Originally Posted by Ach3r0n
Well image quality can be largely subjective but Canon is nearly always somewhere in the top rankings and Kodak is almost always towards the bottom. There are always exceptions of course. Fuji is usually mediocre but they have produced a couple excellent ultra-compact cameras.
Canons are made like junk but I can't dispute their image quality. Some people may not like the color reproduction as it tends to be overly vivid but I am still fond of it.
I don't think you can really compare all of those models you listed directly as some are compacts and others are ultra-compacts.
OP has made his purchase anyway so I guess it's all just theoretical discussion now.
Yea, I know, Canons are always ranked tops in image quality and thats was has always puzzeled me.
Over the years I have purchased more than a fair share of Canon's and in every case, my Kokaks have always beaten the Canon's for picture quality.
And I really have wanted to like the Canons, that's why I have kept tring them over the years, the Canon features (color swap, color accent) are very cool as well as some of the other features Canon offers.
The only feature no Canon has ever done good with for me is the "taking pictures" features.
Yes, I know the OP already made his purchase,,, Im just ranting a bit because I just dont get that whole "Canons are the best" thing.
Of ALL the dozen or so Canons I have purchased (and returned) over the years they have always been a big disapointment in terms of picture quality.
As an example, last week I purchased the new Kodak Z915 and the Canon SX120(is) and did about a hundred or so comparison side by side shots indoors and outdoors, the two shots below are typical of the results I got with just about ALL the A/B shots.
In the two pics below, both camera's were left in Auto mode, indoors, with flash,,, to my eyes the Canon looks blured and unfocused, while the Kodak looks crisp and clear and has truer colors.
On a side note, the Canon was over $400.00 while the Kodak Z915 was $139.00.