Camera How is Sony DSC-W70 or DSC-W100 digital camera

S

sydras

Skilled
I am planning to get either of these cameras in a couple of days. I know that Canon cameras especially the A - Series are considered the best consumer models. But I am considering Sony because it has a 3:2 mode for taking 4X6 prints.

I am serious about printing my photos and sending to my relatives. I guess photos taken in this mode won't be resized or cropped by the studio to accomodate them on a 4X6 but I am wondering if the development process has changed to accomodate the 4:3 or 16:9 aspect.

I mean, do they now give prints that are sized to meet the 4:3 aspect?

I don't think Canon cams support 3:2 mode but I would like to hear if users have experienced otherwise. One reason I would not like to go with Sony is that their cameras are too small to hold. I want something like a man's camera :p ...something I can hold properly in my hands....something that says that it's worth what I payed for and not does not look like a piece of jewellery. For me...size does matter....in digital cameras :bleh: .
 
^ I'm not too sure about the Canon's having 3:2 mode (the Sony do have it, that I'm sure), but what's you budget like ?

Since your looking at the W100, I assume its about 20k, for that price seriously get the Panasonic Lumix LX2, used it the other day and its mind blowing !
 
Does the Panasonic LX2 have an optical viewfinder? Would definitely want to go for a brand like Panasonic esp if their cams are made in Japan.

Arent the S3 and H2 DSLRs? I can handle them but I feel it may not be practical for the rest of my family.
 
^^DSLRs can easily be used as dumb p&s cameras if used in full auto or P mode. In case you get those, canons and nikons are the best by a mile and both capture natively in 3:2 mode. The canon p&s models don't support 3:2. Atleast the A710 IS i have sitting with me doesn't. They only do 16:9 and 4:3. However getting 3:2 is no big deal... just crop the images a bit :p.
 
The issue with DSLRs that I have is the just above average size. I think they are a little too oversized for taking on trips and might even scare me with some of the features that they have.(am no expert on photography). Also, family members would really prefer a point and shoot form factor. But you have given me something to think about(need to do a lot of reading now on DSLRs to see which one can be a viable alternative.)

Yes, canon cams are perfect in every way except for this factor. Image Stabilization is just more Canon sweetness. But, I really wish Canon would address this 3:2 issue. (There would be no contest if they did.)

Me lazy :p don't wanna do too much messing around with my photos. Except for red-eye reduction...and I wish that feature was on the cam also.

Anybody out there who has made prints at the studio?...any issues with the print size?
 
^ Nope the Panasonic doesn't have an Optical viewfinder, which is basically useless on a P&S unless your saving battery.

Tell you what, a daylight shot on the LX2 at ISO100 would be *very* hard for regular users like me and you to differentiate from a kit-lens DSLR shooting the same shot at ISO100.

The S3 and H2 are not DSLR's, the cheapest DSLR (which is pretty decent) is the Nikon D40.. :)
 
I've used cameras without the optical viewfinder and I've found that the pictures are captured with blur sometimes.

I think it's because we do not steady the cam like in the traditional cameras wherein we hold it without shaking with both hands locking the camera in position for a shot. Plus many photopgraphy sites say that it's always good to have the viewfinder. Hence my wanting for the same.

Is the picture quality or the range of functionality mindblowing? I read up on the LX2. I like the fact that it can capture various aspects at various resolutions(unlike sony with only one resolution in 3:2 mode). It looks good for me too(I prefer traditional point and shoot sizes).
 
sydras said:
I've used cameras without the optical viewfinder and I've found that the pictures are captured with blur sometimes.

I think it's because we do not steady the cam like in the traditional cameras wherein we hold it without shaking with both hands locking the camera in position for a shot. Plus many photopgraphy sites say that it's always good to have the viewfinder. Hence my wanting for the same.

Is the picture quality or the range of functionality mindblowing? I read up on the LX2. I like the fact that it can capture various aspects at various resolutions(unlike sony with only one resolution in 3:2 mode). It looks good for me too(I prefer traditional point and shoot sizes).
Click to expand...

The optical viewfinder on point and shoots is rubbish. First of all you don't see what the lens is seeing. So what you see in the viewfinder is completely different from what you get on the screen and final image. So if you believe that composing on the optical viewfinder is good, you are only fooling yourself. Secondly they are small and light sapping. Its hard to make out what kind of lighting you are shooting. Thirdly, the optical viewfinder has no information regarding shooting mode. You are basically shooting blind without any clue of exposure/shutterspeed/aperture/ISO/white balance. If shake is a problem get a camera with IS.
 
Back
Top