Sony digital camera opinions?

Cathy wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...

Cathy wrote:

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...


I have had a P200 for two months and am very pleased with it. It
doesn't use AA batteries but its lithium battery lasts for about 370
shots or 3.5 hours of viewing time on the LCD. I haven't come close

to


draining a battery yet. The newer Sony's all seem to have very good
battery life.


The girl in the camera shop today, said that the two Sony's I looked

at,

both used AA alkalines and AA rechargeables, and with one of the

Sony's

it came with a charger and 2 AA rechargeables. The other one just

came

with rechargeable batteries but you would have to buy a charger. It

was

cheaper than the one with the charger and rechargeables. The girl

said

that the newer Sony's are mostly coming out with AA batteries.
I like that idea more than proprietary chargers and batteries. I was
wondering about the memory stick and how it performs as compared to

SD

and CF. I checked the price of a 128MB memory stick, (not the Pro
version) and it was not much more than the 128MB SD memory cards, as

the

MB's went up, so did the difference in price between memory stick

and

SD. Also, is there a big difference between memory stick and Pro
version? which do you use?

I don't know if I would recommend putting too much emphasis on the

types

of bateries a camera uses. The reason is that everything has a

downside

and the AA verses proprietary battery comparison is no different.

About

the only upside to AA's is that you can buy them about anywhere in a
pinch and the rechargables are cheap.


It would seem to me that AA rechargeables would be good to have if you
were going somewhere to take photos, or if you were overseas, and you
would be able to buy AA's anywhere. Seems more practical and you would
always have them on hand.

Being able to buy AA's anywhere is a plus.

The downside is they are larger,

heavier and can discharge a good amount if the camera sits for more

than

a couple of weeks. The lithium bateries are lighter, smaller and hold

a

charge for a long period af time. In addition, the Sony lithiums have
chips in them which allow the camera to tell you exactly how much time
is left in the battery charge. It is very accurate. Plus I can buy
spare batteries from ebay for $10-$20 each.


The two latest Sony cameras I looked at both have AA batteries and
charger. Maybe Sony is using AA's more than they used to. If a camera
takes lithium batteries, I guess you could buy extras. I am pretty sure
that lithium recharables here, are a lot more money than AA's. I would
only feel I had to buy extra lithium rechargeables if I was going on
vacation or to some event, and I don't do these things too often, so it
may not matter what kind of batteries I get when I think of it.

The lithium batteries I referred to were the proprietary ones not the AA
lithiums. If you get a camera the takes AA's then I would recommend
NiMH rechargables. If you don't use the camera very much then regular
alkalines might work better for your situation as they won't discharge
like rechargables if it sits idle for a few weeks.

Also, because of the great

battery life of the P200 (as it is on most of Sony's newer cameras) I
really don't worry about running the battery down. I can store 270
picture on my 1 gig Memory Stick Pro and since the battery is good for
370 shots I will run out of memory space well before the battery dies.
I carry the camera around will me all the time and have found that the
charge holds up quite well for weeks at a time.


I would get a 128MB stick which would be fine for me. I wouldn't be
taking nearly as many photos as you do.

I got the 1 gig stick so I could take longer video clips. Video eats up
memory space at a ferocious pace. The 1 gig card only holds 12 minutes
of video at the highest quality setting.

As for going with the regular or Pro versions of MS, it really depends
on the camera you buy. On the newer Sony's you will need the Pro
version, or off-brand compatibles, to take video in the highest

quality

setting (640x480 @ 30 fps). If you don't care about this then the
regular sticks will work just fine. I use the Pro version so I can

use

the highest quality video option.


You can still get videoo with the non Pro stick can't you?

You can but I believe you might be limited to 640x480 @ 15 fps though.
It depends on the camera too. Do you know the model designations of the
cameras you are considering?

As for the picture quality, I have been very satisfied with the

P200.

It's not on par with the photos from our Digital Rebel but they're
surprisingly good for a point and shoot camera.


Have you taken any indoor pictures with a flash? and is red eye a
problem with flash?

The indoor flash is good up to around 12-15'. This is about average

for

these types of cameras. For the P200 red eye is not a problem. Its
design has the flash located away from the lense which almost

eliminates

red eye. Some of the other Sony's do have problems with red eye, as

do

most cameras in this class.


