Instruction: Generate an answer to the question by utilizing the information contained in the document.

Input:
Question: Canon PowerShot SX20IS vs Nikon Coolpix P100? I am debating between Canon PowerShot SX20IS vs Nikon Coolpix P100.  I have kids who play soccer so I need good action shots.  I also go to concerts so low light is important too.  Which camera is good for both still and video?  Is size almost the same?  Which one has better battery life?
Document: But if you wanted to set it up on a tripod and just shoot your life for the full 2 to 4 hours a big card would allow, I guess you couldn't do it.When you play a low light video back through the HDMI cable to the tv, it seems to come out enhanced and bright vs. what you see by just pulling the card and viewing it with Windows on an HP dv6 entertainment pc.
We have been using this camera now for about 1 month. I have played with the settings and taken a lot of pictures and some video. The still shots are definitely great, in almost any lighting, and even at long distance. The action shots are much better than previous point-and-shoot cameras, but still have some blur. I use the action mode and later delete unclear and unneeded pictures on my PC.
and I wasn't disappointed. Shoots great at 1080p and even better slo-mo video. Get used to lense cap removal when using playback. And that's the only thing they messed up on. The tilt display is perfect for action video. Battery life is good. Overall, I'm happy.
Set noise reduction to "on", otherwise your sky will seem much more light grey than black;Menus are terrible, I can't believe someone can find easy to change settings with this camera. In general it is better to set things to automatic, but I prefer to set a low ISO value, it is better for picture quality;Battery life is mediocre, YOU NEED a spare one (maybe 2) if you intend to stay all day long shooting pictures and movies.
I just got this last weekend so I would normally not rate it this early, but first impression is that it has great low light picture and video capability which in my case has been really hard to find. The P100 also has different flash settings you can take advantage of and they work. I will say neither of these were important to me when I bought it because I did not think it would be able to do either.
Finally, the shutter release button is very very crisp compared to any digital compact I have had yet.All for now, I'm keeping it. Gave it only 4 stars for Nikon needs to get a grip on total design.Update: March 2011. Excellent camera, glad I have one. I adjust everything to suit my need, burst is terrific at full rez. Low light very good. Full control of shutter, color, F-stop. Video is great in low light.
Not so with the P100: as per page 26 of the manual if the battery icon is OFF your battery is still OK (it actually states "Battery Fully Charged"). Once the icon appears it means "Battery level LOW, prepare to charge or replace the battery". So this basically allows a situation in which the battery level might be slightly above the warning threshold, so you might actually think you are still good to go, when in reality you're almost out of battery.
I also like the size. It is not very heavy and small enough to handle easily. This is my fourth digital camera and by far my favorite. I started with a Nikon about 6 years ago but decided to "upgrade" to an expensive Kodak which I didn't like at all. Too hard to control, too many automatic settings that you couldn't over ride, horrible action shots. We also own a Sony which is useless. I am very pleased and would happily recommend this camera to others.
I bought my P100 after my P90 got stolen. Identical appearance, but the P100 seems slightly better. Bigger zoom, and indoor shots are clearer. Both cameras produce excellent outdoor images. The P100 has a neat, easy to use video capture feature which I have not played with much yet. It's almost as good as my SLR only smaller, and you don't have to mess with lense replacement maneuvers.
I am still in search for a very fast and sharp camera. Nikon p100 is light and takes ok pictures but still not covering up my expectations. It is good with still pictures. But while on move or spontaneous photos they come out blurry. has many functions but makes you lose time while setting the right mode. have a tiny casio and  am sad to write that it is x3 faster and almost the same picture quality. battery goes only for a day if you use is wisely.
Answer: I just went through the same battle, although I have different needs.  I have to say either is a great choice but I went with the Canon due to the zoom being a little less, a compromise in hopes that it will have better low light response. I also had a Canon before, so the operating system was a more familiar.  Can't tell you yet if that was a wise choice of not.  I have had the camera for three days and have had little time to play with it.  Here is a comparative review that I found helpful:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q110superzoomgroup/I saw another review but can't find it again that really played up the Nikon as a much better choice.  But it seemed to be written by people reading specifications rather than actually using the camera.  I don't think you can wrong with either.  The Canon is bulkier and uses 4 double AA batteries which add to the weight.  The nice thing about the double AAs is that you have a far easier time getting batteries if you run out of power, but at the cost of weight.  If you do get the Canon, get at least 8 Sanyo Eneloop rechargeable NIMH batteries Sanyo Eneloop 4 Pack AA NiMH Pre-Charged Rechargable Batteries w/ Charger. They hold their charge when not used much better than normal NIMH batteries.  As the link indicates you can get them here at Amazon.  With 8 Eneloops you should never run out of power (providing that you keep them charged of course).  If you buy the Nikon, I would recommend looking into a spare battery and a charger.  Good luck with your new camera, which ever one you choose!