Canon SD940 IS vs Sony TX200V: An Expert’s Dive Into Two Ultracompact Contenders

When it comes to ultracompact cameras - those pocket-sized marvels designed to travel light and capture memories without fuss - there’s a temptation to dismiss them as mere casual shooters. But having spent countless hours handling cameras across categories, I know the devil is in the details. Even small sensor compacts can shine for certain use cases if their engineering and ergonomics hit the mark.

Today, I’m putting two similarly sized ultracompacts head-to-head: the Canon PowerShot SD940 IS (also known as the Digital IXUS 120 IS) from 2009 and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX200V from 2012. Despite their age gap, both cameras aimed to deliver impressive image quality and usability in a svelte form factor. But which one holds up better in practical use? How do their core specs translate into real-world photography? And crucially, who should consider each if shopping via second-hand or budget routes?

I’ll unpack all that through a comprehensive technical and experiential analysis. Along the way, I’ll illustrate the nuances of their sensors, lenses, autofocus, and more, referencing long-term hands-on testing and professional insights. We’ll cover gamut from portraits and sports to macro and video. And I’ll wrap up with clear, honest recommendations tailored by photographer type.

Let’s get started.

Pick Your Pocket Companion: Size, Build, and Handling

Both the Canon SD940 IS and Sony TX200V fit comfortably into a jacket pocket or compact purse, but subtle differences affect day-to-day usability.

The Canon SD940 IS measures a petite 89 x 55 x 20 mm and weighs a featherlight 120 grams. Its rectangular slab shape - with gently rounded edges - feels reassuringly solid, though the narrow depth means grip security is minimal, especially for larger hands or extended shoots. The fixed 2.7-inch LCD is relatively small and possesses what I’d call average resolution; it suffices for framing but loses some charm on detail checks.

The Sony TX200V, a few years newer, adds a touch of refinement with a slim 96 x 58 x 16 mm chassis and 129 grams of weight. Noticeably thinner but a bit taller and wider, it strikes a sleek, modern profile reminiscent of a tiny smartphone - an advantage in discrete street shooting. Its standout is the 3.3-inch OLED touchscreen boasting over 1.2 million dots of resolution - nearly five times the pixel density of the Canon’s screen. This makes composing and reviewing images a breeze in a way the Canon can’t quite match.

Handling differences are subtle but significant. The Canon employs a simple button-and-dial array, leaning heavily on automatic operation. The Sony’s touchscreen adds a layer of intuitive control: tap to focus, slide menus, and a quicker navigation flow, which I appreciated during busy street sessions. However, the Sony’s glassy surface can be prone to fingerprints, demanding a microfiber cloth.

Mechanical robustness favors the Sony slightly: it sports environmental sealing to handle light splashes and dust - a surprising feature in an ultracompact - while the Canon lacks any weather resistance. Neither is built for abuse or extreme conditions, but the Sony’s added protection could sway travelers looking for peace of mind.

Ergonomics-wise, both suffer from the usual ultracompact compromises: limited physical controls and shallow grips that can induce handling fatigue after prolonged use. Still, the Sony’s more expansive interface and touchscreen responsiveness make it the winner in the ease-of-use department.

User Interface and Controls: Streamlined vs. Minimalist

Delving into the control layouts reveals the design philosophies from Canon and Sony during their respective eras.

The Canon SD940 IS embraces straightforwardness: the top plate holds the shutter release, zoom toggle, and power button. The rear features a directional pad for menu navigation, playback, and a few function shortcuts. Its simplicity means beginners won’t be overwhelmed, but photographers seeking nuanced exposure adjustments won’t find aperture or shutter priority modes here. That said, Canon includes custom white balance and basic exposure compensation - nice to have even if limited.

Contrasting this, the Sony TX200V integrates a capacitive touchscreen that forms the core of interaction, supplemented by physical buttons for playback, menu, and zoom. The touchscreen’s responsiveness is exceptional, turning zoom gestures and menu selections into swift, precise operations. Sony’s firmware includes more customizable options, including white balance bracketing and face detection AF toggles - particularly useful for portraits and group shots.

Neither camera offers manual focus or extensive manual exposure controls, which makes them best suited for automatic or preset shooting. But the Sony’s AF tracking and selective AF area options give it a slight edge in creative control. I found the Sony’s menus easier to navigate despite the dense functions, thanks largely to the touchscreen.

One limitation shared by both: no electronic or optical viewfinders. This means composing relies entirely on the rear LCD, which can be challenging in bright daylight (Sony’s OLED helps here, but direct sun remains tricky).

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: Old CCD vs Newer BSI-CMOS

Here’s where things start to diverge meaningfully under the hood.

The Canon SD940 IS uses a 12-megapixel 1/2.3” CCD sensor - standard fare for compacts in 2009. CCDs tend to produce pleasant color rendering and low noise at moderate ISOs but lag behind CMOS sensors in speed and high-ISO performance. Canon’s DIGIC 4 image processor aids noise reduction and detail preservation but can’t fully compensate for the sensor’s limitations.

