​You do realise more megapixels, doesn't mean better quality.

The zoom range is smaller because this camera has a larger sensor than most point & shoots, which means superior image quality, as well as having a pretty wide f/2 aperture at the wide end of the zoom range. Both of these factors increase the size required of the lens, so it's a case of either compromising the zoom range or compromising the camera's dimensions. It's a case of choosing between the convenience of a large zoom range or improved imaging over a standard compact.

This is also £99 in store, no need for a voucher code

When the he'll did these get so cheap?! I nearly £300 for my s90

Good price and love the wifi facility but 4x zoom is disappointing. Got 10x zoom on my old power shot bought 6 years ago!! Will probably go for next model up - 18x zoom and wifi for £139

It's not quite the same as a new version of the S90, as it lacks raw capability (unless using a hacked firmware). The replacement for the S90 is the S120 I believe. The S200 should still be decent, using the S95 sensor and S120 lens

It's only 10 Megapixels according to spec on curry's site, for same price at curry's you could get Sony bridge camera with 20 Megapixel and 36 x zoom, £70 could get you Nixon coolpix camera with 20 Megapixels

what is the next step up from this camera? looking to replace my SX220HS....

Totally agree - Generally small sensor rule ... More megapixels =More Noise & More Zoom = More Shake
You need to look at lower lens 'f' numbers than megapixels for better image quality

Use your smartphone. If you have one.

But that is 5 times more expensive than this. My SX220HS lenses are marked and I would like a like for like replacement, thanks for the suggestion though, but would like a supercompact.

sux, want 100000x zoom and 5 gazillion megapixels

next step up for someone wanting to build mass?
utterly irrelevant and totally different class


i am busy using that as my laptop

Have a look at the Panasonic DMC-TZ60 - currently £179 inc the £40 cashback offered at the moment
>>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-DMC-TZ60EB-K-Compact-Digital-Camera/dp/B00HO37V4O

Small camera with great optics, and has a manual lens ring control as well

Some of the bottom feeder comments on this thread are quite unbelievable!

Scary that these people roam the streets

Let's see now....

I have the S95, discounting the S200 as it doesn't have RAW. I have been waiting for a decent update to the S120 as that has been out long enough to warrant an update but none yet. So I've been looking and trying to decide between the RX10 and the RX100. Both get fantastic reviews.

So my suggestion is a step up from the S200 which was the question. The RX100 is the obvious step up from the S200 as Canon haven't updated the S120 yet. Admittedly it is expensive but it is a step up. The RX10 hass the longer zoom and a bit better at saving your legs.

Now lets review your contribution to the thread ..........

Yep we're still waiting for your suggestion...... I infer you are trolling.

Better lens you mean? F numbers refer to the depth of field. The more megapixels you have the better but lens are more important because if you had a trillion megapixels but shot through a potato the image quality will be very low :smiley: film is still better than digital it's just more time consuming and less convenient..

No it doesn't. It is ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the effective entrance pupil. (Usually the lens aperture) And it is a wee 'f'. Depth of field varies with distance to subject, f number and lens focal length.

Sample videos???

Anyone who have an S200 please upload some sample videos to Youtube so we can see the video quality. Not many vids on Youtube for this camera. Need more vids!

I understand what your saying sensor size is obviously important as that's how your capture the light but though lower f numbers allow for faster shutter speeds they give u a shallower depth of field so thats not 'better' unless you want a shallow depth of field.. Low light situations with long exposures/high f numbers/infinite depth of field and obviously a tripod can produce images as good and better than low f numbers? Sensor size isn't as important as lens..

erm the next step up is any modern superzoom compact not a massive chunky bridge at 5-6 times the cost

correcting stupid comments is an important contribution so my post worth is still higher than most here and is now pretty much through the roof

Hi, can anyone recommend this over a Sony wx220 or wx350. Just can't decide which to buy and want a decent cheap camera. Thanks.

​So basically the lower the f number, the better the performance in lower light conditions?

Generally yes, it lets in more light so you can use a faster shutter speed, which is why it is called a fast lens. The decreased depth of field is less forgiving of poor focussing though and shooting wide open generally produces softer images unless the lens is very high quality. I was considering this camera last year when JL had it on clearance at £150 so this is a bargain. I rejected it as it has a CCD sensor rather than a CMOS which rather negates the low light advantage.

Dpreview: The PowerShot S200 is a cheaper version of the S110, utilizing a 10.1 megapixel CCD instead of a 12MP CMOS sensor. It does, however, retain the same F2.0-5.9, 24-120mm lens as the S110 with lens-shift image stabilization. The S200 also features a 3" LCD with 461k dots, manual exposure controls, and built-in Wi-Fi. Keeping with the 'step down' theme from the S110, the S200 only records 720p video and lacks Raw support. The S200 is available in black and white.

I wonder if my eyes nowadays can see any better than these mid range cameras can produce!

Tempted, would this produce images as good as the Lumix tz70 I am about to return?

Baby brother of the Canon S110 which is a better featured camera. If you're ever going to use manual modes and RAW it's a no brainer for an extra £25, but I'd imagine most wouldn't and wouldn't notice the difference.

Still sounds like a bargain!

Can't be as good as the iPhone 6S camera, surely.

Fantastic camera for £99.

I have the Canon S95 and it takes amazing pictures for a camera that fits in my pocket. This should be even better.

http://thenewcamera.com/canon-s200-vs-canon-s120/
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3809378

...CCD vs CMOS, sensor is more akin to the S95 era

S120 > S200 .. does S200 have touch screen also? Still a bargain though IMO.

Lower f number also aids focusing as the lens gathers more light so aiding the autofocus system. So quicker focusing and less hunting around for focus.

I had a S95 and now a S110. Brilliant cameras for there size and the larger sensor takes brilliant pictures and video. Looked at the S120 but couldn't see what was improved over the S120. In my local John Lewis (Bluewater) they have a S120 for about £180 so I wonder if it is being discontinued and there won't be a S130.

Was Ken Rockwell's favourite compact camera for a while if you like where he is coming from. Have a look at his site for more info.