Canon PowerShot S200 vs S95: A Detailed, Hands-On Comparison for the Discerning Photographer

When it comes to compact cameras with capable features wrapped in a pocket-friendly body, Canon’s PowerShot series has long commanded respect. Today, we dig deep into two close relatives: the Canon PowerShot S200, announced in early 2014, and the slightly older Canon PowerShot S95, released in late 2010. Both target enthusiast photographers who demand more than a smartphone but still want absolute portability.

Having extensively tested these models in a variety of real-world scenarios - from street hustles to wildlife chases - I’m here to decode how they compare technically, practically, and creatively. If you’re considering an upgrade or hunting your first serious compact, you’ll find clear insights to help make an informed choice.

Size, Handling, and Physical Design - How They Feel in the Hand

Let’s begin with the physicality. Compact cameras often require a delicate balance: small enough to carry everywhere, but ergonomic enough not to be fiddly during shooting.

At first glance, the S200 feels sleeker and noticeably thinner than the S95. Measuring roughly 100 x 59 x 26 mm and weighing just 181 grams, the S200’s slightly reduced thickness is a welcome upgrade over the S95’s more rounded 100 x 58 x 30 mm profile and heftier 195 grams. Every gram and millimeter matters when you’re slipping the camera into a jacket pocket or a small bag. That said, the S95 has a slightly chunkier feel that some might find reassuring ergonomically.

In terms of control layout, both cameras are classic Canon PowerShots with a simple top dial for exposure modes and familiar thumbs-up rear buttons. The S200 sports the Digic 5 processor - an upgrade over the S95’s Digic 4 - which translates into faster start-up times and snappier operation, but physical controls remain largely similar. Neither camera offers a touchscreen, nor electronic viewfinders, so rely on the bright 3-inch LCDs for composition.

Speaking of screens:

Both feature a 3-inch fixed LCD with a resolution of 461k dots - sharp and clear enough for framing shots and reviewing images comfortably. However, neither offers articulation, so awkward angles require a bit more contortion.

My takeaway: If you prize compactness and speed, the S200’s more refined, lighter chassis will please you. If you’re after a sturdier grip and more chunk to hold onto, the S95 remains a firm contender.

Sensor and Image Quality - What’s Under the Hood

Here’s where things get juicy.

Both cameras share the same sensor size - a 1/1.7-inch CCD sensor with physical dimensions around 7.44 x 5.58 mm, yielding a 41.5 mm² area. That’s big for a compact but tiny compared to APS-C or full-frame sensors. Both offer about 10 megapixels resolution (3648 x 2736 pixels).

However, the S200 benefits from the newer Digic 5 processor, which dramatically improves noise handling and image processing efficiency compared to the Digic 4 in the S95. While the sensor technology itself remained CCD in both models (no jump to CMOS here), the S200’s processing yields visibly cleaner images at higher ISOs.

• Maximum native ISO on the S200 goes up to 6400 (vs. 3200 on the S95), giving you more breathing room in low-light situations.
• The S95, still respectable in daylight, starts producing noise more aggressively by ISO 800 or 1600.
• Unfortunately, neither camera shoots in RAW except the S95 (yes, surprisingly, the older S95 supports RAW, while the S200 does not). For pro photographers, this might be a deal-breaker - post-processing flexibility is limited on the S200.

Color depth and dynamic range are broadly matched, though the S95 pulls slightly ahead in color depth (20.4 bits in DxOMark’s measurements) and dynamic range (11.3 EV). The S200 has not been formally tested by DxOMark, but anecdotal evidence suggests improved noise handling with slightly reduced dynamic range.

In practical use, both produce excellent JPEG images for social sharing and casual print, but if you demand maximum latitude in RAW editing, the S95’s RAW files remain the safer bet.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance - Speed and Accuracy in Action

Autofocus systems can make or break a shooting experience depending on your style.

• The S200 sports 9 AF points and adds face detection with contrast-detection AF.
• The S95 contains a similar 9-point contrast-detection AF array but lacks face detection.

