My wishlists camera should meet the following criteria (approximately in the following order): You should make small (pocket), sharp images, work in low light (who has ever shoot his children by candlelight, know what I mean), full HD video have a good picture + sound, comfortable and easy to handle (especially fast access to functions such as exposure compensation, ISO setting, but also has good battery life and faster expansion battery / SD card, etc) and not be so expensive.
Ever ahead: sharp images (for my taste), there is obviously not in a compact camera. At least not when you're spoiled with SLR cameras. But: The S110 does its job pretty well here. In addition, one in the laboratory indeed can measure the resolved line pairs, in practice, but then the image but blurred because the camera is not good in the hand in triggering or auto focus will not be able to focus exactly where you want it, eg directly into a person's eyes. As I said, I'm here with the S110 but quite pleased.
Furthermore, I have (tripod), the clarity, resolution and color fringing looked at ISO 100, 400, 1600 and 3200 (as well as 6400, 12800 if applicable) and at max. Wide (zoom I use only 10% or less) and jpg quality (since I do not always want to convert raws -> ease of use!) With the
Canon S100, S110, SX20, and the Nikon Coolpix P310. Compared with Canon D20 and D5 as a reference. It was amazing to me that the image quality of the half as expensive Nikon was comparable here and sufficient (for my taste). The S100 has, in contrast to significant block artifacts (jpg encoding), which I also could not leave (something like a hidden setting?), So that a comparison was difficult. S100, the edge blurs much stronger than the S110. A k.o criterion for me for the S100. Farsäume were everywhere (except for the SX20) in the frame and ok.
The noise for high ISO numbers is high in all cameras. However, the S110 is also reflected here quite well, I think, with a lot of image processing seems to be behind it. In particular, the Nikon draws very soft (too). In contrast, the S110 has a kind of 'Waben' structure in the pixel region. Toll is the extremely high ISO numbers in the S110. Despite extreme noise I am sure that there will be cases where I'll be happy about it. Better than having no noise. The Nikon is similarly well here. However, many other cheaper cameras often go only up to ISO in 1600. And often in poor aperture of the lenses. For me too much because I think that this value should always again into quarters for reasonable values.
The video feature in the S110 works quite well, the picture quality is in low light but quickly. Sound is ok (the Nikon better, the SX20 much better). Video and audio are exactly synchronized (this was the Nikon a problem and for me the ko-criterion). The handling of the S100 and S110 are excellent. The exposure I have put my custom function on the ring on the lens. The camera is very good in the hand and is - I must here once say - almost a little flatterer - unlike, for example, to the Nikon. Been tested battery life only in the S100. Is ok, on day trips it holds through to the end, even with many photos or movies. That's enough for me. The S100, S110 really fits in your pocket (even when there should be something to watch - crumbs etc), here I doubt something many other (FAST) equally-sized cameras. The flash is a disaster at S100, S110. Almost always I grad finger on it there if he wants to go out. But the flash is always off for me in 99%. An all-in in the S110 is the price for me. Unnecessary touch screens, WiFi or GPS (at S100) could help here to reduce this. Unfortunately I have not found anything better, so I'll bite the bullet ...
Maybe at the end: While it is not the most important, but the S100 and S110 are just fun. They are good in the hand and feel around and high quality. Compared to me, the Nikon was edgy and too much 'perceived' plastic. So all in all, the S110 for me a good compromise, though WAY too expensive! Still 5 points.