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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 12, 2006, 7:28 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1
Default

Also, looking for the same specs that xsailor is. What do you guys think of these models? These are the ones currently looking at to get.

Sony DSC-W50 or W100
Sony T30
Sony T9
Sony N1

Canon Powershot SD450
Canon Powershot SD550
or any of the new Canon Powershot models that just came out (SD600, SD630, SD700, or SD700IS)

Which one would you guys recommend? Or are there any other models that you can recommend?

Things wanting to do with the photos:

1. Print
2. Use with Photoshop
3. Crop
4. Not loss any resolution
5. Ability to add to video/slides

Basically, anything that you would do with photos.

Thanks.
xscorpion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 9:43 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

xscorpion-

It is just a personal opinion, but for mostly automatic cameras, the contest, in my opinion, will be between the Canon SD-700 IS and the Sony W-100. We will have to wait for the introduction of both cameras and their professional reviews, though we can get a few clues from the reviews of the W-50 which have already been written. The W-50 at least, shows measurable noise above ISO 400. Here is the review:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ca...il.php?cam=828

Canon is being more conservative with their ISO increases beyond ISO 400 and that might be the safer approach. Just a technical note, the physics of enlarging an image within editing software and expecting the resolution to be the same is actually impossible. The enlarging process essentially is spreading the pixels physically further apart, so as a result, the resolution has to decrease somewhat. However, you can first enhance the resolution of the image, you desire to enlarge, with bi-cubic pixel clonning, then enlarge the image and retain the resolution in that manner. It just needs that additional step, to insure the original or greater resolution in the enlarged image.

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 10:12 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
That's the same thing Pentax is showing on their web site for it, too (approx. 17 feet on the wide end, and a bit over 9 feet on the long end).

Pentax Optio S6 Specifications

The Casio sure doesn't have anything close to it (and it's specs show auto iso). It's only rated about about 9.2 feet on the wide end, dropping down to 4.59 feet on the long end.

Casio S600 Specifications

I think I'll check the user manuals for both to see if the marketing specs are wrong for one or the other camera.

Checked

The manuals for both cameras match up to the marketing specs (which doesn't mean they're right). Specs for both models show Auto ISO for flash range.

That does seem like a lot of difference between two very similar models (17 feet at wide angle for the Pentax S6, and only 9.2 Feet at wide angle for the Casio S600).

http://exilim.casio.com/pdf/EXS600_e.pdf

http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/m...Manual_web.pdf

Dpreview lists the "Flash guide no" of the T9 at 2.8m(9.1ft)8m and the S6 at 2.7m(8.8ft)7m. I didn't make them bold to be right by shouting louder but to duplicate their notation. Pentax USA has this in their specs: Effective Range: Approx. 0.49 ft - 17 ft (0.15m – 5.1m) (5.8mm at Sensitivity Auto), Approx. 1.31 ft – 8.9 ft (0.4m – 2.7m) (17.4mm at Sensitivity Auto) It appears Phil used the tele number rather than wide.

I think they have all had the same flash since the S. They exaggerate the flash range with the ISO. The S5i was up to 11.5 feet at wide using ISO200. I'm guessing auto goes to ISO 400 on the S6. As you pointed out with the T9, it is hard to know what you are dealing with if the flash is rated in auto.

My Z750 won't go over ISO100 in auto. If that is true of the S600 it probably has the strongest flash of the lot. And flash assist is much more effective than a shotgun boost of the ISO. It will reach out nicely to 25 feet.

I don't go to Steve anymore for specs. Someone needs to help him sort out that list of every camera he has ever tested.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 10:25 AM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

slipe wrote:
Quote:
I don't go to Steve anymore for specs. Someone needs to help him sort out that list of every camera he has ever tested.
He uses the marketing specs that manufacturers give him, and sometimes the specs are a bit "optimistic" (as in some of the Sony T series models). He corrected the specs in some of thosea while back when I noticed a difference between the marketing specs and user guides.

When I notice a descrepancy, I let him know and he corrects it. I'm sure he would do the same for anyone else letting him know about spec issues, too.

It would be better for consistencyif all manufacturers used a standard Guide Number at ISO 100 for flash range. But, they don't (and most users wouldn't understand how to divide the GN by aperture anyway, then multiply the range by 1.4x each time the ISO speed doubled).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 10:53 AM   #15
Administrator
 
steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,535
Default

slipe wrote:
Quote:
I don't go to Steve anymore for specs. Someone needs to help him sort out that list of every camera he has ever tested.

If you're offering to do it then be my guest :blah: Do you know how many reviews you are talking about here ? And exactly who's specs do you believe ?? There are only so many hours in the day and there's way too many cameras to review... About the time we get it all right they just replace it with a newer model anyway :roll:
steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 11:56 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

steve wrote:
Quote:
slipe wrote:
Quote:
I don't go to Steve anymore for specs. Someone needs to help him sort out that list of every camera he has ever tested.

If you're offering to do it then be my guest :blah: Do you know how many reviews you are talking about here ? And exactly who's specs do you believe ?? There are only so many hours in the day and there's way too many cameras to review... About the time we get it all right they just replace it with a newer model anyway :roll:
I wasn't referring to the accuracy – your specs are as accurate as anyone else's and probably better than most.

My problem is with finding a camera in the first place. Your giant list with every camera you have ever reviewed is too unwieldy. And if you haven't reviewed it yet or it wasn't worth reviewing there are no specs there. It isn't a good place to quickly find the specs on a camera.

Your Buyer's Guide would befine if it had links to your review and maybe other professional tests. I don't have any interest in reading that Joe Blow thinks a camera is swell but takes blurry pictures indoors. And a direct link to the specs rather than going through the comparitor would help too.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 2:13 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1
Default

Here, buy this one on Ebay. Is is inexpensive:

Link removed by moderator
dbruccoleri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 2:53 PM   #18
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

dbruccoleri wrote:
Quote:
Here, buy this one on Ebay. Is is inexpensive:
If you read the confirmation e-mail you received and agreed to when joining our forums, you'll see that for sale posts are not allowed here.

Jim C.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2006, 9:04 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13
Default

wow a lot of replies.





so any suggestions? good quality, very sleek, ultra light and small. photo prints are not imporant for me, as long as i have good zoom, excellent quaility pics and ultra light and compact, I'm fine.
xsailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2006, 10:56 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

This was taken with the Optio S4. I have the S4 and a Casio S600 and the Optio is by far the smaller of the two. Remember though, ALL of the ultra small cameras have poor flash performance no matter who makes them. The S6 replaces the S4 and has more resolution.

Tom


ennacac 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 8:42 AM.