S500 vs. Sony W1

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I have been agonizing over these two cameras. My take so far is :

Sony W1
Excellent Image quality even at 400 ISO exposure (less noise
then the S500)
Good Movie Mode (lets you fill up the memory stick at 30fps
for 640x480 pixel movies)
Expensive Sony only Memory stick Pro to get best performance
(at least 2x the cost of compact flash for a 1Gb stick)
Add on lenses (Macros and Telephotos)

Canon S500

Smaller than the W1
No add on lenses
Image quality is good but the Sony seems to be better (at least
for low light conditions)
Movie mode is limited to 30sec no matter what size Compact
Flash is installed.
Movie mode is lower in FPS (10 to 15)
Compact flash memory is 2x cheaper than the Sony Memory Stick
and Micro drives are possible with this camera.

These are just the things I have picked up on. I am asking the group for
their opinions on the cameras. I am sure at this point I have not
considered every technical difference between the cameras so any add on
opinions would be welcomed. Also if there is another camera in this
class worth considering please make a sugestion.

Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I went through the exact same dilemma just a little while ago. Check
out these threads, http://tinyurl.com/47h6m and
http://tinyurl.com/43srq.

The very things you mentioned were on my list of pros and cons for
each cameras when I was torn between the two. Other things were:

W1 had more manual controls, the ISO and EV, where as the S500 offered
just the white balance manual override. I sometimes do wish I can
adjust WB manually, but all in all, W1's auto and preset settings for
WB have done a pretty job.

W1 has a live historgram which I use to properly adjust various
settings for better pictures. Once you learn how to read and
understand what this luminiscence historgram is telling you, it can be
a very useful tool to have. Canon only displays static histogram in
playback/review mode, no live one.

As far as the picture qualities are concerned, by all accounts, I
think you might be able to take better pictures with the S500 in
certain conditions when fine WB adjustments can help alot. But in
other situations in which WB correction isn't needed, the picture
quality is about the same.

But check out those links I listed above and see if you can learn more
from them to help you choose better. I chose the W1, btw and have
been very happy with it so far.

 

[Falco]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Have you considered a Nikon.
Coolpix 5400 or 5700 would be the equivalent to the W1
Lots of good info here
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1007


"Steve Lee" <nolikey@spam.com> wrote in message
news:a78fi0dnf4i68r59pkkek2b9cqs23ieot5@4ax.com...
> I went through the exact same dilemma just a little while ago. Check
> out these threads, http://tinyurl.com/47h6m and
> http://tinyurl.com/43srq.
>
> The very things you mentioned were on my list of pros and cons for
> each cameras when I was torn between the two. Other things were:
>
> W1 had more manual controls, the ISO and EV, where as the S500 offered
> just the white balance manual override. I sometimes do wish I can
> adjust WB manually, but all in all, W1's auto and preset settings for
> WB have done a pretty job.
>
> W1 has a live historgram which I use to properly adjust various
> settings for better pictures. Once you learn how to read and
> understand what this luminiscence historgram is telling you, it can be
> a very useful tool to have. Canon only displays static histogram in
> playback/review mode, no live one.
>
> As far as the picture qualities are concerned, by all accounts, I
> think you might be able to take better pictures with the S500 in
> certain conditions when fine WB adjustments can help alot. But in
> other situations in which WB correction isn't needed, the picture
> quality is about the same.
>
> But check out those links I listed above and see if you can learn more
> from them to help you choose better. I chose the W1, btw and have
> been very happy with it so far.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:09:56 GMT, "Falco" <dontbother@goaway.com>
wrote:

>Have you considered a Nikon.
>Coolpix 5400 or 5700 would be the equivalent to the W1
>Lots of good info here
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1007

Yeah, those are other good cameras you should consider as well.
However, they're slightly more expensive than the W1 and the S500 and
quite a bit bulkier too. I considered the Coolpix 5200 when it came
out and while the reviews of it were fairly positive, nothing jumped
out at me to convince me to consider that as well.

But when I pressed my salesrep at the store I bought my W1 from to
choose between the Coolpix 5200, S500 and the W1, he said he'd choose
the Coolpix just because it's just as capable of a camera as the other
two and was over $100 cheaper than them. The store I bought my camera
at had the S500 and W1 priced at $650CDN and the Coolpix 5200 at
$425CDN.

