How does this compare to the Nikon Coolpix AW 110?
1989594
I have no idea. I have never owned that camera. I have a Canon Eos Rebel. The canon is a SLR and larger and does take photos that are somewhat better. I like the Pentax because it is smaller and easier to carry when I am taking the grandkids on outings or when traveling. The movies taken with the Pentax are good so I don't have to take my video camera too. The Pentax does have a strong telephoto but if you zoom in as far as it will go the photos get blurry (the videos too) I think you should use a tripod. But if you don't zoom in too far the pix are good and I don't have to carry extra lens. I use both but when out and about I usually take my Pentax. I have no idea. I have never owned that camera. I have a Canon Eos Rebel. The canon is a SLR and larger and does take photos that are somewhat better. I like the Pentax because it is smaller and easier to carry when I am taking the grandkids on outings or when traveling. The movies taken with the Pentax are good so I don't have to take my video camera too. The Pentax does have a strong telephoto but if you zoom in as far as it will go the photos get blurry (the videos too) I think you should use a tripod. But if you don't zoom in too far the pix are good and I don't have to carry extra... » Read More I have no idea. I have never owned that camera. I have a Canon Eos Rebel. The canon is a SLR and larger and does take photos that are somewhat better. I like the Pentax because it is smaller and easier to carry when I am taking the grandkids on outings or when traveling. The movies taken with the Pentax are good so I don't have to take my video camera too. The Pentax does have a strong telephoto but if you zoom in as far as it will go the photos get blurry (the videos too) I think you should use a tripod. But if you don't zoom in too far the pix are good and I don't have to carry extra lens. I use both but when out and about I usually take my Pentax. « Show Less
1989595
Optics are slightly better on the Pentax, Nikon software is a little easier, the lens on the Pentax is better protected but they are both fine robust waterproof shockproof compact cameras.
1989596
I dont know The Camera which You say.... However , for me, Pentax isabel better brand than Nikon...
1989597
Take a look at the two. It looks to me like the most significant difference is the rugged build of the Pentax. However, it does not have WiFi and has a 4x lens. So if 5x interests you more than 4x and you must have WiFi and don't really care about owning a camera that will survive a really hard knock, then go with the Nikon. All I know is that I've got about 3,000 images under my belt with my Orange WG-3 and none of them are flawed by mechanical, sensor or lens problems. About half were taken after our 16-month-old grandson decided to see how far he could throw it (it landed on a hardwood floor about six feet away and slide into a baseboard). And about 500 of those were taken in Greenland and Iceland in wet, cold (at or just below 32 degrees F most days) weather. Also, I took a 20-second movie after tying the camera's carabiner clip to a 20-foot long rope and then tossing it into a clear stream coming off a glacier in Greenland. Not much of a movie, but no leaks! I don't know if the Nikon would have performed as well as the Pentax or survived any of my (and our grandson's) abuse or not. All I know is that the Pentax did.
1572936
I've had both and like the 520 better. It has more zoom and a nice squared off retro look. Also the buttons on the back of the 520 stick out so you can actually press them. On the 110 the buttons are flush and you have to look to find them and possibly use your fingernail. The 520 comes with a bigger battery, 870mAh while the 110 comes with a 680mAh battery. This camera is just plain more fun to me anyway.
1654872
I am not sure if it is a typo you really meant Eye-Fi. The Eyefi website did gives a thumbs-up on AW100; check out their compatibility list:http://support.eye.fi/cameras/and the result http://support.eye.fi/cameras/nikon/coolpix_aw100
1822121
These were my top two choices as well. I think they are both great cameras. I ended up getting the 950 because it is pocket-size, but they share many features actually. also, the G9 has more manual controls, it's for more professional type photos, not for just casual. I mean it could be for casual also, if you don't mind the bulkiness. But I think they are both good, it just depends on what you want to use it for.
