Scooter
11-27-2004, 04:50 PM
Hi,
I've used an Olympus 2MP Camedia (D-590) for years and love it. But, I'd like a little more resolution, a lot of portability and a good movie mode. Most of the sample digicam movie's I've seen have been rather unimpressive and seem to have a lot of compression artifacts or are just small. I thought the Sony Cybershot SDC-P150 would be a great camera, but I wasn't impressed with the sample movie I saw, even though it's VGA. I was very impressed with sample movies for Canon's SD200/SD300. So, for movie considerations and great portability, the SD200 or SD300 seem just about perfect.
But the only other concern I have is low light picture taking. A couple years ago, I decided on a Hi-8 camcorder instead of a MiniDV because the low light recording was so much better with the analog model. Most of the movies I shoot are of family and friends indoors with normal--that is: not too great-- lighting. The best explanation I've found is that since the analog camcorder needs fewer pixels for the image resolution, each sensor can be larger and therefore gathers more light.
My question for you in this forum has to do with choosing between the SD200 and the SD300. Both have the same (1/2.5") CCD, but the SD200 has fewer pixels. Does anyone know if the SD200 takes better pictures in low light than the SD300?
As a point of comparison, my father bought an Elph (don't know the model number) a couple years ago and loves it. But, when we both take pictures in low light, my old 2MP camedia takes a much brighter image.
Shots without a flash look so much better than those taken with a flash, so I'd be willing to give up a megapixel of image resolution for better low light performance. But all the reviews I've seen where both the SD200 and SD300 are reviewed seem to--understandably--use a lot of the same sentences to describe each camera but don't address the difference in image quality other than to say that the SD300 has more pixels.
Has anyone had experience with both cameras? Or happen to know if the SD200's CCD captures more photons/pixel than the SD300's? Or, can anyone tell me if they can take reasonably unblurry pictures in a well-lit (but not nearly professionally illuminated) normal home room without natural sunlight?
Thanks for any thoughts on this, my first post.
I've used an Olympus 2MP Camedia (D-590) for years and love it. But, I'd like a little more resolution, a lot of portability and a good movie mode. Most of the sample digicam movie's I've seen have been rather unimpressive and seem to have a lot of compression artifacts or are just small. I thought the Sony Cybershot SDC-P150 would be a great camera, but I wasn't impressed with the sample movie I saw, even though it's VGA. I was very impressed with sample movies for Canon's SD200/SD300. So, for movie considerations and great portability, the SD200 or SD300 seem just about perfect.
But the only other concern I have is low light picture taking. A couple years ago, I decided on a Hi-8 camcorder instead of a MiniDV because the low light recording was so much better with the analog model. Most of the movies I shoot are of family and friends indoors with normal--that is: not too great-- lighting. The best explanation I've found is that since the analog camcorder needs fewer pixels for the image resolution, each sensor can be larger and therefore gathers more light.
My question for you in this forum has to do with choosing between the SD200 and the SD300. Both have the same (1/2.5") CCD, but the SD200 has fewer pixels. Does anyone know if the SD200 takes better pictures in low light than the SD300?
As a point of comparison, my father bought an Elph (don't know the model number) a couple years ago and loves it. But, when we both take pictures in low light, my old 2MP camedia takes a much brighter image.
Shots without a flash look so much better than those taken with a flash, so I'd be willing to give up a megapixel of image resolution for better low light performance. But all the reviews I've seen where both the SD200 and SD300 are reviewed seem to--understandably--use a lot of the same sentences to describe each camera but don't address the difference in image quality other than to say that the SD300 has more pixels.
Has anyone had experience with both cameras? Or happen to know if the SD200's CCD captures more photons/pixel than the SD300's? Or, can anyone tell me if they can take reasonably unblurry pictures in a well-lit (but not nearly professionally illuminated) normal home room without natural sunlight?
Thanks for any thoughts on this, my first post.