Cannot decide: Canon S60 vs Sony DSC-W1

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Hap Shaughnessy, Jul 3, 2004.

  1. I'm a first time digital camera buyer and I cannot decide which model
    to order from Black's Camera - small towne Canada.

    Extensive research online has narrowed my choices to either:

    #1) Sony DSC-W1 at Cdn$649.99

    #2) Canon S60 at Cdn$699.99.

    [Canadian dolleros hereafter]

    Considering all factors that I want it has come down to batteries and
    memory cards.

    Batteries:

    ie: Sony NH-AA-2DA Ni-MH rechargeable, 2 for Cdn$14.95.

    "AA" batteries will always be available. Rayovac's new 15 minute I-C3
    rechargeable battery system looks promising.

    Whereas, a Canon NB-2LH battery pack has been roughly estimated to
    cost between $80.00 and $100.00. Ouch!

    Plus, there is a chance that NB-2LH battery packs may be discontinued
    while I still need them. That's possible because I keep my toys in
    prime condition for a very, very long time. Presently the new NB-2LH
    battery packs are not a stock item at my local Black's Camera store
    and must be ordered in.

    I do understand that battery longevity is always an unknown but
    replacing Ni-MH's as they die certainly seems more economical compared
    to the price of one proprietary Canon battery pack. NB-2LH battery
    packs may be just super at this time but who cares if down the road
    they are no longer available?

    Next ... Memory:

    On the other hand we have Sony / SanDisk co-developing another memory
    type locking in the end user to Sony products. Many a Usenet thread
    has mentioned expensive memory cards that are of no further use.

    Sony 256Mb / 512Mb Memory Stick Pro $129.00 / $249.99.

    At those prices I'll not be buying any 512Mb MS Pro's as I understand
    that all memory cards will fail in time.

    Sandisk 256Mb / 512Mb CompactFlash at $99.95 / $124.95 as used in
    Canon digital cameras are priced within reason and like "AA" batteries
    I will assume be around for a very long time.

    So, I'm in a quandary trying to determine which camera is the best
    deal in the long run.

    Your comments and help would be sincerely appreciated.

    I'm so stuck my head hertz. ;-)

    Thanks in advance,

    Hap
     
    Hap Shaughnessy, Jul 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hap Shaughnessy

    Sabineellen Guest

    >Considering all factors that I want it has come down to batteries and
    >memory cards.


    Hi Hap,

    I too have been looking at cameras for the past few days, though it won't be my
    first digital.

    As for memory, I used to be a Sony loyalist, actually bought quite a few items
    from them from vaio laptops to camera to clie etc.. I WILL NOT BUY ANOTHER SONY
    PRODUCT UNLESS I HAVE TO.

    The prices Sony charge for their proprietary memory (in large capacity such as
    512mb) are ridiculous compared to SD cards and flash microdrive. Same for their
    accessories.

    So i suggest you buy either SD or Flash. That said, Microdrives have reportedly
    been unreliable and I have to agree, as i own one (2.2gb magicstor) and my
    experience with it has not been very positive. I would recommend SD cards,
    that's what i decided on. You can get them for very cheap, they're reliable,
    and I also like about SD cards that they can be used in many other devices such
    as PDAs and phones.

    As for batteries, I too prefer a camera that uses AA batteries. I must say that
    on ebay the batteries for the Canon S60 don't seem expensive, but those are
    third-party and i have no idea how reliable they are or whether they'd cause
    any damage (cheap batteries can leak or even explode as did some Nokia ones,
    and they can otherwise damage an expensive gadget). I much much prefer using AA
    rechargeable batteries, which can be found in great quality quite
    inexpensively, especially those wonderful 2300mAh such as the uniross ones with
    their small Sprint rapid charger, which means that you can pack a few of these
    with you and even if you run out you can buy some disposables wherever you find
    candy and coke, and therefore I am limiting my choices to cameras that use AA
    batteries and SD cards.

    Between the two you mentioned i'd buy the canon as it's the lesser evil of the
    two, but still, it doesn't meet my criteria. The cameras that do are two
    cameras that won the DIMA 2004 image quality award, The Casio QVR-51 and the HP
    Photosmart 945. There's a tendency to disregard those makers but both models
    have been highly praised. What the canon A60 has that neither of those have is
    RAW format and fully manual exposure (as setting BOTH shutter AND aperture
    manually), but they do have exposure/metering modes and exposure compensation,
    the HP more so than the Casio. The HP is bigger but with an 8x fujinon optical
    zoom lens (fujinon is a great lens!), and the casio is a small pocketable
    camera.


    I'm somewhat persuaded that i don't need RAW by this guy for example (and
    others)
    http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001047.html and also by thinking about
    it. And I'm also coming to the idea that with spot metering and exposure
    compensation (or even aperture/shutter-preferred) i can get all the exposure I
    really want. So i went ahead and ordered the HP 945. It hasn't arrived yet so I
    can still send it back by refusing to accept the delivery.