In my tests tracking moving subjects, neither camera offers blazing speed, but the S200’s continuous AF and face detection made portraits and casual street shooting noticeably easier. For sports or wildlife, though, these cameras fall short compared to modern mirrorless or DSLRs.

Continuous shooting tops out at 2 fps on the S200 and a languid 1 fps on the S95. Burst shooting isn’t a priority here.

Video-wise, both max out at 720p HD at 24 fps, which feels quite dated by today’s standards. No microphone inputs or advanced video controls exist, so video enthusiasts will want to look elsewhere.

Versatility: Lens, Macro, and Stabilization

Both cameras have fixed lenses, meaning no interchangeable options, but focal ranges differ:

• S200 offers 24-120 mm equivalency with a 5x zoom
• S95 sports 28-105 mm equivalency with 3.8x zoom

This gives the S200 a slight edge in telephoto range. Aperture-wise:

• S200 has a fast F2.0 aperture at the wide end, narrowing to F5.9 at telephoto.
• S95 also starts at F2.0 wide, but is brighter at telephoto with F4.9 max aperture.

Macro shooters might appreciate the S200’s close focusing at 3 cm (vs. 5 cm on the S95), unlocking more creative close-ups with shallow depth of field.

Both feature optical image stabilization, essential given the small sensor’s moderate dynamic range and typical slower shutter speeds necessary in low light. The S200’s stabilization, paired with Digic 5 processing, offers a slight edge in handheld sharpness.

Battery Life and Storage - How Long Will It Last?

Battery life is often underrated in these small compacts.

• The S200 manages around 200 shots per charge, powered by the NB-6LH battery.
• The S95’s quoted battery life is less clear, but generally similar given the same NB-6L battery model.

Neither camera supports dual storage slots; both rely on one SD card slot. The S95 additionally supports older formats like MMC and HC MMCplus cards, helpful if you have legacy media.

Connectivity and Extras - Wired, Wireless, and GPS

The S200 features built-in wireless connectivity but lacks Bluetooth or NFC. The S95 only supports Eye-Fi wireless via accessory cards rather than built-in Wi-Fi. For photographers who want quick, cable-free image transfer, the S200’s integrated WiFi is a definite plus.

Both have HDMI Mini ports and USB 2.0 for wired connections.

GPS is optional on the S200, while the S95 has none, so geotagging your travel photos will require external accessories or smartphone apps.

Real-World Performance Across Photography Genres

Let’s drill down into specific use cases. A camera’s specs can’t fully prepare you without context on how they handle actual shooting demands.

Portrait Photography

Portrait lovers will appreciate the S200’s faster AF with face detection, helping nail crisp eye focus in tricky situations. The wider 24 mm wide-angle lens is versatile for environmental portraits, and the F2.0 aperture gives serviceable background blur on the wide end (though don’t expect DSLR-level bokeh). Skin tone rendering between the two is comparable - smooth and warm - but the S200’s newer processing offers less noise even in dim indoor light.

Landscape Photography

Landscape shooters need resolution, dynamic range, and weather readiness.

Both cameras share the same 10 MP resolution - enough for small to medium prints but limiting for cropping. The nearly identical CCD sensors perform well in daylight but struggle in shadows or highlights. Neither model provides weather sealing, so caution outdoors is advised.

The S95’s slightly broader dynamic range helps here, but the S200’s overall responsiveness makes composition faster. However, the S200 lacks RAW capture, which some pros might miss for landscape editing.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

These genres demand fast autofocus, rapid continuous shooting, and long lenses.

Sadly, neither camera is purpose-built for this. Continuous burst of 2 fps (S200) or 1 fps (S95) is too slow for fast-moving subjects, and the AF systems are contrast-only, resulting in sluggish tracking. The S200’s 120 mm zoom edges out slightly over the S95’s 105, but neither will reach distant subjects effectively. Wildlife photographers should look toward superzoom compacts or mirrorless systems here.

Street Photography

Discretion, responsiveness, and portability matter here.