I think the camera you have is the style with the lens at one end and
the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much red
eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different style than the
older style, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I saw a
P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just
learning about digital cameras then.
We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know why.
I quite like them.

The P200 looks very similar to the P100. They have multiple colors of
the P200 available now. It can be purchased online for around $340
which, IMO, is a great price for a 7mp camera with its features. Plus
its shape allows it to fit in a trouser pocket very easily. For me its
no more trouble to carry around than a cell phone.

Cathy wrote:

I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like- newer
ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you can
use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary to
Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would probably
only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
SD.
As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in money,
but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?

Cathy



Hmmm,
Here we go again. Done with Canon and now onto Sony.
Sony makes lots of sensors for one.
Tony

Justin Thyme wrote:

"Cathy" wrote in message
...


I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like- newer
ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you can
use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary to
Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would probably
only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
SD.
As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in money,
but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?


Most low-end sony camera's have pretty ordinary lenses. Don't even bother
with one unless it is a higher end unit with the zeiss lens. Even then,
you're pretty much paying more to get less compared to Canon, Nikon, Pentax,
Olympus, Casio, Kodak, Fuji (did I leave anyone out?). The one thing sony
have in their favour is that they are "lifestyle" cameras, ie trendy. This
doesn't correlate to "good image quality" or "well featured". So if you want
to look "cool" in the teenage sense of the word, buy a sony. If you want to
get better features in a cheaper camera, buy anything else.
BTW, memory stick is absolutely hopeless - many models are limited to a
maximum of 128MB. Some of the higher end models overcome this by using the
newer and even more expensive memory stick pro. Memory stick is also the
slowest format by far. It is particularly noticeable at the lab when trying
to read photos off memory stick - they chug along and seem to take forever.
Every other format flies along. I've struck another problem too - quite a
few sony cameras seem to have a proprietary JPG format, where if you open
files directly off the card with anything other than the sony software, they
will appear with the image tiled 4 or 9 times over the image area.
Basically sony cameras are crap - get one if you want to look cool, but if
you want to take photos, get anything else.


Cathy







Hi,
Since when Sony was big in optics? I don't like sony anything since the
days of Betamax and Walkman.
Tony
Tony

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...
Cathy wrote:

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
It would seem to me that AA rechargeables would be good to have if
you
were going somewhere to take photos, or if you were overseas, and
you
would be able to buy AA's anywhere. Seems more practical and you
would
always have them on hand.

Being able to buy AA's anywhere is a plus.

It would seem so to me.

The two latest Sony cameras I looked at both have AA batteries and
charger. Maybe Sony is using AA's more than they used to. If a
camera
takes lithium batteries, I guess you could buy extras. I am pretty
sure
that lithium recharables here, are a lot more money than AA's. I
would
only feel I had to buy extra lithium rechargeables if I was going on
vacation or to some event, and I don't do these things too often, so
it
may not matter what kind of batteries I get when I think of it.

The lithium batteries I referred to were the proprietary ones not the
AA
lithiums.

I didn't realize there were proprietary AA lithiums and AA lithiums. Do
some cameras take AA lithium batteries only and you can't use alkalines
instead?

If you get a camera the takes AA's then I would recommend
NiMH rechargables. If you don't use the camera very much then regular
alkalines might work better for your situation as they won't discharge
like rechargables if it sits idle for a few weeks.

The one Sony I liked includes a battery and charger and takes AA
batteries. Maybe they are AA lithium and not AA alkalines. The other
Sony didn't have a charger and took AA batteries and said you could buy
the NiMH rechargables you mention
But you also might be right that regular AA's might be bette for me when
I will probably not be using a camera as often as probably most people
on this NG do.

Also, because of the great

battery life of the P200 (as it is on most of Sony's newer cameras)
I
really don't worry about running the battery down. I can store 270
picture on my 1 gig Memory Stick Pro and since the battery is good
for
370 shots I will run out of memory space well before the battery
dies.
I carry the camera around will me all the time and have found that
the
charge holds up quite well for weeks at a time.