    I must admit that i was looking at the Canon s50 before i saw your post. I was
    wondering if i should go for it but then i'm thinking that all these cameras
    have small sensors and there's a limit to how worthwhile features are before
    you're paying too much for them. If you really want a manual control camera
    you'd be better served by a dSLR, and the digital rebel is not that much more
    expensive than the s60 in my opinion. Also, although i've not handled the s60,
    from what i read online that it's a midsize camera and it's not really small.

    Why have you narrowed it down to the two models you mentioned? Please do tell.
     
    Sabineellen, Jul 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hap Shaughnessy

    Fishface Guest

    Hap Shaughnessy wrote:

    > Extensive research online has narrowed my choices to either:
    >
    > #1) Sony DSC-W1 at Cdn$649.99
    >
    > #2) Canon S60 at Cdn$699.99.


    I hate those proprietary batteries, too. The NB-2LH seems
    like a decent battery when compared with some, though. Go
    ahead and add the price of spare batteries to the cost of the
    cameras along with the flash cards to find the *real* price.

    I picked-up a W1 last month. IMO, the flash is a little weak
    with effective range 12.5 feet at full wide. Do you use feet in
    Canada? The flash S60 seems better, conservatively rated at
    14 feet (wide). The wider angle of the Canon is sure nice, too.

    The two AA NiMH batteries in the W1 last a very long time,
    but that type does lose its charge on the shelf. The W1 is fast,
    too. I have accidentally hit buttons with my thumb while holding
    it though, both macro and flash . With the LCD off, you might
    not know if you don't see the LCD light-up momentarily upon
    change. In low light, the LCD is useless for framing your shot,
    unless you momentarily turn off the flash, but it goes away when
    you turn it on again. The W1 is a little weak on manual settings,
    too, having neither aperture nor shutter priority, and no manual
    white balance.

    You do pay a premium for the Memory Stick Pro, but those xD cards
    seem pretty expensive, too. If you have to buy another card, use the
    money you saved not buying film and printing bad pictures!

    This guy has something to say about the S60's build quality, but still
    likes it anyway:
    www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=29458&forum_id=15
     
    Fishface, Jul 3, 2004
    #3
  4. On 03 Jul 2004 10:19:29 GMT, (Sabineellen) wrote:

    >>Considering all factors that I want it has come down to batteries and
    >>memory cards.

    >
    >Hi Hap,
    >
    >I too have been looking at cameras for the past few days, though it won't be my
    >first digital.
    >
    >As for memory, I used to be a Sony loyalist, actually bought quite a few items
    >from them from vaio laptops to camera to clie etc.. I WILL NOT BUY ANOTHER SONY
    >PRODUCT UNLESS I HAVE TO.
    >
    >The prices Sony charge for their proprietary memory (in large capacity such as
    >512mb) are ridiculous compared to SD cards and flash microdrive. Same for their
    >accessories.
    >
    >Microdrives have reportedly been unreliable and I have to agree


    Good advice. I will definitely avoid Microdrives.

    >As for batteries, I too prefer a camera that uses AA batteries. I must say that
    >on ebay the batteries for the Canon S60 don't seem expensive, but those are
    >third-party and i have no idea how reliable they are or whether they'd cause
    >any damage (cheap batteries can leak or even explode as did some Nokia ones,
    >and they can otherwise damage an expensive gadget). I much much prefer using AA
    >rechargeable batteries, which can be found in great quality quite
    >inexpensively, especially those wonderful 2300mAh such as the uniross ones with
    >their small Sprint rapid charger, which means that you can pack a few of these
    >with you and even if you run out you can buy some disposables wherever you find
    >candy and coke, and therefore I am limiting my choices to cameras that use AA
    >batteries and SD cards.
    >
    >Between the two you mentioned i'd buy the canon as it's the lesser evil of the
    >two, but still, it doesn't meet my criteria. The cameras that do are two
    >cameras that won the DIMA 2004 image quality award, The Casio QVR-51 and the HP
    >Photosmart 945. There's a tendency to disregard those makers but both models
    >have been highly praised. What the canon A60 has that neither of those have is
    >RAW format and fully manual exposure (as setting BOTH shutter AND aperture
    >manually), but they do have exposure/metering modes and exposure compensation,
    >the HP more so than the Casio. The HP is bigger but with an 8x fujinon optical
    >zoom lens (fujinon is a great lens!), and the casio is a small pocketable
    >camera.
    >
    >
    >I'm somewhat persuaded that i don't need RAW by this guy for example (and
    >others)
    >http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001047.html and also by thinking about
    >it. And I'm also coming to the idea that with spot metering and exposure
    >compensation (or even aperture/shutter-preferred) i can get all the exposure I
    >really want. So i went ahead and ordered the HP 945. It hasn't arrived yet so I
    >can still send it back by refusing to accept the delivery.
    >
    >I must admit that i was looking at the Canon s50 before i saw your post. I was
    >wondering if i should go for it but then i'm thinking that all these cameras
    >have small sensors and there's a limit to how worthwhile features are before
    >you're paying too much for them. If you really want a manual control camera
    >you'd be better served by a dSLR, and the digital rebel is not that much more
    >expensive than the s60 in my opinion. Also, although i've not handled the s60,
    >from what i read online that it's a midsize camera and it's not really small.
    >
    >Why have you narrowed it down to the two models you mentioned? Please do tell.