Both cameras score high marks due to their compact size and fast aperture lenses. The S200’s smaller, thinner body is slightly more pocketable, and face detection aids candid shots. Shutter lag is minimal; moderate AF speed is acceptable for static scenes.

Macro Photography

The S200’s macro focus to 3 cm beats the S95’s 5 cm, enabling much closer shots. Stabilization combined with the bright aperture can yield impressively sharp flower or detail images handheld. Focus precision is good on both, but the S200’s contrast-detection AF is improved.

Night and Astrophotography

Both struggle due to sensor size and pixel pitch. Maximum ISO on the S200 doubles that of the S95, giving it the edge for nighttime handheld shooting. Long exposures up to 15 seconds are available, but noise quickly becomes problematic, and CCD sensors are not ideal for dark sky imaging.

Video Capabilities

Both max out at 720p and 24 fps, with no external mic input or advanced controls. Video enthusiasts will feel constrained. The S200’s steadier processing might yield cleaner video, but overall video is a side feature here.

Travel Photography

For grab-and-go versatility, the S200 feels purpose-built. Lightweight, longer zoom range, better high ISO, and Wi-Fi connectivity tick lots of boxes for travel shooters. Battery life is average but adequate.

Professional Workflows

Neither camera is designed for pro use due to limited RAW support (only the S95 offers it) and modest image quality. However, for casual breaks or as a secondary compact in a pro’s arsenal, either can suffice in certain contexts.

Image Samples and Quality Verdict

Nothing beats looking at image samples side by side for visual confirmation.

Canon S200 front Canon S95 front Canon S95 screen back

Overall, you’ll see the S200 handles higher ISOs with less noise, the S95 excels in richer colors and subtle tonal gradations at base ISO, and the S200’s longer zoom impresses. Both produce sharp images wide open but lose some clarity at telephoto edges.

Scoring Their Strengths and Weaknesses

By aggregating performance, handling, and features:

• Canon PowerShot S200: Scores high for compactness, processing speed, image stabilization, zoom range, and ISO flexibility.
• Canon PowerShot S95: Scores better in color depth, RAW support, and dynamic range.

You can see the S200 ranks better in portrait, travel, and low-light uses, whereas the S95 maintains slight advantages in landscape and macro due to RAW and color attributes.

Final Thoughts: Which Canon Compact Suits You Best?

Deciding between these two compact Canons can feel nuanced because they share many qualities but differ in key areas.

Choose the Canon PowerShot S200 if:

• You want a more pocketable, lighter camera for travel and everyday use.
• You value faster AF with face detection and better high ISO performance.
• You want longer zoom flexibility (24-120mm).
• Wireless connectivity matters to quickly share shots.
• You shoot JPEG mostly and want better processing power.

Choose the Canon PowerShot S95 if:

• You desire RAW capture for maximum post-processing freedom.
• Color depth and dynamic range are priorities, especially in controlled lighting.
• You prefer slightly chunkier handling and a brighter telephoto aperture.
• You’re happy with older connectivity options and can handle slower AF.

A Personal Note and Recommendations

Having had both my hands on these cameras over the years, I’ve found the S200 to be a generally more capable camera for modern usage, sidelining the S95’s better RAW format and colors with improvements in processor speed and connectivity. If you’re a casual enthusiast or frequent traveler, the S200’s pocket presence and Wi-Fi tips the scale.

Yet, the S95 remains a stellar choice if you're on a tighter budget and demand RAW files - and can live with its lower ISO ceiling and slower burst.

Dear Canon, please consider blending these strengths in future PowerShots - especially maintaining RAW support while upgrading processors and connectivity for the discerning compact shooter!

Summary Table

For enthusiasts craving lightweight but empowered shooting without carrying extra lenses, the Canon PowerShot S200 pushes slightly further into modern compact camera territory. The S95’s legacy raw support and nuanced color still impress within its era but remind us how quickly camera tech moves.

Whichever you choose, you have in your hands solid tools for creative, compact photography.

Happy shooting!