117 of 122 people found the following review helpful
Bigger zoom; smaller angle,
This review is from: Canon IXUS 230 HS Digital Camera - Purple (12.1 MP, 8x Optical Zoom) 3.0 inch LCD (Electronics)I've owned an Ixus 220 HS since it was launched in the UK; the lil' red beastie has been to various exotic places such as China and Germany, as well as dozens of gigs, festivals and events. Alas, it's now somewhat bruised and battered, so I was instantly interested in its successor, the Ixus 230 HS. Partly because it has an 8x zoom (rather than 5x), but also because it's available in purple ;)
As far as successors go though, there isn't much between the two cameras. The 230 HS is slightly bigger and some of the controls have been moved around (to accommodate the slightly larger LCD), but fundamentally, the differences between the two cameras can be summarised as follows:
The Ixus 220 HS has a 24mm lens (wide-angle) and a 5x optical zoom
The Ixus 230 HS has a 28mm lens (ultra-wide-angle) and an 8x optical zoom
This then begs the question: is the extra optical zoom a worthwhile trade-off for the loss of the ultra-wide-angle lens?
Well... for me, the answer is sadly "no". Having taken both cameras out over the weekend (two separate events; 800 photos in total), it soon became clear that the difference between 24mm and 28mm is nearly as dramatic as the difference between 28mm and 35mm: with the 220 HS, you can stand closer to your subjects, making it easier - and quicker - to compose your shot. While I initially started off with the 230 HS, by the end I found myself defaulting back to the 220 HS for most shots.
To be fair, my "use-case" is fairly unique: the events were held in relatively small, enclosed spaces and I was mostly "capturing the moment", rather than getting people to pose for the shot (for staged shots, I switched back to a bridge camera!). As such, I'm still giving the 230 HS five stars, as it is genuinely a good camera; in all other respects it's at least as good at the 220 HS (there's been some firmware tweaks which may have improved low-light handling, though I haven't done any serious comparisons between the two cameras).
What it boils down to: if you mostly use your camera at pubs, bars, gigs and house parties, the 220 HS is probably better. If you want a camera to take on holiday, the 230 is probably better. It's all horses for courses...
Tracked by 3 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 15 Nov 2011 09:23:39 GMT
L. Sibbald says:
Thanks for the comparison, you basically covered everything I was trying to find out about the two models! I'm not sure but you might have made a mistake in the description of the 230 - you say it has a "ultra-wide-angle" lens yet it is a 28mm lens, whereas the 24mm of the 220 is described as just "wide-angle". Shouldn't that be the other way around (28mm = wide-angle, 24mm = ultra-wide-angle)?
I'm considering buying one of these for my girlfriend before we jet off to australia for new year. A bigger zoom would be handy for framing far off shots, but i'm not all that sure how much difference will be noticeable at the far end between 5 & 8 times magnification. Also a wide angle would surely capture better landscapes in a single shot.
Makes me wonder why I should be something like an extra 80 quid for the 230 (other than it's available in green, her favourite colour!).
Anyways, thanks again for your timely review.
Posted on 27 Nov 2011 05:56:11 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Nov 2011 05:58:33 GMT
David Glasgow says:
The 24mm is the "Ultra Wide Angle" and has the "wider apature" check it out lets more light through the lens, actually in my humble opinion the 24mm 5x Times ZOOM HS 220 has the better Lens and camera also CMOS Sensor.
Which is a faster shooter too... by a mere fraction. Because of the shorter lens. Its under £150, and your "Purple colour HS 230 8x 28mm" is over £209 Quid. not great value for money and according to some professional reviews, the HS230 has the cheaper build to cut corners, and make money, but that's NOT something I can confirm, because I have NOT used the camera myself, I still say the Canon TEAM would have done a NICE JOB on the HS 230.
Nevertheless, I would have no real need for anything longer than 5x lens and 24mm CMOS, suits me very well, as for what your prefer, well that's up to you... Im Glad you have used both cameras, however before canon discontinues the HS 220 I will buy another one, and extra battery.
Thanks for your review...!
In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2011 19:58:52 GMT
Correct - I got the labels mixed up ;)
Posted on 16 Dec 2011 13:29:59 GMT
R. Murray says:
Your comparison between the 220 and 230 reflects only your photographic interests which is understandable. If macro /close up photography had been of interest to you you would have noticed that the 230 is utterly amazing for close up work. It will focus sharply at only 1cm from the subject giving superb results. The 220 struggles at 3cm and is really only good at about 5cm. This is a significant difference. I demonstrated the close up power of the 230 to a camera salesman, who like you, had not appreciated how good this camera is. His response was to say that he had never seen a compact camera that was so outstanding in macro mode. Go on! Try it! You may find a whole new range of subjects to photograph as I have done.
Posted on 5 Jan 2012 14:01:35 GMT
Mark S. says:
Horses for courses indeed. I also prefer the trade off of having a 24mm wide angle over a longer zoom but the macro info from R. Murray is interesting too. Still not sure I can justify the price difference though given the much lower price of the older model.
Posted on 3 Mar 2012 19:49:56 GMT
B. Taffe says:
I like this comparison you have done. Makes me think twice about going for the latest model all the time. Good work!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›