A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 3rd 04, 10:29 PM
Steve Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.

On 03 Jul 2004 20:59:54 GMT, (Sabineellen) wrote:

Yeah, I did, but after having read the reviews, the movie mode (yeah,
I know, you really shouldn't be using a dcam to take movies) on the
Casio was dismal and there wasn't anything the reviewers mentioned
that jumped out at me.


Hmmm... I haven't considered the movie mode. The thing that stands out about it
is its excellent 5mp image quality, compact size, AA batteries, SD cards.

What jumped at you in the others?


The ratings at megapixel.com for QVR-51 wasn't too high compared to
the S500, even when you took the software bundle number out. As well,
the QVR-51's macro performance didn't seem as good as the other two
and certainly has lots of noise when exceeding ISO200, as shown and
mentioned at dcresource.com.

I do like Casio's Best Shot modes, and has a few neat features in the
playback mode, such as the calendar and the album feature, but when it
comes down to it, the image quality and clarity still wins over rich
features for me.

Now, if the richness in features had directly something to do with
adjusting and controlling your shots so you end up with the best image
possible, then I would've been really impressed, but the album and the
calendar features, I can live without.

Without cut&pasting whole paragraphs, over at steves-digicams.com, you
read words like, "excellent" and "impressive" when describing S500 &
W1's shots and images, while the same reviewer said he was "fairly
satisfied" and "pleased" with shooting and image results.

Save for megapixel.com, none of the other sites actually use a rating
system, which makes for a very tedious and long reading. But when
you're reading through some of the reviews (one ones written by the
experts/editors of those sites), you get the sense of which camera the
reviewers are enthusiastic about and impressed with and which ones
they're just pretty good.

Also, nobody seemed to impressed with Casio's LCD image quality and
sharpness.

I never got the sense that QVR-51 made anyone really impressed, at
least not as much as the S500 & the W1 when describing the image
quality and shooting performance.
  #22  
Old July 3rd 04, 10:31 PM
marlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.

While I allready voiced my recommendation for the sony, I should ask, how do
you plan on using the camera? Are you going to carry it around in your
pocket and point and shoot, or are you going to keep it in a case and take
good pictures.
Richard
"Steve Lee" wrote in message
...
I've narrowed my selection down to the Sony DSC-W1 and Canon S500.
I've read the reviews of both cameras at various sites (not user
reviews, but indepth expert/editor reviews), but none seem to make a
strong recommendation over the other between these two.

Here are some of the reviews I've read so far:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ca...ew/index.shtml
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/so...ew/index.shtml
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/w1.html
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/s500.html
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S500/S50A.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/W1/W1A.HTM and the side-by-side
comparisons can be found here,

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp...dscw1&show=all

Because of Carl Zeiss lens used by DSC-W1, it seems to better pictures
with less noise and aberration. Also, the W1 has some manual
aperature options, while the S500 has none. However, the S500's white
balance options are supposed to be better than the W1.

Based upon the reviews, which camera would you guys choose? Thanks
for your time and courtesy!



  #23  
Old July 3rd 04, 11:16 PM
Gymmy Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.

I have no experience with either. I know people with Canon's are real happy
with them and people with Sony's are not too happy with the battery life or
quality on some. This doesn't necessarily apply to all models. If there is a
good feature I would like on mine Canon usually has a model with it first.

"Steve Lee" wrote in message
...
Gymmy, thanks for your feedback based on your real life experience.
I'll certainly take that into considerating as I comtemplate between
the two cameras.

And if I may trouble you for one more question, having read the
reviews I had provided, which camera would you choose, if you had to
choose just between S500 & W1? Thanks.

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 16:44:57 -0400, "Gymmy Bob"
wrote:

I have two digitals, a fuji 1400 and a fuji 2600 that use 4 and 2 AA

cells
respectively. The 4 AAs last about 2.0 hours on, whether you shoot

pictures
or not and the 2 AAs unit lasts about the same or maybe a little less. I
realize this technology is almost two years old but that isn't acceptable
after my Optio 550 LioN life of a week of intermediate shooting. Typical
cycles range from 1 minute on to 30 minutes on with 1 to 20 pictures at a
time. This has been done a few times now over a week for about 400 shots.

Another thing to be noted is the Fuji 2600 with it's 2 AA cells cannot

use
Alkaline or Zinc-carbon batteries because they cannot charge to flash

heavy
draw and may damage the the circuitry from low voltage. (I have

tried...they
die fast)

"Steve Lee" wrote in message
.. .
I know that W1's batteries takes much longer than S500's to recharge,
6 hours and 2 hours, respectively. But I from what I read, there
isn't too much of a difference in the battery time itself. However,
Canon's is a proprietary form, while Sony's is not and in case my
batteries run out, I can always use alkaline AAs if needed.




  #24  
Old July 3rd 04, 11:22 PM
Steve Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 21:31:19 GMT, "marlin"
wrote:

While I allready voiced my recommendation for the sony, I should ask, how do
you plan on using the camera? Are you going to carry it around in your
pocket and point and shoot, or are you going to keep it in a case and take
good pictures.
Richard


Hey Richard, I forgot to thank you for your quick and timely reply,
sorry. I really appreciated it.

As for how I'll be using my camera most of the time, it's really hard
to say. When I go on holidays, I'll be taking scenery pictures, but
also of my family in various environments, then I'll be using it to
take indoor pictures of friends and family, 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.

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 really didn't wanna look into an SLR, though my plans for using a
digicam might call for it. They're too bulky, I'm not an advanced
photographer by any means to fully take advantage of the features and
controls those things offer.

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.

Again, thanks for your time and courtesy!
  #25  
Old July 4th 04, 12:46 AM
marlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.

