Which one to buy Sony DSC-W290 , W300 or T900? Could you please help me to choose the best for picture quality?
478391
Even I had the same confusion which out of 3 to buy. I called up the Sony Customer Care and compared all the features of all the 3 Cameras. I would feel 290 woud be best choice as it has 5x zoom but it doesn;t have viewfinder which may not be required also. Difference between 290 ans 300 is it has a viewfinder but has few scenic modes compared to 290 and less zoom too (3X). Apart from touch screen functionality , all the other features are same in T900 . I talked to the Best Buy guys too. According to them the lens in W series is much better than T series. Hence I have ordered W290 pack from amazon.
1348881
I literally just ordered a KDL-W3000 52 inch television 1 hour ago. I did 3 months of research and although I am not sure how I'll fell when I get the television, I can say that I went for the w3000. I looked at some seocnd tier brands first, but quickly moved on to the main brands.... settling in on the Sharp D64 or a Toshiba 167 or the Sony W3000. Of course the Sony was the most expensive of the brands I was looking at. As far as picture and blur: I can not even tell you if I could see any difference between the w3000 and the XBR, so I went for the XBR. I did see one scene in a movie where I saw a slight amount of motion blur, so I am sure it exists.. the quesiton is, "how bad does the blur appear to you and what is it worth for you to minimize the blur" ? For me... the answer was in my order.. I went with the W3000. The price was $2309 no tax, no delivery fee.
787436
Macro photos? Yes, The Sony DSCHx300 Takes beautiful macro photos You will be impressed
1678708
Did either of you consider the 900 Titanium? It seems like a nice camera at the same price. Thoughts?
64952
Gosh no I don't know. All I know is that the P300 has bad optics and that the Nikon service department intentionally lies to its customers. I switched to a Sony camera and I get much better pictures with that in a smaller form factor at about half the price.
792516
I'm in the same boat. Both of them have similar features. The Sony W80 has a longer battery life and higher ISO rating, however it uses memory sticks (I already have SD cards, why go out of my way to get a memory stick?). The SD1000 is smaller than the W80. Also, you can zoom in using the camcorder feature in the cannon, that cannot be done with the sony. It all lies on what you consider more important.
515400
I don't have the 100 or the 300. My last one was the 500HS. It is smaller now and lighter. The night picture without the flash are all nice. I took lots of them during the Holiday lights event, and they all very clear. Also it has anti shaking mode, it snaps and processing very quick so much less blurry when moving. I think that is a major difference for this camera. Battery life is very short that is the only draw back to me. I like it overal all but be sure to get extra battery.
209417
The zs30 has a great lens that will give you a the best quality image. Equal to a good dslr. The primary drawback is that it is very fragile.
2014561
Preference. Some people, including myself, like the picture quality of Samsung sets over Sony. At this point I wouldn't buy Sony or Samsung. The 2013 Flagships for both Companies aren't that great this year. The Sony W900A is really good but has a lot of uniformity issues and a pinkish hue when seen from off-angle. The Samsung F8000 is in the same boat but has a little better picture than the Sony. All the other models below the W900A and F8000 are considerably worse in terms of screen uniformity and PQ. TVs have gone downhill in Quality over the years. If you're not going to get hung up on flashlighting and off-angle viewing, I would go with the F8000 over the Sony W900A. Preference. Some people, including myself, like the picture quality of Samsung sets over Sony. At this point I wouldn't buy Sony or Samsung. The 2013 Flagships for both Companies aren't that great this year. The Sony W900A is really good but has a lot of uniformity issues and a pinkish hue when seen from off-angle. The Samsung F8000 is in the same boat but has a little better picture than the Sony. All the other models below the W900A and F8000 are considerably worse in terms of screen uniformity and PQ. TVs have gone downhill in Quality over the years. If you're not going to get hung up on... » Read More Preference. Some people, including myself, like the picture quality of Samsung sets over Sony. At this point I wouldn't buy Sony or Samsung. The 2013 Flagships for both Companies aren't that great this year. The Sony W900A is really good but has a lot of uniformity issues and a pinkish hue when seen from off-angle. The Samsung F8000 is in the same boat but has a little better picture than the Sony. All the other models below the W900A and F8000 are considerably worse in terms of screen uniformity and PQ. TVs have gone downhill in Quality over the years. If you're not going to get hung up on flashlighting and off-angle viewing, I would go with the F8000 over the Sony W900A. « Show Less
1131169
This DSC-W690 16.1 is much better than DSC-W370 in movie mode. Regret to say that W690 is not available any more.