    I have been dealing with Black's Camera http://www.blackphoto.com/ for
    my film processing needs and I prefer to buy a digicam from them over
    ordering online from ie: futureshop.ca or staples.ca. Black's Camera
    has a reasonable number of popular digicam models available and I do
    like the staff.

    Last year the Canon A75 caught my eye but the new A80's tiny LCD was
    no good for me. That LCD did seem too gimmicky and I read in a forum
    of somebody accidentally breaking one off ruining his camera.

    Focusing on [LOL] Canon digitals as a top choice I have spent
    unaccountable hours rooting through the most popular review websites
    as follows:

    http://www.dcviews.com/
    http://www.dcresource.com/
    http://www.dpreview.com/
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/
    http://www.megapixel.net/
    http://www.steves-digicams.com

    I have run the gamut even considering ultra zoom cameras but dropped
    that idea as too costly for what's in the box. No way was I going to
    spend $699.99 for a Canon S1 IS that's only 3.2 megapixels. The other
    ultra zoom that looked promising was a Panasonic DMC-FZ10. It's a more
    preferable 4-megapixel digital, 12x optical zoom with good reviews but
    just beyond my budget at $899.99 www.radioshack.ca. It shows as out of
    stock right across Canada. It's proprietory batteries and any other
    accessories would be impossible to find. Tech support / service could
    be very problematic.

    Somewhere I read, maybe a comment in here, that Canon uses Sony CCD's.
    But that cannot be confirmed.

    That's why I began to consider Sony and their DCS-W1 as a candidate
    especially it's large 2½" LCD that my wife finds very appealing as our
    peepers aran't a great as they used to be.

    Downloading and comparing many sample pics from the above mentioned
    review websites the new Canon S60 produces very good photos and the
    Sony DSC-W1's weren't all that shabby either.

    Now I'm off to delve into your picks of the HP Photosmart 945 $599.50
    www.staples.ca and the Casio QV-R51 $449.99 www.futureshop.ca.

    I have made quite a few online purchases from futureshop.ca with
    product shipped free but to return an item such as a digital camera
    would be a nightmare. I do have a Staples in town but prefer dealing
    with my friends at Black's Camera who have a far better customer
    satisfaction and service track record.

    Thanks for the http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001047.html
    URL that led me to http://raw-converter.com/en/ now stashed in my
    bookmarks.

    You mentioning the "DIMA 2004 image quality award" googled me to
    a "DIMA Digital Camera Shoot-Out" 2004_camera_winners.pdf file found
    at http://dima.pmai.org/

    Lots to reconsider.

    Sabineellen, thanks you for your very informative reponse.

    ttfn,

    Hap
     
    Hap Shaughnessy, Jul 3, 2004
    #4
  5. On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 06:44:24 -0700, "Fishface" <?>
    wrote:

    >Hap Shaughnessy wrote:
    >
    >> Extensive research online has narrowed my choices to either:
    >>
    >> #1) Sony DSC-W1 at Cdn$649.99
    >>
    >> #2) Canon S60 at Cdn$699.99.

    >
    >I hate those proprietary batteries, too. The NB-2LH seems
    >like a decent battery when compared with some, though. Go
    >ahead and add the price of spare batteries to the cost of the
    >cameras along with the flash cards to find the *real* price.
    >
    >I picked-up a W1 last month. IMO, the flash is a little weak
    >with effective range 12.5 feet at full wide. Do you use feet in
    >Canada? The flash S60 seems better, conservatively rated at
    >14 feet (wide). The wider angle of the Canon is sure nice, too.
    >
    >The two AA NiMH batteries in the W1 last a very long time,
    >but that type does lose its charge on the shelf. The W1 is fast,
    >too. I have accidentally hit buttons with my thumb while holding
    >it though, both macro and flash . With the LCD off, you might
    >not know if you don't see the LCD light-up momentarily upon
    >change. In low light, the LCD is useless for framing your shot,
    >unless you momentarily turn off the flash, but it goes away when
    >you turn it on again. The W1 is a little weak on manual settings,
    >too, having neither aperture nor shutter priority, and no manual
    >white balance.
    >
    >You do pay a premium for the Memory Stick Pro, but those xD cards
    >seem pretty expensive, too. If you have to buy another card, use the
    >money you saved not buying film and printing bad pictures!
    >
    >This guy has something to say about the S60's build quality, but still
    >likes it anyway:
    >www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=29458&forum_id=15


    Fishface:

    Thank you very much for your reply.

    The above URL to the comments made by "secondtime" goes along with
    other build qualities that I have read of the Canon S60 but that it
    does take very good photos. Too bad that it's on the cheap side of
    things considering the price of the camera. Somewhere I had also read
    that some of the S60's were shipping with bad pixels on their LCD
    monitors. Not good.

