Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Steve Lee, Jul 3, 2004.

  1. Steve Lee

    Steve Lee Guest

    I've narrowed my selection down to the Sony DSC-W1 and Canon S500.
    I've read the reviews of both cameras at various sites (not user
    reviews, but indepth expert/editor reviews), but none seem to make a
    strong recommendation over the other between these two.

    Here are some of the reviews I've read so far: and the side-by-side
    comparisons can be found here,,sony_dscw1&show=all

    Because of Carl Zeiss lens used by DSC-W1, it seems to better pictures
    with less noise and aberration. Also, the W1 has some manual
    aperature options, while the S500 has none. However, the S500's white
    balance options are supposed to be better than the W1.

    Based upon the reviews, which camera would you guys choose? Thanks
    for your time and courtesy!
    Steve Lee, Jul 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Steve Lee

    Marli Guest

    Canon make Cameras, Sony make toys and walkmans..
    Marli, Jul 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Steve Lee

    marlin Guest

    Just so you know, the lens isn't actually a Zeiss lens, rather it is a Zeiss
    style lens. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, I just thought you
    should know. Anyways, as much as I am a Canon fan, I say get the Sony.
    marlin, Jul 3, 2004
  4. Steve Lee

    SleeperMan Guest

    marlin typed:
    Also noise isn't dependant on lens, but rather on CCD sensor. Good lens
    provides less distortion, not less noise.
    SleeperMan, Jul 3, 2004
  5. []
    One that has a Zeiss styling?
    David J Taylor, Jul 3, 2004
  6. Steve Lee

    marlin Guest

    That's the way I usually go about it, but in this instance, the Sony has
    longer battery life, less noise at higher ISO's, a better movie mode, has
    manual controls, and takes IMHO sharper pictures. The only mark against the
    Sony is that it doesn't have a custom white balance. Like I said, I'd go
    with the Sony if I were deciding between these cameras.
    marlin, Jul 3, 2004
  7. Steve Lee

    Gymmy Bob Guest

    Sony has better battery life? Can you should 3-400 pics over a week with one
    Gymmy Bob, Jul 3, 2004
  8. Steve Lee

    marlin Guest

    Hmm, I see what you are saying. By battery life I meant consecutive
    pictures. If you took all the pictures in a row, you could take more with
    the sony.
    marlin, Jul 3, 2004
  9. Steve Lee

    Steve Lee Guest

    I know that W1's batteries takes much longer than S500's to recharge,
    6 hours and 2 hours, respectively. But I from what I read, there
    isn't too much of a difference in the battery time itself. However,
    Canon's is a proprietary form, while Sony's is not and in case my
    batteries run out, I can always use alkaline AAs if needed.
    Steve Lee, Jul 3, 2004
  10. Steve Lee

    Steve Lee Guest

    Yeah, I did, but after having read the reviews, the movie mode (yeah,
    I know, you really shouldn't be using a dcam to take movies) on the
    Casio was dismal and there wasn't anything the reviewers mentioned
    that jumped out at me.
    Steve Lee, Jul 3, 2004
  11. Steve Lee

    Gymmy Bob Guest

    I have two digitals, a fuji 1400 and a fuji 2600 that use 4 and 2 AA cells
    respectively. The 4 AAs last about 2.0 hours on, whether you shoot pictures
    or not and the 2 AAs unit lasts about the same or maybe a little less. I
    realize this technology is almost two years old but that isn't acceptable
    after my Optio 550 LioN life of a week of intermediate shooting. Typical
    cycles range from 1 minute on to 30 minutes on with 1 to 20 pictures at a
    time. This has been done a few times now over a week for about 400 shots.

    Another thing to be noted is the Fuji 2600 with it's 2 AA cells cannot use
    Alkaline or Zinc-carbon batteries because they cannot charge to flash heavy
    draw and may damage the the circuitry from low voltage. (I have tried...they
    die fast)
    Gymmy Bob, Jul 3, 2004
  12. Steve Lee

    Steve Lee Guest

    Hey AFH, I certainly appreciate your input into this matter. One
    question I have is your point #3. I do like the idea of the W1 having
    a 2.5" LCD over the 1.5" LCD the S500 has, which translates into a 40%
    bigger viewing area.

    But I noticed the pixel count on the W1's LCD is 123,000 and on the
    S500, 118,000. So, this means that W1 has (123,000 pixels/2.5" =)
    49200 pixels/inch and the S500 (118,000 pixels/1.5" =) 78667

    So, S500 has close to 37% more pixels/inch count. When comparing the
    two cameras and looked at the LCD, did you notice any difference at
    all between the LCD image quality? Did S500 LCD images appear finer
    in detail and sharper? Thanks.
    Steve Lee, Jul 3, 2004
  13. Steve Lee

    Steve Lee Guest

    Oh, one thing I forgot to ask was, but if you had to choose between
    just S500 & W1, which would you choose?
    Steve Lee, Jul 3, 2004
  14. Steve Lee

    Steve Lee Guest

    Gymmy, thanks for your feedback based on your real life experience.
    I'll certainly take that into considerating as I comtemplate between
    the two cameras.

