Which camera is better?

[NuclearCrap]

My mom is willing to let me return her Sony DSC-T1, since we have that replacement plan and BestBuy don't sell them anymore, for a camera of my choice, which will be officially owned by me. She bought the T1 for $499 back then, so I can pretty much get anything except for the digital SLRs. Right now I only have 2 choices in my mind, the Canon Powershot S2 IS (http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review2919.html) or the Sony DSC-H1 (http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review2884.html). Now let's see what you guys think. :rolleyes:

[johnnynumfiv]

I'd go with the canon, mine has yet to let me down after 4000 pics in about 6 months.

[NuclearCrap]

Sony is starting to convince me though.......the guy at BestBuy told me about its better lens and more features over the S2.

[Rockefella]

Sony is starting to convince me though.......the guy at BestBuy told me about its better lens and more features over the S2.
The guys at bestbuy are jackasses.

[NuclearCrap]

The guys at bestbuy are jackasses.

You sure? I'm reading a lot of positive reviews on the H1, here's a comparison (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydsch1/page7.asp).

[Rockefella]

You sure? I'm reading a lot of positive reviews on the H1, here's a comparison (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydsch1/page7.asp).
Nice link, I never argued the Canon was worse though. ;)

I was just stating that the Best Buy guys are jackasses. :)

[NuclearCrap]

Nice link, I never argued the Canon was worse though. ;)

I was just stating that the Best Buy guys are jackasses. :)

Only except the ones from my local store, they're nice, they let me rip them off. :D Btw as I get more reviews from more sites, my mind is tipping towards the H1 side......also I've seen add-ons at Metreon. :rolleyes:

[Zytek_Fan]

I'll look in the Consumer Reports Buyer's Guide 2006 :D

[PerfAdv]

Go for the Canon.
/sonydsch1/ (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydsch1/)
/canons2is/ (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/)

[NuclearCrap]

Seriously........what's so bad about the H1? I was told that there were a lot of ppl who returned their S2 IS...........And it seems there're more accessories available for the H1 for non-online-shoppers like me.

[spi-ti-tout]

Well I never used to bother with Sony's until ...

I was going to buy a Casio QV R51. But, it just so happened that my cousin from the states was in town for a few weeks, and it just so happened that her dad her sent her a Sony DSC-W7. And it also just so happened that girls like the thinner cams more. So, she was just so able to sell me the camera for VERY little more thna the Casio!

I'm not telling oyo to buy mine obviously but just saying that I've been using it continuously for about 2 weeks and it's working like a wood burning stove. Not that hard to learn really, you get the hang of Sony's controls layout in just a day (I did - and I was completely new to the Digi-Cam world) and it is, really, a very good series.

About the poor software, fine, I agree. But you shoudln't expect anything much from others as well as all of them are just editing software well below the mark of photoshop and such - just basic. So you CAN get 'em anywhere online. It uses expensive Memory Stick Pro media? Yes. That is a drawback for a lot of times when you just want to go for that 512. Low quality LCD screen won't matter much because you're not looking for stunning results. I'd prefer if the manufacturers gave me a better camera if it had to replace the pixels on the LCD screen. Also, I tried to look up battery life but didn't find much, so it must be pretty average which is never a bad thing (because mine lasts way more than average - 380 Shots/500 mins!! And if you go for the exact same DSC-W5, 420 shots!! The Casio could only achieve 240!).

My last complaint (because I don't want to get too into it) would be the lack of opportunities that really frustrates me sometimes. If you want to capture a car at 1000th of a second the whole thing will go dark and the aperture control won't be able to make up for it. It can go to 2000ths of a second as well, but for some reason they've kept that on auto. My verdict (so far) is it's a good beginner's camera that will definetly take you some time to get used to, but worth it if you're only starting. And a review which you'll enjoy reading is written here (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_h1-review/index.shtml).

Good luck on choosing! :)

P.S: If you want to see the photographs I've taken so far, PM me.

[NuclearCrap]

Can somebody list the pros and cons of these 2 cameras? If so, please refer to the fact sheet, not opinions.

