The T77 is touch screen, so its got that "cool factor" to it, make it a bit more likable for a teenager. The T300 is probably the better camera, because it has a bigger screen, plus slightly more optical zoom. So if you care for the touch screen go with the T77, otherwise go for the T300.

Sorry my mistake, I mixed up the t300 with a different camera. The difference the the T300 has a longer zoom (by 15mm), and also the T300 has a wider aperture range. They're both touch screen, except the t300 has a 3.5" screen while the T77 has a 3.0" screen.

If you're looking to alter colors in camera, you're better off doing that with software on your PC. It gives you a heck of a lot more options, more control, and you can click "undo" if you don't like it and try something else.

Well, in addition to it's ability to do 1080p slideshows on your HDTV, it also has a feature which could be good or bad. It can trigger the shutter when it detects a smile - this can be helpful or it can be a hassle if the wrong person smiles of course. But I kinda like the idea. But the best, I think, is the face detection with priority for adults and children.

Well, unfortunately, I'm going to say neither. For picture quality, I think there's too much MP here to work with. Let me explain. I came across an interesting article today about how more mega pixels is not necessarily a good thing. According to Image Engineering ( 6mpixel.org/en/?  ) – a company that does testing of digital cameras for photo magazines in Germany – the quality of digital pictures has steadily decreased since the state of the art was six megapixels back in 2004. And because they don’t have a “dog in this hunt,” they put forth a compelling argument for buying new digital cameras with less mega pixels and not more.



The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, there’s more data on the chip, but the chip can’t absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since we’re talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply aren’t being made.



Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format. The result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better."



In the end, relying on a smaller MP that can balance all these needs may indeed be a better answer.



Are you completely wedded to the SONY?

The only noticable improvements I've noticed are face detection and, a 10.1 MP chip, which is not all that an improvement considering noise asserts itself at higher ISO ranges.

Both rank a solid "C" grade in performance with the main beef being photos with alot of noise (which you would expect for 10mp cameras). The simple fact is that judged by the performance benchmarks neither is really very good. You can do better.



T300:

The good: Fast performance; tons of handy image editing and playback features; zoom rocker is in a much more comfortable position.



The bad: Soft, noisy photos.



The bottom line: A great design, fast shooting, and lots of features can't overcome the fact that the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-T300 simply doesn't take very good pictures.



Specs: Digital camera type: Ultracompact; Resolution: 10.1 megapixels; Optical zoom: 5 x



DSC-N2:



The good: Speedy shooting in well-lit scenes.



The bad: Fuzzy images; shutter lags when shooting in dim light; some users might find the touch screen awkward.



The bottom line: The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-N2 is small and fast, but compression artifacts and an awkward touch screen hinder its use.



Specs: Digital camera type: Ultracompact; Resolution: 10.1 megapixels; Optical zoom: 3 x

I doubt it. Both probably have unacceptable noise levels at ISOs above 400/800. Like I said, you can do better. Especially at THAT price.

No, it means just the opposite. Back in the days of film, ISO pertained to film grain ... the size of the grains of silver halide in the emulsion and the speed at which the film could absorb the light. The faster it absorbed the light, the larger the grain in the film images. The smaller the ISO, the slower the speed absorbing the light, the smaller the grain in the film images. As such, slow film tends to give sharper images with less noise.



In the digital world, it's similar. Only you're dealing with signal noise and not grain in the image. As such, boosting the ISO boosts the electronic signal or light going into the pixels on the CCD chip. basically. The more MP you have, the less sensitive to light the chip is since it is essentially overcrowded with pixels. As such, more noise creeps in.



If you want to get into the serious math of it ... check out Wiki ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_...  ) on it.



In case your wondering ... the "sweet spot," according to Image Engineering is 6MP for a camera if you're taking 99% snapshots. Everything else begins to add noise at those higher ISOs.



Setting your camera to a lower setting doesn't help either. Essentially, the image is reduced to the set quality after it has been processed by the CCD. As such, the light still goes through those pixels, only that after some basic processing steps pixels "thrown out" to make the image to the desired setting and size. This process is called "Choking" and that will cause Artifacting and noise. Additionlly, you'll also loose details of the recorded image.



Some cameras have written into their firmware a process called "binning," which merges the signals of multiple pixels to make larger pixels. Usually at a 4-1 ration. This will essentially turn a 12-megapixel camera into a 3-megapixel camera. And that gives you the opposite problem of too many pixels on the chip ... you now have too few and as such, will run into artifacting instead of noise.



Ordinarily, I would be against using SONY at all. I don't like their obsession with proprietary technology nor that you seem to pay a premium for the SONY nameplate. The only exception to that rule is for those who are already in the SONY family. You no doubt already have memory sticks that you can use in your next camera. So for you, staying in the SONY family makes some sense financially.



As for which one ... you may want to check out the Sony Cybershot W120. 7.2 MP (Close enough) and about $189. Nice deal if you're a SONY fan.

One ting you want to check is any noise reduction feature. The wrap on Sonys of late is that their noise reduction is overly agressive.