Sony Cybershot W120
Sony Cybershot W120
Hey! You should know that this product has been discontinued. Here are our current recommended cameras in the Point and Shoot Digital Cameras category.
Sony Cybershot W120
Editor's Review
A solid mid range point and shoot, the Cybershot W120 marries a 7.2 megapixel CCD with smile recognition (shoots automatically when smiling happens) with a Zeisss 4x Optical Zoom. HAD technology amplifies light onto the CCD for more sensitivity and less noise, which is a good thing in low light situations.
Specifications
- 7.2 Megapixels
- 4x Optical Zoom / 19x Digital Zoom
- Auto focus with face and smile detection.
- Super SteadyShot image stabilization MPEG1 Movie Mode with audio
- Multi-pattern, Center-weighted, Spot exposure settings, Smile Shutter technology with adult and/or child priority
- 100-3200 ISO Levels
- JPG file format
- 2.5-inch LCD
- MS Duo / MS PRO Duo Storage with 15 MB internal
- Rechargeable Lithium Ion
- Release Date: Feb 11, 2008
Shop for W120 Accessories
Sony Cybershot W120 Comments & Questions (write your own!)
Mr (Cedric King — 10/18/2010)
How can I obtain an AV USB cable for my Cyber-Shot W120
reply to this comment
Liam McCabe (10/19/2010)
Just search for Sony W120 AV/USB cable on Amazon.com -- if that doesn't work, try eBay. You should be able to find one somewhere, for sure.
reply to this comment
BATTERY ISSUES (Amanda — 10/04/2010)
i bought mine off of craigslist and it came with a bp-ng1 battery that won't recharge, do i just buy a new battery and is a bp-ng1 compatible with this camera? i bought a charger for that battery and it isn't charging....
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (10/05/2010)
The battery it uses is the NP-FG1 according to Sony. Stick with that and you'll be fine.
reply to this comment
I can only take flash in the 'Easy' mode. What can I do to be able to take flash in all modes? (ahernandez431 — 03/06/2009)
When I try putting on the flash on other modes, it says that I cannot change the setting of flash.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (03/06/2009)
First thing I would do is reset the camera. This is a fairly easy procedure which involves either going into your setup menu and choosing "reset" (or intialize), holding down the menu key for 5 seconds, or, removing the batteries for a few minutes. It may be that the firmware loading got corrupted and the camera just needs to be "rebooted," which is something that turning it on/off won't accomplish. But after which, you should have the camera reset to factory default settings.
Another tip is to go to Sony's website and look for firmware updates. Download and install them. If that doesn't work, you may need to send it in for repair.
reply to this comment
Another tip is to go to Sony's website and look for firmware updates. Download and install them. If that doesn't work, you may need to send it in for repair.
Kimberly (03/07/2009)
Mine started to do the same thing. the tech support told me to take the battery out and hold the power button down for a full minute. place the battery back in. if you still can not change the flash setting it is an internal problem with the camera and would need to be sent in to be repaired.
reply to this comment
ahernandez431 (03/07/2009)
Thanks for all your help! I did a little bit of everything that you told me and I must have dne something right because it works now. Thanks a bunch!
reply to this comment
how do I get a decent action shot that has movement or motion in it? (dmel30 — 02/18/2009)
I enjoy my sony camera, but every time I take a snap shot of an image that is moving it comes out blurry. Is there a special setting that I need to put it on in order to take a decent action shot.
reply to this comment
bukit97 (02/18/2009)
Increase the shutter speed. That's the most common cure.
If you are relying on Auto mode, shutter speed can be raised by choosing a higher ISO. Setting it to 400 will definitely show an improvement of what you are getting now and ISO 800 is probably the setting that you should try as well.
This camera is capable of taking shots at ISO 3200. But the trade off is higher ISOs, though let you freeze movements, also produce noisy/grainy pictures.
You might also like to try using the combined image stabilization + high ISO trick provided by the camera.
Known as " Double Anti-blur Solution ", it is the combination of Optical SteadyShot™ image stabilization and High ISO sensitivity (up to 3200) which helps compensate for shaky hands, minimizes blur and allow flash free shooting to preserve the mood.
You can read more about " Double Anti-Blur solution " at <a href="letsgodigital.org/en/18043/... this location </a>
reply to this comment
If you are relying on Auto mode, shutter speed can be raised by choosing a higher ISO. Setting it to 400 will definitely show an improvement of what you are getting now and ISO 800 is probably the setting that you should try as well.