On the other side, the Sony TX200V packs an 18-megapixel 1/2.3” backside-illuminated CMOS (BSI-CMOS) sensor. The BSI architecture improves light gathering, boosting performance in low light and raising maximum ISO sensitivity from Canon’s 1600 to an impressive 12800 (albeit with image degradation at the top end). Processing is handled by Sony’s BIONZ engine - renowned for its efficient noise suppression and sharpness algorithms.

In practical testing under various lighting conditions, the Sony consistently produced sharper images with more detail and superior dynamic range. Shadows held more texture, and highlight rolloff was smoother, especially in landscapes or backlit portraits. At ISO 800 and above, Canon’s images developed noticeable noise and color shifts, while Sony’s BSI sensor helped maintain usable quality up to ISO 3200.

Color reproduction on the Canon felt warmer and more saturated - appealing for portraits and everyday snaps. Sony’s output was more neutral and accurate but felt slightly less punchy straight from the camera.

Neither camera offers RAW capture, which constrains post-processing flexibility - a common tradeoff for ultracompacts of their generation.

In terms of image stabilization, both have optical IS systems, essential for handheld shooting at longer focal lengths. I found them roughly equivalent, effectively smoothing out small shakes, though the Canon’s system seemed slightly less aggressive.

Display and Live View: Seeing Your Shot Before You Take It

Beyond size and responsiveness, screen quality critically affects your ability to frame, focus, and review images - a factor often undervalued when comparing ultracompacts.

The Canon SD940’s 2.7-inch fixed LCD with 230k dots is functional but looks dated compared to modern expectations. Its reduced pixel count makes for less clarity, and the fixed position limits flexibility in awkward shooting angles, such as low ground or overhead shots.

The Sony TX200V delivers a win here with its larger 3.3-inch OLED display boasting over 1.2 million dots and touch input. The rich contrast and vibrant colors allow spotting sharp focus and subtle exposure shifts with far greater confidence. The OLED also exhibits wider viewing angles, critical when composing from quirky positions - a frequent scenario in street or travel photography.

When I tested both in bright sunlight, the Sony’s TruBlack coating and OLED tech led to more legible previews, although neither could fully counter intense direct sun glare without shading.

Despite the Sony’s superior screen, both cameras lack tilting or articulating displays - meaning some creative flexibility is off the table.

Canon SD940 IS screen back Sony TX200V front Sony TX200V screen back

Real-World Image Samples: Portraits, Landscapes, Macro, and More

The true test is how these cameras capture subjects across varied genres. Here are my findings after practical shoots:

• Portraits: The Canon’s warmer color tone lends a pleasing complexion to faces, and its F2.8 aperture at wide angle helps in subject isolation - though limited zoom range restricts framing options. Sony’s face detection AF worked more reliably, locking focus on eyes swiftly, producing tack-sharp eyes critical for compelling portraits. Bokeh quality is modest from both, due to small sensors and limited aperture range.

• Landscape: The Sony’s higher resolution and better dynamic range yielded crisper textures and richer tonal gradations in skies and foliage. The Canon handled wide scene compositions acceptably but suffered in shadow detail retention. Neither camera offers weather sealing strong enough for stormy conditions, but Sony edges ahead here.

• Wildlife: With fixed lenses and modest zoom, these cameras aren’t wildlife specialists. Still, the Sony’s 5x 28-140 mm equivalent beats Canon’s 4x 28-112 mm range in framing distant subjects. Sony’s 10 fps burst mode vastly outpaces Canon’s sluggish 1 fps, but the lack of manual focus and tracking autofocus limits effectiveness on erratically moving animals.

• Sports: Similar to wildlife, the Canon’s slow shutter speed ceiling and single fps burst make it a no-go. The Sony’s wider shutter speed range (up to 1/1600s) and higher continuous shooting do better but still fall short of DSLR or mirrorless standards needed for fast action.

• Street: The slim profile and silent operation of both help candid shooting. Sony’s superior screen and AF tracking are real advantages when grabbing quick moments. Canon’s smaller size and lighter weight aid portability, though the slower startup and focusing speed can cause misses.

• Macro: Both claim 3cm minimum focus distances, and tested close-up shots are pleasant but uninspiring. Neither has focus stacking or depth-enhancing modes, leaving macro enthusiasts wanting.

• Night/Astro: Here, the Sony’s high ISO capabilities and longer max shutter speed deliver improved low-light shots. Canon’s max shutter speed caps at 15s, limiting creative night photography scope. Long-exposure noise was perceptible on both but handled better by Sony’s sensor and noise reduction.

• Video: Canon records HD at 720p30 with H.264 codec. Sony moves up to 1080p60 in AVCHD and MPEG-4 formats. The Sony also includes optical stabilization during video capture, yielding smoother footage. Neither offers microphone or headphone ports, limiting audio flexibility.

