Upgrade to S90 from SD800 worth it?

What are your priorities?

Some people want the lightest camera, period.

Some people want the lightest camera that uses interchangeable lenses.

Some people want the lightest camera that uses AA batteries. Lots of the new cameras use proprietary lithium batteries.

Some people want a still camera that can also shoot video clips.

A friend of mine just got the Canon S90, and I was favorably impressed. Another friend just got the Canon SX120 IS, but I haven't seen it yet.

–B.G.–

Priorities:
Honestly, I've just noticed that with the same level of skill on my end, I take much better pictures w/ the DSLR we have at work than I do with my little sd800. But I'm not gonna lug a DSLR. So, I'm wondering if the s90 is gonna give a big enough bump in quality, at my same skill level, to be worth shelling out for. Also, being able to set aperture, shutter speed is appealing, can't do it on the sd800.

In general, in the big DSLR, you will have a much faster continuous shooting speed. You would have much quieter color noise, and you would have convenient access to manual settings. Maybe those are not that important to you, and the compact camera will be just the ticket.

–B.G.–

don't want to carry a dSLR.

If I understand that correctly, you don't want a dSLR…

Let me see if I can help.
Going from the 800 to the 90 you lose a little bit of tele (about 5% not really noticeable) but you gain one full F stop (from 2.8 to 2) that means twice as much light hitting the sensor when fully open.
The sensor is also about 52% larger. Nothing like an SLR type sensor but one of the largest in a compact camera of this size and price range.
So expect more detail and cleaner images particularly in low light.
From DPReview :

It is, above all else, a great walkaround camera, capable of results (particularly at lower ISO settings) that most serious photographers would be more than happy with. The control system encourages photographic experimentation (unlike so many compacts, which simply make it too painful to work manually), but the automatic systems are also reliable – and intelligent – enough to give you great results if you prefer to just 'point and shoot'. The tiny body might not make for particularly good handling, but it's small enough to carry anywhere and the image quality it produces rarely disappoints.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons90/page19.asp

Worth the difference ?
You decide.
Franco

I think this guy's website does a great job of explaining in layman's terms some of the issues you might be debating. Lot's of good info here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

Hi John,

Yes, the S90 is an unambiguous step up from your SD. You'll see a clear improvement in your photos and will be able to exercise more control over the camera.

For a little more money you can get into the micro four-thirds system, which will offer quality and control that will leapfrog over either Canon. That's where my money would go, if I were in your shoes.

Cheers,

Rick

Franco: exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for.
Brian: Thanks for the pointer
Bob: thanks for the detailed response…

Though I'm a freelance professional photographer, I use an S90 as my only digital camera when backpacking now. I would recommend something like a gorilla pod, or a similar alternative (StickPic?) if you want to shoot things like flower closeups and sunsets without a lot of sensor noise.

I haven't tried printing any of the images I've shot with the S90 yet, but except for the batch that I shot at a rather high ISO (over 1600), noise hasn't been an issue. I think most people would be happy with up to 8×10 prints from the S90, as long as you shoot with a low ISO, which means use a tripod or shoot with bright light. It wouldn't require a big tripod though.