SHOULD I BUY ANOTHER SONY?

I own a Sony DSC-P200 Digital Camera. I am happy with it, yet I am shopping
for a newer, faster camera, with more close-up capabilities, and a larger
LCD display. Are the new Sony cameras as good as they used to be? Thanks!

T.I.

In article ,
SMS wrote:
tend to be noisy, and not very rugged (see
"http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=122472#post122472").

So you'd condemn the FX9 as not very rugged on a sample of exactly _1_?

Plus that one was being used by a bloke who admits to repeatedly
whipping it out of a back jacket pocket on a lanyard while cycling to
take short movies.

A quick Google doesn't bring up much to back up your claim either -
do you have other data to back it up?

Mike

Mike Civil wrote:
In article ,
SMS wrote:
tend to be noisy, and not very rugged (see
"http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=122472#post122472").

So you'd condemn the FX9 as not very rugged on a sample of exactly _1_?

No, based on what Panasonic told her about how the camera isn't designed
for that type of use. Since I know this woman, I do believe what she
says that they said.

Plus that one was being used by a bloke who admits to repeatedly
whipping it out of a back jacket pocket on a lanyard while cycling to
take short movies.

And this is abusing the camera how?

BTW, it's a gal, not a bloke (her web site is at
"http://www.galfromdownunder.com/").

SMS wrote:

Mike Civil wrote:
In article ,
SMS wrote:
tend to be noisy, and not very rugged (see
"http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=122472#post122472").

So you'd condemn the FX9 as not very rugged on a sample of exactly _1_?

No, based on what Panasonic told her about how the camera isn't designed
for that type of use. Since I know this woman, I do believe what she
says that they said.

Well, geez, I suspect that you'd have to go to the Army to find one that
_is_. That's like saying that a Land Rover is "not very rugged" because
it's not warranted against land mines.

Plus that one was being used by a bloke who admits to repeatedly
whipping it out of a back jacket pocket on a lanyard while cycling to
take short movies.

And this is abusing the camera how?

BTW, it's a gal, not a bloke (her web site is at
"http://www.galfromdownunder.com/").

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
SMS wrote:
Mike Civil wrote:
So you'd condemn the FX9 as not very rugged on a sample of exactly _1_?

No, based on what Panasonic told her about how the camera isn't designed
for that type of use. Since I know this woman, I do believe what she
says that they said.

So you are still condemning this camera model on a sample of just one
out of how many thousands sold? Where are the the other reports of the
same problem?

Perhaps this person had a one-off badly assembled camera, or faulty part,
it does happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean all the other cameras
from that manufacturer should be shunned because of that one experience,
does it?

And this is abusing the camera how?

I'm a regular cyclist. Personally, I wouldn't be that suprised if a
camera, not being designed explicitly for active sports, suffered some
fault being carried and used long term on a cycle.

Mike

In article Mctrg.49$Ep.15@trnddc08,
"Talal Itani" wrote:

I own a Sony DSC-P200 Digital Camera. I am happy with it, yet I am shopping
for a newer, faster camera, with more close-up capabilities, and a larger
LCD display. Are the new Sony cameras as good as they used to be? Thanks!

No.
Sony will continue to try and lock you into their improving memory stick
technology while making older memory sticks incompatible with newer
cameras.

Dump them and go for a camera using CF, SD or xD cards (preferably with
AA nimh batteries)