485015
Thanks for your response. So... Is there any difference in picture quality?
331382
Anybody have any other comments about which of these 2 cameras to buy? Thanks!!!!
2124491
What did you end up getting? I had the same dilemma but choose the 790 for its picture quality. It's a great camera and am very pleased with the results. I had fun with it right out of the box, but must confess I am a manual freak, so I did study it before the camera even came. www.steve-digicams.com posts reviews and sample pictures if you want more info. For me, it's a perfect little P&S; for your pocket.
1401410
the lcd is 3.5 inches and the resolution is reported to be 4 times that of the standard lcd. That's from Sony. It would be worth it but I can't go that high on a toy. Photography is my art and my passion ( life's not living without passion ). I'm getting the T90 rather than a smarter smart phone. I've other, more cumbersome cameras ( like the Canon D20 with 3 lenses, a gift ) and my favorite Sony 717 and a couple of others. Christmas 2009: Santa left the TX1 under my tree, what a guy. A really superlative pocket camera that out does most of its bigger more cumbersome brothers. Very steep learning curve and requires a lover's touch. I don't recommend it to most because of that but it is always on my person. Check me out at Picasa and Facebook - jbivona and jimmybivona. I believe the TX7 is an improvement (wider lens, larger battery). I have 3 batteries and 2 4 gig memory sticks and keep it in a soft leather cell fone case in my left front pocket when not in use. (Look at the military wedding at Picasa - all done from the gallery or way out of the way with the TX1. All available light and one handed. A very cool camera.)
886322
Dear Esther, I checked out DPReview.com under buying guide - camera side-by-side compare and did not see the disc w300, but did see the dsc wx300 and w310. Both of these are slightly smaller than my RX100 M2 but it would not be a proper close fit. There is also the question of where the tripod thread is located. I would suggest you ask Megagear for suggestions, or look for a belt worn soft pouch with shoulder strap from some manufacturer as Mountain Gear. Good Luck, Jeff
722138
Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell this on ebay and buy a SR100 for video and use my digital camera for stills. Frank KalkattawiParis, France(Moved) Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell... » Read More Hi all,A quick update. I am an engineer and I pay attention to Specs but when it comes to the SR100 vs SR300, I hands down tried both. The quality of the SR100 is far far much better. Yes it is that much diffrent. The colors are more vivid, smooth I dont see any boxyness. Also it is grainy. The only advantage is the still pictures are better then the SR100 but as far as video, there is no comparision. The SR100 is much better in low light...I dont see grains but the SR300 is obvious. I dont belive the specs about the SR300. If Sony does not come with a replacement, I may just sell this on ebay and buy a SR100 for video and use my digital camera for stills. Frank KalkattawiParis, France(Moved) « Show Less
209419
I really like the Panasonic ZS30. I do not have the Fuji f900, although I've heard nice things about it. Google www.dpreview.com. I think they have professional reviews of both cameras. Might also try www.whatdigitalcamera.com. Another good place for professional reviews is www.cameralabs.com. If you go to www.whatdigitalcamera.com, it is a British magazine, and the ZS30 is known as the TZ40 in Europe - same camera. Both the Fuji and the Panasonic are highly rated. Another option to consider - Panasonic has announced that the ZS40 - next upgrade - will be coming out in March. It will have a 30X zoom, RAW shooting, and EVF, and several other new features. Might want to check that one out if you can wait a bit.