Canon PowerShot ELPH 100 HS v. Nikon Coolpix S6100

[JayHawke75]

Okay, I'm a total noob to photog and this forum. We have a few year old Olympus E410 dSLR with the stock 14-42mm lens that we like well enough (though I want a longer lens, and using it back to back with Dad's Canon dSLR that was only slightly more expensive I like his Canon better). My wife occasionally puts in time learning to shoot well in manual mode, but we mostly use it in full auto. It is a bit slow to autofocus in dim indoor settings. It also has a shattered viewfinder that is usable but annoying and would cost 1/3 or more the cost of the camera to repair. But the biggest complaint is that we just don't take it with us enough. We want a cheap purse/pocket-portable compact P&S for everyday use, indoors and out. At least half the time it will be used in moderately low light indoor settings, primarily taking candids of young kids (preschooler and crawler/toddler). (Typical touristy outdoor scenery and people shots will be a secondary use.) So quick shots and decent moderately low light performance are a big deal to us. Telephoto/wide angle versatility is a secondary consideration.

In our price range, after reading a lot of reviews, I think I've narrowed it down to the two cameras in the title - Nikon COOLPIX S6100 or a Canon PowerShot ELPH 100 HS. The Canon HS has a slight edge in professional reviews and seems like it might have the edge in shot speed and low light, and it is also a bit lighter and more compact. The Nikon has slightly higher user ratings and a much wider optical zoom (7x = 28-196 mm eq. vs. 4x 28-112mm eq for the Canon), and it is $10 cheaper - $120 v. 130 for the Canon.

I thought it was a dead heat when I started writing, but think I'm leaning Canon 100 HS over the Nikon S6100. Seems to me like I'm sacrificing zoom (which would be nice) for quicker snaps and better low light performance (which is necessary). Thoughts? Anyone want to confirm my logic in going with the Canon? Or persuade me to buy the Nikon instead, given what I'll primarily use it for? Or have an entirely different camera I can get for $100-150 at Christmas prices that I should consider instead?

Probably buying in the next 24 hours (while these prices are guaranteed), so a couple quick responses would be very much appreciated.

[JayHawke75]

Bought both at Staples this morning on Black Friday deals for $119 (Nikon, $80 off MSRP) and $129 (Canon, $50 off recently reduced MSRP, $70 off last month's MSRP). I got a free (after mail in rebate) SanDisk 8 GB class 4 SDHC card with each camera, but paid ridiculous 9% sales tax here in Tempe.

Crutchfield has both for the same prices, free shipping, lifetime tech support (I'm a big Crutchfield fan for home and car a/v), and no sales tax - sales tax savings would pay for the SDHC card basically. If I'm returning both to Staples and ordering from Crutchfield, I have til Monday. If I skip Crutchfield and keep one from Staples and return the other, I have 2 weeks.

So please comment with thoughts. Is the Canon going to do enough better in lower light and/or snap enough faster (more concerned about the first shot than I am with lag between shots) than the Nikon to sacrice the MP (16 v 10) and optical zoom (7x v 4x) advantages of the Nikon?

[jwmrks]

Originally Posted by JayHawke75

So please comment with thoughts. Is the Canon going to do enough better in lower light and/or snap enough faster (more concerned about the first shot than I am with lag between shots) than the Nikon to sacrice the MP (16 v 10) and optical zoom (7x v 4x) advantages of the Nikon?

I can't really comment on these two specific cameras. If you have both, you'd probably be in the best position to know which you like better but since no-one else has answered here my $.02, though I don't know how helpful this will be.

As for the 16v10 MP, if you do not plan to print large images or do too much cropping, then the MPs don't really matter as much as people tend to think. As long as the sensor sizes are the same, the higher MP camera may seem to provide better resolution, but at the pixel level will probably show more noise, so the extra resolution is kind of negated by the extra noise. This is assuming similar sensor quality, and I don't know how the Nikon and Canon sensors on these two cameras compare. There may be a difference in these two cameras, but in general I'm not too swayed by MP count. If the Canon's sensor really is overall better in low light, you may get better quality with the lower MPs. However, if it's better in lower light at the pixel level, the Nikon may provide the same overall quality (or possibly better) lower light images after decent noise reduction has been done.

As for the zoom advantage, that depends on what you shoot. When am taking family/friend snaps I'm usually shooting close in at wider angles. However, when I'm out taking landscape/nature photos I do try to catch wildlife and in those cases even my 250mm occasionally falls a bit shorter than I'd like. When I picked up my P&S, it was for family snaps. It's a Sony with a 5x zoom and I've never asked for more from it. As my only camera I would probably opt for the longer zoom, but since I bought mine as a backup for my big camera, the zoom range was not one of my considerations. For family type snape and landscapes, the extra zoom probably will not matter for you. If you are trying to do macro photos or wildlife pictures, then the extra zoom would be important.