Discussion about
No 24mm wideangle?
The S90 is obviously Canon's answer to the Panasonic LX3 and Ricoh GX200, but both of those have a 24mm capable.
Be careful when calling the S90's lens 'better' than the LX3. Quality is not defined just by the zoom range, although it may be an important factor for some like yourself. The LX3's lens is a f/2.0-2.8 rather than the f/2.0-4.9 of the S90, which is an important factor when considering low-light situations where the LX3 excels. And while many feel too constrained by the LX3's rather short zoom range, I find 24mm to be more important for my style of shooting. And the Leica lens used by the LX3 is among the highest quality available on a point-and-shoot camera.
I hope that a thorough review of the S90 shows that it does in fact have a nice lens, but there aren't any reviews available yet to my knowledge. I hope that by moving into the LX3's territory, the competition will continue to increase the quality of cameras in this range.
I hope that a thorough review of the S90 shows that it does in fact have a nice lens, but there aren't any reviews available yet to my knowledge. I hope that by moving into the LX3's territory, the competition will continue to increase the quality of cameras in this range.
I totally agree that the LX3 runs circles around the S90, but the almost non-existing zoom for the LX3 was a big disappointment. I opted for the Ricoh GX200 mostly because of the 24-72mm lens, which is a great range for a Prosumer Camera. There will always be compromises, but the lens is probably the one thing that makes or breaks one's decision when pitting one camera against another for purchase.
Just to add my two cents:
The reduced zoom range is probably necessary to achieve the f/2.0 aperture, thus making the lens better overall for low light shots the same way that prime lenses are usually much faster than zooms for SLRs. Also less zoom means more legwork and more thinking which will improve your chops as a photographer.
I have a Nikon FM10 (a film camera aimed at students, fully manual) and it came with a 35-70mm kit lens. It has really forced me to be more active in my photo taking rather than simply move the zoom dial to frame my shots.
The reduced zoom range is probably necessary to achieve the f/2.0 aperture, thus making the lens better overall for low light shots the same way that prime lenses are usually much faster than zooms for SLRs. Also less zoom means more legwork and more thinking which will improve your chops as a photographer.
I have a Nikon FM10 (a film camera aimed at students, fully manual) and it came with a 35-70mm kit lens. It has really forced me to be more active in my photo taking rather than simply move the zoom dial to frame my shots.
I would love to have this camera. The wide end of the lens may not be 24mm but I think the range is decent. I might try to sell my SD870IS and a couple other random things in order to save up for this. I have been wanting a much smaller camera than my XSi with manual controls. EIther this or the G11 would fit the bill but this would be better as a camera to take everywhere size-wise.
Heh, I have an 870IS that would likely go away if I were to get this too. I'm actually quite torn between this and the G11 too. TheG11 is probably a better camera, but I'm not sure the increased size will be worth it. I'll have to actually get them both in my hands before I decide.
I almost bought a G10, but the large size killed the deal. Definitely not pocketable. Ended up buying the Ricoh GX200.
I would definitely go with the S90 over the G11. I almost bought a G11 but found it to be 'chunky' and would defeat the purpose of having a true pocketable camera with Pro features. The G11's styling leans somewhat toward a dSLR and may raise some eyebrows when you're trying to be low key. By the way, I ended up getting the Ricoh GX200 and never regretted it.
This post has been removed.
I have a FZ30, a typical 35 - 420mm (equivalent) zoom range and am always on the lookout for a good wide angle. At the moment, my sights are set on the LX3 with 24 - 60mm (equivalent). And now, there's Canon S90. It is not as wide, but if it is superb in low light conditions, handling and "pocketability", perhaps I might go for it instead. Still, the LX3's 24mm lens @ f/2.0 is very attractive... so I'm not going to put the S90 in my "Want" list just yet. Will wait for the reviews and comments to come in first.
Have you considered the Ricoh LX200? It has a 24-72mm lens, smaller and lighter than the LX3, and the LX200 feels more balanced and feels good in the hand as well. The LX3 also feels to slick in the hands (and from the looks of it; the S90 does too). The tectured grip of the LX200 is a lot better than the tiny obligatory strip that the LX3 has on the front. My LX3 toting buddies don't like the tiny hard metal buttons of the LX3 and they are envious of the Electronic VIewfinder Option that is available for the LX200 and the fact that you can swap out the rechargeable battery for AAAs in case of emergency!
