10-20-2011 01:30 PM
What exactly are you looking for? One could say a Canon 1d series but I dont know if you want to spend $6000 just for a camera body. Point and shoot, DSLR, ?
10-21-2011 01:41 AM
Honestly Canon's point and shoots are top notch (and I shoot Nikon's for a living). IMO I dont think you could go wrong with any one of the three you listed.
10-22-2011 02:01 AM
If it were me I'd definetly go for Kodak over Canon. Kodak's screens are larger and the camera is easier to understand . The picture quality of Kodak is amazing, and Kodak cameras are generally less expensive.
10-24-2011 09:11 AM
Kodak's products tend to be cheap dumbed-down consumer-grade crud.
As far as the units the original poster mentioned - the PowerShot S95 is canon's "second-to-the-top" point-and-shoot. It has the imaging sensor from their flagship G12 in a smaller form factor (but with a few less features.)
There's also an S100 on their site now (looks like it's coming soon), but that's pushing the pixel count up to 12 megapixels, which is a bit too much for a point-and-shoot. (Canon actually DROPPED pixel count from the G10 to G11 - or maybe it was from G9 to G10, in response to complaints about poor dynamic range and noise performance.) I'd be wary of it until a full review comes out on DPreview.
Pixel count isn't everything - Stuffing lots of pixels into a small sensor makes each pixel physically smaller, which means it captures less light. This makes it perform worse in low-light situations. It's why even an old 6 megapixel SLR can blow many 14 megapixel point-and-shoots out of the water in terms of image quality.
The S95 and G12 have some of the physically largest sensors in the point-and-shoot market, with lower pixel counts than average for a P&S - it's why professionals like Dave Hobby of Strobist go to the G-series when they need a camera and their SLR is too big.