Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Sony

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 21, 2005, 10:11 AM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8
Default

Yes, I did get the memory stick pro, but fortunately it is returnable where I bought it. (Costco.)

Initially, I thought the Sony movies were better too, but I think it really depends on what it is you are taking the movie of. Landscape kinds of things look great, but closeup things that move look blocky. I wish I could attach files to demonstrate.
jachang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2005, 7:31 PM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 30
Default

Compared to the Canon SD500, would you say the SONY P200 has more saturation and contrast, or less?If you wanted to try toduplicate the Canon's colorwith the P200 could youdo it bysettingthe saturation and contrast on the P200 + or - ?
lcmb11444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2005, 8:52 PM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8
Default

Hmmm... that's kind of a tough one to answer. You probably could tweak both cameras to bring them closer to your preferences of saturation, etc. They just seem to have a whole different look to them. For example in the movies, Sony seems to capture the color, saturation and all really well, but it's overly "blocky", looks interpolated in some cases, almost as if it were sharpened artificially. The Canon always seems to be "warmer"--and that's not always good. Skin tones always seem to tend towards yellow. The movies in the Sony at low light are almost impossible to see, but what you can see is nice and sharp, if that makes any sense. The Canon, on the other hand, throws the ISO up so that they're bright enough, but really grainy.

Now, to make matters worse, I just also got the Nikon 7900. I think I have decided to eliminate Sony. (Still trying to find the perfect one!) ThisNikon is again better at some things and worse at others. For stills, I have to break it down further: For people indoors, Nikon seems to be cooler in tones, a little bit truer to actual colors, and sharper. Canon is warmer, and a little overexposed, (But I think that's because it has a stronger flash),and pictures are a little softer. For outdoors, both of them are quite good at getting the colors right, but I noticedonemajor difference. I took the exact same picture with both cameras of a pine tree. I used full auto settings. When I looked at them in PhotoShop, the Canon was WAYYYY sharper. I thought I may have moved the camera, so I said, okay, I'll give Nikon a second try. I took the same picture again, using a tripod with both cameras. This time they both looked great. Well, I then looked at the EXIF files, and it seems that in auto mode, the Nikon outdoors used a shutter speed of 1/23 f3.5, and the Canon a shutter speed of 1/60, f4.5. So of course you couldn't expect a hand-held shot to come out well at 1/23!

As far as the movies, Canon still seems to win. Nikon does gain up so the movies are bright even in bad light, but very grainy. Canon gains up, but not as much, so they're not quite as bright, but not as grainy. Can't anybody make the perfect camera? Aaaarrrrghh!

Now, bear in mind, that my comparisons were done in full auto, so that I was at least comparing things fairly. With either camera, you can use the other settings to change things, and of course there's always PhotoShop. My feeling is that I want the one that's going to give me the best image right out of the box on auto, though.

Hope this helps. I still don't know which one I'm keeping, but the Sony is going back.





So, I still don't have an answer.
jachang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2005, 11:44 PM   #24
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 16
Default

It's nice to know I am not alone in trying to decided which is the best camera to keep. I have the Sony p200 and the Nikon 7900 and I am not sure which to keep? Like you said they all have their good and bad points. I love most things about the Sony p200 except for the way it takes pictures in low light. I am not one who likes to do a lot of adjusting to the settings and it seems the Nikon 7900 is a lot better as far as low light pictures. On the other hand it seems the biggest thing about the Nikon 7900 I don't like and probably the only thing, is the way that little hourglass comes up in between pictures and it seems like the wait is forever (not really, just seems that way) before you can take another shot. Sony is much faster. I am really having a hard time trying to decide between the two and they are to much alike to keep both, so one has to go back. But which one?Anyone have any thoughts to make my decision any easier? Thanks, jvan
jvan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2005, 4:25 PM   #25
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15
Default

Each one has different priority, then difficult to help someone in his choice. Personally I love manual controls, then for me the P200 or the W7 are whithout any doubt the best choice. I think their image quality is slightly better than the 7900 too, but I agree with you about your complain about the P200 in low light. I don't understand the choice of Sony to set the shutter speed on 1/40 in low light in Auto mode. 1/60 would be a better choice to avoid shake (may be the Sony's engineers think that everybody practise yoga as all of the japoneese :-) ) But with some practice I think that manual controls are very easy to use. After some adjustments (Focus, shutter speed, white balance color..) i was very surprised about the ability of my P200 to take great pictures ( sharp , bright, accurate colors ) in low light conditions. And in auto mode i think it's not so bad too !
Doris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2005, 9:08 PM   #26
Member
 
Ixus 700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 54
Default

I would say The CanonIxus 700 produces more vivid colors. The My Colors mode is not unimportant as some people don't know how to use Photoshop or are not bothered to do photo editing (That would be me:-))

Sony memory sticks can really punch a big fat hole in your pocket (Where your wallet is) as they're excessively expensive! SD's are not as cheap as CFs but are reasonably priced. The reason Sony put the P200 $100 cheaper than the Canon SD500 is because they know that many will go for it because of more manual controls and the pricetag.