"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


  #26  
Old July 4th 04, 01:16 AM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.


BTW, have you looked at the Casio QVR-51? This is the one i'd buy if i was
looking for a compact digital.


Oh, one thing I forgot to ask was, but if you had to choose between
just S500 & W1, which would you choose?



I don't really know much about either cameras to have an opinion. Personally
I'd prefer a camera that takes SD cards as they are much much cheaper
especially in 512mb size than memory sticks, and there's a big choice of
makers.

I'd say consider the Konica Minolta G600 which would fit in with those, it has
a 6mp, uses SD AND memory stick, has some manual control options, and its
images look quite good. There's a Steve-digicams review of it. Consider, not
that i recommend it, but it's worth checking out.

  #27  
Old July 4th 04, 01:33 AM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.


I never got the sense that QVR-51 made anyone really impressed, at
least not as much as the S500 & the W1 when describing the image
quality and shooting performance.


People have their biases and historically Canon and Sony had quite impressive
marketing. I wouldn't expect those reviewers to be as excited about a casio as
they would be about a canon, and that bias could affect their evaluation.
Remember that those are individuals.

Here's something I find more more reliable

http://dima.pmai.org/pdf/2004_camera_winners.pdf

Note that the Casio is there... Note that the highly reputed Olympus 5060 and
8080 are there too, so is the Leica digilux 2.

Read carefully what it said. It's a result of voting by a panel of expert
judges that included "some of the most well-respected names in he industry". I
have the understanding that those tests were done "blindly" (they voted on the
images without knowing what cameras produced them) hence the entry number of
each camera was mentioned after its name in the press release. Certainly if i
was doing such a test I would make it a "blind" test to avoid any biases.

  #28  
Old July 4th 04, 03:05 AM
Steve Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.

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


  #29  
Old July 4th 04, 03:55 AM
Steve Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.

On 04 Jul 2004 00:33:11 GMT, (Sabineellen) wrote:

I never got the sense that QVR-51 made anyone really impressed, at
least not as much as the S500 & the W1 when describing the image
quality and shooting performance.


People have their biases and historically Canon and Sony had quite impressive
marketing. I wouldn't expect those reviewers to be as excited about a casio as
they would be about a canon, and that bias could affect their evaluation.
Remember that those are individuals.

Here's something I find more more reliable

http://dima.pmai.org/pdf/2004_camera_winners.pdf

Note that the Casio is there... Note that the highly reputed Olympus 5060 and
8080 are there too, so is the Leica digilux 2.

Read carefully what it said. It's a result of voting by a panel of expert
judges that included "some of the most well-respected names in he industry". I
have the understanding that those tests were done "blindly" (they voted on the
images without knowing what cameras produced them) hence the entry number of
each camera was mentioned after its name in the press release. Certainly if i
was doing such a test I would make it a "blind" test to avoid any biases.


Wow! That certainly is an impressive credential for a camera. I was
hoping that I could find the list of all the entrants in each of the
categories, but I'm sure Canon and Sony would've entered their cameras
as well in the $300-$399 and $400-$499 categories. Sure would've been
nice if DIMA released at least the top three placements in each of the
categories, if not the whole list of all the cameras entered.

But I think I'll be going with the W1. Its video record capability is
far superior to ignore for me and while I don't plan on stop using my
JVC digital camcorder, I've never carried it around with me, like I
plan to do with my digicam and it just would be nice if I can take
clips more than just a few minutes if need be with a digital camera.

If W1's photo quality and imaging capabilities were noticeably
inferior and poorer to that of the S500 or the QVR-51, then it
wouldn't matter how long it can take a video for. But seeing as how
its quality seems to be quite respectable, I probably will go with
that.

And even if the tests were not performed blindly, I have read indepth
reviews of the cameras from at least three, sometimes four websites
and they don't seem too far off from each other in evaluating each of
the cameras in question. So, I do take some comfort in that.

But that $200CDN price difference at the store I plan on buying my
digicam is way too much for me to ignore as well. Arrrrgh!!!
Decisions, decisions.....

Oh, and your other recommendation, the G500, also has very limited
video capabilities and has no histogram for some reason in the record
and playback mode. I read steves-digicam.com's review of the camera,
along with www.imaging-resource.com's and dcresource.com's and nothing
was there that made me want to take it over the W1 because of far
superior photo quality.

Sabine, thanks for all your input and for your time in helping me
consider some other cameras other than the S500 and the W1. Truly
appreciate it!

Steve
  #30  
Old July 4th 04, 04:05 AM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.


Sabine, thanks for all your input and for your time in helping me
consider some other cameras other than the S500 and the W1. Truly
appreciate it!

Steve


I'm sorry i can't help you much about the Video and the reason is simple. I
long ago gave up on the video function of digital cameras. In my opinion the
best solid state video I used was the logitech pocket video 550. It's just
superb for what it is. Even when played in full screen mode on my 1600x1200
monitor. It uses AA and SD, and it's quite tiny. This is one reason I only
focus on image quality from a digital stills camera, because i have not seen
one that'd come anywhere close to the video quality of the logitech 550. I also
find it better to have it so that each use different batteries. Have a look at
the logitech 550. it's superb for video.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Book Review: Collecting and Using Classic Cameras , Ivor Matanle Paul 35mm Photo Equipment 1 June 16th 04 09:04 PM
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash elchief In The Darkroom 3 April 7th 04 10:20 AM
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash elchief Photographing People 3 April 7th 04 10:20 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM
Help Identifying 2 Vintage Cameras Greg Lovern Other Photographic Equipment 0 November 4th 03 12:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.