Canon PowerShot S200 Discussion
See the Imaging Resource's review for the Canon PowerShot S200 here...

Comments (12)

I just bought the Canon S200 this weekend. I love the small factor. However, a few complaints with Canon tech support explanation, 800/652-2666.

1. The picture was not as sharp as I like. (I used to have a Kodak 3400 and loved the sharpness of the pic, but it is a bulky camera. I set my resolution and compression on the lowest settings on both Kodak 3400 and Canon S200 to preserve file sizes, the color saturation on the 3400 may not be as bold all of the time, but it suits my personal album fine). The S200 color at the lowest settings is great, however, the pis is not sharp, almost out of focus.

Tech: One possible reason, the shooting button needs to be depress halfway to autofocus, then all the way to capture. Second, increase resolution.

I still didn't get the result that I wanted.

2. No date stamp on the pic.

Tech: There is no option for putting the date stamp on the pic directly. To get around that, you must use the Canon software that came with it, and add a caption and input the date. Too tedious for such a simple request. If anyone finds a better solution, please email it to me. Thanks..

Comment #1

I must concur with Carl. Ironically, I too bought my S200 this weekend and I also own a Kodak DC3400. I have made several test shots with both cameras. The Canon does have color tones that seem to be warmer and more accurate than the Kodak. But, in many cases, the Kodak is sharp and clear while the Canon is "almost out of focus". Also, the Canon often seems noisier.

Look closely at the "blue man" and the "Lego bowl". The Kodak's colors are clear while the Canon's are noisy. I'm afraid my Canon is going back. I'm up late browsing other reviews in an effort to determine if the Canon S330 is any better. Attachments:.


Comment #2

Oops. My Kodak attachment didn't go through. Here it is. Attachments:.


Comment #3

I disagree with the size comments. The S200 is much smaller as I saw them side by side in the store. By volume the S330 is 43% larger than S200 - do the math...

Comment #4

I am following up on my posting and Garth. The Kodak 3400 is far superior in sharpness to the Canon S200. The Canon S200 even with slow careful shooting (no tripod, I don't usually carry one around), the pictures still come out HORRIBLE. I am greatly disappointed. I love the small size and the many features, but a camera that doesn't take good pictures is useless and is definitely going back. I will not waste any more time taking picture with out-of-focus result no matter how careful I shoot.

Just a tip for those buying cameras or any electronic items. Electronics tend to break down in a couple of years. Buy your electronics with it's purchase protection program. They will replace it with a new one. It is like leasing your electronics for a small amount because your money always stay there with the product, unless you lose it or get it stolen. Anyone know a small 2 megapixel camera with sharp pictures (e.g.

I don't even want to take any more pictures with the S200, simply, because it doesn't come out well. Carl..

Comment #5

The S330 is more that "slightly bigger" than the S200 as the Imaging Resource review states. But, it isn't quite 43% larger. Doing the math, the S200 is 8.228 cubic inches (3.4 x 2.2 x 1.1) while the S330 is 11.1 cubic inches (3.7 x 2.5 x 1.2). The delta, 2.872, divided by the S200 volume, 8.228, is 0.349 or approximately 35% larger. OK, this is a nit and indeed, the S330 is one third larger than the S200. However, the S330 is still a very compact camera in it's own right.

That makes the DC3400 298% larger than the S200 and 195% larger than the S330. For me, the S330 is still an attractive improvement over the DC3400 in both size and operation  not to mention the 3x optical zoom. I am more likely to have the S330 with me than the DC3400 when I need it. However, It still remains to be seen whether that extra 34% includes optics and electronics that produces images better than the S200 and comparable to the DC3400. If not, then size doesn't matter  the undesirable results aren't worth my time.


Comment #6

I also got the S200 this weekend, but I like it so far! I've put up a dozen snapshots taken to see how well the little guy would perform around sunset , handheld without flash. Nothing special here, but I think that the S200 performed well under difficult lighting circumstances. Virtually all these pics had a "low light" warning...

Comment #7

What about compared to the s110? I heard the quality is better with the s110 than s200?..

Comment #8

Cy, I haven't heard that. In fact, the consensus of reviewers seem to say that the S200 is an improved S110 at a lower price. Since the S200 has received near-rave reviews, I am surprised that I am the only one posting here who likes the thing. Cheers,.


Comment #9

I just bought the Canon, and so far, I like it. It's to replace my Kodak DX3900 which has made three trips to Kodak with the same complaint of "pictures don't look good" and Kodak asserts that it's the state of the art. Their art, not mine. The Kodak was to replace my Kodak D265c, which took terrific pictures (at 1.6 megapixels), good color, good focus, but bulky. Somehow Kodak learned how to make their cameras smaller by removing the quality...

Comment #10

I bought the 330 first last week and after seeing the 200 I returned it for the smaller one. It is very much smaller than the 330 and picture quality is identical. Picture quality is excellant and the features are easy to navigate after a short while playing with the camera. My main reason for buying the S200 was size and quality. If you are looking for the smallest size and best picture it's the S200. The S330 is in the same size catagory as say the Nikon 885 etc.

I am totally happy so far with the S200. It is always with me to shoot. Attachments:.


Comment #11

I've had the S200 for a week. So far, I'm not super impressed. I bought it for the small size and light weight, and for that I'll probably keep it. On the other hand, the pictures we've taken so far are rather soft, bordering on appearing out of focus. 1600x1200 Superfine or 1024x768 normal and it is the same result. In addition, low light pictures (with flash) are somewhat noisy.

The sharpness and low light flash performance are superior, at least with default settings. I wish the P30 was as pocket friendly as the S200... Given the excellent professional reviews this camera received at this site and a couple others, I have to wonder if some cameras possibly have a bad set of software or something. If anyone finds a solution in a menu setup option, or in returning it to Canon, I'd appreciate a followup comment. Thanks...

Comment #12

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.

This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.


Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |


(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.