photos are in 640X480 and even personal photos are in the under 2 MP range. Depends on what your needs are...

The small size of the SD-200 makes it an ever present tool. If you don't have it with you you won't use it. The smaller it is the more easy to carry it is along with your cell phone, pager, calculator, PDA, wallet and endless other electronic accessories we have with us these days. The Sony has an excellent battery arrangement though, use the rechargables or purchase a couple "AA"s as needed in a pinch. The charger that comes with it is not a wall charger though and has this long ackward cord.

Why a memory stick...? You'd think Sony would have learned from the Beta vs VHS thing. Bottom line, both are excellent cameras. I'm having a hard time choosing maybe this info will be of use to you. If you have any advice for me on this choice Sony DSC-W1 vs Canon SD-200/300 I'd sure appreciate it as I am no authority and having a difficult time as well making such a decision. Mark Ranger .

Kelowna, B.C. Canada.

Hello, I cannot decide between the SD200 and S410. The SD200 is smaller and has a lower shutter lag, which I like. The S410 produces higher quality pictures. My concern with the SD200 is whether there are problems that haven't been uncovered because it is so new. For example, some people complain that the LCD display on the SD200 is too fragile and breaks easily. Does anyone have any experience with this?.