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

Have a look at
the logitech 550. it's superb for video.


with the $200 that you'd save when you get the casio you can buy the logitech
pocket video 550 which only weighs 85gms

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...039752-2247819

If you keep an eye on ebay it can be had for less. I use it daily to make a
video diary and would not part with it.

, it'll make my decision making process alot whole lot
easier. Thanks!!

Argh decision decisions. They torment.

My heart was leaning towards the W1, when I just found out that it
only offers up to 1/1000 shutter speed, compared to S500's 1/2000. I
read that at 1/2000, you can still take decent "still" photos with
fast moving objects, but only 1/1000, there's no chance.

While I don't plan on taking photos of mostly fast moving objects,
with all things being equal, will I see a blurry object, perhaps
blurry feet and arms of a sprinter with only 1/1000 but quite a bit
clearer image with 1/2000?

Darn, darn, darn!! Just when I thought I had it figured out. As
always, your input and insight would be much appreciated.

P.S. Sabineellen, I looked around town to see if I can find a shop
that carried Casio's QVR-51 and none of the big electronics shops had
it, unfortunately. Guess it's just too new, but I'm taking off on my
holidays in a couple of weeks, so I don't wanna put off my purchas any
longer.

Well, if you want a good picture, you have to use a low ISO. With my G5, at
a low ISO, I have never had the oportunity to go over 1/500. Just now
though, I tried quickly waving my hand in front of the lens at 1/1000, and
there was a tiny amount of blur. While at 1/2000 there wasn't any, the fact
that the aperature has to be closed down to f4.0 for the camera to be able
to do 1/2000, even at ISO 400 the picture was so dark I could barely see
it. I couldn't find any, but an online search might be able to find you
comparison photos.
Richard
"Steve Lee" wrote in message
...
My heart was leaning towards the W1, when I just found out that it
only offers up to 1/1000 shutter speed, compared to S500's 1/2000. I
read that at 1/2000, you can still take decent "still" photos with
fast moving objects, but only 1/1000, there's no chance.

While I don't plan on taking photos of mostly fast moving objects,
with all things being equal, will I see a blurry object, perhaps
blurry feet and arms of a sprinter with only 1/1000 but quite a bit
clearer image with 1/2000?

Darn, darn, darn!! Just when I thought I had it figured out. As
always, your input and insight would be much appreciated.

P.S. Sabineellen, I looked around town to see if I can find a shop
that carried Casio's QVR-51 and none of the big electronics shops had
it, unfortunately. Guess it's just too new, but I'm taking off on my
holidays in a couple of weeks, so I don't wanna put off my purchas any
longer.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:00:03 GMT, "marlin"
wrote:

Well, if you want a good picture, you have to use a low ISO. With my G5, at
a low ISO, I have never had the oportunity to go over 1/500. Just now
though, I tried quickly waving my hand in front of the lens at 1/1000, and
there was a tiny amount of blur. While at 1/2000 there wasn't any, the fact
that the aperature has to be closed down to f4.0 for the camera to be able
to do 1/2000, even at ISO 400 the picture was so dark I could barely see
it. I couldn't find any, but an online search might be able to find you
comparison photos.
Richard

Thanks for going through the trouble of doing a quick experiment for
me, Richard! I guess even if you have 1/2000, there are other things
to consider.

I
read that at 1/2000, you can still take decent "still" photos with
fast moving objects, but only 1/1000, there's no chance.

Who said so? What exactly are you planning to shoot?

First of all, the camera you're considering is a P&S with limited zoom, keep
that in mind. You're going to have difficulty getting exposure and depth of
field right in many, if not most, situations in which a p&s is used with a
shutter speed of 1/2000. Also, what are you going to shoot? whatever it is it's
likely you will have difficulty framing it right if it needs 1/2000 and you're
shooting with a p&S.

The only realistic consideration for a high shutter speed in a camera like you
mention is if you use high iso in very very sunny situation like a desert.

I shot this today at 1/500.
http://newton-i.usefilm.com/1/9/0/9/...8723-large.jpg. This is an explosive
burst of water at quite speed. Actually, most of the "action" shots i did today
were with 1/500. Only one of them was with 1/1000 and there was no visible
difference.

On 06 Jul 2004 23:14:41 GMT, (Sabineellen) wrote:

I
read that at 1/2000, you can still take decent "still" photos with
fast moving objects, but only 1/1000, there's no chance.