This camera is capable of taking shots at ISO 3200. But the trade off is higher ISOs, though let you freeze movements, also produce noisy/grainy pictures.
You might also like to try using the combined image stabilization + high ISO trick provided by the camera.
Known as " Double Anti-blur Solution ", it is the combination of Optical SteadyShot™ image stabilization and High ISO sensitivity (up to 3200) which helps compensate for shaky hands, minimizes blur and allow flash free shooting to preserve the mood.
You can read more about " Double Anti-Blur solution " at <a href="letsgodigital.org/en/18043/... this location </a>
Larry (03/21/2009)
Provided there is enough light on the subject, this camera can take a picture in as little as 1/1600 second which should totally freeze any movement. If you are in a low light situation (basketball comes to mind in March), it is a lot tougher to get an action shot because there just isn't enough light to make the camera use that fast shutter speed. That's when the higher ISO settings come in handy by making the camera more sensitive to whatever light you do have. Image stabilization adds a little more help on top of that.
reply to this comment
broken cybershot DSC-w70.. Find a new older exact model or buy W120?? (layzeecain — 02/17/2009)
Hello,
Needing some advice. I need to replace a broken dsc-w70 from dropping it. So I am looking for one similar because it was a gift. Also, I dont want to spend a large amount of money on one that in a year or two might be in the same shape. I am clumsy. So I was looking at the reviews of this one and getting nervous. Which camera is better the w70 or the w120? I have found an old one just like mine for more than I can get this one for on-line. But as far as specs and quality, which one would you recommend. Its all foreign to me, but I did realize this one doesnt have red-eye reduct. Is that VERY important even? THANKS for your time and expertise...
reply to this comment
Needing some advice. I need to replace a broken dsc-w70 from dropping it. So I am looking for one similar because it was a gift. Also, I dont want to spend a large amount of money on one that in a year or two might be in the same shape. I am clumsy. So I was looking at the reviews of this one and getting nervous. Which camera is better the w70 or the w120? I have found an old one just like mine for more than I can get this one for on-line. But as far as specs and quality, which one would you recommend. Its all foreign to me, but I did realize this one doesnt have red-eye reduct. Is that VERY important even? THANKS for your time and expertise...
by James DeRuvo (02/17/2009)
If you're clumsy, you may want to take a look at the Olympus SW line. They are built not only to withstand depths of up to 33 feet and extreme could, but the shock from dropping the camera as high as 5 feet. Realistically, if you really know you'll eventually drop your camera in the future, get one that can take a licking and keep on ticking.
reply to this comment
Is my camera completely dead? (meg1618 — 02/12/2009)
I got an unknown amount of alcohol on my camera last Saturday (stupid, I know) and at first the lens was stuck out. Now, a couple days later, it's back in but won't go out again. When I hit the power button, it makes the sound it usually makes when it turns on, but the LCD screen is completely blank. However this is more than what happened at first. Earlier this week it wouldn't even make the noise. Could it possibly dry out even more and work, or do I need a whole new camera? (I have a bad feeling I need the new camera...)
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (02/12/2009)
WHat you can do is place it in a ziplock with a cup of uncooked rice and the rice will act as a dessicant to draw out any additional moisture which may be gumming up the works. But I'd send it in for a servicing because corrosion can also be a factor at this point.
reply to this comment
is sony W120 AND W110 the same ?which is better...and are they bad for taking pics in the dark? (hotmail — 01/29/2009)
reply to this comment
hotmail (01/29/2009)
or is canon A470 better than sony w110?
reply to this comment
hotmail (01/31/2009)
please any replies?
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (02/04/2009)
I say go with the SONY. I checked the W130 and really liked the sharpness and color. I'm figuring that the 110 and 120 are very similar. And in low light, all three will perform pretty good as long as you don't over rely on the flash, as they are primarily designed around small groups and portraits. Beyond about 10 feet, the flash will dissipate to uselessness. But that is true with any point and shoot.
reply to this comment
This might sound really dumb but I don't know what to do with this camera! I have two issues..first, the after I take a pic & download it on my (Elisabeth7200 — 01/17/2009)
computer I can not email the pic to anyone because it says the file is too large--even with one pic! Some setting must be off. With my Kodak, I downloaded & emailed many pics at a time. Is there a setting on the camera itself I can change w/o having to go & change the size of every pic after the down load? Also, I took the "duo" card into the store & had them print out a bunch of pics but the color on all the pics has way to much yellow. Seems overly warm. I asked the guy & he said the pics printed before mine were fine & it probably has to do with the Sony settings. Again, any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I am sick of getting new cameras! Thank you!
