These two cameras are currently abt the same price ($240-245 online). I've read generally good reviews about both. I do realise that the SD 300 is alot smaller....and the A95 is 5 Megapixels (vs. 4 megapixels for SD 300). What i want is a good everyday use camera with good photo quality. Any help?
I'm not sure about picture quality between the two; the best thing is to compare the photos taken in the reviews of both cameras. The A95 is significantly larger in size, but you can still easily fit it into a sweater or jacket pocket or a purse. The A95 has a few features the SD 300 does not, most notably full manual controls and the swivel, LCD, which lets you take photos of, for example, 200-ft redwood trees without craning your neck. The A95 also takes AA batteries, which I really like.
I bought A95 two months ago and I love it every minute. Great camera for the price. With lot of options it really gives you a head start with photography. Next step for you will be to take an SLR which I am contemplating.
Besides full manual controls, the swivel LCD and 3x battery life, A95 takes significantly better photos than SD300. It has a larger CCD and a larger lens. Pics are much more sharper, less noisy and with lots of detail. Last but not the least, don't forget its powerful flash for indoor and night-shots.
However, if you are looking for an ultra-compact cam. and considering taking unlimited high quality videos and ofcourse faster operation w/ DigicII, then you may choose SD300.
Small cameras come with compromises otherwise everyone would have one. I have the SD 300 and really like it BUT I went in knowing its limitations. For me it was a matter of size. A larger camera would not fit into my lifestyle. I know because I have a larger digital camera and it gets left behind.
With that said, I really like the SD 300 and get nice pictures with it and it is really fast.
I would really like a SLR digital, but then again I might not use it much because of the size.
Canon A95 vs SD300
Linear Mode