Who said so?

I can't remember where I read it, but this was confirmed to me by a
sales clerk at BestBuy when I mentioned this to her. But I thought
I'd leave the BestBuy part out for fear of lacking credibility. Guess
I was right.

What exactly are you planning to shoot?

First of all, the camera you're considering is a P&S with limited zoom, keep
that in mind. You're going to have difficulty getting exposure and depth of
field right in many, if not most, situations in which a p&s is used with a
shutter speed of 1/2000. Also, what are you going to shoot? whatever it is it's
likely you will have difficulty framing it right if it needs 1/2000 and you're
shooting with a p&S.

Yeah, seems like this is the general consensus when I posed the
question in various forums.

The only realistic consideration for a high shutter speed in a camera like you
mention is if you use high iso in very very sunny situation like a desert.

I see, I see. Well, I don't plan on going to the Sahara anytime soon
:-)

I shot this today at 1/500.
http://newton-i.usefilm.com/1/9/0/9/...8723-large.jpg. This is an explosive
burst of water at quite speed. Actually, most of the "action" shots i did today
were with 1/500. Only one of them was with 1/1000 and there was no visible
difference.

Wow, Sabine, that is one nice and crisp picture. Which camera did you
use to capture this image? That's pretty cool.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:20:05 -0400, Hap Shaughnessy
wrote:

old header ... subject: Please help me to decide between these two
cameras! I'm torn.

Steve:

... this was ready to go late last night but never posted ...

---clip---

I'm going through the same process of wading through all the digicams
that would be best for me.

I have read all replies to this very informative thread and my
requirements for a new camera are very close to yours.

After untold hours of rooting through the biggy review websites,
forums, downloading and viewing scads of images I've narrowed down my
choices to: [alphabetical order]

a) Canon Powershot S400 [better pics & more bang for the buck than the
more noisy S500 ... see imaging-resourcee.com]

Yeah, I saw the comparison as well. And over at dcresource.com, the
S410 is deemed to have cripser pictures than the S500. Go figure. I
thought it was mighty odd that Canon would let their older models of
the same line produce better quality pics.

Note:The S400 is priced cheaper than the S410 by Cdn$80.00 that was
originally recommended by the friendly staff as their fave camera at
my local Black's Camera www.blackphotostore.com. The only difference
is that the updated 410 adds a Print/Share button to the back of the
camera.

b) Casio QV-R51 [Thanks Sabineellen for your input - I would have
missed it]

Upon Sabine strongly recommending this camera, I immediately reseached
it, but none of the stores I wish to buy my cameras from carry it. The
2" LCD sounded good too, along with how the camera won the "best in
its category" award from Digital Imaging Marketing Association. And
some of shooting modes described at steves-digicams.com sounded really
neat.

But its video is way too limited for me, without audio yet and doesn't
have an AF-Illuminator. I can use all the help I can get when taking
pics. Those pics taken during the DIMA competition was taken by gurus
in photography. And I didn't even know about the optical zoom lense
focusing in steps.

c) Sony DSC-W1

It's come down to either the DSC-W1 or the Nikon 5200 for me. I'm
just waiting for the review of it on dcresource.com, which is supposed
to come out in the next couple of days. steves-digicams.com already
gave it a good review as well.

In the meantime, can you please check out these links over at
steves-digicam? These are some photo samples of QVR-51,
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...1_samples.html, these
are of Nikon Coolpix 5200
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...0_samples.html,
and these are of Sony DSC-W1,
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...1_samples.html.

Now, I don't think these were taken all at the sametime, but is it
possible to tell which camera produces particularly crisper and better
images under certain conditions than the others? Which camera seems
to do better under bright sunlight? Which seems to do better indoors?

What do you guys think?

---clop---
[snipped some very insightful reviews]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:26:19 -0400, Hap Shaughnessy
wrote:

Steve Lee:

Here's a couple of 'New to Me' URL's I found the Sony W1...

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/artic...,116717,00.asp

http://www.a-digital-eye.com/cgi-bin...t=ST&f=8&t=720
http://www.a-digital-eye.com/cgi-bin...t=ST&f=8&t=744

Hap

Cool, thanks! And dcresource.com finally came out with Nikon's
Coolpix review, just in case you were interested,
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ni...ew/index.shtml.

Not too crazy about the photo quality. Guess there's a reason for it
being cheaper than the Sony & the Canon.