    Your comments about the AA NiMH batteries in the W1, the limited flash
    range and low light LCD chacteristics are greatly appreciated.

    The DSCW1 page at sonystyle.ca http://makeashorterlink.com/?S193157B8
    shows under the Accessories tab their Cyber-shot Slave Flash with
    Bracket at $149.99 that would solve the flash problem. Yes, more money
    but at least Sony has some decent accessories available. I find Sony's
    ACCCN3CA Accessory Kit for the DSCW1 at $79.99 also appealing that
    includes a Super Quick Battery Charger, 2 batteries and a carrying
    case. Bonus: $20.00 off coupon for registering and FREE shipping.

    Now I'm off to delve into Sabineellen's camera picks of the HP
    Photsmart 945 and Casio QV-R51.

    Thanks again for taking the time to help me with my decision in a
    market where there are just too many choices and not one of them is
    just right on the money. LOL

    ttfn,

    Hap
     
    Hap Shaughnessy, Jul 3, 2004
    #5
  6. Hap Shaughnessy

    Sabineellen Guest


    >Somewhere I read, maybe a comment in here, that Canon uses Sony CCD's.
    >But that cannot be confirmed.


    Casio uses Sony CCDs and Canon lenses on (at least) some of their models at
    least. Definitely the QV-3000, QV-4000, QV-5700, EX-P600... etc and I suspect
    on most of their range.

    But I really suggest you focus on specific highly recommended models rather
    than brands. Just because it's a canon doesn't mean it's better than other
    brand's cameras.


    > I do have a Staples in town but prefer dealing
    >with my friends at Black's Camera who have a far better customer
    >satisfaction and service track record.


    They can probably order items for you if they don't have them in stock. I think
    this would be better than limiting yourself to what they have as it sounds you
    want a camera to keep for a good while, considering that you're worried about
    *future* availability of batteries.


    > The other
    >ultra zoom that looked promising was a Panasonic DMC-FZ10. It's a more
    >preferable 4-megapixel digital, 12x optical zoom with good reviews but
    >just beyond my budget at $899.99 www.radioshack.ca. It shows as out of
    >stock right across Canada. It's proprietory batteries and any other
    >accessories would be impossible to find.


    If you want expensive consumer camera with great features and are willing to
    put up with proprietary batteries and XD memory then the olympus 5060 and 8080
    cameras are really great. But personally i know i wouldn't want that. I really
    really like AA batteries. It's sooo easy to find high capacity rechargeable
    NIMH batteries on ebay for so little money and buy them in bulk. I already have
    over 20 of them for my devices, they're often in rotation on the charger, it
    charges 4 within less than an hour, i use color rubber bands so i know which
    are full and which need charging, i also have a battery charge tester if i get
    confused. Not having to wait for a proprietary battery before you can take a
    shot is something not to be missed, and also not having to worry about it
    running out of charge when you're out shooting is great too; with AA you can
    just pack 4 or 5 sets for so little money, and even in the remotest places
    you'll find them available if anything is sold there. Later on if you go on a
    holiday or something you can buy a portable harddrive (you'll find many that
    work on AA too!) and you'll know you'll always be sure to have the camera
    ready.
     
    Sabineellen, Jul 3, 2004
    #6
  7. On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 10:19:29 +0000, Sabineellen wrote:

    > As for memory, I used to be a Sony loyalist, actually bought quite a few
    > items from them from vaio laptops to camera to clie etc.. I WILL NOT BUY
    > ANOTHER SONY PRODUCT UNLESS I HAVE TO.


    I'm pretty much in this camp too. Sony make some lovely gear, but they
    have a dreadful case of NIH syndrome, and frequently eschew standards
    based technologies in favour of home grown ones, often to the detriment of
    their customers, who find themselves locked into buying overpriced Sony
    branded accessories.

    > The prices Sony charge for their proprietary memory (in large capacity
    > such as 512mb) are ridiculous compared to SD cards and flash microdrive.
    > Same for their accessories.
    >
    > So i suggest you buy either SD or Flash. That said, Microdrives have
    > reportedly been unreliable and I have to agree, as i own one (2.2gb
    > magicstor) and my experience with it has not been very positive. I would
    > recommend SD cards, that's what i decided on. You can get them for very
    > cheap, they're reliable, and I also like about SD cards that they can be
    > used in many other devices such as PDAs and phones.


    SD and CF both appear to be relatively open technologies that are here to
    stay. CF is cheaper per MB at the moment, but the manufacturers choice of
    format is often down to the physical size of the device.

    > I'm somewhat persuaded that i don't need RAW by this guy for example
    > (and others)
    > http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001047.html and also by
    > thinking about it.