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/23/2009)
1st, your probably running into download settings with your email address. The file is too big to email according to the limits of your email settings. You could try zipping it, but it won't reduce the file much. You could try saving it at a smaller resolution using a photo management software like Google's Picasa ( google.com/picasa ). But at 7mp, it really shouldn't be an email issue.
As for the color, try resetting your camera. The white balance is probably off, set to indoors or sunlight. Resetting the camera will restore it to factory default settings and reload the firmware. This may help.
reply to this comment
As for the color, try resetting your camera. The white balance is probably off, set to indoors or sunlight. Resetting the camera will restore it to factory default settings and reload the firmware. This may help.
Elisabeth7200 (01/26/2009)
Hi James, thank you for your answer! Much appreciated. You nailed the color situation. The camera was set on low light settings. I moved it to "easy" shoot & am hoping that will clear it up.
As for the darn resolution, I am able to email about two or three pics thru hotmail to most others but can't upload anything on to Craigslist because of too many "mega-pixels" I guess. Am thinking about taking the camera back to best buy & seeing if they know how to fix it. Like you said 7.2 mega pixels pictures should not save as a huge file. Thanx for your time & imput. Very helpful! e
reply to this comment
As for the darn resolution, I am able to email about two or three pics thru hotmail to most others but can't upload anything on to Craigslist because of too many "mega-pixels" I guess. Am thinking about taking the camera back to best buy & seeing if they know how to fix it. Like you said 7.2 mega pixels pictures should not save as a huge file. Thanx for your time & imput. Very helpful! e
by James DeRuvo (01/26/2009)
You don't have to do that. It's probably set on it's highest quality. Keep it there and then use your photo editor to resize it to make it more web friendly sizewise.
reply to this comment
Elisabeth7200 (01/27/2009)
Thank you...Just was hoping to not have to use photo editor on every pic. So time consuming...
Thank you again for your help! So appreciated :) e
reply to this comment
Thank you again for your help! So appreciated :) e
by James DeRuvo (01/27/2009)
Well then you can change the MP of the pictures to half that and you should be okay.
reply to this comment
Elisabeth7200 (01/30/2009)
Thank you again! Will give it a try :) e
reply to this comment
options for exposure length? and two more questions.. (sarah9788 — 01/12/2009)
I'm getting ready to buy a new digital camera (again!) and am going through the items that I would like to have. One of these is an option for long exposures so that I can either decide on the length, or have a few options for length. Does this exist on something like this camera- or any point-and-shoot?
My previous digital camera was a sony, that I loved, so I'm leaning toward this brand again. Since I am familiar with functions etc, would that be wise? Or are all digital cameras pretty much the same in this- should I broaden my options?
Also, lastly, I really want a camera that takes the photo when I press the button- without the delays that can happen with red-eye reduction flashes or other delays.. Is there any info about this for this camera?
reply to this comment
My previous digital camera was a sony, that I loved, so I'm leaning toward this brand again. Since I am familiar with functions etc, would that be wise? Or are all digital cameras pretty much the same in this- should I broaden my options?
Also, lastly, I really want a camera that takes the photo when I press the button- without the delays that can happen with red-eye reduction flashes or other delays.. Is there any info about this for this camera?
by James DeRuvo (01/23/2009)
Sounds to me like you’re ready to make the leap to a DSLR. You want manual control and instant shutter. That’s only the domain of the SLR world. You could stay in family with the Alpha series of SONY DSLRs, but my suggestion is to take a look at the Canon Digital Rebel Xsi and the Nikon D80. Two stellar cameras. The Alpha is right behind them, but it’s in essence a redesigned Minolta (since Sony bought their camera division) and I’ve never been much a fan.
I know you may think that you want to stay away from SLRs, but you are really talking about features available only in the SLR world. Why not jump in the deep end and enjoy it?
reply to this comment
I know you may think that you want to stay away from SLRs, but you are really talking about features available only in the SLR world. Why not jump in the deep end and enjoy it?
sarah9788 (01/23/2009)
Thanks, James! I think I can, I think I can!
