Steve'sDigicams

wwone · Mar 19, 2006, 1:02 PM

Leaning toward the W-100,but I am open to advice.Knowing that only specs are now out,does one seem to have an advantage over the other. wayne

bpcrally · Mar 23, 2006, 12:28 PM

All i can say is i own the W50 which is a couple steps lower than the W100, My W50 performs great, its perfect size, long battery life, easy to use, and i actually get a lot of comments on what a nice camera it is!

mtclimber · Mar 23, 2006, 1:35 PM

Perhaps you have a very handsome camera. What do the photos look like?? Can you post some photos, please.

MT

bpcrally · Mar 23, 2006, 3:28 PM

If you look under "Sony" i have posted a thread titled " DSC-W50 in Cuba"

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"There is a few photos there, enjoy!

mtclimber · Mar 23, 2006, 5:25 PM

Your photos posted in the Sony Folder\W-50 goes to Cuba\ are quite good.Do youthink we can look for even better quality photos from the W-100?

MT

bpcrally · Mar 24, 2006, 7:14 AM

Hard question, I guess it really depends if you would notice the difference between 6MP and 8.1MP when a picture is blown up that much. Maybe it would look finer?

The W100 Will look slightly different than the W30,W50, and W70, it looks like it may be a little thicker, but i know it has a few more handy options that the rest of the W-series doesn't offer.

Also remember those photos were taken in Standard mode, not Fine.

For me I will only ever view pictures on my computer or get them printed at 5x7 Max, so my camera is more than I should ever really need.

I was delighted with the compactness of the W50 as well as in love with the styling. My big concern was the screen though, its glossy and looks very easy to scratch. Thank god Sony is smart (unlike Apple with the Nano!) and they have made it scratch resistant. I have put it into my pocket with my cell phone, my ipod, or both, it doesn't seem to aquire scratches easy! I havn't put a single mark on it yet!

mtclimber · Mar 24, 2006, 8:47 AM

bpcrally-

I agree with your logic. In view of your requirements, the W-50 meets your needs quite well. If those posted photos were at normal instead of fine, you still have the advantage of additionalphoto quality.

It also appears to me that the W-100 will indeed be thicked from front to back and the addded 2mp and a bit of ISO does not seem to justify the added abot $100.

Keep in mind that the Casio Z-850 has had its share of teething problems as well, particularly in the video clip department.

MT

bpcrally · Mar 24, 2006, 10:52 AM

Here is a preview of the w70 and w100
http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/so...0-w100_pr.html

I know it has a bigger price tag but i guess we will have to wait and see what the camera really has to offer, i think there is some stuff about different shutter speeds aswell?

I am sure the batter life will be good, it shouldnt be much less than the W50. I planned on purchasing a spare battery for the W50 but I really didnt need to, it's rated at 380 shots with the screen on, turning it off and on, using zoom and other features. without the screen its rated at about 500 pictures, plenty of battery power for me atleast!

Ohlsonmh · Mar 24, 2006, 1:01 PM

Check out my post under the thread "Canon SD 450 or Casio Z600", above, in this section.

I got some REALLY good advise from:

http://www.kenrockwell.com

Ken really likes the vast amount of control available in the Casio z750/ z850. I just got a 750.

"The camera you have WITH you, gets the picture"

-Erik

mtclimber · Mar 24, 2006, 1:13 PM

I apologize in advance to anyone who could possibly be offended, but IMHO, http://www.kenrockwell.com has become far too much like a paid infomercial. I really don't rely on it any more at all. And by the way Ken Rockwell, I thought, was endorsing the Z-120 and the Z-750, not the Z-850. I could be wrong it been a long time since I was at the website.

MT

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Mar 19, 2006, 1:02 PM	#1
wwone Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1	Leaning toward the W-100,but I am open to advice.Knowing that only specs are now out,does one seem to have an advantage over the other. wayne

Mar 23, 2006, 12:28 PM	#2
bpcrally Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 43	All i can say is i own the W50 which is a couple steps lower than the W100, My W50 performs great, its perfect size, long battery life, easy to use, and i actually get a lot of comments on what a nice camera it is!

Mar 23, 2006, 1:35 PM	#3
mtclimber Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 18,143	Perhaps you have a very handsome camera. What do the photos look like?? Can you post some photos, please. MT

Mar 23, 2006, 3:28 PM	#4
bpcrally Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 43	If you look under "Sony" i have posted a thread titled " DSC-W50 in Cuba" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"There is a few photos there, enjoy!

Mar 23, 2006, 5:25 PM	#5
mtclimber Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 18,143	Your photos posted in the Sony Folder\W-50 goes to Cuba\ are quite good.Do youthink we can look for even better quality photos from the W-100? MT

Mar 24, 2006, 7:14 AM	#6
bpcrally Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 43	Hard question, I guess it really depends if you would notice the difference between 6MP and 8.1MP when a picture is blown up that much. Maybe it would look finer? The W100 Will look slightly different than the W30,W50, and W70, it looks like it may be a little thicker, but i know it has a few more handy options that the rest of the W-series doesn't offer. Also remember those photos were taken in Standard mode, not Fine. For me I will only ever view pictures on my computer or get them printed at 5x7 Max, so my camera is more than I should ever really need. I was delighted with the compactness of the W50 as well as in love with the styling. My big concern was the screen though, its glossy and looks very easy to scratch. Thank god Sony is smart (unlike Apple with the Nano!) and they have made it scratch resistant. I have put it into my pocket with my cell phone, my ipod, or both, it doesn't seem to aquire scratches easy! I havn't put a single mark on it yet!

Mar 24, 2006, 8:47 AM	#7
mtclimber Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 18,143	bpcrally- I agree with your logic. In view of your requirements, the W-50 meets your needs quite well. If those posted photos were at normal instead of fine, you still have the advantage of additionalphoto quality. It also appears to me that the W-100 will indeed be thicked from front to back and the addded 2mp and a bit of ISO does not seem to justify the added abot $100. Keep in mind that the Casio Z-850 has had its share of teething problems as well, particularly in the video clip department. MT

Mar 24, 2006, 10:52 AM	#8
bpcrally Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 43	Here is a preview of the w70 and w100 http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/so...0-w100_pr.html I know it has a bigger price tag but i guess we will have to wait and see what the camera really has to offer, i think there is some stuff about different shutter speeds aswell? I am sure the batter life will be good, it shouldnt be much less than the W50. I planned on purchasing a spare battery for the W50 but I really didnt need to, it's rated at 380 shots with the screen on, turning it off and on, using zoom and other features. without the screen its rated at about 500 pictures, plenty of battery power for me atleast!

Mar 24, 2006, 1:01 PM	#9
Ohlsonmh Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 32	Check out my post under the thread "Canon SD 450 or Casio Z600", above, in this section. I got some REALLY good advise from: http://www.kenrockwell.com Ken really likes the vast amount of control available in the Casio z750/ z850. I just got a 750. "The camera you have WITH you, gets the picture" -Erik

Mar 24, 2006, 1:13 PM	#10
mtclimber Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 18,143	I apologize in advance to anyone who could possibly be offended, but IMHO, http://www.kenrockwell.com has become far too much like a paid infomercial. I really don't rely on it any more at all. And by the way Ken Rockwell, I thought, was endorsing the Z-120 and the Z-750, not the Z-850. I could be wrong it been a long time since I was at the website. MT