Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 10:25:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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/canon/powershot_s410_...
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_w1-review/in...
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/compare_post.asp?method...

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!

More about : decide cameras

Anonymous
July 3, 2004 11:18:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Lee" <holysteve.leecow@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 6jce055qfhm3o1k6pk12p16d12b1tqpmn@4ax.com...
> Because of Carl Zeiss lens used by DSC-W1, it seems to better pictures
> with less noise and aberration.

Just so you know, the lens isn't actually a Zeiss lens, rather it is a Zeiss
style lens. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, I just thought you
should know. Anyways, as much as I am a Canon fan, I say get the Sony.
Richard
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 3:42:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

marlin typed:

> "Steve Lee" <holysteve.leecow@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D 6jce055qfhm3o1k6pk12p16d12b1tqpmn@4ax.com...
>> Because of Carl Zeiss lens used by DSC-W1, it seems to better
>> pictures with less noise and aberration.
>
> Just so you know, the lens isn't actually a Zeiss lens, rather it is
> a Zeiss style lens. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, I just
> thought you should know. Anyways, as much as I am a Canon fan, I say
> get the Sony. Richard

Also noise isn't dependant on lens, but rather on CCD sensor. Good lens
provides less distortion, not less noise.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 7:15:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Canon make Cameras, Sony make toys and walkmans..


"Steve Lee" <holysteve.leecow@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 6jce055qfhm3o1k6pk12p16d12b1tqpmn@4ax.com...
> 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/canon/powershot_s410_...
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_w1-review/in...
> 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/compare_post.asp?method...
>
> 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!
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 8:10:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Marli" <xxxx@xxx.com> wrote in message news:40e65ced$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
> Canon make Cameras, Sony make toys and walkmans..

That's the way I usually go about it, but in this instance, the Sony has
longer battery life, less noise at higher ISO's, a better movie mode, has
manual controls, and takes IMHO sharper pictures. The only mark against the
Sony is that it doesn't have a custom white balance. Like I said, I'd go
with the Sony if I were deciding between these cameras.
Richard
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 8:10:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sony has better battery life? Can you should 3-400 pics over a week with one
charge?

"marlin" <marlinspike.nospam@verizon.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:_TAFc.4603$Xq4.3850@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "Marli" <xxxx@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:40e65ced$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
> > Canon make Cameras, Sony make toys and walkmans..
>
> That's the way I usually go about it, but in this instance, the Sony has
> longer battery life, less noise at higher ISO's, a better movie mode, has
> manual controls, and takes IMHO sharper pictures. The only mark against
the
> Sony is that it doesn't have a custom white balance. Like I said, I'd go
> with the Sony if I were deciding between these cameras.
> Richard
>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 12:13:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:cP-dnRNfqq2HbnvdRVn-vA@golden.net...
> Sony has better battery life? Can you should 3-400 pics over a week with
one
> charge?

Hmm, I see what you are saying. By battery life I meant consecutive
pictures. If you took all the pictures in a row, you could take more with
the sony.
Richard
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 12:17:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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.

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 13:55:41 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
wrote:

>Sony has better battery life? Can you should 3-400 pics over a week with one
>charge?
>
>"marlin" <marlinspike.nospam@verizon.net.nospam> wrote in message
>news:_TAFc.4603$Xq4.3850@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> "Marli" <xxxx@xxx.com> wrote in message
>news:40e65ced$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
>> > Canon make Cameras, Sony make toys and walkmans..
>>
>> That's the way I usually go about it, but in this instance, the Sony has
>> longer battery life, less noise at higher ISO's, a better movie mode, has
>> manual controls, and takes IMHO sharper pictures. The only mark against
>the
>> Sony is that it doesn't have a custom white balance. Like I said, I'd go
>> with the Sony if I were deciding between these cameras.
>> Richard
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 12:17:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <holysteve.leecow@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:3j3ee0tkn2jo4imcinfng4rnfam6b9bo3u@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 13:55:41 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
> wrote:
>
> >Sony has better battery life? Can you should 3-400 pics over a week with
one
> >charge?
> >
> >"marlin" <marlinspike.nospam@verizon.net.nospam> wrote in message
> >news:_TAFc.4603$Xq4.3850@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >> "Marli" <xxxx@xxx.com> wrote in message
> >news:40e65ced$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
> >> > Canon make Cameras, Sony make toys and walkmans..
> >>
> >> That's the way I usually go about it, but in this instance, the Sony
has
> >> longer battery life, less noise at higher ISO's, a better movie mode,
has
> >> manual controls, and takes IMHO sharper pictures. The only mark against
> >the
> >> Sony is that it doesn't have a custom white balance. Like I said, I'd
go
> >> with the Sony if I were deciding between these cameras.
> >> Richard
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 12:51:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:54:34 +0200, "A.F. Hobbacher"
<hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote:

>I had the same decision and bought the Sony W1, but why?
>
>1. For spontaneous pictures you need the possibility of normal batteries. Somebody comes for a short visit, you
>want to take a picture, but not possible beause of emty accumulator. What then? Wait 4 hours for loading!
>2. Manual control of exposure and computing settings, as contrast, sharpening etc.
>3. Big display, which allows for a better composition of the image.
>4. Powerful flash
>
>Now it is up to you!
>
>AFH

Hey AFH, I certainly appreciate your input into this matter. One
question I have is your point #3. I do like the idea of the W1 having
a 2.5" LCD over the 1.5" LCD the S500 has, which translates into a 40%
bigger viewing area.

But I noticed the pixel count on the W1's LCD is 123,000 and on the
S500, 118,000. So, this means that W1 has (123,000 pixels/2.5" =)
49200 pixels/inch and the S500 (118,000 pixels/1.5" =) 78667
pixels/inch.

So, S500 has close to 37% more pixels/inch count. When comparing the
two cameras and looked at the LCD, did you notice any difference at
all between the LCD image quality? Did S500 LCD images appear finer
in detail and sharper? Thanks.
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 1:01:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <nospamming@bite.me>
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" <holysteve.leecow@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3j3ee0tkn2jo4imcinfng4rnfam6b9bo3u@4ax.com...
>> 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.
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 1:01:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <holysteve.leecow@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e7ee0hhjk6bfg68l3vd24lnrpfvsp8v12@4ax.com...
> 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" <nospamming@bite.me>
> 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" <holysteve.leecow@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3j3ee0tkn2jo4imcinfng4rnfam6b9bo3u@4ax.com...
> >> 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.
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 1:31:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <holysteve.leecow@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 6jce055qfhm3o1k6pk12p16d12b1tqpmn@4ax.com...
> 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/canon/powershot_s410_...
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_w1-review/in...
> 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/compare_post.asp?method...
>
> 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!
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 2:22:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 21:31:19 GMT, "marlin"
<marlinspike.nospam@verizon.net.nospam> 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!
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 3:46:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Lee" <holysteve.leecow@rediffmail.com> 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
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 6:05:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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"
<marlinspike.nospam@verizon.net.nospam> wrote:

>"Steve Lee" <holysteve.leecow@rediffmail.com> 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
>
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 4:40:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

regarding the battery differences between the Sony DSC-W1 and the
Canon S500. If you prefer Li-Ion batteries, but like the W1, take a
look at the Sony DSC-P100. It is very simlilar to the W1 in specs and
performance, but of course is a very different shape.
!