488637
I originally bought the Sony W90 based on specs. My first one was defective. It took pictures, but only the pictures in very bright light were acceptable. I exchanged for another W90 and although better, it still had VERY high levels of noise even with flash. I returned that one and bought a Canon 800IS. The Canon has taken EXCELLENT pictures even in low light. The image stabilization works well and the pictures taken with ISO 1600 are about the same noise level as the sony at 400 and 800 ISO. At 800 ISO the Canon produces better pictures than the Sony at 100 ISO. For my money...The Canon is better hands down.
1890421
Check out the links below for reviews on both. you can compare the sample photos side by side. also the Sony high iso looks better. personally I think that the Sony has warmer more vibrant color although the night shot looks better on the Canon. I just ordered the Sony so we shall see. I also like the looks of the Sony better. well, good luck in your search. http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_w55-review/index.shtml http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sd1000-review/index.shtml
1553127
One of the differences that i am aware of in the 2 cameras is the a65 has a plastic body, the a77 has a titanium body. That was the selling point for me. Also i believe the a65 does not have the same megapixel as the a77. All in all i think you get more bang out of the a77, the price difference between the 2 was not that much to sway me from the a77. Feel that amazon has a good price on the a77 and would recommend the a77 any day of the week, very happy with my choice.
1358219
I have been going back and forth with the same question. I have read all the reviews and opinions I can find on both. After going to the local store and playing with the TZ5 and the 100 (since the 110 is not out yet) I did not find many major difference from the point of view of a novice user. The two main difference I noted were 1) the TZ5 is more compact and I really liked that, however 2) when I zoomed in with the canon on a small sign the image was crystal clear, when I did the same with the TZ% the same sign was very blurry, not even close to readable. This decided it for me. I went with canon. I have been going back and forth with the same question. I have read all the reviews and opinions I can find on both. After going to the local store and playing with the TZ5 and the 100 (since the 110 is not out yet) I did not find many major difference from the point of view of a novice user. The two main difference I noted were 1) the TZ5 is more compact and I really liked that, however 2) when I zoomed in with the canon on a small sign the image was crystal clear, when I did the same with the TZ% the same sign was very blurry, not even close to readable. This decided it for me. I went... » Read More I have been going back and forth with the same question. I have read all the reviews and opinions I can find on both. After going to the local store and playing with the TZ5 and the 100 (since the 110 is not out yet) I did not find many major difference from the point of view of a novice user. The two main difference I noted were 1) the TZ5 is more compact and I really liked that, however 2) when I zoomed in with the canon on a small sign the image was crystal clear, when I did the same with the TZ% the same sign was very blurry, not even close to readable. This decided it for me. I went with canon. « Show Less
845476
I bought a cheap one from Amazon. Not as smooth as a Nikon one, but not bad at all. About a quarter of the price.
795288
I have the Nikon S8100 and tested it against the Canon S95 and Canon SX210. Overall I like the Nikon the best based on very good photos, great 300mm zoom, terrific indoor (on Party/Indoor mode), and ease of operation. For 5x7 prints or posting photos to Internet the cameras were all comparable. However, when really zooming in on my 27" monitor you can see the qualitative difference. The Nikon S95 simply gets sharper colors perhaps due to its lens and larger sensors. The SX210 and S8100 took similar photos. If I sifted through many comparison shots really zooming in I'd say the SX210 was, at times, just a hair sharper than the S8100. Having said that I like the overall results from the S8100 based on its superior indoor results, bigger and easier to use controls and overall simplicity of use. However, if you are comfortable with the controls of the S95 the SX210 has similar menu options.
1738615
I've tried both and for me the extra $100 is beyond well worth it. S100 has much better low light performance and overall picture quality(although 110HS is very good). Video looks substantially better to me as well. The S100 is truly at another level in so many aspects. The 110HS is extremely impressive for it's low price and has to be one of the best at that price range but if you have the extra money to spend you won't regret moving to the S100(assuming you don't get the dreaded lens error).
1595862
I was also on the fence between these cameras. Tried both out at the local camera shop. I will probably be doing a fair amount of video too, and the Nikon P500 had the worst image stabilization I have ever seen. The FZ100 was rock solid in comparison. I also recently found out that the FZ100 can have filters and telephoto extensions added to the lens. I'm going to wait a few weeks to see if it gets upgraded, but if not the FZ100 seems the way to go. The Nikon felt cheap in comparison.