[PerfAdv]

For one the Canon is "image stabilized", important with 10X optical zoom. The Sony edges out by 12X optical zoom but doesn't have stabilized feature.

The best way is to go to a store that has both so you can compare. I've found the guys at Ritz camera are pretty knowledgeable. Sony isn't a camera company, they make a decent product but Canon easily betters Sony. Canon makes camera and lenses in all price ranges. Sony concentrates on low to mid-price...

Sony might give you more for the money but it goes like this if you were to use an automotive analogy. Hyundai Sonata: 3.3 Liter V6 with 230 hp, leather, climate control, sunroof, 105 cu. ft. interior volume. BMW 325i: 3.0 Liter I6 with 215 hp, no leather, no climate control, and no sunroof as standard equipment. Oh, the BMW is a lot smaller too! Which one to pick?

EDIT: The Sony does have a stability feature.

[johnnynumfiv]

The canon has 12x zoom ;)

I duno what other features that you'd need that the canon doesn't have, I have yet to use all of them yet.

One thing I noticed on the comparison sites, that the sony is slower than the canon, in file writing, and the camera functions(power on, zooming etc). The menus on the canon also seem smoother than those of the sony.

[PerfAdv]

The canon has 12x zoom ;)...
Double check that! ;)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/

[johnnynumfiv]

Double check that! ;)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/
I just unscrewed my polarized lense, yep it's 12x zoom.

[PerfAdv]

I just unscrewed my polarized lense, yep it's 12x zoom.
I hate inaccurate reviews...:rolleyes:

[NuclearCrap]

Sony might give you more for the money but it goes like this if you were to use an automotive analogy. Hyundai Sonata: 3.3 Liter V6 with 230 hp, leather, climate control, sunroof, 105 cu. ft. interior volume. BMW 325i: 3.0 Liter I6 with 215 hp, no leather, no climate control, and no sunroof as standard equipment. Oh, the BMW is a lot smaller too! Which one to pick?[/COLOR]

I think a better comparison would be Honda Accord vs. BMW 325i. :) And I would choose the Accord.

[matek]

hehe has this gotten u any where in deciding:p

the higher end sony cameras are suposed to carlo zennetiti lenses or sumin like that making them really clear well decide now on which looks better asthetics are important:p

[PerfAdv]

I think a better comparison would be Honda Accord vs. BMW 325i. :) And I would choose the Accord.
I specifically chose Hyundai because they make everything from ships to computers to pens. Honda only makes motor vehicles, they're a vehicle specialist. Canon is an imaging specialist, not straying too far from cameras, lenses, copiers, photo paper, etc. Sony makes a little bit of everything...

[NuclearCrap]

carlo zennetiti lenses or sumin............

No offense, but lmao at that. :D

So according to you guys, I should just get the S2? Ever since my mom talked to me about getting me a D-SLR after I play with this for a year, this competition doesn't really matter now. :cool:

[PerfAdv]

carlo zennetiti lenses or sumin like that making them really clear

LOL...at least you said, or sumin. It's Carl Zeiss and I've heard that those aren't really Zeiss lenses. Zeiss just finishes the lenses for Sony, as in final polish and coatings. Sony is just cashing in on the name...


Zeiss has rather quietly continued to upgrade these lenses over the years. On average they seem to have come out with a new lens or two every year. This seems significant to me. Lens technology has developed over the years. Even Leica experts admit that the best 60's vintage lenses are not the standards of today's lenses. Zeiss has not sat on the sidelines, relying on its reputation. Rather, it has kept in the fight, continuing the development of its lenses. Zeiss uses fewer aspherical elements and fewer low dispersion elements than other manufactures such as Canon and Nikon. However, they do use some of each. Perhaps more than any other lens designer, Zeiss uses symmetrical design to minimize distortion. It is also evident that Zeiss thinks they have superior coating technology, which they call T*.