    Having seem numerous comparisons, and seen what people can do with JPEG
    compared to RAW, I'm of the opinion that RAW is worth having. Not
    necessarily because the final image quality is better, but because RAW
    makes it easier to get a good image out of a shot that wasn't taken quite
    right. The ability to under or over-expose in post processing, and to
    change the white balance and other settings can be valuable. If you're a
    good enough photographer that you get the exposure you wanted on the nail
    every time, then it quite possibly doesn't matter. I shoot in RAW, as I'm
    an amateur, and being able to change things after the event is nice.

    > I must admit that i was looking at the Canon s50 before i saw your post.
    > I was wondering if i should go for it but then i'm thinking that all
    > these cameras have small sensors and there's a limit to how worthwhile
    > features are before you're paying too much for them. If you really want
    > a manual control camera you'd be better served by a dSLR, and the
    > digital rebel is not that much more expensive than the s60 in my
    > opinion.


    The cost of DSLRs ends up being in the lenses.

    FWIW, I have the S40, and have found it a very nice camera to use. I have
    used pretty much all the manual controls it offers at various stages, and
    would not have been as happy with a camera that didn't give me that much
    control.

    Looking at the two cameras the original poster mentioned, it's also worth
    noting that the Sony lends covers 38-114mm, the Canon 28-100mm.
    Personally, I think the extra room at the wide angle end is more useful.
    The Canon also has an orientation sensor, which while far from necessary,
    is extremely handy.

    Mike.
     
    Mike Brodbelt, Jul 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Hap Shaughnessy

    Sabineellen Guest

    >
    >Now I'm off to delve into Sabineellen's camera picks of the HP
    >Photsmart 945 and Casio QV-R51.
    >


    Hap... I hope you haven't bought any of these... I haven't yet recieved the
    photosmart 945 and there's a likelihood i may refuse its delivery when it
    arrives so it can be sent back and I get a refund. I just noticed a camera
    that's just been out. It's really really appealing to me eventhough it uses
    proprietary batteries but it's quite small with 6mp, SD card AND memory stick,
    and has manual control over exposure. It's pictures appear quite good,
    actually, they seem better than the hp 945. It's looking like this will be the
    one i think i may buy once i get the refund for the HP 945 and i'm comfortable
    there's no other one i prefer to have.

    it's the Konica Minolta Dimage G600.

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/dimage_g600.html
     
    Sabineellen, Jul 3, 2004
    #8
  9. Hap Shaughnessy

    Sabineellen Guest

    >
    >SD and CF both appear to be relatively open technologies that are here to
    >stay. CF is cheaper per MB at the moment, but the manufacturers choice of
    >format is often down to the physical size of the device.


    I have the eerie feeling CF may be on the way out. I certainly feel SD is
    likely to be around for longer.

    >I'm pretty much in this camp too. Sony make some lovely gear, but they
    >have a dreadful case of NIH syndrome, and frequently eschew standards
    >based technologies in favour of home grown ones, often to the detriment of
    >their customers, who find themselves locked into buying overpriced Sony
    >branded accessories.


    I remember the catalog i got for Vaio accessories with my laptop featured some
    incredible prices for things that were quite basic.

    Not only that, but their software is awful, and sometimes its use is
    unavoidable, such as with MiniDisc. They really don't seem to care much about
    their loyal consumers.



    >Having seem numerous comparisons, and seen what people can do with JPEG
    >compared to RAW, I'm of the opinion that RAW is worth having. Not
    >necessarily because the final image quality is better, but because RAW
    >makes it easier to get a good image out of a shot that wasn't taken quite
    >right. The ability to under or over-expose in post processing, and to
    >change the white balance and other settings can be valuable. If you're a
    >good enough photographer that you get the exposure you wanted on the nail
    >every time, then it quite possibly doesn't matter. I shoot in RAW, as I'm
    >an amateur, and being able to change things after the event is nice.


    Mike, I'm not aware that you can under or over-expose in post processing. Once
    you shot with a certain aperture and shutter speed then that's it. What you're
    referring to may be other factors, but not exposure. The question is whether
    you'd want to do it manually or leave it to the camera to do it. There's a
    professional photographer whose article you'll find through the site i linked
    to. He says that he hasn't shot jpeg for 2 years. 2 years ago for every day of
    shooting it took him another day for dealing with RAW files! Now he says it can
    be done in an hour, notice the phrasing, "it can", which means he probably
    spends more time than that.

    Right now as I'm typing this there's an Olympus RC in front of me on the desk.
    This is my current favorite camera. It's totally mechanical. No need for
    battery. Fully manual. Focus, aperture, shutter, and iso. That's it. There's no
    more to it. Personally, I'd much rather use an award-winning automation to deal
    with the rest in a digital camera. What I really care about is that the image
    looks like what I saw in real life, and I'll deal with the rest of the creative
    aspects. As far as I know, That's what the DIMA is about, and therefore I'm
    inclined to trust their recommendations. Just an hour ago i spent some time
    calibrating my monitor so that the prints i scan look the same everything
    (colors, contrast, wb.. etc) on the monitor, and I would like the digicam to be
    same.

    I'm somewhat suspicious of digital P&S that offer full manual. What i found is
    that they really don't offer much control over aperture, as some only offer a
    choice between two apertures.