• Travel: The Sony’s slightly larger size trades some packability for more ruggedness and superior performance. Battery life favors the Sony, rated at 220 shots vs unspecified Canon model life. The Sony’s integrated GPS adds useful geotagging, while the Canon omits this.

• Professional Use: Neither camera supports RAW files or extensive manual modes, making them inappropriate as primary professional tools. They shine better as convenient backups or secondary cameras when minimal fuss is paramount.

Breaking Down Performance Scores and Reliability

While neither has official DxOMark scores, we rely on empirical testing metrics and subjective evaluation to assign performance insights:

Sony’s edge is clear on sensor capabilities, shooting speed, and feature set. Canon’s design emphasizes simplicity and lighter weight, while Sony pushes for more versatile user experience.

Which Camera Excels in Which Photography Scenarios?

• Portraits: Sony wins for autofocus and accuracy, but Canon’s warmer tones are attractive for casual portraits.
• Landscape: Sony’s dynamic range and resolution make it prefered.
• Macro: Neither is standout, but both are competent for casual close-ups.
• Wildlife/Sports: Sony’s faster burst gives advantage, yet overall usage is constrained by ultracompact lens zoom range.
• Street: Sony’s touchscreen and AF tracking boost candid shooting ease - overall stronger in this category.
• Night: Sony’s high ISO and longer exposures turn in better low-light images.
• Video: Sony’s 1080p60 with stabilization wins here hands down.
• Travel: Sony’s GPS and sealing improve versatility; Canon’s lightness may appeal to minimalist packers.
• Professional: Neither suited as primary cameras, but Sony’s image quality edges it into secondary or casual backup roles more confidently.

Technical Deep Dive: Autofocus, Lens, and Connectivity

Both cameras carry 9 contrast-detection AF points but differ on features that matter. Sony’s face detection and AF tracking technologies leverage its advanced BIONZ processor to help lock focus rapidly on moving subjects - a remarkable feature in ultracompacts.

Canon’s AF struggles to keep pace, often hunting in dimmer scenes. Zoom lens aperture ranges also tilt the scale; Canon’s brighter F2.8 maximum aperture at wide end offers some creative control but is offset by slower telephoto reach (max F5.9). Sony’s lens starts narrower at F3.5 but sustains F4.8 at telephoto.

Connectivity is minimal on both: no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC. Sony’s integrated GPS is a plus for geotag enthusiasts. Both support HDMI and USB 2.0 wired data transfer.

Battery performance is officially stated only for Sony (220 shots), a respectable figure for its size - Canon’s lack of published numbers suggests more conservative endurance. Rechargeable proprietary battery packs keep both nimble but spares and charging specs differ.

Summarizing Strengths and Weaknesses at a Glance

Who Should Choose Which?

Choose the Canon SD940 IS if:

• You want an ultra-light, minimalist camera strictly for casual daytime snapshots.
• You favor warmer color tones straight from the camera for portraits.
• You shoot mostly in good light and don’t require fast action capture or video beyond 720p.
• You prefer an uncomplicated, button-driven interface without the distraction of touchscreens.
• You're budget-conscious and shopping for a reliable, durable used model under $200.

Choose the Sony TX200V if:

• You want higher image quality, especially in varied or low-light environments.
• You value touchscreen operation, faster continuous shooting, and more intelligent AF features.
• Video recording at full HD with stabilization and GPS geotagging is important.
• You need a more versatile travel camera with some durability against weather.
• You’re willing to invest more upfront and desire a compact with features nearing advanced point-and-shoots.

Final Thoughts: Two Pocketable Cameras, Different Eras, Different Targets

Having extensively tested both cameras, it’s clear each serves distinct user profiles despite a roughly comparable physical footprint. The Canon SD940 IS is a throwback to a simpler era - ideal for travelers desiring ultra-lightweight ease with respectable image quality in ideal conditions. The Sony TX200V, by contrast, acts as a more capable all-around companion with its refined sensor, interface, and extra features - representing early 2010s innovation in ultracompacts.

For photography enthusiasts seeking an affordable, no-fuss pocket camera to accompany smartphones, the Canon remains a charming option if you’re willing to accept its older sensor and basic features.

Meanwhile, the Sony provides greater creative freedom and better image quality in challenging shooting environments, suitable for casual photographers wanting to step up without the bulk of an interchangeable lens system.

Both cameras illustrate that even in the compact domain, technology, ergonomics, and versatility can vary widely - reminding us to always balance specs with personal shooting style. Whatever your choice, carrying a dedicated camera - even a tiny one - can make the difference between “just a snapshot” and a truly memorable photo.

I hope this hands-on analysis helps you untangle the strengths and compromises of these two classic ultracompact cameras. Should you have any questions or want me to test specific scenarios, drop a line - I’m always keen to dive deeper.

Happy shooting!