Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 9, 2007, 11:00 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

ibex-

Yes, the sample photo, taken with the Sony W-55, was taken during daytime. I had purchased the camera as aBirthday presest for my Mom. However, I could not resist taking the camera for a little spin.

Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2007, 9:00 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 19
Default

Can you please take 1-2 pictures with the W-55 during late evening or night? (If it's not too much trouble)
ibex333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2007, 10:09 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

OK, ibex-

Here is the W-55 sample photo: ISO 1000, F 2.8, 1/20 sec, handheld, at night. That is the "top of the shop" for this camera. Its really not too bad for a less than $(US) 200.00 camera. If you want more ISO/Low Light capability, you will have to look at something like the Fuji F-20 or F-30.

Sarah
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2007, 7:43 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 19
Default

This is without flash or with flash? It looks extremely grainy.

(sorry for such questions, but I never went beyound a point and shoot photographer)


See... Let me try to explain to you what I actually wanted to know...

My old Canon A80 had a setting where I'd manually set "the exposure" (I think it was called) for night shots. Someone explained to me how to do it, and I did it ever since without thinking how it actually works...

Let me put up some examples here...

These are taken in Berlin, Germany 3 years ago at night with no flash. There was no lighting around except that on structures themselves.

The attached image "Family12" was taken with flash at close range that same night.





Basically, if I can get at least the same performance out of one of the new Sony W or T series with a little extra, I'll be satisfied.

I'm sorry If I'm confusing you, but because I dont know what I am talking about myself, I cant explain what I wanted to see exactly.
It's like someone who doesnt know anything about computers trying to ask someone if he'll be able to overclock his new Dell by 2GHz...



I might have went with a Fuji, but when I looked at Fujis, I was quite disapointed to see how much they are lacking in style and appearance. Fuctionality and quality are more important for me than looks, but when a camera is this ugly, I just cannot go with it. Also I saw some Fuji revies here and elsewhere, and it seems like ever Fuji has some kind of minor flaw. Either the reviewer says that there is too much pink.. or blue.. or purple in pictures. Off course the reviews for Fujis are always good, and they score quite high but there's always a flaw. With Sony reviews I havent seen any "flaws" in particular. Most complaints are about battery life, screen fingerprints, or flash that could be more powerful....



ibex333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2007, 8:18 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

ibex-

Am I also to assume that these posted photos were taken with the Canon A-80?

I used to own a Canon A-80 and that seems like a stretch. If you want photos like you posted, there is no question about it. You will have to go with something like the Fuji F-20, F-30, or F-40. Those really are the cameras designed for the shots like you posted.

Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2007, 12:08 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 19
Default

Yeah all of these were taken with my Canon Powershot A80.
I'll take a second look at the Fuji.

Let me ask you:

Which camera is a "better" all around camera if we ignore the megapixels and the size of the camera?

My old A80 or the Sony W-90?

Judging from your replies, I'm getting the impression that I would not be gaining much by getting a W-90. No point for me to get a new camera that looks better than my old one but doesnt offer anything more picture quality/features wise.
ibex333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2007, 9:42 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Ibex-

It is only an opinion, but here are a few suggestions:

Canon A-710IS

Fuji S-6000/S-6500

Panasonic TZ-3

All ofthese possible choices offer more zoom. The Fuji does well with low light photos, with a zoom range of 28 to 300mm. And the Panasonic has a 28 to 280mm zoom range. The Fuji and the Panasonic are two of the ultrazooms that do offer a wide angle position on the lens.

Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2007, 4:03 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 19
Default

You misunderstood me. I dont care for zoom much... For zoom and professional quality, I'll buy an $3000 SLR when I'll have the money someday, many years from now....

I understand now, that there is no way I will get great indoor/night performance out of the ultracompact camera. I been to several stores today, and looked at Fuji's you were talking about. They are quite ugly and much bulkier than the new "pocket" Canons or Sonys. Simply put, no other camera brand offers cameras this small, except for Casio which I have no respect for, and Nikon which is only good when it comes to their higher end models.

I guess I have to choose between having a camera that will fit in my pocket and a camera that offers superior low light performance. No way I can have both in one device. For now I guess I'll still go with the Sony W-90 because I love it's small size and design. If I'll buy it and it's performance is not to my liking, I'll exchange it for something else.

Again, I see the simple truth that it's not the camera that matters most. It's the person who uses it. As long as one understands his/her cameras strengths and limitations and does not expect more than it can do, they'll be happy.


Oh, one more thing... I wanted to know is if my old Canon offers superior all around performance to the new sony W series when it comes to pictures no larger than 4x6 inches. Since I have no way of knowing that unless I compare pictures side by side, I asked you.
ibex333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2007, 12:21 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Ibex-

The Sony W-90 is a good choice. It has many desireable features, including SuperSteadyShot which is Sony's name for IS. I would imagine that it will exceed the output of your current camera.

However, as so intelligently stated, a lot of the resulting photo is dependent on the person behind the camera.

Enjoy your new camera.

Sarah
mtclimber 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 5:17 AM.