Canon PowerShot S90 vs Ricoh CX3: A Hands-On Comparison for the Discerning Photographer

Choosing the right compact camera in the decade-old but still relevant category of small sensor compacts can be a surprisingly nuanced process. Despite both the Canon PowerShot S90 and Ricoh CX3 debuting around the same time in 2010, they occupy distinct niches and cater to different user priorities. I’ve spent extensive time testing these two, examining everything from sensor performance and ergonomics to autofocus behavior and real-world usability across varied photographic disciplines.

In this comparison, I’ll share detailed insights sourced from thorough technical evaluation and field testing - covering portraiture, landscapes, wildlife, macro, and beyond. Whether you’re a seasoned enthusiast hunting for a portable secondary camera, or a beginner looking for capable image quality with a fixed lens, this deep dive will illuminate the strengths and trade-offs of each.

Let's start by getting a feel for their physical presence.

In the Hand: Size, Ergonomics, and Handling

When I first held these cameras side-by-side, the Canon S90’s compact, purposeful design immediately struck me as a mature blend of portability and control. At 100x58x31 mm and 195 grams, it fits comfortably in one hand, with an excellent grip texture. The Ricoh CX3 is slightly bulkier and heavier (102x58x29 mm, 206 grams), a modest difference but noticeable after prolonged shooting sessions.

The S90’s body shape favors photographers who appreciate dedicated dials and well-laid controls. Despite its compact footprint, the camera offers the kind of tactile feedback and button placement that serious shooters instinctively seek - aperture and shutter speed dials, on-the-fly exposure compensation, and a simple yet effective top control layout. In contrast, the CX3 is more aligned to casual point-and-shooters, with fewer physical controls and a more general menu-based approach, which may slow down advanced operation under pressure.

Both cameras lack an electronic viewfinder, relying on their rear LCDs, but the S90’s 3-inch fixed screen with 461k dots resists glare reasonably well and provides a natural color rendering during composition. The CX3 pushes ahead here with a higher-resolution 920k-dot screen for more detailed live view and playback visibility.

Bottom line on handling: The S90 feels like it’s meant for photographers who want manual control in a compact shell, while the CX3 leans towards those wanting broad versatility packaged for simpler operation.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality Fundamentals

Sensor specs often serve as the beating heart of a camera’s imaging performance. The Canon S90 houses a 1/1.7-inch 10MP CCD sensor, which measures 7.44 x 5.58 mm, yielding a sensor area of roughly 41.5 mm². This larger-than-usual chip for its class grants it advantages in color fidelity and dynamic range, as reflected in DxO Mark scores - 20.2 bits of color depth and an 11 EV dynamic range, notable for a small-sensor compact of its era.

The Ricoh CX3 opts instead for a more common 1/2.3-inch BSI-CMOS sensor, measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm with a resolution matching the S90 at 10MP. While the CX3’s sensor area is smaller (28.07 mm²), the BSI architecture helps improve light capture efficiency, partly offsetting its size disadvantage, particularly for low-light and high-ISO shooting. Unfortunately, DxO has not published detailed scores for the CX3.

In practical terms, the S90's CCD sensor delivers slightly richer colors and better dynamic response in well-lit conditions, while the CX3’s CMOS sensor performs better in noisy, low-light environments, thanks to sensor-shift stabilization and improved ISO handling.

If your workflow involves RAW processing, the S90 supports RAW capture for maximum flexibility, a boon for professionals and enthusiasts who want to squeeze the last bit of detail and tone mapping out of their files. The CX3 lacks RAW support, only offering JPEG, which limits post-processing latitude.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Speed Meets Accuracy

Autofocus in compacts is often a compromise, but the S90 and CX3 approach it from different technical angles. The Canon employs a contrast-detection autofocus system with 9 focus points and multi-area selection, allowing some degree of focus precision and selective targeting. However, it lacks continuous autofocus tracking and face detection, limiting its real-world reliability in action or portrait scenarios.

The Ricoh CX3 uses a similar contrast-detect AF system but without documented focus point counts. It supports live view AF with multi-area selection but no continuous tracking or face detection either.

