what are the differences between SX120 and SX110? please help me decide i´m in the market for a new canon point and shoot because my old SX100 had an accident. i really liked it so i thought about getting a new version but i´m not sure which way to go please somebody help me decide thanks
There is no real difference betweeen the two, other than adding the newer digic 4 processor (replacing the older digic 3 processor on the SX110). I don't think this is worth a premium over the SX110. As already discussed in other discussion page, the sensor is slightly smaller (BAD!), and they upped the megapixel to 10 (up from 9 -- almost useless).
I really don't understand Canon why they released this camera without anything really worth upgrading from the SX110. I would rather recommend you the SX200, which have much more features, like wide angle, longer zoom, proprietary battery so you can see battery meter on LCD (unlike with the AA batteries), has quicker flash recharge time, speaker is placed on better position, has additional features like color swap, color options like vivid red/blue/green, you can erase part of a movie, and is slimmer. Or, if you want more pro but not going DSLR way, check out the new G11.
In short, comparing to SX110, at least on paper, SX120 got better processor, but worse sensor and shorter battery life. In other words, I think that at best these models are about the same, at worst SX120 is a step down.
About SX200: judging by reviews, it seems that SX110 is (well... was) better in low light. May be that's the reason why Canon dumbed down SX120 so the image quality of different cameras will better agree with their price points.
I have a real problem with the SX120 -- terrible white balance on automatic setting. It does better on program settings, but unless I'm missing something and those carry over into automatic mode . . . rarely do I get decent indoor skin tones.
The SX120 at ISO 800 and 1600 is way better than the SX110, this is the biggest difference I've seen. Search for some reviews that have the same shots at ISO1600 for both cameras and compare the two side by side and it'll jump out at you. I'm not so sure the slightly smaller sensor has much difference, sensor technology improves very slowly too, so maybe it has better signal to noise ratio even though it's more MP on a slightly smaller surface area.
I don't like the SX200 for a bunch of reasons, the always up flash is annoying. It has a slower lens than the SX110/120, and it's way more expensive.
Good_Person, Your preference for a "proprietary battery so you can see battery meter on LCD (unlike with the AA batteries)" suggests you haven't used Lumix cameras like our LZ7 and LZ8. The setup menus in these cameras let you choose battery type, so the camera's battery charge indicator is accurate and the camera works well whether you're using disposable alkalines or rechargeable NiMH cells. As far as I know, Canon cameras that use AA cells still don't have this feature. I know for a fact that our PowerShot cameras don't have it. I prefer cameras that can use NiMH AA cells, because AAs are so readily available at reasonable cost, last long, and can be substituted by alkalines if necessary.