PDA

View Full Version : Canon SD200 vs. Canon SD300 vs. Sony DSC-L1 vs. Other Tiny, Quality Cameras



tavilach
12-27-2004, 06:25 PM
I'm in the market for a very small camera that I can take anywhere (in my pocket), and that will deliver me quality images. The top cameras that I've found are the Canon SD300 (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/sd300.html), the Canon SD200 (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/sd200.html), and the Sony DSC-L1 (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/l1.html). I've been told that Canon and Sony are the best in this market, and have therefore not considered companies like Pentax and the like. If you have any other suggestions for what I'm looking for, feel free to give me more suggestions.

What I care about in a camera is as follows:

Size - It needs to be enough to easily fit in a pocket (inside a small case that doesn't add much bulk, presumably), along with another device (such as an iPod). I currently own a trusty Olympus D-490, and while it has served me well, it looks like it's in mint condition...because I never take it anywhere. Why is this? Well, it's because the camera is just too big to fit in my pocket, and I end up taking horrible pictures with my Ericsson T637 camera phone, which I then trash. I want to be able to take good snapshots of day-to-day events, and for that I need a very small camera.

Quality - I don't want a cheap camera with 100 megapixels (yes, I know that doesn't exist...I'm making a point). I want a camera that produces wonderful images, even when disregarding the amount of pixels. I'm talking about color accuracy, lack of graininess, minimal purple fringing (or chromatic abberation, if that's the preferred word), etc. I've seen some sample photos, including this (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sd300-review/IMG_0604.JPG), of some really bad purple fringing with the SD300. Similarly, I've found it in samples of the SD200 (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sd200-review/IMG_0017.JPG), as well. I can't tell if the SD300 is any worse or better (it seems a bit worse, though) than the SD200 in terms of purple fringing, just from one sample picture, but this does matter to me. I also don't know how other cameras, including the DSC-L1, fair in this regard.

Material - I want a solid camera that won't break, or even scratch, easily. If it scratches, it should at least have an option of a case that does not increase the size too much.

Megapixels - I don't really know how many megapixels I want, but 4.0 seems like a good number. I don't make many prints, but I do like to crop images a lot, and I could very well want to print a cropped image. I also don't want to be behind the times...if I pay a lot of money for a camera, I'd like it to be nice and advanced. I'm not really sure what I want in this category...I'd like some guidance.

Speed - I need to be able to whip out the camera and immediately take a snapshot. I then need to be able to immediately take another, and another. After looking at the reviews of the SD300 (which has the new Digic II processor) and the DSC-L1, the DSC-L1 seems faster in many regards, but the SD300 seems to have a faster startup. Are the speeds of these two cameras essentially the same, or is the speed difference of the DSC-L1 really noticeable? Are there are cameras that are even faster? I just want to be able to take pictures of the moment...before it passes.

Movies - A decent movie mode would be nice, but it doesn't make that much of a difference to me.

Zoom - Optical zoom is a necessity.

Flash - Flash is a necessity, and the more effective the better.

So, my DCRP friends...what should I buy?

Thanks for your help!

Matt5L
12-27-2004, 11:56 PM
I want the same. Thinkin of the SD300. Anyone have input.

I heard olympis are great too?!

David Metsky
12-28-2004, 06:34 AM
I just bought an SD300 and so far I'm very happy with it. It's tiny, fast, and takes excellent pictures, plus it has a great feature set. I didn't try the Sony, so I can't compare the two, but I can give a thumbs up to the Canon. This is the fasted digicam I've used except for an SLR, I haven't read much about the Sony, but what makes you think it's faster?

Haven't seen any major purple fringing yet, I'm sure it will happen but it has occured to some degree on every camera I've used. The camera is solidly built but small, so it doesn't have the heft of the S410 or S500. Flash seems quite good so far.

cmassucci
12-28-2004, 11:36 AM
It's between the SD300 or the Konica Minolta Dimage X50 for me.

Both really small. the X50 has no Protruding lens and the quickest start up time. It is lighter than the SD300 and it has 5.0 MegaPixels.

BUT... Not sure of the two cameras which has the best overall Picture Quailty. It seems they work well in some areas, but bad in others. Trying to figure out which one has the best flexibilty and overall Picture Quality!!

I think the Sony's are too expensive for what they give!!

Can anyone offer any insights!!??

tavilach
12-28-2004, 03:53 PM
It's between the SD300 or the Konica Minolta Dimage X50 for me.

Both really small. the X50 has no Protruding lens and the quickest start up time. It is lighter than the SD300 and it has 5.0 MegaPixels.

BUT... Not sure of the two cameras which has the best overall Picture Quailty. It seems they work well in some areas, but bad in others. Trying to figure out which one has the best flexibilty and overall Picture Quality!!

I think the Sony's are too expensive for what they give!!

Can anyone offer any insights!!??Sony's DSC-L1 is only $300...for 4.0 megapixels...whereas the SD300 is $400 for the same.

Still, I think that I trust the SD300 to deliver better picture quality. Is this a reasonable assumption, or are they equivalent?

David Metsky
12-29-2004, 06:47 AM
Sony's DSC-L1 is only $300...for 4.0 megapixels...whereas the SD300 is $400 for the same.
I just spent $325 for my SD300. I have no idea what the L1 is going for in the real world, but that's something to keep in mind.

tavilach
12-29-2004, 11:07 AM
I just spent $325 for my SD300. I have no idea what the L1 is going for in the real world, but that's something to keep in mind.It seems like most reliable retailers sell the SD300 for $400...

tavilach
01-02-2005, 09:46 AM
Help! I don't know which camera to get!

Edit: What about the DSC-T1? Is it small enough? How is the quality? I don't hear much about it...

