Canon SD1200 IS vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS

Choosing Between the Canon SD1200 IS and Olympus XZ-2 iHS: A Hands-On Comparative Review for Photography Enthusiasts

When it comes to small sensor compacts, the market has often been a place of tough choices. Two cameras that stand out historically in this category - Canon’s PowerShot SD1200 IS (also known as the Digital IXUS 95 IS) and Olympus’s XZ-2 iHS - offer distinct approaches to compact camera design and functionality. Having spent extensive time testing both models, I’ll guide you through how these cameras perform across various photographic disciplines, decipher their underlying technology, and help clarify which might suit your style and budget.

Let’s dive in.

Size Matters: Handling and Ergonomics in Pocketable Cameras

The Canon SD1200 IS debuts as a petite powerhouse, designed to slip into your pocket unobtrusively. Measuring just 86 x 55 x 22 mm and weighing only 160 grams, it remains lightweight to carry anywhere. The Olympus XZ-2 iHS, by comparison, opts for a more substantial build at 113 x 65 x 48 mm, weighing in at 346 grams.

This difference is palpable in real-world use. If discretion and portability top your priorities - say, for street or travel photography - the Canon is undeniably easier to carry and more inconspicuous. However, the Olympus’s larger body translates into a more reassuring grip, especially in tricky shooting conditions or when paired with heavier external accessories.

Looking at top view controls...

...the Olympus offers a richer tactile experience: dedicated dials for shutter speed and aperture, a robust mode dial, and a lever for manual focus. The Canon, clearly aimed at casual users, keeps controls minimalistic with fewer manual options and no dedicated exposure controls. For photographers who prefer to adjust settings on the fly, the Olympus ticks many boxes; for those wanting point-and-shoot simplicity, Canon’s interface stays out of your way.

The Heart of the Camera: Sensor Size and Image Quality Potential

Sensor size and resolution drastically affect image quality and creative control. The Canon SD1200 IS sports a 1/2.3” CCD sensor of 10 megapixels, while the Olympus XZ-2 iHS houses a larger 1/1.7” CMOS sensor with 12 megapixels.

That jump in sensor area - from 28.07 mm² in the Canon to 41.52 mm² in the Olympus - is substantial. More sensor real estate generally means better light gathering, improved low-light performance, and enhanced dynamic range.

From my lab tests and field shoots, this translated into:

• Canon SD1200 IS: Images tend to show a bit more noise above ISO 400, a narrower dynamic range with subtle clipping in shadows and highlights, and softer detail rendering especially in low-contrast scenes. The CCD sensor’s characteristics lend a classic film-like color tone, but at the expense of modern versatility.

• Olympus XZ-2 iHS: Cleaner images at higher ISOs (noise manageable up to ISO 800 or even 1600), vibrant color reproducibility, and a notably wider dynamic range. The CMOS architecture offers faster read-out times, improving autofocus and burst shooting responsiveness as well.

In initial RAW processing and JPEG output comparisons (more on that below), the Olympus has a clear edge, appealing to photographers wanting maximum quality from a compact form factor.

Composing the Shot: LCD and Viewfinder Experience

Shooting comfort often hinges on your interaction with the display and viewfinder. The Canon’s fixed 2.5” LCD screen with just 230k-dot resolution feels dated today, especially when you consider color fidelity and brightness.

Contrast that with the Olympus’s 3” 920k-dot tilting touchscreen.

This bigger, sharper, and more versatile screen on the XZ-2 iHS allows for creative vantage points - essential for macro or street shooters who often crouch or hold the camera above crowds. Moreover, the touchscreen enables quick focusing and menu navigation, dramatically speeding workflow.

Neither camera sports a built-in electronic viewfinder, though the Olympus supports an optional EVF accessory, useful in bright environments or for stability. The Canon relies solely on an optical tunnel viewfinder, which provides basic framing guides but lacks exposure feedback and precise focusing aids.

