Help decide Sony DSC-T500 vs Sony DSC-T700... I know the major differences between the two. The 500 is bigger, worse screen resolution, but of course the HD video capability and 5x vs. 4x zoom. The 700 has the BIONZ imaging processor (which I don't know how big of a benefit that is), smile shutter and the 4 GB internal memory. Now, all that aside, I don't know which to get. Any thoughts from someone who knows more about cameras and photography than me? Help decide Sony DSC-T500 vs Sony DSC-T700... I know the major differences between the two. The 500 is bigger, worse screen resolution, but of course the HD video capability and 5x vs. 4x zoom. ... » Read More Help decide Sony DSC-T500 vs Sony DSC-T700... I know the major differences between the two. The 500 is bigger, worse screen resolution, but of course the HD video capability and 5x vs. 4x zoom. The 700 has the BIONZ imaging processor (which I don't know how big of a benefit that is), smile shutter and the 4 GB internal memory. Now, all that aside, I don't know which to get. Any thoughts from someone who knows more about cameras and photography than me? « Show Less
1009945
The smile-shutter makes all the difference in the world. Sony's with this feature are the only Sony's able in any way to shoot more than one remote photo at a time. If you've ever tried to take a group shot with everyone in it (including yourself, like at Christmas!), you know how being able to take more than one remote shot at a time without going and resetting the function on the camera after every attempt would be a priceless feature. With smile-shutter on, as long as people keep smiling, the 700 is going to keep shooting; thus, your odds of getting that perfect family portrait increase exponentially. No contest: the 700 wins. The smile-shutter makes all the difference in the world. Sony's with this feature are the only Sony's able in any way to shoot more than one remote photo at a time. If you've ever tried to take a group shot with everyone in it (including yourself, like at Christmas!), you know how being able to take more than one remote shot at a time without going and resetting the function on the camera after every attempt would be a priceless feature. With smile-shutter on, as long as people keep smiling, the 700 is going to keep shooting; thus, your odds of getting that perfect family portrait increase... » Read More The smile-shutter makes all the difference in the world. Sony's with this feature are the only Sony's able in any way to shoot more than one remote photo at a time. If you've ever tried to take a group shot with everyone in it (including yourself, like at Christmas!), you know how being able to take more than one remote shot at a time without going and resetting the function on the camera after every attempt would be a priceless feature. With smile-shutter on, as long as people keep smiling, the 700 is going to keep shooting; thus, your odds of getting that perfect family portrait increase exponentially. No contest: the 700 wins. « Show Less
1009946
I just purchased the T500 and I'm very happy with it. If you don't see yourself taking any video, then the T700 is more feature rich. But, if you'll use the video feature the T500 is significantly better. The T500's HD video in decent lighting is impressive for such a small camera. The T500 screen resolution may not be as good as the T700, but I've found it more than acceptable. A friend of mine has a camera with "Smile Shutter" and he says he never uses it, more of a hassle then it's worth. I could see if you had kids who are reluctant to smile, it might be a nice feature. -Good Luck I just purchased the T500 and I'm very happy with it. If you don't see yourself taking any video, then the T700 is more feature rich. But, if you'll use the video feature the T500 is significantly better. The T500's HD video in decent lighting is impressive for such a small camera. The T500 screen resolution may not be as good as the T700, but I've found it more than acceptable. A friend of mine has a camera with "Smile Shutter" and he says he never uses it, more of a hassle then it's worth. I could see if you had kids who are reluctant to smile, it might be a nice feature. -Good... » Read More I just purchased the T500 and I'm very happy with it. If you don't see yourself taking any video, then the T700 is more feature rich. But, if you'll use the video feature the T500 is significantly better. The T500's HD video in decent lighting is impressive for such a small camera. The T500 screen resolution may not be as good as the T700, but I've found it more than acceptable. A friend of mine has a camera with "Smile Shutter" and he says he never uses it, more of a hassle then it's worth. I could see if you had kids who are reluctant to smile, it might be a nice feature. -Good Luck « Show Less
1009947
Technically it is not BIONZ chip, but there has to be a custom similar chip in the T500 to handle the heavy duty processing the HD video @ 30fps requires. To me, the 5X zoom and HD video far and away make up for a slightly better screen and slightly bigger size. The T500's screen is an industry standard 230,000 pixels so it is not disappointing. I wonder how the battery life is with the higher-res screen? Its not that great to begin with.
1009948
You make a very convincing argument for a totally useless feature. I like the way you think and so does Sony. Thank you for twisting up my mind.
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
2236560
I spent a lot of time researching and have decided that the wait is worth it (although, unbearable!) The FZ40 is an improvement over the FZ35 as far as startup speed, image quality (not only higher MP, but also a better sensor). The zoom also is worth it to me. If you do some searching, there are a lot of reviews now. The FZ40 also has panoramic, not sure if the FZ35 has that or not.I don't think that the FZ100 is worth the extra 1 hundred. There still is some debate over the quality of the images with the MOS sensor and the 1080 video vs 720 wasn't worth it for me.
1617975
Wow I never have Spoken to an actual goddess before. So I better get this right:) To be very honest I'm not sure of everything. But I know it has higher resolutions and more points of aim. The high speed shutter rate is faster. Reading some of the other reviews people have said that the motion tracking is much better on this one. But I've never used the 65. Hope it helps.
