Richard, thanks again for your reply. I think I'm gonna be going
ahead and call around town to see who has the best price on the W1 :-)
I'll go there, compare the two cams and make my final decision. But
now that I have a better understanding and idea of the differences
between the two, it'll make my decision making process alot whole lot
easier. Thanks!!

Steve

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:46:00 GMT, "marlin"
wrote:

"Steve Lee" wrote in message
When I go on holidays, I'll be taking scenery pictures

The only thing about the sony that worries me for this is that the wide
angle is slightly more zoomed in than the canon. However, it is so slight
that I don't think it matters, and the fact that you can get a conversion
lens more than makes up for it.

also of my family in various environments, then I'll be using it to
take indoor pictures of friends and family,

both are fine for this

then relatively close-up
pictures of various things, from parts of the cars I have to some of
the stamps I buy and sell on eBay from time to time.

I like the Sony more for this. It seems to take sharper macro pictures.

But, I also wanna be able to take my camera and capture some of the
unexpected moments raither quickly, such as catching my little girls
taking a nap side by side in a cute manner to quickly taking a picture
of something interesting I might run across at a state fair or at some
outdoor events.

I like the Sony more for this too. It has less lag and starts up a tiny bit
faster.

I really didn't wanna look into an SLR, though my plans for using a
digicam might call for it.

I don't think they do. IMHO, SLR's are for people who are taking
photographs, not pictures, if you know what I mean.

However, if need be and I have sufficient time, I do want to manually
control and adjust certain settings to get the best image quailty
possible.

Yeah, I really like them for macro (close-up) pictures as well. Also, when
you do macro you tend to be in a not so well lit room (room lighting is
never all that bright), and the Sony has much more useful high ISO's. When
taking macro shots, you want to have a fairly fast shutter speed because
shake becomes very noticeable. You can't do that at ISO 50. The Sony has the
same noise at ISO 100 as the Canon at ISO 50, and the same at 400 as the
canon at 200. I honestly think for your purposes the Sony is better. The
only time I would recommend the Canon to somebody is if really needed the
camera to be .2inches smaller in each dimension, or planned to take mostly
low light - I mean i nteh dark, not just lowish light - pictures (reviews
say the sony lcd isn't good in low light) or if they needed to be able to
charge the battery and leave it for a few months without using it. Gymmy Bob
is right that the NiMh won;t hold its charge for as many days, but the sony
holds charge for more hours.
Again, thanks for your time and courtesy!

No problem.
Richard