    And if I may trouble you for one more question, having read the
    reviews I had provided, which camera would you choose, if you had to
    choose just between S500 & W1? Thanks.
    Steve Lee, Jul 3, 2004
  15. Steve Lee

    Steve Lee Guest

    The ratings at for QVR-51 wasn't too high compared to
    the S500, even when you took the software bundle number out. As well,
    the QVR-51's macro performance didn't seem as good as the other two
    and certainly has lots of noise when exceeding ISO200, as shown and
    mentioned at

    I do like Casio's Best Shot modes, and has a few neat features in the
    playback mode, such as the calendar and the album feature, but when it
    comes down to it, the image quality and clarity still wins over rich
    features for me.

    Now, if the richness in features had directly something to do with
    adjusting and controlling your shots so you end up with the best image
    possible, then I would've been really impressed, but the album and the
    calendar features, I can live without.

    Without cut&pasting whole paragraphs, over at, you
    read words like, "excellent" and "impressive" when describing S500 &
    W1's shots and images, while the same reviewer said he was "fairly
    satisfied" and "pleased" with shooting and image results.

    Save for, none of the other sites actually use a rating
    system, which makes for a very tedious and long reading. But when
    you're reading through some of the reviews (one ones written by the
    experts/editors of those sites), you get the sense of which camera the
    reviewers are enthusiastic about and impressed with and which ones
    they're just pretty good.

    Also, nobody seemed to impressed with Casio's LCD image quality and

    I never got the sense that QVR-51 made anyone really impressed, at
    least not as much as the S500 & the W1 when describing the image
    quality and shooting performance.
    Steve Lee, Jul 3, 2004
  16. Steve Lee

    marlin Guest

    While I allready voiced my recommendation for the sony, I should ask, how do
    you plan on using the camera? Are you going to carry it around in your
    pocket and point and shoot, or are you going to keep it in a case and take
    good pictures.
    marlin, Jul 3, 2004
  17. Steve Lee

    Gymmy Bob Guest

    I have no experience with either. I know people with Canon's are real happy
    with them and people with Sony's are not too happy with the battery life or
    quality on some. This doesn't necessarily apply to all models. If there is a
    good feature I would like on mine Canon usually has a model with it first.
    Gymmy Bob, Jul 3, 2004
  18. Steve Lee

    Steve Lee Guest

    Hey Richard, I forgot to thank you for your quick and timely reply,
    sorry. I really appreciated it.

    As for how I'll be using my camera most of the time, it's really hard
    to say. When I go on holidays, I'll be taking scenery pictures, but
    also of my family in various environments, then I'll be using it to
    take indoor pictures of friends and family, then relatively close-up
    pictures of various things, from parts of the cars I have to some of
    the stamps I buy and sell on eBay from time to time.

    But, I also wanna be able to take my camera and capture some of the
    unexpected moments raither quickly, such as catching my little girls
    taking a nap side by side in a cute manner to quickly taking a picture
    of something interesting I might run across at a state fair or at some
    outdoor events.

    I really didn't wanna look into an SLR, though my plans for using a
    digicam might call for it. They're too bulky, I'm not an advanced
    photographer by any means to fully take advantage of the features and
    controls those things offer.

    However, if need be and I have sufficient time, I do want to manually
    control and adjust certain settings to get the best image quailty

    Again, thanks for your time and courtesy!
    Steve Lee, Jul 3, 2004
  19. Steve Lee

    marlin Guest

    The only thing about the sony that worries me for this is that the wide
    angle is slightly more zoomed in than the canon. However, it is so slight
    that I don't think it matters, and the fact that you can get a conversion
    lens more than makes up for it.
    both are fine for this
    I like the Sony more for this. It seems to take sharper macro pictures.
    I like the Sony more for this too. It has less lag and starts up a tiny bit
    I don't think they do. IMHO, SLR's are for people who are taking
    photographs, not pictures, if you know what I mean.
    Yeah, I really like them for macro (close-up) pictures as well. Also, when
    you do macro you tend to be in a not so well lit room (room lighting is
    never all that bright), and the Sony has much more useful high ISO's. When
    taking macro shots, you want to have a fairly fast shutter speed because
    shake becomes very noticeable. You can't do that at ISO 50. The Sony has the
    same noise at ISO 100 as the Canon at ISO 50, and the same at 400 as the
    canon at 200. I honestly think for your purposes the Sony is better. The
    only time I would recommend the Canon to somebody is if really needed the
    camera to be .2inches smaller in each dimension, or planned to take mostly
    low light - I mean i nteh dark, not just lowish light - pictures (reviews
    say the sony lcd isn't good in low light) or if they needed to be able to
    charge the battery and leave it for a few months without using it. Gymmy Bob
    is right that the NiMh won;t hold its charge for as many days, but the sony
    holds charge for more hours.
    No problem.
    marlin, Jul 4, 2004
  20. Steve Lee

    Steve Lee Guest

    Richard, thanks again for your reply. I think I'm gonna be going
    ahead and call around town to see who has the best price on the W1 :)
    I'll go there, compare the two cams and make my final decision. But
    now that I have a better understanding and idea of the differences
    between the two, it'll make my decision making process alot whole lot
    easier. Thanks!!

    Steve Lee, Jul 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.