    BTW, what's the orientation sensor?
     
    Sabineellen, Jul 4, 2004
    #9
  10. Hap Shaughnessy

    Fishface Guest

    Sabineellen wrote:
    > It's pictures appear quite good, actually, they seem better than the
    > hp 945. It's looking like this will be the one i think i may buy once
    > i get the refund for the HP 945 and i'm comfortable there's no
    > other one i prefer to have.
    >
    > it's the Konica Minolta Dimage G600.


    I look at that and see no focus assist light and a weak flash, with
    high potential for nose prints on the LCD. I don't think I need a
    6MP sensor and increased noise. Since my wife has claimed the
    W1 as her own, it looks like I am in the market as well. I am
    intrigued by the Kodak DX6440's ability to accept NiMH or
    lithium AA, CRV3, Kodak's lithium rechargeable, and presumably
    the RCRV3 lithium rechargeable batteries. It has an ample flash
    (16.7 feet wide), a fast lens (f/2.2-4.8) and a 33-132mm (35mm
    equivalent) zoom range. It has very positive reviews (mostly) from
    reviewers and users. I am only concerned with the small file sizes,
    which might indicate more aggressive compression, and the greater
    autofocus time and shutter lag, which are very important to me. The
    newer Kodaks, it seems, have slower lenses, weaker flashes, lesser
    zooms. Hopefully they have improved something.

    I'll probably just wait for my perfect camera. It should be out any
    day, now...
     
    Fishface, Jul 4, 2004
    #10
  11. Hap Shaughnessy

    Sabineellen Guest

    > Re: Cannot decide: Canon S60 vs Sony DSC-W1

    Hap.... forget what i said about me refusing the HP 945 and wanting the Konica
    Minolta G600. I have researched the Konica Minolta G600 and looked at sample
    images and i'm not satisfied about it its image quality. For example, check out
    this page and especially the link at the end of this page...

    http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=26375&forum_id=20

    compare this with the HP 945
    http://www.tatteredflag.ca/Yukon04.05/index.html

    Of course, they're entirely different cameras. I'll stay with the HP. It's
    pictures are more pleasant and the colors are just beautiful.
     
    Sabineellen, Jul 4, 2004
    #11
  12. Hap Shaughnessy

    Sabineellen Guest

    >I look at that and see no focus assist light and a weak flash, with
    >high potential for nose prints on the LCD.


    I agree... I have researched it more and I do NOT think it's better than the HP
    945 at all. I was just somewhat tricked by something i saw in one of the images
    but on seeing more images I don't really like the G600 that much.

    As for the HP 950, check out those amazing images (the colors!)

    http://www.hp945.com/galleries/displayimage.php?album=toprated&cat=0&pid=8
    &slideshow=5000
     
    Sabineellen, Jul 4, 2004
    #12
  13. Sabineellen:

    Just got in the door, fired up this machine and began checking into
    the Casio QV-R51 you kindly pointed out. That award of being a 2004
    DIMA Digital Camera Shoot-Out winner says a lot.

    So far I'm impressed with the features for such a decent price at only
    Cdn$449.99. ... 2" TTF LCD monitor, magensium/aluminum alloy body,
    "AA" Alkaline batteries or Lithium / NiMH rechargeables, SD or MMC
    memory and the list goes on ...

    Now off to find some sample comparison photos to see what it can do.

    ttfn,

    Hap

    On 03 Jul 2004 22:21:26 GMT, (Sabineellen) wrote:

    >>
    >>Now I'm off to delve into Sabineellen's camera picks of the HP
    >>Photsmart 945 and Casio QV-R51.
    >>

    >
    >Hap... I hope you haven't bought any of these... I haven't yet recieved the
    >photosmart 945 and there's a likelihood i may refuse its delivery when it
    >arrives so it can be sent back and I get a refund. I just noticed a camera
    >that's just been out. It's really really appealing to me eventhough it uses
    >proprietary batteries but it's quite small with 6mp, SD card AND memory stick,
    >and has manual control over exposure. It's pictures appear quite good,
    >actually, they seem better than the hp 945. It's looking like this will be the
    >one i think i may buy once i get the refund for the HP 945 and i'm comfortable
    >there's no other one i prefer to have.
    >
    >it's the Konica Minolta Dimage G600.
    >
    >http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/dimage_g600.html
     
    Hap Shaughnessy, Jul 4, 2004
    #13
  14. Hap Shaughnessy

    Sabineellen Guest

    >Sabineellen:
    >
    >Just got in the door, fired up this machine and began checking into
    >the Casio QV-R51 you kindly pointed out. That award of being a 2004
    >DIMA Digital Camera Shoot-Out winner says a lot.
    >
    >So far I'm impressed with the features for such a decent price at only
    >Cdn$449.99. ... 2" TTF LCD monitor, magensium/aluminum alloy body,
    >"AA" Alkaline batteries or Lithium / NiMH rechargeables, SD or MMC
    >memory and the list goes on ...
    >
    >Now off to find some sample comparison photos to see what it can do.
    >
    >ttfn,


    >Hap


    Hap... nevermind my post about not wanting the HP 945. I do want it now. I
    don't think the Konica Minolta takes better pictures, that was what i initially
    thought when i first saw its images, but on viewing them side by side they lack
    the beauty of the HP 945's images. I think the Konica Minolta just processes
    them a little too harshly to eliminate noise but they do look less pretty.