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/23/2009)
That's the spirit! Here's a good tip for you as you venture out on this journey ... learn the RULE OF THIRDS. ( v ) This is a rule where you draw an imaginary tic tac toe grid onto your image and where two lines intersect, that is where you place your subject. This will make your pictures look more dramatic and compelling. And take a digital photography class at a local JC. It's the best, most intresting class you'll take and you'll learn skills that will stay with your the rest of your photographic life.
Good luck, Sarah!
reply to this comment
Good luck, Sarah!
Voltage specs on the battery charger (mmiller60 — 01/09/2009)
I have the sybershot W120 I got for this past Christmans and have the black charger with the built in plug. I am ging to Germany and need to know the voltage specs since in Germany it is 220/240.
reply to this comment
Mr. C (01/14/2009)
I have the Sony DSC-170 and the included charger is the BC-CSGC. The voltage specs for this charger are:
Input: ~100v-240v (50/60Hz)
Output: DC 4.2v (0.25A)
I'd check your charger to see if the model # matches mine.
reply to this comment
Input: ~100v-240v (50/60Hz)
Output: DC 4.2v (0.25A)
I'd check your charger to see if the model # matches mine.
by James DeRuvo (01/15/2009)
Just to be on the safe side, you may want to pick up one of those 150 country voltage converters. Last thing you want is to have a bricked camera when you least expect it. THey only cost about $40.
reply to this comment
I took a picture and plugged in the camera to the computer with the USB cable. I have downloaded pictures before but this time it won't work. (alast316 — 01/03/2009)
I have read the PMB guide, but it doesn't say anything about this problem.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/14/2009)
Don't use it. PMB is positively awful and you don't really need it. Not impressed with it. For accessing the images on the Memory Card, I'd recommend a memory card reader and Picasa 3 by Google ( picasa.com ). You can try just exploring the digital camera connection and then pulling the pictures over directly. My recommendation though, is to get a USB memory card reader and simply take your card out and plug it in. The PC will read it as a drive and it's a simple drag and drop to get your pictures onto the PC for editing and printing. Much better than trying to trouble shoot driver issues.
reply to this comment
Larry (04/05/2009)
Get a card reader for $10-20 (or less when on sale) and NEVER again hook up your camera directly to the computer with a cable through the USB port. Bad things have been reported to happen with that situation. Use the card reader and all your problems with image transfer will disappear.
Picasa3 is now available free from Google and it does a wonderful job of downloading your images and keeping them organized, too.
reply to this comment
Picasa3 is now available free from Google and it does a wonderful job of downloading your images and keeping them organized, too.
by James DeRuvo (04/06/2009)
That's right. I meant Picasa 3. Typo. So used to typing 2, I guess. Good catch, Larry.
reply to this comment
How to save movie and photos on the Cybershot w120? (jsmith214 — 12/25/2008)
I took and reviewed a short video over T-Day and then powered off the camera. When I went to show the movie it has disappeared. Although other videos shot around the same time are preserved, this has now happened twice and also with some photos I took prior to shooting the video are now deleted. I can still take and review/save photos after these lost movies/photos and have a 2G memory stick pro with lots of space left.
Is there is a specific sequence of tasks to perform in order to save videos? If the video is not finished running but the power is shut off, does that delete the movie? The strange thing is that I looked at the video once after recording but then it was deleted. Could the 'lost' video be 'hidden' somewhere else in one of the camera functions? What steps can I perform to be sure to save the video and photos? Thanks for any advice.
reply to this comment
Is there is a specific sequence of tasks to perform in order to save videos? If the video is not finished running but the power is shut off, does that delete the movie? The strange thing is that I looked at the video once after recording but then it was deleted. Could the 'lost' video be 'hidden' somewhere else in one of the camera functions? What steps can I perform to be sure to save the video and photos? Thanks for any advice.
by James DeRuvo (12/26/2008)
You may want to download a photo recovery utility like F-Recovery, etc. Google is your friend. When deleted, photos aren't really deleted, just marked to be overwritten. And the photos and video may actually still be there but the camera is having trouble reading that sector of the memory stick. This could be an indication the stick is failing or that the firmware isn't perfect for reading the card.
Try a USB memory card reader and see if you can read the card from your computer. The files may still be there.
reply to this comment
Try a USB memory card reader and see if you can read the card from your computer. The files may still be there.
