Question for the camera experts

[absolut_mac]

I bought a Nikon CoolPix P1 to replace my CoolPix 4500 which was stolen a few months ago. What a dreadful disappointment. While the camera is a lot faster and the shutter lag isn't as bead, the lens is nowhere near as good as on the 4500. Especially the incredibly bad barrel distortion in macro mode.

As a replacement I was thinking of getting either the Canon SD 630 of the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-N1. According to Steves-Digicams both seem to be incredibly good value for money, and produce photos quite above average.

So what do you guys think? The Sony or the Canon? Or is there something else in that price range that I should consider? If you prefer one over the other, let's hear your reasons why.

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[davegoody]

Canon every day !

I bought a Nikon CoolPix P1 to replace my CoolPix 4500 which was stolen a few months ago. What a dreadful disappointment. While the camera is a lot faster and the shutter lag isn't as bead, the lens is nowhere near as good as on the 4500. Especially the incredibly bad barrel distortion in macro mode.

As a replacement I was thinking of getting either the Canon SD 630 of the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-N1. According to Steves-Digicams both seem to be incredibly good value for money, and produce photos quite above average.

So what do you guys think? The Sony or the Canon? Or is there something else in that price range that I should consider? If you prefer one over the other, let's hear your reasons why.

Thanks in advance for your help.

I would go for the Canon personally (though this is very much a personal thing, everyone has different ideas of what they want from their photos) - Sony Digicams give superb output, very bright and vibrant, though this can be a disadvantage as the Canons give a much more balanced image, more lifelike. If your preference is for bright and vibrant, then look at the Sony, if you want a representation of your subject that is more true-to-life, then, in my opinion, the Canon wins hands down. Hope this helps !

 

[absolut_mac]

If your preference is for bright and vibrant, then look at the Sony, if you want a representation of your subject that is more true-to-life, then, in my opinion, the Canon wins hands down. Hope this helps !

Thanks for your response.

Last night I examined a little bit more closely the sample photos posted on Steves-Digicams and your statement above seems pretty spot on. The Sony did seem to have a tiny bit more detail and, in some photos, appear a little sharper, but then the file sizes in the posted shots were larger than the corresponding Canon ones. Also, the sharpening in some of the Sony shots does appear a little bit overboard.

I'll have to go to Samy's or Bel Air Camera to give them a hands on to test drive their ergonomics before I make a final decision.

 

[manic]

Im also looking for some help. Im eyeing a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 (even maybe a LX1). I want a prosumer level point and shoot which can do raw, but am not convinced that the LX2 is the best value for money. Ive seen samples and they look a bit dull, although the camera is gorgeous. Any suggestions for such a product? thanks

 

[Jay42]

Agreed. I'm far from a camera expert at this point, but I also think the Sony's can look pleasing at first because the pictures are often a little artificially enhanced. Canon is usually a little more true in color, which is kind of a risk in the mass consumer market. Canon's are also usually noted for low noise levels at high iso settings, which can be quite valuable for low light/indoor shooting.

EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, I personally favor Canon.

 

[Qianlong]

there're so many cam models out there

check out this site for reviews:
http://www.dcresource.com/

and ask these questions:

how much money do I have?
what will I be shooting?
mostly using full auto mode or manual settings?
.......

personally I have a Canon ixus430 point and shoot and a Nikon d70s DSLR.

 

[absolut_mac]

In the interest of full disclosure, I personally favor Canon.

Yeah, I think that I am leaning towards the Canon too.

Thanks for all your very helpful responses.

PS Manic, the consensus among most review sites on the Panasonic DMC-LX2 (100% identical to the Leica D-LUX2, but with different software for color and white balance) is that it's an incredible camera and excellent value for money, as long as you don't need an ISO higher than 100. In other words if you want moody low light pics, then it's not for you.

 

[Abstract]

^^You can say that about any tiny Canon point and shoot as well. This is coming from a Canon SD owner, which is what you want, right?

Agreed. I'm far from a camera expert at this point, but I also think the Sony's can look pleasing at first because the pictures are often a little artificially enhanced. Canon is usually a little more true in color, which is kind of a risk in the mass consumer market. Canon's are also usually noted for low noise levels at high iso settings, which can be quite valuable for low light/indoor shooting.

Canon's are noted for their low noise at high ISO......in their DSLRs.

Panasonic cameras are supposed to be fantastic (although I've never tried one), but a bit noisier at high ISO. Still fantastic cameras, though.

Personally, I think Sony makes excellent nice point and shoot cameras. They really produce some fantastic photos, and seem like they'd take a beating, or at least my uncle's camera seems like it would. Casio makes excellent thin cameras as well. Really, do check them out. Check Fuji. My friend has one and she loves her camera.


My family has had a total of 6 Canon point and shoot digital cameras so far, and now that I realize that almost all of these small point and shoot cameras take decent photos that are comparable in quality, I'm very willing to get a non-Canon p&s simply because of the useless battery indicator. Canon may as well not include one. Also, the telescoping zoom of my Canon got jammed and didn't work perfectly for whatever reason. I got it fixed under warranty, but the zoom has always been quite noisy and annoying. If I can get a camera that takes photos of equal quality to my Canon, yet has a decent battery indicator, then what am I losing, really?

Canon makes good p&s cameras, but I want an Olympus. Too bad I don't want to buy XD memory cards to go with it.

 

[clintob]

Last night I examined a little bit more closely the sample photos posted on Steves-Digicams and your statement above seems pretty spot on. The Sony did seem to have a tiny bit more detail and, in some photos, appear a little sharper, but then the file sizes in the posted shots were larger than the corresponding Canon ones. Also, the sharpening in some of the Sony shots does appear a little bit overboard.

In addition to my pro equipment, I actually carry a DSC-N1 for quick shots, testing, or the occasional candid. It's a wonderful little camera as far as point-and-shoots go. The "over-sharpening" you spoke of is just a question of default settings that can be changed in the camera's menus. Even in their pro line, Canon defaults to a fairly soft and unsaturated image... most pro users actually bump UP the sharpening and color saturation on their Canon bodies. Sony, on the other hand, has a tendancy to slightly over-saturate their colors by default. The sharpening you see actually is more an illusion than anything else... what you're seeing is more a result of the slightly higher color saturation. If anything, the Sony's images are spot-on when it comes to sharpness, and because the lens Sony uses in their higher end point and shoots (like the N1) is Carl Zeiss glass (similar to what Leica uses!), the images are always nice a crisp.

The N1 can't be beaten in the price range, in my opinion, especially if you like to play with the camera settings a bit, take macro shots, etc. It's a tiny bit thicker than the really skinny DSC line that Sony has made so popular, but in my opinion the extra resolution is worth it, and frankly it feels quite a bit sturdier.

 

[absolut_mac]

The N1 can't be beaten in the price range, in my opinion, especially if you like to play with the camera settings a bit, take macro shots, etc. It's a tiny bit thicker than the really skinny DSC line that Sony has made so popular, but in my opinion the extra resolution is worth it, and frankly it feels quite a bit sturdier.

Thanks for the response. It's helpful to get the input from someone who owns the camera and has played around with the settings.

Decisions, decisions.....