SD200 or SD300???

[Triss2005]

Hai,

I'm wondering wich camara is better, the SD200 or the luxe SD300? This because the previous S410 hat less noise then the S500. Does the SD300 have the same problem? Does the SD300 have more noise then the low cost SD200?

PLEASE HELP ME!!!

Thnx, Tristan Mooij.

[judge9847]

... don't make the same post to two different places on the forum. It splits the answers you'll get and you'll end up never being able to follow them. And it can look like you only get half an answer which isn't fair on those who do give you a reply.

And other people, who want to ask the same question, will only see a bit of the solution.

It's understandable why you would want to do it but at the end of it all, you and any others with the same problem are likely to miss out on the answer your looking for. Sod's Law says it's guaranteed it will be in the "other one". :)

[c2ironfist]

I got the SD300 :D

[kimnicho]

I love my SD200 and to be honest, I wouldn't pay an extra $100 for a 4 mpg - maybe if it was a 5 or 6. Unless you are going to do a lot of cropping , I don't see the advantage. And yes, there is more purple fringing (at least from the online reviews) that occurs with the SD300. So, if you can live with a 3 mpg, I would get the Sd200 and use the extra cash to buy a Sandisk Ultra II 512 SD card, extra battery + case. Just my opinion :D

[c2ironfist]

oh..... :)
I got all that already plus a megapixel more :D
muhahaahhhahah

all in all both great cameras ;)

[gr7797]

If youre a casual photographer, save youre money and get the SD200 and then you can use the xtra cash to purchase a nice memory card. Im just getting into photography and have the sd200 and i wouldnt want/need anything nicer.

[lafester]

don't forget that the sd200 is aluminum with more plastic then the sd300. i bought a 200 and liked so much i upgraded to the 300 for the stainless steel body and sturdier construction. (the extra pixels are nice also)

chris

[MobstaJ]

I've looked at both cameras and the sd200 is aluminum whereas the sd300 is stainless. The sd300 seemed to have shiny plastic around the edjes whereas the sd200's plastic is a bit more obvious. The plastic just isn't as obious in the sd300. But I was thinking, really, what are you going to do to your camera that would require it to be stainless steel as opposed to aluminum. They are both pretty rugged materials. I opted for the sd200 because it has 3.2 effective megapixels and the sd300 has 3.9. I just couldn't justify the extra cost. Turned out the sd200 does a good enough job for me. If you'll be doing a lot of out of camera editing though, go with the sd300.

[c2ironfist]

I've looked at both cameras and the sd200 is aluminum whereas the sd300 is stainless. The sd300 seemed to have shiny plastic around the edjes whereas the sd200's plastic is a bit more obvious. The plastic just isn't as obious in the sd300. But I was thinking, really, what are you going to do to your camera that would require it to be stainless steel as opposed to aluminum. They are both pretty rugged materials. I opted for the sd200 because it has 3.2 effective megapixels and the sd300 has 3.9. I just couldn't justify the extra cost. Turned out the sd200 does a good enough job for me. If you'll be doing a lot of out of camera editing though, go with the sd300.

That is true there is the same amount of plastic in the SD300 as much as there is in the SD200 it just covered up with shiny coating..

And the stainless steal metal casing is nothing but a thin peice of metal.. thats what I think.. you can damage it pretty easily if you drop it.. hell you can even break off the battery cover easily if you just nudge it a little bit.

Wonders why Canon makes things so easily breakable..

on the other hand I never knew that the SD300 has only 3.9 affective megapixels is this true? Seriously?

[MobstaJ]

It is true http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd300.asp. The canon website states that it has "Approx. 4.0 Million" effective pixels but if you take the resolution 2272x1704 and multiply it out you get closer to 3.9 megapixels. Accordingly, the sd200 isn't actually 3.2 megapixels but more like 3.15. Don't get me wrong, this is really no big deal. I didn't think it justified the extra cost for me as I was just using the camera for candid shots when I didn't want to stuff my S45 into my pocket.

[c2ironfist]

It is true http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd300.asp. The canon website states that it has "Approx. 4.0 Million" effective pixels but if you take the resolution 2272x1704 and multiply it out you get closer to 3.9 megapixels. Accordingly, the sd200 isn't actually 3.2 megapixels but more like 3.15. Don't get me wrong, this is really no big deal. I didn't think it justified the extra cost for me as I was just using the camera for candid shots when I didn't want to stuff my S45 into my pocket.


hey if you click on the in depth review it says 4 million effective pixels on th same page

also it says the same thing on this page as well http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/sd300.html

Either way its alll good I"m happy with my SD300

[kimnicho]

Here is what Jeff Keller said about the "look" of the two cameras: (from review)

"I personally think the SD200 looks a lot nicer (from the front, at least) than the more expensive SD300. It's also about 15 grams lighter. I'm not as enthusiastic about the "bubble buttons" on the back of the SD200, though."

I don't even mind the "bubble buttons" - the SD300 in my humble opinion, looks flashy (e.g shiny metal covers) and thus less "classy" in my eyes. And I'll say it again- an extra $100 for ONE more megapixel seems doesn't seem like a "smart buy"to me .... excess is NOT always better esp. when you are talking about ultracompact cameras. But I'm also sure confidant that you will be thrilled with either one.

[MobstaJ]

What it really comes down to is are you willing to pay the extra $100 for .8 megapixels? I am personally satisfied with 3.2. As long as you don't have to crop the image very much, it comes out looking fine. I would have to agree with Kimnicho about the body style. I have a preference for the sd200 design, it's a little less chromey if that's a word.

I would have bought the sd300 if it were more in line cost wise. $50 more for the extra .8 megapixels would be a much better deal.

[lafester]

i personally did not like the front of the sd200 and the bubble buttons made a funny squeeky noise when pressed. i am not thrilled about the chromy plastic on the sd300, but it sure seems like the 4 way switch on the back is metal. now if the sd200 is $300 for 3mp why shouldn't the sd300 be $400 for 4mp? makes sense to me!

btw, i did like the sd200... that's why i wanted the best in the series.

chris

[MobstaJ]

I'm just saying in my opinion, .8 megapixels isn't worth $100. It may be to other people. But let's take 2 other cameras for example, the A75 and the A85. The 75 has 3.2 megapixels and cost around $190. The 4mp A85 can be had for $20 or $30 more. I think that the small size of this camera allows canon to up the price more for smaller gains in sensor technology because people are willing to sacrifice more cash for the best and smallest. They dress it up a little with things like a stainless steel case to make the extra cost seem more worthwhile but to poor college students like me, I can't justify the extra $100 for .8 megapixels. I'm fine with 3.2.