131464
The reviews I have seen (the in-depth for real ones, not the ones on sales sites) talk about the P80's lens slowness while trying to take pictures. I'm sure it's not as slow as the old (3-4 years ago) digital cameras but evidently it is a glaring issue in certain light situations. I am a Nikon shooter for over 30 years and have D200 DSLR now which I am very happy with, but I bought a FZ28K for a trip to Paris and am so far very happy with it. The iA mode is really pretty amazing - great exposure in almost all situations.
1283832
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_Coolpix_S8000-vs-Nikon_Coolpix_S8100 http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1283918475.html http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/digital-cameras/nikon-coolpix-s8100/11326.html Seems the major upgrade is to the sensor, allowing for improved low-light pictures. I'm looking forward to getting this one as well.
451743
Get the Nikon, I just got this Casio not too long ago, and the only thing I use it for, after many testings, is the slow motion video feature. In terms of shooting HD video clips, the Nikon does this good, the Casio seems a bit noisy in low light situation. However, when shooting stills, sure the Casio offers 40fps so you don't miss the best shot when an action takes place, but then it must be well lit, under sun light. Then you get a pretty good chance to have the best shot recorded. However, in terms of picture quality, it is very clear and obvious that the Nikon wins, big time! I set the Casio to shoot outdoor, under well lit lighting condition, at ISO 100, with the quality setting set to FINE in JPG at 9.1 megapixel, everything is set to the max, the stills would still come out not as sharp, not as detailed, and still unbelievably noisy, it is SO much noisier than the Nikon, in fact, it is the noisiest camera that I'd used so far. The Casio also suffers very poor purple fringing, and it is so bad that even a cheap point-shoot Canon can beat it. I just cannot use the Casio for pictures, period. But to use it for shooting slow-motion video and occasional HD clips, its the perfect camera for it. If you are into shooting more still photos, get the Nikon. If you don't care about shooting stills much but just want to check out the slow-motion video features that the Casio offers, then you may find yourself falling in love with it.
1844698
I really enjoy using the mask as my camera, whatever I am looking at is what the picture will be, plus the camera does video as well. I have the Nikon AW130 as well, but do not use it as much. The mask is much more convenient to use as it is just one less thing to tag along in the water with me. The photo quality is about the same, but the convenience factor really makes the mask a better choice. I have use this in Hawaii and Bali and loved my experiences.
309946
The SX120 at ISO 800 and 1600 is way better than the SX110, this is the biggest difference I've seen. Search for some reviews that have the same shots at ISO1600 for both cameras and compare the two side by side and it'll jump out at you. I'm not so sure the slightly smaller sensor has much difference, sensor technology improves very slowly too, so maybe it has better signal to noise ratio even though it's more MP on a slightly smaller surface area.I don't like the SX200 for a bunch of reasons, the always up flash is annoying. It has a slower lens than the SX110/120, and it's way more expensive. The SX120 at ISO 800 and 1600 is way better than the SX110, this is the biggest difference I've seen. Search for some reviews that have the same shots at ISO1600 for both cameras and compare the two side by side and it'll jump out at you. I'm not so sure the slightly smaller sensor has much difference, sensor technology improves very slowly too, so maybe it has better signal to noise ratio even though it's more MP on a slightly smaller surface area.I don't like the SX200 for a bunch of reasons, the always up flash is annoying. It has a slower lens than the SX110/120, and it's... » Read More The SX120 at ISO 800 and 1600 is way better than the SX110, this is the biggest difference I've seen. Search for some reviews that have the same shots at ISO1600 for both cameras and compare the two side by side and it'll jump out at you. I'm not so sure the slightly smaller sensor has much difference, sensor technology improves very slowly too, so maybe it has better signal to noise ratio even though it's more MP on a slightly smaller surface area.I don't like the SX200 for a bunch of reasons, the always up flash is annoying. It has a slower lens than the SX110/120, and it's way more expensive. « Show Less