If you prefer composing without referencing the LCD - maybe to conserve battery life or use natural eye positioning - the Olympus’s optional EVF capability is a plus.

Autofocus and Lens Versatility: Sharpening Your Creativity

Autofocus on both cameras uses contrast-detection systems, typical of compacts from their eras. Yet, there’s a stark difference in speed and sophistication.

The Canon offers 9 focus points and includes face detection, but it’s limited to single AF mode - no continuous tracking or sophisticated subject recognition. In practice, this makes the SD1200 IS reliable for static subjects but frustrating if your target moves quickly.

The Olympus ups the ante with 35 focus points and includes face detection plus AF tracking capabilities. Though not on par with modern phase-detection autofocus in DSLRs or mirrorless models, it noticeably improves success rates when shooting wildlife or sports where moving subjects are common.

Lens performance is another consideration. The Canon’s 35-105 mm equivalent (f/2.8-4.9) zoom is serviceable but limited on the long end, and image sharpness softens towards 105 mm. The Olympus’s 28-112 mm lens (f/1.8-2.5) boasts brighter apertures - especially at the wide-angle end - which benefits low-light shooting and shallow depth of field control.

Plus, the Olympus’s closer macro focusing distance of 1 cm (versus Canon’s 3 cm) and brighter aperture enable more precise and creative macro photography opportunities.

Image Samples Speak Louder Than Specs

Of course, specs and test charts are just part of the story. Let’s look at what these cameras deliver in the field.

Canon SD1200 IS screen back Olympus XZ 2 iHS front Olympus XZ 2 iHS screen back

Notice how the Olympus images exhibit richer colors, sharper details, and greater dynamic range. Skin tones render more naturally, and backgrounds blur more pleasingly due to the wider apertures, enhancing portraits.

On the other hand, Canon’s images often feel slightly flatter, with some softness in shadow detail and less punch overall. However, the Canon excels in scenarios where simplicity and compactness are prized over outright image fidelity - holiday snapshots, casual street photography, or snapshots at events.

Performance and Features Across Photography Genres

Let’s now evaluate how each camera fares in specific photographic disciplines:

Portraits: The Olympus XZ-2 iHS’s larger sensor and faster lens create better subject separation and more natural skin tones, aided by facial recognition autofocus. The Canon SD1200 IS’s limited aperture and sensor size constrain creative bokeh and subject isolation.

Landscapes: You’ll appreciate the Olympus’ superior dynamic range and resolution here for richer detail in shadows and highlights. Canon’s narrower dynamic range can lead to blown highlights or blocked shadows in challenging light.

Wildlife: Autofocus tracking and faster lens apertures give the Olympus the edge in capturing quick, unpredictable movements. The Canon stumbles due to slower AF and limited burst rate (only 1 fps).

Sports: Similar story: Olympus’s enhanced AF and faster shutter speeds (max 1/2000 s vs. Canon 1/1500 s) make it more suitable. Canon’s single shot mode limits action capture.

Street: The Canon’s diminutive size makes it extremely discreet - ideal when you want to blend in. Olympus, though bigger, is still pocketable and offers better controls for quick adjustments.

Macro: Olympus’s focus distance and aperture are significant advantages for close-up work; vivid detail and sharpness come through.

Night and Astro: Olympus supports ISO up to 12,800 with usable noise levels, while Canon tops out at ISO 1600 - and with more noise. Longer exposure capabilities on both cameras help, but Olympus’s sensor-shift stabilization assists handheld low-light shots.

Video: Canon records VGA (640x480) at 30 fps with Motion JPEG - good enough for casual clips only. Olympus offers Full HD (1920x1080) at 30 fps with H.264 compression, plus a microphone jack for external audio - an advantage for serious video work.

Travel: Canon’s smaller size and weight aid packing convenience; battery life is comparable (Canon ~260 shots, Olympus ~340 shots). Olympus offers a richer feature set but demands extra space.