    I think I will keep the HP 945. You know how it is once you choose something
    everything else starts looking intriguing. I think i just need to settle on a
    camera otherwise i'll panic every time a new one comes out, so the HP945 will
    be it.

    check out there, see those colors!

    http://www.hp945.com/galleries/displayimage.php?album=toprated&cat=0&pid=8
    &slideshow=5000
     
    Sabineellen, Jul 4, 2004
    #14
  15. On 04 Jul 2004 03:35:51 GMT, (Sabineellen) wrote:

    >>Sabineellen:
    >>
    >>Just got in the door, fired up this machine and began checking into
    >>the Casio QV-R51 you kindly pointed out. That award of being a 2004
    >>DIMA Digital Camera Shoot-Out winner says a lot.
    >>
    >>So far I'm impressed with the features for such a decent price at only
    >>Cdn$449.99. ... 2" TTF LCD monitor, magensium/aluminum alloy body,
    >>"AA" Alkaline batteries or Lithium / NiMH rechargeables, SD or MMC
    >>memory and the list goes on ...
    >>
    >>Now off to find some sample comparison photos to see what it can do.
    >>
    >>ttfn,

    >
    >>Hap

    >
    >Hap... nevermind my post about not wanting the HP 945. I do want it now. I
    >don't think the Konica Minolta takes better pictures, that was what i initially
    >thought when i first saw its images, but on viewing them side by side they lack
    >the beauty of the HP 945's images. I think the Konica Minolta just processes
    >them a little too harshly to eliminate noise but they do look less pretty.
    >
    >I think I will keep the HP 945. You know how it is once you choose something
    >everything else starts looking intriguing. I think i just need to settle on a
    >camera otherwise i'll panic every time a new one comes out, so the HP945 will
    >be it.
    >
    >check out there, see those colors!
    >
    >http://www.hp945.com/galleries/displayimage.php?album=toprated&cat=0&pid=8
    >&slideshow=5000


    http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/HP-945/HP-945-review.htm
    http://www.megapixel.net/html/issueindex.php?lang=en
    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/hp/photosmart_945-review/index.shtml
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/hp945.html

    Hap
     
    Hap Shaughnessy, Jul 4, 2004
    #15
  16. On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:08:11 +0000, Sabineellen wrote:

    > I have the eerie feeling CF may be on the way out. I certainly feel SD is
    > likely to be around for longer.


    I think they both have their place. CF is faster at the moment, and
    available in higher capacities. SD will probably catch up to a degree, but
    SD format microdrives aren't going to happen any time soon, and CF has
    such a huge installed base it'll be around for years yet.

    <snip>

    >> The ability to under or over-expose in post processing, and to
    >>change the white balance and other settings can be valuable. If you're a
    >>good enough photographer that you get the exposure you wanted on the nail
    >>every time, then it quite possibly doesn't matter. I shoot in RAW, as I'm
    >>an amateur, and being able to change things after the event is nice.

    >
    > Mike, I'm not aware that you can under or over-expose in post processing.
    > Once you shot with a certain aperture and shutter speed then that's it.
    > What you're referring to may be other factors, but not exposure.


    In the sense that you can't change the actual exposure, you are of course
    right. However, a JPEG is an 8bit/channel image, whereas RAW files record
    10 or 12 bits. So, it's perfectly possible to have an overexposed shot,
    where you've blown out the highlights, where "digital exposure
    compensation" can recover detail, as the RAW file contains more
    information than the JPEG. As such, the RAW file catches a higher dynamic
    range than a JPEG can, so you can (to a degree) recover blown highlights,
    or bring out shadow detail. This gets commonly referred to as exposure
    compensation in post processing, as it has some of the same results. It's
    not very good terminology, but that's not my fault, I didn't come up with
    it :).

    > The
    > question is whether you'd want to do it manually or leave it to the camera
    > to do it. There's a professional photographer whose article you'll find
    > through the site i linked to. He says that he hasn't shot jpeg for 2
    > years. 2 years ago for every day of shooting it took him another day for
    > dealing with RAW files! Now he says it can be done in an hour, notice the
    > phrasing, "it can", which means he probably spends more time than that.


    Most cameras embed a JPEG in the RAW file. On some, the size of the
    embedded JPEG is user defined. On the 10D, you can embed a full size JPEG.
    You shoot RAW, and then when you download the files, use something like
    BreezeBrowser to extract the embedded JPEG files. This takes a matter of
    seconds and is totally hands off - there's no conversion involved. Then,
    if you want to tweak settings on some shots you have the option to
    re-convert them. The downsides of this are that each RAW file with full
    size embedded JPEG is large, so you need lots of memory cards, and
    tweaking the RAW files can become a bit of a time sink if you're not
    disciplined.