Sony W120 or Olympus FE-340? (salma010 — 11/10/2008)
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (11/12/2008)
Check out this resource ( imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP... ). It takes pictures with each and you can compare them side by side. Although to be fair, they don't test the W120, but the W130 - which will be close enough for comparison of product lines. The FE340 has more noise than the W line. But at ISOs above 400, the quality of both really start to degrade to the point where above 800, any hope of detail is completely lost on both.
I think you can do better. But if it's just between these two, I give the W120 the edge.
reply to this comment
I think you can do better. But if it's just between these two, I give the W120 the edge.
sony w120 or kodak M1093IS (sunnyjha52 — 10/24/2008)
i wanna buy a digicam tht luks cool n havin all features of a gud cam.
i come to these two models- sony w120 and kodak M1093IS. my range is Rs.12000
so plz suggest me simple way out of this problem. if psbl, thn make a quick answer...
reply to this comment
i come to these two models- sony w120 and kodak M1093IS. my range is Rs.12000
so plz suggest me simple way out of this problem. if psbl, thn make a quick answer...
by James DeRuvo (11/03/2008)
Check out this resource ( imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP... ). It takes pictures with each and you can compare them side by side.
But on it's face, I'd go with SONY. Did I just say that? LOL. yes, I did. over the last few years, Kodak has been in a slump on cameras.
reply to this comment
But on it's face, I'd go with SONY. Did I just say that? LOL. yes, I did. over the last few years, Kodak has been in a slump on cameras.
Bad reviews for lowlight shots; is it a weakness of the camera, or the photographers? (kdrh18 — 10/13/2008)
Users complain about poor lowlight pictures.
I currently have a Nikon Coolpix L3 5.1, but is considering upgrading to a w120.
Please suggest alternatives to the w120 without this weakness.
reply to this comment
I currently have a Nikon Coolpix L3 5.1, but is considering upgrading to a w120.
Please suggest alternatives to the w120 without this weakness.
Aditya D (10/16/2008)
Honestly, most of the time its weakness of the camera. A photographer can't really do much if their camera won't take good low light shots. You can try manually changing some of the settings, but that will only go so far. The w120 will probably do a better job than the L3, but I think if you want better low light photography you're going to have to spend a bit more money. I'd take a look at the new Canon A1000 and A2000, still cheaper cameras, but take very good photos, especially at low light situations. Also Fuji cameras tend to perform well in low light situations.
reply to this comment
kdrh18 (10/16/2008)
Thanks for the answer.
I will follow up on your suggestions.
reply to this comment
I will follow up on your suggestions.
Aditya D (10/16/2008)
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
reply to this comment
David (12/18/2008)
It's part and parcel of using a compact, small sensor camera (by small I mean physically small). The higher the number of mega-pixels and the smaller the space they are squeezed into, the more the high-ISO noise generally, but performance does also vary between manufacturers. In the recent dpreview group test the Sony actually faired well in low-light performance compared to other budget compacts but you're never going to get great low-light performance from a compact camera because the sensor is too small. If you want good low-light performance go for a larger sensor camera, ie a better point and shoot (Canon & Fuji tend to be good at high ISO) or preferably a DSLR (Canon particularly for high ISO and also Nikon recently).
reply to this comment
kdrh18 (12/27/2008)
Thanks for the answer David
reply to this comment
which one is best. sony w120 or canon sd 1100 (sweethero2006 — 09/07/2008)
tell me with description of both +ve and -ve of both.......
reply to this comment
Aditya D (09/09/2008)
Well, the Sony has a couple more features than the SD1100, but the Sony picture processor in this camera is sub-par at best. You won't get good photo quality out of the W120, and though it may have more features, the features are useless when the camera can't take a good photo by itself. I would definitely recommend the SD1100, which has better low light pictures, better contrast, and better sharpness than the Sony.
reply to this comment
W 120, W130 or W150? Please advise which one is best? (bhadbuch — 09/06/2008)
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (09/11/2008)
These cameras as essentially the same camera with a few notable execeptions. The W150 has a slightly larger LCD screen. Which translates to eating up more battery power faster, but gives you a slighlty larger image to see. Frankly, though, I prefer a viewfinder.
The W130 and 150 have 15MB internal Flash Memory, the W120 doesn't. The W130/150 have Red-Eye Reduction. The W120 doesn't.
The W130 and 150 has semi manual focus, the W120 is full auto. The W150 has a larger optical zoom at 5x.