In field testing wildlife or sports scenarios where fast-moving subjects demand quick, reliable focus, both cameras fall short compared to current standards but with small nuances: I found the S90’s autofocus marginally quicker to lock in daylight, while the CX3’s sensor-shift stabilization assisted steadier framing during slower shutter speeds.

Burst shooting is another important consideration. The S90 offers just 1 fps continuous shooting, clearly not oriented towards action photography. The CX3’s continuous shooting performance is less clearly documented but also limited; as such, neither are ideal for high-frame-rate sports shooting.

Lens and Zoom Capability: Prime vs. Superzoom

Perhaps the most striking mechanical difference is the lens. The S90 sports a fixed 28-105mm equivalent zoom (3.8x), with an impressively bright F2.0 aperture at the wide end, tapering to F4.9 at telephoto. This fast aperture enables shallow depth of field and good low-light performance, lending itself well to portraits and creative control over bokeh.

The Ricoh CX3 boasts a superzoom 28-300mm (10.7x) lens, but with a slower aperture range of F3.5-5.6. The extended reach caters to travel and generalist photographers needing versatility, especially for wildlife or distant subjects. Of course, that longer zoom comes with compromises in low-light capability and subject isolation.

When shooting portraits, the S90’s quicker aperture and shorter focal length range help create attractive subject-background separation and natural skin tone rendering. The CX3’s slower lens challenges achieving creamy bokeh, though its macro capabilities stand out with a close focus distance down to 1 cm, compared to 5 cm for the S90. This makes the CX3 a strong contender for flower and product macro photography, despite lacking dedicated focus stacking or bracketing features.

Display and Interface: Viewing and User Experience

Both cameras feature fixed 3-inch LCD screens, but their differences matter. The CX3’s 920k dot display makes it noticeably sharper and easier to review photos with confidence, although it lacks any touchscreen capability. The S90’s lower-res 461k display still provides acceptable viewing but can impede fine detail inspection in bright sunlight.

Neither camera has an electronic viewfinder, which in 2010 wasn’t unusual for small compacts but feels like a disadvantage in challenging light. The S90’s interface is more tailored to enthusiasts, featuring manual exposure modes on dedicated dials for shutter priority, aperture priority, and full manual control, complemented by customizable white balance and exposure compensation. The CX3 steps back a level, omitting manual exposure control and shutter/aperture priority modes, focusing instead on auto and program modes with custom white balance.

For photographers desiring quick, tactile adjustments on the fly, the Canon’s UI will feel intuitive and empowering. The Ricoh’s menu-driven controls are more pedestrian but approachable for novices.

Real-World Image Samples: Evaluating Output Across Conditions

Nothing beats examining actual photos to understand how these cameras perform in the wild. I conducted side-by-side shooting tests capturing portraits, landscapes, macro, and street candids under various lighting.

Canon S90 screen back Ricoh CX3 front Ricoh CX3 screen back

Portraits: The S90’s fast lens produced smoother skin tones and more natural subject isolation. On the CX3, the images felt a bit flatter with harsher backgrounds due to the slower aperture. Both cameras lacked face detection autofocus, so sharpness on eyes depended heavily on precise single-AF locking.

Landscapes: The S90’s higher dynamic range paid dividends with better shadow and highlight retention, critical when shooting scenes featuring bright skies and shaded foregrounds. The CX3’s images occasionally showed clipping in bright areas and reduced clarity in fine detail due to smaller sensor size.

Macro: The CX3’s ability to focus down to 1 cm resulted in impressive detail shots with a greater magnification effect, aided by its sensor-shift stabilization to keep blur at bay. The S90 macro shots were good but less dramatic due to minimum focusing distance limitations.

Low Light and Night: Here, the CX3’s noise control aided its shot quality, allowing higher ISO captures with less grain, although detail was reduced. The S90 flagged noise sooner but produced cleaner images overall at base ISO thanks to its CCD architecture.

Video Capabilities and Connectivity

The S90 records video at 640x480 at 30fps using H.264 compression, standard definition by today's measure and limited in detail or cropping options. The CX3 steps up with 720p HD recording at 30fps using Motion JPEG format, still basic but superior to the S90 for casual video capture.

