Canon PowerShot SD630 vs. Sony CyberShot DSC-T9

[corzo_cone]

I'm trying to decide on one of these cameras. I'm a huge fan of both cameras' looks and functions, I just have a few questions.

The Canon's LCD is 3" but only 173,000 pixels, when compared to Sony's 2.5" with 230,000 pixels. Is this a big deal? Which is the better compromise?

I'm also curious about these new internal lenses like the Sony sports. I find it hard to imagine that the quality is just as good considering the lens doesn't pop out of the camera at all. Is there any sacrifice in image quality?

Finally, Image Stabilization. The Sony has it, the Canon doesn't. Is it really important to have, or can I do without it. I will be using the camera mostly for going out with friends and taking pictures, but I want the best all-around cam I can get. I see myself taking some pictures in motion. I'm just not sure how well these image stabilizers actually work.

Any help is greatly appreciated. If anyone owns one, please shed some light.

[JungleRoom]

Let me start off by saying that I'm really a novice in the camera world. However, I have extensively searched a perfect bar camera in the compact-ultracompact class and thus have some knowledge of this matter although I haven't tested any of these cameras and two of my top criteria have been small size and good low light performance.

So SD630 vs. T9, eh? I haven't heard any impressions of SD630 so I cannot say a lot about it. It's a Canon which usually means quality. It's got 3" lcd which is nice, and yes, I think there should be more pixels than 173,000 (T9 has 230,000 in 2,5" and the up'n'coming T30 the same in 3") but then again if you look at how many pixels usually are in Casio lcds 173,000 seems all of a sudden plenty. You should go to dpreview.com and check out the FX01 review. I believe they compared FX01 with SD630 in that review (and apparently SD630 had less noise and had a bit better pic quality).

Then there's the T9. Love the looks although it might be a little too slim for my taste. T9 has been received extremely well in my view and should be a good performer for an ultracompact. I don't know much about the lens-thing you asked but people have pointed out to me that T9-type lens gathers less dust and thus makes the camera a bit more durable. And what about the IS? Well I hear it does what it is supposed to do. In other words, it works but doesn't do wonders. With T9, you get a bit more redeye than usual because of the flash placement.

Obviously you want a new quality ultracompact camera that is a point&shooter and you don't necessarily want an optical viewfinder. You really need to specify your camera need: what kind of pics are you going to take? You mentioned motion. Well, these ultracompacts are not the best in capturing motion. IS offers some help but only to your movements. So if you are taking a picture and your hand shakes a bit, IS helps. But if you want to take a picture of people playing basketball or dancing, IS doesn't help.

Here are my suggestions (which are also my own preferences):

If you don't necessarily need an ultracompact and a camera that is still pocketable but not super pocketable will do, AND if you want a camera that is good to great in any situation: Choose Fujifilm Finepix F30 (or Canon SD700IS)

If you want an ultracompact that is stylish, has IS and is a decent performer: Choose Sony DSC-T9 OR T30 (T30 offers SuperSteadyShot, ISO1000 and a better flash than T9, although some say T30 might not be as good in image quality than T9, but I bet it will be better. So T30 is marketed as a more party-bar-nightclub-oriented T9.)

If you want a basic ultracompact that is good for the casual point&shooter: Choose Canon SD630

Remember one thing, while IS is really a cool feature it doesn't guarantee that the camera will be great.