CANON S95 - the search for pocket-size perfection ends in failure

I’ll start at the end for a change: I sold the S95 yesterday and bought a Nikon D40x. Here’s why: After the disappointing Panasonic Lumix GF-1, I tried to keep my expectations on the right side of rational. I guess I wasn’t prepared for just how bad the Canon is. Yes, as soon as the light gets dim, its little sensor struggles to capture the detail as the Digic IV engine frantically tries to fill in the blanks. Just like every other digicam I’ve ever used.

I know: the S95 has been praised far and wide - do I know what I'm doing? I reckon I do but I'm happy to let the pictures tell the story. My take is simple: all that talk about bigger sensors and lower pixel counts is just so much noise - the S95's sensor is still smaller than the nail on your little toe. Anyhow, I’ll let the pictures tell the story (the Canon images are 100% crops):

The light really wasn't that bad, but ISO 800 is clearly not on

Same story

More of the same

I shook my head in disbelief as they say in the classics. These images were so bad that I pulled out my old Ixus S960 IS (a 2007 model) and did some comparison shooting, one digicam in each hand. More reality than the S95 could handle

Inside Woolworths on a gloomy day. I'll let you guess which is which

Yes, the second one is the S960. How can it do a better job in poor light? Beats me. What we have here is an old 12mp digicam from the same maker giving Canon’s latest premium compact a reality check. What we have here are two pocket compacts that produce great images when the sun shines, and struggle to produce anything worthwhile when it doesn’t.

The S960 does a great job when the light is right - just check this little gallery out 

http://briard.typepad.com/photos/special/index.html

here's just one of those photos - from here on down, click on the image for a larger version:

I'd left the battery for my Nikon at home one Sunday morning, and had to grab the Canon IXUS out of the glovebox. Yes, the light was perfect but so were the images that came out of the old Canon. Sure, the S95 does just as well in good light:

 

Given this verdict, does it matter that the S95 is the perfect pocket size and is well-built? That it fits nicely in the hand and is easy to hold with its grippy new surface? That it has a big, bright, clear screen and a fast lens with a useful 18-70 zoom range (Nikon DX equivalent)? That it provides all the controls and settings you could possibly ask for in a camera this small?

No, all that goodness is wasted if the thing doesn’t take better photos than an old Canon S960 from generations ago. Bottom line: the vision of a compact camera capable of producing entry-level DSLR image quality has evaporated. It was a fata morgana conjured up by reviewers who sit in offices and take test shots of sauce bottles in their labs and never venture out into the real world.

One thing's for sure: there’s a world of difference between any digicam and a Nikon D40x. Yep, that’s what I ended up buying for $295 from a Nikon dealer, a hundred bucks less than the Canon. It was in the original box, the shoulder strap still neatly folded in its plastic sleave, the user guide untouched. 870 shutter actuations. Just about brand new, unwanted. Yesterday’s model.

OK, I already had the little 35mm f/1.8 lens so it really is a $500 camera. That still makes it over $100 cheaper than the Panny GF-1, and it leaves that camera for dead when it comes to IQ and versatility. And handling – the D40x is the best handling DSLR ever made. Perfect design. I owned a D40 until I sold it to my son with 35,000 clicks on the clock. Still works like a new one.

Yes, it’s a bit bigger than the GF-1 but that one didn’t fit into any of my pockets anyway. I can throw the D40x into my backpack, no dramas. It weighs just over half a kilo with battery and lens. And I have half a dozen lenses for it already if I want to get carried away, but I think I'll just leave the 35mm prime on it to stop me being lazy.

OK, so this one was taken with the old 55-200 VR, the plastic fantastic. Now look at this shot, straight out of the camera, just cropped (shot with the trusty old 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5)

And this one with the same lens

And you know what? We have some creative possibilities with Depth of Field and Bokeh once more. Very hard to do on Micro 43 cameras, even with that 20mm f/1.7 pancake on the GF-1. Impossible on digicams. No trouble at all on the Nikon D40x.

I’ve been a fool chasing rainbows, when the pot of gold was at my feet all the time. Yes, the D40x hails from the same year as the Canon S960, 2007. Perhaps it was a vintage year for cameras. Whatever the reason, the pictures tell the story and the DXOMark figures back it up. Here are the GF-1 and the Canon compared to the D40x:

One thing I noticed about the Canon S95 was that its dynamic range seemed to be better than the Panny GF-1, but I thought: it can't be! Look at the figures above and you'll see how I got to that point. So here we have it: the D40x is way ahead in the overall score, just as the images proved.

The worst part of this exercise is that I knew it all along - last year I wrote a piece for DPS extolling the improbable virtues of the humble 4-year-old 6 megapixel Nikon D40 http://www.digital-photography-school.com/nikon-d40-modern-classic-review

Kim

 

 

Comments

[Mike]

Kim --

Thanks for this "reality check!" I've been looking for that holy grail compact that can do low light and do it well; the Canon S95 was on my short list, along with the Panasonic LX5 and Olympus Pen. You make a compelling case for the D40X as the knockabout when the "good Nikon" stays home -- already have the lenses, relatively compact, easy to buy, etc.

Appreciate it!

Mike

[Kim Brebach]

Glad you found this of help, Mike. Can't tell you how disappointed I was with this one - it looked almost perfect on paper.I even found a compact carry bag the D40 just fits into with the compact 18-70 lens. It's called a Lowepro Adventura 120. It's smaller than it looks here
http://products.lowepro.com/product/Adventura-120,2159.htm

Kim

[Seika]

Kim,

Although it will give more trouble taking distance to do the framing, I usually find it easier to get bokeh in the GF1 using longer focal length rather than wider aperture. Although I’m not so sure for closely packed object like the flower, but for portrait (relatively distant background) it works well even in f/5.6 at 200mm.

But yes, the high ISO performance still left much to ask for.
Always tried to keep it as low as possible.

[Kim Brebach]

Thanks for the tip, Seika, hadn't thought of trying that. apparently the new sensor in the Panny GH2 is much better, but the camera is much dearer too. Shame about the GF1 - I really liked thst camera. Eventually, you make the best of what you have of course - we are spoilt for choice aren't we?
Kim

[Jim Miken]

wow i love the camera. Awesome

[Guest]

... ive had the s95 for a while now and never had any shots come out with that. looks like you were playing with the zoom/digital zoom which i never use so maybe there's the problem. just a thought

[Kim Brebach]

i was using optical zoom only, the was poor so i set the ISO to 800. In the test I ran, the old IXUS come out on top. I don't undestand it either, maybe I got a dud.

[Montero]

I had an s60 and it was awesome, still works but I use a dslr now.
I think the s95 has problems, there is no way you can get such pics with a canon powershoot s series...

[Kim Brebach]

Yes, I was as surprised as you but that's what came out of the camera.