Canon SD200 considering to buy it

[kevinf]

i am planing to buy the SD200 and is this a good camera anything bad about this camera

[Guayaiperojo]

This is a very good camera for what it was built. And the video capabilitites are one of the best if not the best out ther at this time. I will go for the SD300 and get those 4.0 megapixels instead of the 3.2 of the SD200.

[Mr. Magoo]

4 MP vs 3.2 MP is only a 10% difference in image size.

There are other good reasons to by the SD300 over the SD200, but IMO the sensor resolution isn't one.

[David Metsky]

There are other good reasons to by the SD300 over the SD200, but IMO the sensor resolution isn't one.
There is essentially no other difference between the two cameras.

[Mr. Magoo]

Well I like the feel of the case/buttons better on the SD300. That is subjective.

I also could have sworn the SD200 I played with in Best Buy didn't have Long Shutter Mode and the SD300 did. According to the Canon website both have it.

[ewatson989]

But you seem to be spreading some sort of new math around as well as downplaying the significance of having higher resolution. 4 megapixels is exactly 25% more than 3.2 megapixels. Image size should be measured in total pixels, not by the length of one it's sides.

[ProblemSolver]

Since there price difference is only around $80 - I'd recommend you get the SD300 instead. It is a little thinner than the SD200, uses the same battery and card type and ...... You're going to need 4 megapixels (Sooner or later). 3.2 MP is for waaaaaaaay back in time (In 2000, when most cameras had 3.2 MP). Besides, 6 or 7 MP P&S cameras are expected to be the "standard" within a year or so - Just look at how many affordable 7 MP cams there are nowadays.

Or you can get the SD200 and an extra battery + higher capacity card with the $80

[gary_hendricks]

i am planing to buy the SD200 and is this a good camera anything bad about this camera

It's a great camera except:
1) In low light conditions if you do not use the flash the pictures are somewhat blurry, even if you change the settings around. It appears that the camera needs the flash to focus properly.
2) Red-eye is a major problem with this camera even with the red-eye reduction shooting mode. So be prepared to fix a lot of red-eyes out of your pictures.

[kimnicho]

Not to pop your bubble but just thought I'd let you know my story. After a few weeks of owning a SD200, it is now being sold on Amazon Marketplace. Whilst I love it's tiny size and portability, I wasn't THRILLED with its picture quality. The majority of my Indoor shots simply lookes "soft" and shadowy. So, after comparing a bunch of cameras at my local shop, I am buying the Sony W1.
It is MUCH bulkier but it produced the SHARPEST pictures out of the bunch (my salesman took sample pictures and printed them out from the following cameras- Pentax Optio S5i, Minolta X50, Sony P100, Sony P150, and Sony W1. I have since read that the Canon S500 is very similar (in picture quality) to the W1 (and slimmer). As everyone has stated, and I can personally attest to, there are definite compromises in picture quality when using an ultracompact camera.

So, my advice is simply this- Get the BIGGEST camera you can tolerate. It's like what the carpet guy told me when we were picking out samples - "Get the DARKEST color you can tolerate". Hope this helps.

[Quiss]

I must agree, the SD200 and SD300 cameras are somewhat disappointing for indoor picture quality in comparison to the A series. i have the canon A80 and it's much better in my opinon for picture clarity and true colour (although A80 is very heavy and bulky). All depends on what is most important to you.

[skagen]

If you're looking for a small camera with high picture quality (indoors included) I suggest you take a look at the Panasonic DMC-FX7. I've owned one for 2 months now and it produces some phenomenal pics. its much pricier, but you get what you pay for.

If you insist staying in the price range of the SD200 the Pentax S5i seems to me a far better deal. If will give you a 5MP image quality and is quite decent indoors within its flash range (up to 9 or 10 feet). And its available around $275 at 17photo.com last time I looked. With that available, why messa round with a 3MP camera?

But if quality of picture is the question, spend the money and get the Panasonic. Its well worth the money.

[dmbartender]

do you have any issues with the lack of a viewfinder? do you own or spare battery or suggest buying one? just curios cause the pana is on my short list of cameras tha i want, along with the sd300, since it has the image stabalizer and large screen,. but i heard that such a large screen sucks up juice, thats why i was wondering about the battery.

[KJB]

I am considering selling my SD200 for poor low light photos (orange skintones, not as clear) for the FX7? Can you be more specific about low light photos with the FX7? Thanks!!!