Because the facts are likely to be known to every interested, I will not comment further on this. Even compared to the competitors, there almost a tie: The Canon has a little less wide-angle, for significantly longer zoom range, as the two competitors listed above. That is what measures almost 1 cm more in depth than the Casio and ca, 0.5 cm more than the Panasonic. Here also one of the biggest drawbacks of this model is founded: the camera is only marginally suitable for your pocket, since the objective clearly is and is not laterally flattened. Since Casio has a decisive advantage at least. She disappears loose in any pocket and can also easily get out again thanks to good form!
Nevertheless, the Canon can be stowed in the pockets of jeans and transported there without disabilities. On vacation trips another bag is also usually attends, that truly already plays a subordinate role.
The battery of the camera also convinces all track. Sure, the Casio (almost 2000 mAh) is the standard here, the battery of the Canon can with over 500 photos per charge (my experience) but also convince. In addition, replacement batteries are getting for less than 10 EUR. The Panasonic was clearly more problematic here because the battery has often waned after 200 pictures and thanks to new firmware only the very original batteries to function as a replacement.
The feel of the Canon can compete with the Casio, which also relies on halfway hocherwertiges Platik. The Panasonic is playing in a very different and more significant league. The Canon tends ever "creak" what me personally - I do not movies - not disturbing. Who is filming, however, this noise could disturbing record on the recording. Otherwise, the Canon makes a solid and thoughtful impression. The push is to regulate sensitive and the 'Jog Dial' wheel on the back makes navigating through menus very pleasant. In addition, a button on the back is freely programmable. Here the user can even store a preferred feature. Since I like to play with ISOs, I use him for.
In the image quality the camera can convince entirely. Images in the interior are always good and sufficient lights. Up to ISO 400 the image quality is very good. Disturbing noise is visible only when magnified on the screen. The camera in automatic mode always chooses a successful adjustment, with a slight tendency to Überbelichutung. Here it is back and advised again to reduce the exposure time, either manually or pre-brightness correction. Both 'and that is a clear strength of the camera' can be adjusted by hand. In particular, the manual adjustment of exposure, ISO and flash intensity can produce different results gratifying. In this discipline the camera from its competitors is clearly discernible. The Casio only has the automatic and some 'little effective to my mind' best shot 'programs. The camera, however, it usually very useful recordings that make a correction unnecessary. Until ISO400 the pictures are also very clear, but on significantly softened or de-noised in detail. This is a main criticisms of this camera.
The Panasonic turn comes at night using the flash light is not quite cope. Most images are significantly underexposed, and only the area directly illuminated object is recorded colorless. Details in the background go under, even though the camera has a 'long syncro' has a function that allows a long exposure time for flash use.
The function does not need the Canon, because the setting can make by hand anyway.
In daylight turn the Canon and Panasonic are good, while the Casio was able to convince my feeling less. The reason is again the Blur, who himself ISO64 pictures clearly denoised and has thereby elimiert image details. As a result, the images were then significantly blurred, even without magnification and could not convince. The Panasonic has hinbekommen so much better. Here then were missing but also details. And again fighting the Panasonic with very high noise 'and at low ISO values ... The Canon in turn makes excellent shots that can be enlarged with good illumination low ISO values without loss of detail and noise increase. And in my view, this discipline is crucial for the evaluation of a camera. Good shots in good lighting. Requires As for city trips and on vacation. On the Internet the way, there is so much comparison photos from which emerge no major differences zwischend the three models. A closer analysis of the settings, however, it turns out again and again that the testers test the Canon with Aperture f = 5, since often the standard, while the other camera are used together with larger visor. Reason is very simple, because the Canon allows manual adjustment, while this is not possible with the other models. Thus, the Canon has a disadvantage in the lighting and exposure time.
The last discipline in which the Canon also convinced are photos in the dark outdoors. In photos archive I have two pictures set, which show the possibilities of this camera. At ISO800 is useful sunset scenes and city panoramas be photographed. The very good image stabilization enables shutter speeds of up to 1 sec. Without significant shake. This is just excellent for a compact camera. It should be noted, however, that I have the discipline not been tested with the competitors.
Overall, the Canon PowerShot SX200 IS is an absolutely excellent camera for everyday use in entertainment and travel. In my experience, it can be clearly apart from the two competitors. Those who want more, such as playing with depth of field or record faces in the room even more detailed, then already must engage in the shelving of the SLR.