I would get a 128MB stick which would be fine for me. I wouldn't be
taking nearly as many photos as you do.

I got the 1 gig stick so I could take longer video clips. Video eats
up
memory space at a ferocious pace. The 1 gig card only holds 12
minutes
of video at the highest quality setting.

Wow! thats not manhy minutes for a 1 gig card. Do all digital cameras
only give you 12 minutes for a 1 gig card? I guess you need the Pro
memory stick for that. Does the Pro memory stick cost a lot more money
than the regular memory stick? At the higher amounts of memory, I notice
the memory stick is a lot more money than the SD and CF. at least it is
here in Toronto. But up to 128 MB, its not all that great difference.

You can still get video with the non Pro stick can't you?

You can but I believe you might be limited to 640x480 @ 15 fps though.
It depends on the camera too. Do you know the model designations of
the
cameras you are considering?

Sony DSC-S60 and Sony DSC 90L (I think). The DSC 90L is more than I want
to pay, but the DSC-S60 is a bit less. But the 90L comes with a charger
and batteries and the S60 does not.

I think the camera you have is the style with the lens at one end
and
the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much
red
eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different style than
the
older style, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I
saw a
P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just
learning about digital cameras then.
We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know
why.
I quite like them.

The P200 looks very similar to the P100. They have multiple colors of
the P200 available now. It can be purchased online for around $340
which, IMO, is a great price for a 7mp camera with its features. Plus
its shape allows it to fit in a trouser pocket very easily. For me
its
no more trouble to carry around than a cell phone.

Well, you have access to more cameras in the US than we do. I've only
see the silver P200 here and as I said, only the one store had a P100 in
red, so you have wide ranges of color choices, but we only have a few
color cameras such as Verve and the one Sony P100 I told you about.
Other than that, they are mostly silver and the SLR's are mostly black.
Not that its a big concern, but I am tired of seeing only silver, except
for a few black.. The P200 is quite expensive here. over my budget.

Cathy

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
news:emk9e.1074702$Xk.246557@pd7tw3no...
Cathy wrote:

I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like-
newer
ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you
can
use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary
to
Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would
probably
only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
SD.
As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in
money,
but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?

Cathy



Hmmm,
Here we go again. Done with Canon and now onto Sony.
Sony makes lots of sensors for one.

Well, I am doing my homework and whats wrong with finding out as much as
I can?.Also, I didn't have the money to buy one before. We don't all
have a lot of money like you Tony There are different cameras and
makes I like. What do you mean by "Sony makes a lot of sensors for one?

Cathy

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't call the Sony 717 crap. HUGH, and cumbersome, and
poorly balanced, yes, but not crap.

It blows the 828 away in terms of everything but resolution.
(yes, I have used both models)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:14:34 -0400, Cathy wrote:

I didn't realize there were proprietary AA lithiums and AA lithiums.
Do some cameras take AA lithium batteries only and you can't use
alkalines instead?

There are rechargeable lithium batteries, and "primary" lithium,
non-rechargeable batteries. The primary lithium batteries are
similar to alkalines, both in their output voltage and that you
throw them away when they're depleted. I doubt that any of the
rechargeable lithium batteries have ever been designed to have the
same shape and size of AA batteries. It would be dangerous to do
so, as they are much higher voltage and could ruin many electronic
devices that weren't designed for such high voltages.

Any camera that has been designed for AA batteries should work
well with NiMH or lithium AA batteries. Alkaline AA batteries
should work in them as well, but depending on how old the camera is,
you may get terrible performance, such as being able to take less
than a dozen pictures per set of batteries. Newer cameras should be
able to take hundreds of pictures using alkaline AA batteries. As I
reported in another thread, my Fuji (which uses 4 AAs) took just
over 600 pictures using one set of alkalines. The first 200 were
about half with and half without using the flash. At that point the
batteries were too depleted to take more flash pictures, but were
able to take another 400 pictures without flash. From the spec's
I've seen on some of the other new compact cameras using only two
AAs, they should also be able to take about 200 pictures, also half
with and half w/o flash.


The one Sony I liked includes a battery and charger and takes AA
batteries. Maybe they are AA lithium and not AA alkalines.