How about the Sony DSC-W1? The Casio Z50 or Z55? How about Pentax cameras and Panasonic cameras? How do all of these compare?

There are too many options!

Matt5L
01-02-2005, 01:08 PM
I decided on the SD200 Picked it up locally for $100 less then the SD300. I did research and sometimes the pics actually came out cleaner on the SD200 vs the SD300 but thats not why I got it. I dont need the 4.0 mega pixels. 3.2 is just fine for me, Im not going to print off massive pictures.

David Metsky
01-03-2005, 07:43 AM
It seems like most reliable retailers sell the SD300 for $400...
I got mine at dell.com including free shipping, many places like B&H are advertizing them for roughly $350. With after Christmas sales and online coupons it's not hard to get quite a bit under list price right now.

D70FAN
01-03-2005, 08:37 AM
I'm in the market for a very small camera that I can take anywhere (in my pocket), and that will deliver me quality images. The top cameras that I've found are the Canon SD300 (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/sd300.html), the Canon SD200 (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/sd200.html), and the Sony DSC-L1 (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/l1.html). I've been told that Canon and Sony are the best in this market, and have therefore not considered companies like Pentax and the like. If you have any other suggestions for what I'm looking for, feel free to give me more suggestions.

What I care about in a camera is as follows:

Size - It needs to be enough to easily fit in a pocket (inside a small case that doesn't add much bulk, presumably), along with another device (such as an iPod). I currently own a trusty Olympus D-490, and while it has served me well, it looks like it's in mint condition...because I never take it anywhere. Why is this? Well, it's because the camera is just too big to fit in my pocket, and I end up taking horrible pictures with my Ericsson T637 camera phone, which I then trash. I want to be able to take good snapshots of day-to-day events, and for that I need a very small camera.

Quality - I don't want a cheap camera with 100 megapixels (yes, I know that doesn't exist...I'm making a point). I want a camera that produces wonderful images, even when disregarding the amount of pixels. I'm talking about color accuracy, lack of graininess, minimal purple fringing (or chromatic abberation, if that's the preferred word), etc. I've seen some sample photos, including this (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sd300-review/IMG_0604.JPG), of some really bad purple fringing with the SD300. Similarly, I've found it in samples of the SD200 (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sd200-review/IMG_0017.JPG), as well. I can't tell if the SD300 is any worse or better (it seems a bit worse, though) than the SD200 in terms of purple fringing, just from one sample picture, but this does matter to me. I also don't know how other cameras, including the DSC-L1, fair in this regard.

Material - I want a solid camera that won't break, or even scratch, easily. If it scratches, it should at least have an option of a case that does not increase the size too much.

Megapixels - I don't really know how many megapixels I want, but 4.0 seems like a good number. I don't make many prints, but I do like to crop images a lot, and I could very well want to print a cropped image. I also don't want to be behind the times...if I pay a lot of money for a camera, I'd like it to be nice and advanced. I'm not really sure what I want in this category...I'd like some guidance.

Speed - I need to be able to whip out the camera and immediately take a snapshot. I then need to be able to immediately take another, and another. After looking at the reviews of the SD300 (which has the new Digic II processor) and the DSC-L1, the DSC-L1 seems faster in many regards, but the SD300 seems to have a faster startup. Are the speeds of these two cameras essentially the same, or is the speed difference of the DSC-L1 really noticeable? Are there are cameras that are even faster? I just want to be able to take pictures of the moment...before it passes.

Movies - A decent movie mode would be nice, but it doesn't make that much of a difference to me.

Zoom - Optical zoom is a necessity.

Flash - Flash is a necessity, and the more effective the better.

So, my DCRP friends...what should I buy?

Thanks for your help!

The L1 lacks an optical viewfinder. That automatically takes it off my list. I went through the pain and agony of shooting low light and bright sunlight pictures with an old Ricoh/Philips swivel lens, and swore I would never again own a camera without optical viewfinder.

Your mileage may vary...

pcguy
01-03-2005, 12:10 PM
The Sony's don't have viewfinders, but their LCD's are very bright and have suped-up anti-glare

David Metsky
01-03-2005, 12:57 PM
The Sony's don't have viewfinders, but their LCD's are very bright and have suped-up anti-glare
Since I am often out for more than a day in the woods, either hiking or skiing, the ability to use an optical viewfinder and save on battery use is a deal breaker for me as well.

TheObiJuan
01-03-2005, 02:18 PM
I had the T1, I took it back and got the P150 instead. The T1's battery lasted about an hour, but overall was an excellent camera. The lack of a viewfinder sucked since the hybrid lcd screen doesnt gain up. the quality is awesome on the T1, the colors were always acurate and deatils sharp. i really loved the magnifying glass feature, it allows you to put the camera lens as close to the subject as you want, i mean less than an inch, and it took great pics of textures and patterns.
i wish my p150 had that option.

pcguy
01-03-2005, 03:41 PM
It's between those two for me....I really like the features of the Sony, but I can't seem to find anything conclusive about its quality? Anyone have imput? I really need to figure this out soon, as I'm going to be going to Australia for 6 months. Help please

D70FAN
01-03-2005, 05:28 PM
It's between those two for me....I really like the features of the Sony, but I can't seem to find anything conclusive about its quality? Anyone have imput? I really need to figure this out soon, as I'm going to be going to Australia for 6 months. Help please

You will never be disappointed by a Canon especially the D300. But I would be remiss if I didn't recommend a look at the Panasonic FZ3. If I didn't own a D70 and I were going on a once-in-a-lifetime trip, one of the FZ series (3,15, or 20) would be going with me. And to further drive home the point I would take the FZ20.

Again, your milage may vary...