But in the end, the Sony P200 can cost around $200 more expensive than the Canon SD500 because of expensive accessories, memory sticks, batteries and stuff like that!
Ixus 700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2005, 2:02 AM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 65
Default

Ixus 700 wrote:
Quote:
But in the end, the Sony P200 can cost around $200 more expensive than the Canon SD500 because of expensive accessories, memory sticks, batteries and stuff like that!
I have to disagree with this. The cost of batteries, memory and other accessories between the two cameras isn't all that different. Niether camera comes with large memory cards or any meaningful accessories so unless the buyer has compatible memory in hand they will still need to spend about the same amount to equip either camera. For the cost of an SD500 a person can buy a P200, 1g memory stick and possibly an extra battery.

Add to this that the P200 has manual controls, very decent lens for this class of camera, fantastic battery life with extremely accurate measure of the remaining charge level, display of histogram/aperture/shutter speed before the picture is taken and an LCD display that is well protected by a thick plastic cover and it becomes a formidable competitor for the SD500, as well as, many other point and shoot cameras.
PicGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2005, 3:18 AM   #28
Member
 
kona001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 84
Default

You're talking to a guy/girl who's name in the title is Ixus 700 so it is futile to try to convince him/her.

From Circuit City USA Website:

SanDisk 1GB CompactFlash™ Card (SDCFB-1024-768)
$109.99

SanDisk 1GB Ultra II CompactFlash™ Card (SDCFH-1024-901)
$139.99

Sony 1GB Memory Stick PRO™ (MSX-1GS)
$99.99 after $20.00 savings

Canon Powershot SD500 Digital Camera
$499.99

Sony Cyber-shot® DSC-P200 Digital Camera
$349.99

The Prices fluctuate between memory stick pro's, compact flash, and the prices of the cameras. I purchased my P200 for $300 bucks with a 20% off coupon from Dell. I bought two 1GB Memory Stick Pro's for 99.99 each. So I spent $500 dollars in total for the P200 with two 1GB MemStick Pro's. That is the same price as the SD500 or IXUS700 alone.

So if you are looking to get an excellent camera for a much better price than the competition, you do the math.
kona001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2005, 8:05 AM   #29
Member
 
Ixus 700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 54
Default

The P200 has more manual controls: Agreed. Aperture and shutter speed against MyColors.

Decent lens: Both the P200 and Ixus 700 have 3x optical zoom lenses. The P200's aperture is F2.8-F5.2 compared to F2.8-F4.9 on the Ixus 700

Battery: I guess the P200 wins here

Shooting info: P200 wins again

LCD protector: The Ixus 700's LCD can also be protected with the plastic used for PDA LCD screens

I guess the P200 wins here butnow that many devices (Such as PDAs) run on SD cards, some may not prefer the Memory Stick the P200 uses because it is more of a "Sony only" media.

Anyway, I respect all of your thoughts on my opinion (And this is a Sony forum). So "thumbs up"' to the P200:-)
Ixus 700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2005, 11:55 AM   #30
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 65
Default

Ixus 700,

I'm not putting down the SD500 in regards to image quality. I've had a 300D for well over a year and consider myself to be a Canon fan more than any other brand, including Sony. However, it is hard to deny the value of the P200 especially considering its capabilities. IMO, it is the best "bang for the buck" ultra compact camera sold at the moment. This will likely change very soon with the pace that new models are hitting the market. Unfortunately for Canon, the SD500 isn't going to be the camera to knock it off its throne.

The nice thing about the P200's LCD protector is it is very thick. I can put mine into a pant pocket without a case and not worry about damaging the screen. It will take some serious abuse before the screen would break. Why the other camera makers don't do the same for their screens is an absolute mystery to me. It is cheap protection and doesn't effect the functionality of the display in any way.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of the P200 will be the pressure it puts on the other manufacturers to one-up it at the same price, or less. If this occurrs then we all owe Sony a big thank you for bringing the P200 to market.
PicGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:52 PM.