    > I'm somewhat suspicious of digital P&S that offer full manual. What i
    > found is that they really don't offer much control over aperture, as some
    > only offer a choice between two apertures.


    The S40 does f/2.8 to f/8 in in 1/3 stop increments at full wide angle,
    and f/4.9 to f/8 at full telephoto. I think the Canon S series cameras are
    about as good as you get for a point & shoot.

    > BTW, what's the orientation sensor?


    Basically a mercury switch, so when you take a photo in portrait mode, it
    automatically rotates it and sets the EXIF rotation tag for you, so you
    never have to bother manually rotating images again. It's a very nice
    frill to have.

    Mike.
     
    Mike Brodbelt, Jul 5, 2004
    #16
  17. Re: Cannot decide: Canon S60 vs Sony DSC-W1 ... follow up

    On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:38:13 -0400, Hap Shaughnessy
    <> wrote:

    >I'm a first time digital camera buyer and I cannot decide which model
    >to order from Black's Camera - small towne Canada.
    >
    >Extensive research online has narrowed my choices to either:
    >
    >#1) Sony DSC-W1 at Cdn$649.99
    >
    >#2) Canon S60 at Cdn$699.99.


    This a follow up.

    A Sony DSC-W1 finally arrived at my local Black's Camera and the store
    manager found it to be defective. I was very disappointed after
    finally choosing the DCS-W1 as the perfect first digital camera for
    me.

    Bad omen? Poor quality control? No matter. I don't have the extra
    cash, time or inclination to play around with shoddy products.

    Back to the drawing board.

    My next favoured choice is the Canon S60 but it's rather expensive
    proprietory battery for holds me back. CDN$79.99.

    Comments about Canon's cheaper build quality compared to their older
    cameras is another consideration. However, that cheap build quality
    especially of battery / memory card doors plagues all digital cameras
    offered these days.

    My other camera of choice is the very popular Canon A80. However, it's
    tiny 1.5" swivel LCD monitor holds me back. A handy very popular
    feature yes, but too hard to see for my aging peepers. Gawd. The
    optical viewfinder on these things is a joke. Totally useless without
    a dipoter adjuster.

    A80's being "Made in China" after June 2004 was a big disappointment.

    Some have written that it's still Canon with excellent Q&A but to me
    the manufacturer is saving a few bucks for stockholder profit not
    offering me the end user any benefits. Metal tripod mount, cost 25¢ or
    less?

    As some of us have read the A80 has been discontinued according to a
    couple of Australian web sites. Most likely A80's are no longer
    stocked rather than the product line being discontinued. Another
    misunderstanding probably caused by the many subtleties of the English
    language.

    However, that's enough for me to wait for the announcement of Canon's
    next release of a probable A85.

    I'm hoping for a larger sized LCD twisty, gimicky monitor. An optical
    viewer with diopter adjustment is unlikely but correcting high
    contrast levels, the blowing out of some highlights and no purple
    fringing would be wonderful.

    I'd like to see TIFF or PNG as default image formats on all thes
    things.

    Offer the latest software downloads like Kodak does. Costs them
    absolutely nothing.

    Kodak Easyshare DX7630 mayt be another contender - a propietory
    battery pack but at Cdn$29.95 it's a bargain compared to Canon.

    Hap
     
    Hap Shaughnessy, Jul 19, 2004
    #17
  18. Hap Shaughnessy

    Guest

    In message
    <pan.2004.07.05.19.35.05.470545@_nospam_coruscant.demon.co.uk>,
    Mike Brodbelt <mike@_nospam_coruscant.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    >You shoot RAW, and then when you download the files, use something like
    >BreezeBrowser to extract the embedded JPEG files.


    With Irfanview, I read .crw files just like they were .jpg files.

    I review all of my shots with irfanview, often deleting the worthless
    ones there, and if I see that the color balance is off or there is
    clpping of highlights or the exposure is too dark, it's time to open the
    file in a RAW converter.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 20, 2004
    #18
  19. Hap Shaughnessy

    Mr Jessop Guest

    If you are shooting raw consider this, sandisk 256mb compact flash (canon)
    £31.99.

    lexar 256mb sony memory stick £50.99

    genuine sony memory stick £55

    as for 512mb and 1 gb well compact flash can be got for £87 1gb. 1gb sony
    stick £140 or higher.
     
    Mr Jessop, Oct 21, 2004
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. digcam

    Sony DSC-V1 vs Sony DSC-F717

    digcam, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    591
    Unclaimed Mysteries
    Oct 31, 2003
  2. luke

    Sony DSC P10 (or the DSC P5, DSC P9 or DSC P12)

    luke, Dec 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    613
  3. R.
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    336
    David Geesaman
    Apr 28, 2005
  4. Sony DSC-S60 auto focus problem

    , Aug 31, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    371
  5. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    672
Loading...

Share This Page