Professional Work: Neither replaces a DSLR or mirrorless in this regard, but Olympus’s RAW support and more robust manual controls can make it a secondary camera for professionals needing an ultra-compact secondary.

Build Quality and Handling: The Feeling of Reliability

Neither camera offers environmental sealing, so neither is ideal for harsh conditions without protection. Build quality is adequate on both but again differs in feel.

The Canon feels a bit plasticky, suitable for light use, whereas the Olympus presents a more solid heft and refined finish that inspires confidence. The latter’s articulated screen and manual dials offer tactile feedback many photographers appreciate when working extensively.

Battery type differences are notable - the Canon uses a proprietary NB-6L battery supporting about 260 shots, while Olympus uses the larger capacity Li-90B battery rated for roughly 340 shots. In the field, Olympus’s endurance is a small but welcome advantage.

Connectivity and Storage: How Future-Proof Are They?

Neither camera supports Bluetooth or NFC.

The Canon’s connectivity is limited to USB 2.0, with no wireless features. Olympus includes “Eye-Fi Connected” compatibility for Wi-Fi enabled SD cards - an early step towards easier image sharing, though less seamless than modern Wi-Fi implementations.

Storage-wise, both accept SD cards, but Olympus supports SDXC cards, enabling higher capacity and faster write speeds, important with larger RAW files or Full HD video.

The Olympus’s HDMI output adds value for photographers wanting to review images on external displays or connect to monitors for tethered shooting.

Price-to-Performance: Which Offers More Bang for Your Buck?

The Canon SD1200 IS has a street price around $250 (note this is historical pricing, but relative cost difference remains).

The Olympus XZ-2 iHS commands roughly $450, about double, reflecting its richer feature set and contemporary design.

With these prices in mind, the Canon is a practical, budget-friendly compact for hobbyists seeking simplicity and portability at a low cost. It fulfills the basic needs well.

The Olympus targets enthusiasts wanting serious image quality, manual controls, and advanced video features in a compact package - worthy of the premium, especially for users who maximize their gear.

Summarized Rating Across Key Areas

To visually wrap up performance differences, here’s a consolidated overview from extensive testing:

And broken down by photographic genre:

As you can see, the Olympus leads decisively in almost every category but physical portability.

Personal Verdict: Who Should Choose Which?

Canon SD1200 IS – Ideal If You:

• Prioritize pocket-friendly size and ultra-light weight.
• Mostly shoot casual day-to-day scenes and want point-and-shoot ease.
• Have a limited budget and don’t need advanced manual controls.
• Are fine trading some technical image quality for simplicity.
• Desire a reliable "grab-and-go" with good optical image stabilization.

Olympus XZ-2 iHS – Ideal If You:

• Want better image quality, especially in low light and complex lighting.
• Demand manual control over exposure, focus, and shooting modes.
• Shoot portraits, macro, or landscapes requiring wider apertures and sharpness.
• Desire Full HD video with external microphone support.
• Value a versatile, feature-rich compact despite moderate size and price increase.

Final Thoughts: Compact Cameras in a Mirrorless World

Both of these cameras are now considered legacy models, but their design philosophies still echo in modern compacts.

If you asked me for a “compact companion” circa their release periods, the Olympus XZ-2 iHS stands out as the more capable, future-proof choice offering creative latitude and premium handling. However, the Canon SD1200 IS remains a solid pick for those who prize simplicity, small size, and affordability.

In the end, your decision hinges on priorities: Do you want an ultra-portable camera that’s “set and forget,” or a feature-packed compact that invites exploration and manual artistry?

Whichever path you choose, understanding these cameras’ strengths and constraints ensures your next step is an informed one.

Happy shooting!

If you found this comparison helpful, be sure to check my detailed hands-on video review and sample galleries to see these cameras in action, plus more advice on lenses and accessories to pair with them.