Canon S500 Vs. Sony DSC-W1. I'm torn!

[RipRocK]

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, including the ones on this site), 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:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s410_s500-review/index.shtml
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_w1-review/index.shtml
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/w1.html
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/s500.html
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S500/S50A.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/W1/W1A.HTM and the side-by-side
comparisons can be found here,
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_s500%2Csony_dscw1&show=all

Because of Carl Zeiss spec 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. The S500 uses proprietary batteries, while the W1 does not, the W1 has a bigger LCD, but has less pixels/inch ratio and etc...

Based upon the reviews above, if you had to pick one to use for the rest of your life, which camera would you guys choose? Thanks for your time and courtesy!

[Garret]

That's difficult. Both are making good pictures, but the sony is faster and has a large LCD display. Downside is that the sony has no manual white balance adjustment which is very important to me.

[Nick]

I'd happily take the W1 if I needed to pick just one :)

[RipRocK]

My heart was leaning towards the W1, when I just found out that it only offers up to 1/1000 shutter speed, compared to S500's 1/2000. I read that at 1/2000, you can still take decent "still" photos with fast moving objects, but only 1/1000, there's no chance.

While I don't plan on taking photos of mostly fast moving objects, with all things being equal, will I see a blurry object, perhaps blurry feet and arms of a sprinter with only 1/1000 but quite a bit clearer image with 1/2000?

Darn, darn, darn!! Just when I thought I had it figured out. As always, your input and insight would be much appreciated.

[Nick]

Who said you can't take decent still photos with 1/1000? :eek:

It's nice to have something above 1/1000, but this shot was taken out the window of a moderately quickly moving car, no motion blur, at 1/000, f/2.8. I wouldn't worry about it too much - but wait for someone else to say that too you too ;)

See for yourself, sharp as heck. Not with the W1, but with a Sony nevertheless.

http://forest-of-october.net/dcr/still.jpg

[RipRocK]

Heya Nick! Thanks for your quick reply. Your picture is indeed worth a thousand words. It looks as though 1/1000 will be more than adequate for me. I don't plan on taking pictures of any hockey pucks travelling through the air anytime soon, anyway :D Will keep you updated of my purchase. Thanks!