Cannot decide: Canon S60 vs Sony DSC-W1

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.

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:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...58&forum_id=15

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.

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.

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_...mage_g600.html

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 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...

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/v...75&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.

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/displ...ed&cat=0&pid=8
&slideshow=5000

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/displ...ed&cat=0&pid=8
&slideshow=5000