A word about prices. They are all over map and make no sense. A number of fine Zeiss lenses cost under $600 -- relatively reasonable. Some of them are out of sight. For example, the 300 f2.8 is about $12,000, compared to the Canon EF equivalent at under $5,000. The special order lenses like the 600 f 4 are beyond the horizon. ~ excerpt from photo.net article on Zeiss lenses

If you're interested read here! (http://www.photo.net/equipment/contax/shea-lenses)

[spi-ti-tout]

the higher end sony cameras are suposed to carlo zennetiti lenses or sumin like that making them really clear well decide now on which looks better asthetics are important:p
Carl-Zeiss Vario Tessar

If you're a newer photographer it won't make too much of a difference until you actually have that eye for photography. Depending n your interest and camera that can take some time. And as the article already proved, you may just getting a bit less than you bargained for ...

[Spastik_Roach]

Carl-Zeiss Vario Tessar

If you're a newer photographer it won't make too much of a difference until you actually have that eye for photography. Depending n your interest and camera that can take some time. And as the article already proved, you may just getting a bit less than you bargained for ...

And how many days have you had anything other than a shitty camera phone Husain?? :D

[spi-ti-tout]

And how many days have you had anything other than a shitty camera phone Husain?? :D
Enough to know I don't know shit about how much difference a lens makes, which I what I said in the first place :D

Honesty envy aye ;) :p

[Lagonda]

It's Carl Zeiss and I've heard that those aren't really Zeiss lenses. Zeiss just finishes the lenses for Sony, as in final polish and coatings. Sony is just cashing in on the name...
Sadly enough this is true. It's a bit like the Zeiss lenses on the new Nokia cell phones. They are utter crap and a disgrace to the Zeiss name.

BUT, the lenses used on those Sonys aren't bad. But they are nowhere near the real Zeiss lenses.

[spi-ti-tout]

But they are nowhere near the real Zeiss lenses.
Any examples?

[Lagonda]

What kind of examples ?

[spi-ti-tout]

Erm anything to prove the quality of the real Zeiss lens ?

[Lagonda]

Well, I can't really give you any examples as I do not own Zeiss equipment anymore but I can show you this one though:

http://mobileburn.com/story.jsp?Page=2&Id=1743

On page 2 we see a prime example of why it's a disgrace that Zeiss let's Nokia use their name on their cellphones. Just look at the barrel distortion of the N90's camera. Also it's less sharp than the K750. But that could be caused by the CCD. But still.. Not a good representation of the Zeiss name.

The thing is that Zeiss lenses are tack sharp. And their construction makes for perfect lightdistribution which results in perfect exposure of the picture. Same goes for Leitz. And I'm not even talking about the colour saturation! The Zeiss' found on Sony cameras are quite different from the real Sonnars an Planars found on Hasselblads and Contax'. Mind you, I never said they were really bad, but they're not real Zeiss lenses. That's maybe why one Zeiss lens costs more than an entire Sony Handycam ;)

I feel a bit stupid for not being able to explain this but you just need to have some experience with them and then you'll perfectly understand what I mean. One of the factors being that you really need to hold a print in your hands to appreciate the quality. It's something that can not easily be seen on a computer screen. I'm talking about things like the rendering of the out of focus zones etc.

Sadly enough consumers settle for mediocrity these days.

[PerfAdv]

Erm anything to prove the quality of the real Zeiss lens ?
This pic is comparing a Zeiss and Canon lens using crops. So much is digital photography is about image processing but clearly lenses still make a difference.

Read this very short article.
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1075248

[RacingManiac]

AFAIK the new DSC-R1 uses a Zeiss made lens, not just Zeiss "process" and coating. But R1 costs as much as a DSLR(albeit with a DSLR sized sensor as well)....

[PerfAdv]

AFAIK the new DSC-R1 uses a Zeiss made lens, not just Zeiss "process" and coating. But R1 costs as much as a DSLR(albeit with a DSLR sized sensor as well)....
Zeiss has become quite a prolific lens producer, diversified. I looked over their site and infact they make lenses for Sony. What it comes down to is value. I see Zeiss as a producer of top-end lenses and if cost is no issue they make the best. However, at a lower cost point ($500-2,500) the lenses from Canon and Nikon are superior. Zeiss excels where others don't tread, a "cheaper" lens by Zeiss isn't necessarily better than it's competition.

Sony cameras with Zeiss:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/?Open
EDIT: To get to the list--> from menu click "Digital" >Digital Still >Sony Digital Still Cameras >Table