No, if they take AAs, the charger is probably for NiMH batteries.
The only camera I know of that accepts AAs as well as a rechargeable
lithium battery is Ricoh's Caplio R1. While I haven't seen one, I
assume they designed it like one of my old PDAs. It took either
four AAA alkaline batteries or one lithium battery pack which was
shaped like a little brick, nothing like AA or AAA batteries.


The other Sony didn't have a charger and took AA batteries and said
you could buy the NiMH rechargables you mention
But you also might be right that regular AA's might be bette for me
when I will probably not be using a camera as often as probably most
people on this NG do.

I think the odds are that if the camera you get uses AAs, it will
work very well with alkalines. One thing to keep in mind though if
you think you'll ever use the camera outdoors in really cold
weather, is that battery life using either alkalines or NiMH
batteries will be terrible. In that case, it would be wise to have
a backup set of lithium AAs on hand, since they work well when it's
frigid outside. They'll be more expensive, but they should also
last as long as several sets of alkalines, meaning probably 500 or
more pictures per set of lithiums. If you use them only when it's
really cold, that one set might be the only ones you'll ever need to
buy.

Cathy wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...

Cathy wrote:

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...


I have had a P200 for two months and am very pleased with it. It
doesn't use AA batteries but its lithium battery lasts for about 370
shots or 3.5 hours of viewing time on the LCD. I haven't come close

to


draining a battery yet. The newer Sony's all seem to have very good
battery life.


The girl in the camera shop today, said that the two Sony's I looked

at,

both used AA alkalines and AA rechargeables, and with one of the

Sony's

it came with a charger and 2 AA rechargeables. The other one just

came

with rechargeable batteries but you would have to buy a charger. It

was

cheaper than the one with the charger and rechargeables. The girl

said

that the newer Sony's are mostly coming out with AA batteries.
I like that idea more than proprietary chargers and batteries. I was
wondering about the memory stick and how it performs as compared to

SD

and CF. I checked the price of a 128MB memory stick, (not the Pro
version) and it was not much more than the 128MB SD memory cards, as

the

MB's went up, so did the difference in price between memory stick

and

SD. Also, is there a big difference between memory stick and Pro
version? which do you use?

I don't know if I would recommend putting too much emphasis on the

types

of bateries a camera uses. The reason is that everything has a

downside

and the AA verses proprietary battery comparison is no different.

About

the only upside to AA's is that you can buy them about anywhere in a
pinch and the rechargables are cheap.


It would seem to me that AA rechargeables would be good to have if you
were going somewhere to take photos, or if you were overseas, and you
would be able to buy AA's anywhere. Seems more practical and you would
always have them on hand.

The downside is they are larger,

heavier and can discharge a good amount if the camera sits for more

than

a couple of weeks. The lithium bateries are lighter, smaller and hold

a

charge for a long period af time. In addition, the Sony lithiums have
chips in them which allow the camera to tell you exactly how much time
is left in the battery charge. It is very accurate. Plus I can buy
spare batteries from ebay for $10-$20 each.


The two latest Sony cameras I looked at both have AA batteries and
charger. Maybe Sony is using AA's more than they used to. If a camera
takes lithium batteries, I guess you could buy extras. I am pretty sure
that lithium recharables here, are a lot more money than AA's. I would
only feel I had to buy extra lithium rechargeables if I was going on
vacation or to some event, and I don't do these things too often, so it
may not matter what kind of batteries I get when I think of it.

Also, because of the great

battery life of the P200 (as it is on most of Sony's newer cameras) I
really don't worry about running the battery down. I can store 270
picture on my 1 gig Memory Stick Pro and since the battery is good for
370 shots I will run out of memory space well before the battery dies.
I carry the camera around will me all the time and have found that the
charge holds up quite well for weeks at a time.


I would get a 128MB stick which would be fine for me. I wouldn't be
taking nearly as many photos as you do.


As for going with the regular or Pro versions of MS, it really depends
on the camera you buy. On the newer Sony's you will need the Pro
version, or off-brand compatibles, to take video in the highest

quality

setting (640x480 @ 30 fps). If you don't care about this then the
regular sticks will work just fine. I use the Pro version so I can

use

the highest quality video option.