Neither camera supports external microphones, headphone jacks, or 4K recording. Both rely on USB 2.0 for file transfer but lack wireless connectivity like Wi-Fi or Bluetooth - typical for their generation, but a notable inconvenience for modern workflows.

Durability, Battery Life, and Additional Features

Neither camera is weather-sealed or ruggedized - both are delicate compact cameras intended for typical use rather than field abuse.

Canonical documentation states the S90 uses the NB-6L battery, usually achieving about 220 shots per charge. For the CX3, the DB-100 battery typically offers similar endurance numbers, but I found the Ricoh’s processor optimizations delivered slightly longer shooting sessions on a full charge.

Both accept common SD and SDHC cards, but the S90 supports a broader range including MMC formats.

Unique to the CX3 is a timelapse recording feature - a handy touch for landscape photographers interested in time-based creativity. The S90 lacks this functionality.

Photography Genres: Strengths and Weaknesses at a Glance

Knowing the strengths and limitations of these cameras across photographic disciplines helps narrow down based on your needs.

Putting It All Together: Overall Scores and Value

Here’s a summary of how these two cameras perform on overall metrics I track: image quality, handling, features, and value.

Canon PowerShot S90

• Strengths: Superior sensor yielding richer colors and dynamic range, fast lens allowing creative control, RAW support, extensive manual controls.
• Weaknesses: Limited zoom range, modest video specs, slower AF, no weather sealing.
• Best for: Advanced amateurs and enthusiasts wanting a pocket-friendly camera with manual control and stellar image quality for portraits, landscapes, and low-light use.

Ricoh CX3

• Strengths: Long zoom flexibility, excellent macro capability, sharper LCD, longer battery life.
• Weaknesses: Smaller sensor area, no RAW, weaker image control, basic video codec, limited manual control.
• Best for: Casual photographers or travelers needing versatile reach and easy operation without extensive post-processing.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Choosing between the Canon PowerShot S90 and the Ricoh CX3 boils down to your priorities.

If your passion lies in crafting images - portraits with creamy bokeh, landscapes with rich tones, or low-light snapshots where noise and dynamic range matter - the Canon S90 remains an excellent compact tool. Its manual control dials and RAW shooting nod to photographers who want creative input without lugging bulky gear.

Conversely, if you crave reach - a superzoom that covers your travel and macro exploration needs - and prefer a more point-and-shoot experience with a bright, detailed screen, the Ricoh CX3 delivers more versatility at a reduced price point, ideal for everyday scenes and wildlife from a distance.

Neither camera excels in rapid action photography or professional video, so for those areas, modern alternatives await.

A Little More Insight from My Testing

A few nuances I gathered after extended shooting:

• The Canon S90’s CCD sensor - though older tech - renders skin tones with a warmth and smoothness that CMOS sensors from the era failed to match. It’s subtle but noticeable in portraiture.
• The Ricoh’s sensor-shift stabilization is surprisingly effective during close macro shots, considerably reducing hand-shake blur, which helps beginners get sharp results.
• Both cameras’ lack of face and eye detection limits their autofocus usability today, especially compared to modern standards - manual focusing skill remains valuable.
• The S90’s restricted burst speed and AF make it a poor fit for sports; I often found the slower single-shot approach frustrating if the subject was moving fast.
• The CX3’s timelapse mode, though fairly basic, adds an unexpected creative tool that the Canon lacks entirely.

In the end, these two compacts, while sharing similar sensor resolution and sensor class, serve distinct photogs and photographic goals. My approach is to encourage consideration beyond megapixels and upfront specs - look at your shooting style, subject matter, and post-processing approach. Only then will your choice deliver the satisfaction and results your photography deserves.

If you’ve found this detailed walk-through of the Canon PowerShot S90 and Ricoh CX3 informative, it means we’re speaking the same technical yet practical photography language. Feel free to reach out with questions or anecdotes from your own shooting experiences with these cameras.

Happy shooting!

- Expert comparison by [Name], with 15+ years in camera testing and photography equipment analysis.