31019
Image qualitly for sd4000 is good. The video is wonderful - very good in low light with a f/2.0 lens. The SD4500 had higher definition video at 1080 as opposed to 720 on the sd4000. The S95 has more manual controls. I like this camera except - no F/2.0 lens, no zooming when shooting video. My fav is the SD4000.
1362042
I've just read the specifications of these 2 models on Sony web site. In addition to the 4000 images (model X1000), there is only another difference which is the TruBlack feature. That's all. The rest is exactly the same. You can see the features comparison of these models on Sony Photo Frame web page. I have bought a DPF 8 inches. It has a perfect image even in a lower resolution than that of V1000. I'm very pleased with this Sony photo frame. I'm willing now to buy the DPF 10 inches.
576348
To Tom Martin or anyone who can help, excluding video, why is the EOS 50D 15.1MP a higher quality than the T1i or T2i?I'm trying to decide between the three and when I look at the list of specs for them, they all seem almost identical from what I can tell. I'm sure I'm missing something. Does the 50D have a more rugged build?Thanks to anyone who contributes an opinion on this.
40713
In addition, the back touch-screen interface is 3.5" rather than 3"... a bit bigger. I struggled with the differences and ended up getting a T77 with a 4Gb memory card ($25 more). I decided I could get by with a slightly smaller screen on the back for the price difference.
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
490822
I also purchased the FZ8 and returned it because of the noise (grainy photos). I went ahead and got the Sony DSC-H7 and like it much better. My only wish is that it would shoot in the RAW format (the FZ8 did!). Overall, we like the flash better, the speed better, the grip and position of the buttons and the H7 camera overall.
572666
Owning both the 55-200VR and the 70-300VR and have compared not only both but two copies of the 55-200 on two Nikon DX cameras against the 70-300. Viewing was done on two hi-def monitors (25" and 27") using close to two thousand pics. Bottom line- the 70-300 blows away the 55-200. It is not even close. The MUCH heavier 70-300 is considerably sharper, colors are balanced and accurate (as they are on the 55-200) but much richer, brighter, with better contrast and much better bokeh. Skin tones and portraits in particular are wonderful with the 70-300. Downside on the 70-300 is that it is heavier. I have read some comments that the 70-300 begins losing sharpness after 200mm but my copy is super sharp at all focal lengths. If you are a serious amature and can justify the price go for the 70-300.
2083383
Actually, the T3 has the better image quality. Cramming more megapixels onto the same size chip, just gives you a noisier picture, with less dynamic range.More megapixels is mostly just a sales tactic. A 7 MP camera will easily give a clear 10x12 image, so anything beyond that is only useful if you do a lot of cropping. Unless of course, you make poster size prints, in which case, 12 MP is plenty.I could care less about a higher res LCD...The main reason to go for the T3i, is if you are interested (or think you may become interested) in doing video. The T3i does far surpass the T3 in all but just casual video captures. Actually, the T3 has the better image quality. Cramming more megapixels onto the same size chip, just gives you a noisier picture, with less dynamic range.More megapixels is mostly just a sales tactic. A 7 MP camera will easily give a clear 10x12 image, so anything beyond that is only useful if you do a lot of cropping. Unless of course, you make poster size prints, in which case, 12 MP is plenty.I could care less about a higher res LCD...The main reason to go for the T3i, is if you are interested (or think you may become interested) in doing video. The... » Read More Actually, the T3 has the better image quality. Cramming more megapixels onto the same size chip, just gives you a noisier picture, with less dynamic range.More megapixels is mostly just a sales tactic. A 7 MP camera will easily give a clear 10x12 image, so anything beyond that is only useful if you do a lot of cropping. Unless of course, you make poster size prints, in which case, 12 MP is plenty.I could care less about a higher res LCD...The main reason to go for the T3i, is if you are interested (or think you may become interested) in doing video. The T3i does far surpass the T3 in all but just casual video captures. « Show Less
161964
I'm confused, how does the zoom on the 640 which is not as much as on the 710, make you lean toward the 640? That should make you lean towards the 710, no? I don't know if I would say that the camera would be "significantly" heavier because of two AA batteries, but yeah, it will be heavier. On the other hand, heavier in photography isn't a bad thing. If the camera has more weight / momentum, it will be less prone to "human induced" blur, or so the theory goes. I would also guess that the batteries on the 640 last longer. From reviews I have seen, it appears that the 640 has a slightly better picture quality. On the other hand it does not have image stablization. Although, image stabilization is more important at higher zoom levels which is what the 710 has. I really think it's a toss up. Do you need the zoom? Get the 710. Would you like the best quality possible? Get the 640. It might help if you go to a local store and check those two cameras out, and then decide.
1678710
I was looking at them both and decided on the 850 some of the new features won out and it still does well with out the wide lens because it lets you combined images right in the camera to give the same effect. Also the 850 was on sale at bestbuy.com today for 248. Also battery life is better with the 850.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
1239410
I would be very cautious about the 3100, 3200, 5100, and 5200 systems with certain lenses and converters. I know that when I bought my D7000 I chose it because it had greater backward and 3rd party compatibility. Best check with someone who used it with one of those bodies. Note: I was not at all happy with the Kenko 2.0 converter.
806793
I'm deciding between these two cameras as well, and I'm leaning toward the 1100 just because it's prettier. I don't want to sacrifice too much function though... MPs aren't that important to me, but is the battery life significantly better on the 770? Also, I hate the lag between when you click and the shot itself, what's your opinion on the shutter speed (I think that's what it's called) on these things? Thanks!