You can still get videoo with the non Pro stick can't you?


As for the picture quality, I have been very satisfied with the

P200.

It's not on par with the photos from our Digital Rebel but they're
surprisingly good for a point and shoot camera.


Have you taken any indoor pictures with a flash? and is red eye a
problem with flash?

The indoor flash is good up to around 12-15'. This is about average

for

these types of cameras. For the P200 red eye is not a problem. Its
design has the flash located away from the lense which almost

eliminates

red eye. Some of the other Sony's do have problems with red eye, as

do

most cameras in this class.


I think the camera you have is the style with the lens at one end and
the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much red
eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different style than the
older style, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I saw a
P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just
learning about digital cameras then.
We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know why.
I quite like them.

Cathy

Yeah, colorful things like that appeal to the female mind. I was
looking at the new lines of cameras yesterday and found several that
were quite small, and easily would fit into pocket or purse. Of course
the smaller they get, the closer the flash gets to the lens.
You can't have everything.


--
Ron Hunter

Cathy wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

Cathy wrote:

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message


You mean his camera didn't take good pictures? The Sony pictures

I've

seen on review sites, have all been good. Maybe the newer Sony

cameras

are better?

Cathy


My DX6440 has a 1.8" LCD. Large enough, but I would rather have the

2"

one on the DX7440.


Yes, but the DX7440 is a bigger more bulky camera than the DX6440. Its
much the same as the DX 7640. I've seen the DX 7440 and DX 7640 here at
a couple of places, but not in many stores. I saw them in a store, but
never checked them more closely as they are not very compact. They look
like good cameras though.

The DX6440 produces files that are between 300k and

1.7Meg. The Sony 717 makes files that are several meg each in the

mode

he was using, so he was filling his cards several times as fast I was,
and with the requirement to switch to the other 'half' of the card at
each 128 meg. It wasn't a pretty sight.


I can imagine.


If I wanted, I could buy a 1GB card. The 256meg card will hold about
300 pictures. I can't imaging needing 1200 pictures on one card. I
would be worried about losing a whole vacation.


Not only that, but you would spend your whole vacation doing nothing but
taking pictures.

Cathy

When I went on the Alaskan cruise (7 day), I took enough flash cards for
1200 pictures, and only took 470. I would probably have taken quite a
few more but the weather was overcast, or rainy, much of the time.
Also, during the most visually impressive part of the whole cruise, I
was below decks celebrating my 36th anniversary with my wife and her
parents.
Poor timing.
Even so, it generated more pictures than any other vacation, and was one
of the 2 or 3 best vacations of my life.


--
Ron Hunter

Cathy wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

Cathy wrote:

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message


You mean his camera didn't take good pictures? The Sony pictures

I've

seen on review sites, have all been good. Maybe the newer Sony

cameras

are better?

Cathy


My DX6440 has a 1.8" LCD. Large enough, but I would rather have the

2"

one on the DX7440.


Yes, but the DX7440 is a bigger more bulky camera than the DX6440. Its
much the same as the DX 7640. I've seen the DX 7440 and DX 7640 here at
a couple of places, but not in many stores. I saw them in a store, but
never checked them more closely as they are not very compact. They look
like good cameras though.

The DX6440 produces files that are between 300k and

1.7Meg. The Sony 717 makes files that are several meg each in the

mode

he was using, so he was filling his cards several times as fast I was,
and with the requirement to switch to the other 'half' of the card at
each 128 meg. It wasn't a pretty sight.


I can imagine.


If I wanted, I could buy a 1GB card. The 256meg card will hold about
300 pictures. I can't imaging needing 1200 pictures on one card. I
would be worried about losing a whole vacation.


Not only that, but you would spend your whole vacation doing nothing but
taking pictures.

Cathy

The DX7440 is only a little thicker than the 6440, although it looks
bulkier. It seems to have the same body as the 7630. By comparison the
DX7590 and the Z7xx series seem to have a lot more size, although they
are all quite light (by DSLR standards, at least).
From a size standpoint, I find the DX6440 to be just about a perfect
compromise for my purposes.
Smaller cameras are certainly available.
Casio has some really small, and thin ones.


--
Ron Hunter