But again, the Coolpix 5200 didn't offer a live historgram for me,
like the W1 does and the video capability wasn't even comparable.
Here are some links to the reviews of 5200, 5400 and 5700. The review
of 5200 didn't convince me that I should choose it over the S500 or
the W1, so, it still came down to those two for me.

Anyway, for 5200,
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP5200/CP52A.HTM,
5400 http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C5400/C54A12.HTM and for
5600 http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C5700/C57A.HTM.

Good luck!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:05:19 GMT, WW <doc@nowhere.com> wrote:

>I have been agonizing over these two cameras. My take so far is :
>
>Sony W1
> Excellent Image quality even at 400 ISO exposure (less noise
> then the S500)
> Good Movie Mode (lets you fill up the memory stick at 30fps
>for 640x480 pixel movies)
> Expensive Sony only Memory stick Pro to get best performance
>(at least 2x the cost of compact flash for a 1Gb stick)
> Add on lenses (Macros and Telephotos)
>
>Canon S500
>
> Smaller than the W1
> No add on lenses
> Image quality is good but the Sony seems to be better (at least
> for low light conditions)
> Movie mode is limited to 30sec no matter what size Compact
>Flash is installed.
> Movie mode is lower in FPS (10 to 15)
> Compact flash memory is 2x cheaper than the Sony Memory Stick
> and Micro drives are possible with this camera.
>
>These are just the things I have picked up on. I am asking the group for
>their opinions on the cameras. I am sure at this point I have not
>considered every technical difference between the cameras so any add on
>opinions would be welcomed. Also if there is another camera in this
>class worth considering please make a sugestion.
>
>Thanks



You forgot about the Batteries and the Large 2.5" LCD..


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I would like to thank you all for your inputs. I currently have a
SonyDSC-30 and I am looking to upgrade so your inputs have been very
helpfull.

I went through a Sony DSC-W1 forum and the biggest complaint was
softness or fuzziness of the image taken with this camera. Have you
experienced this ?

-WW

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:44:06 GMT, WW <doc@nowhere.com> wrote:

>I would like to thank you all for your inputs. I currently have a
>SonyDSC-30 and I am looking to upgrade so your inputs have been very
>helpfull.
>
>I went through a Sony DSC-W1 forum and the biggest complaint was
>softness or fuzziness of the image taken with this camera. Have you
>experienced this ?
>
>-WW

Yeah, that supposedly is due to Sony's anti-noise algorithm the camera
uses when processing images. I really never found it to be a problem
though, but then, I don't have the eye when it comes to these things.

In my reply to the original post, I provided some review links and
there, the reviewer does mention the aggressive noise reduction used
by W1 and thus the soft images it produce.

However, I wouldn't go so far to call the images as being "fuzzy".
The pictures are still clear, but when they're talking about the
softness of a picture, it usually refers to the overall ambience of
the photograph, not the details.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I read on a dig camera site something about being able to fix this with some
certain settings. It might of been http://www.imaging-resource.com/

"Steve Lee" <nolikey@spam.com> wrote in message
news:57mii018h1unl4tg0cr1oum0i3qsm4lp3s@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:44:06 GMT, WW <doc@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >I would like to thank you all for your inputs. I currently have a
> >SonyDSC-30 and I am looking to upgrade so your inputs have been very
> >helpfull.
> >
> >I went through a Sony DSC-W1 forum and the biggest complaint was
> >softness or fuzziness of the image taken with this camera. Have you
> >experienced this ?
> >
> >-WW
>
> Yeah, that supposedly is due to Sony's anti-noise algorithm the camera
> uses when processing images. I really never found it to be a problem
> though, but then, I don't have the eye when it comes to these things.
>
> In my reply to the original post, I provided some review links and
> there, the reviewer does mention the aggressive noise reduction used
> by W1 and thus the soft images it produce.
>
> However, I wouldn't go so far to call the images as being "fuzzy".
> The pictures are still clear, but when they're talking about the
> softness of a picture, it usually refers to the overall ambience of
> the photograph, not the details.