The W150 has 10MP; the W130 is 8.1 and the W120 is 7.2MP. Frankly, I think that the W150 has too much MP to work with on such tiny CCD chips. 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.
So that leads me back to the W130 and W120. If you don't mind the limited features of the W120, this will give you better low light performance than the other two. But if you like the whistles and bells, then the W130 is a decent compromise.
Me, I'd get a Canon.
reply to this comment
The W130 and 150 have 15MB internal Flash Memory, the W120 doesn't. The W130/150 have Red-Eye Reduction. The W120 doesn't.
The W130 and 150 has semi manual focus, the W120 is full auto. The W150 has a larger optical zoom at 5x.
The W150 has 10MP; the W130 is 8.1 and the W120 is 7.2MP. Frankly, I think that the W150 has too much MP to work with on such tiny CCD chips. 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.
So that leads me back to the W130 and W120. If you don't mind the limited features of the W120, this will give you better low light performance than the other two. But if you like the whistles and bells, then the W130 is a decent compromise.
Me, I'd get a Canon.
Protik (09/16/2008)
James, W150 has 8.1 MP (not 10 MP as you mentioned above). Cheers.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (09/16/2008)
Yeah my bad, I was looking at the W170 by mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. And I'd still get the canon.
reply to this comment
how do I take one hour video with sony w120?It stops recording in 10 minutes...I have 2gb memory... (nikusha — 08/18/2008)
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (08/21/2008)
From the specs: MPEG Movie VX Fine Mode - Capture VGA (640 x 480) audio/video clips at a high frame rate (up to 30 frames per second7). The maximum length of time you can shoot continuously is about 10 minutes. So, that's about right.
reply to this comment
marko (01/23/2009)
how to shoot 1 houre movie then with this camera_??
or it only can shoot movie for 10 mins??
reply to this comment
or it only can shoot movie for 10 mins??
BiH (04/28/2010)
you can only record 10 mins at once.you cant record more than 10 mins, thats all brother.
reply to this comment
grabar mas de 10 minutos (Mario — 10/02/2010)
Cuando está llegando a los 10 minutos vuelves a pulsar y comienzas otra grabación de 10 minutos
reply to this comment
can i change the zoom scale while shooting a movie? ( dr-hamada74 — 08/07/2008)
reply to this comment
Brenda Paro (08/11/2008)
No. Most cameras don't allow this feature because the microphone picks up the noise of the lens zooming.
reply to this comment
Which one is better W120 or W150 (Puja1 — 08/06/2008)
I need good quality Image
reply to this comment
kellyh (08/11/2008)
I am also looking at these two cameras and would love to know the answer. Any help?
reply to this comment
Ben Keough (08/13/2008)
Hi Puja and Kelly,
You can get a side by side comparison of the features of these two cameras here ( dpreview.com/reviews/compar... ).
To summarize, there's not a great difference between the two cameras, but the W150 is certainly the more advanced of the two. It's 8MP vs the W120's 7MP (though on the same size sensor), has a longer zoom and a slightly wider wide angle, more manual controls, and a bigger/higher resolution screen.
Of course, it also costs more. There's always a catch. :)
Hope this helps!
reply to this comment
You can get a side by side comparison of the features of these two cameras here ( dpreview.com/reviews/compar... ).
To summarize, there's not a great difference between the two cameras, but the W150 is certainly the more advanced of the two. It's 8MP vs the W120's 7MP (though on the same size sensor), has a longer zoom and a slightly wider wide angle, more manual controls, and a bigger/higher resolution screen.
Of course, it also costs more. There's always a catch. :)
Hope this helps!
chimmy3 (01/26/2009)
I was wondering this too.
Seems it depends what you value (speed or features):
On paper the W150 is the better of the two cameras.
But based on reviews, the better specs slow down the W150 camera a little bit in comparison to the W120.
To be clear, we're only talking about .1 - .2 seconds here, but to some people that's enough.
Flash cycling for the W120 are reportedly significantly faster too (by about 1 second).
Currently with only a 10$ price difference between the two, its a tough call.
reply to this comment
Seems it depends what you value (speed or features):
On paper the W150 is the better of the two cameras.
But based on reviews, the better specs slow down the W150 camera a little bit in comparison to the W120.
To be clear, we're only talking about .1 - .2 seconds here, but to some people that's enough.
Flash cycling for the W120 are reportedly significantly faster too (by about 1 second).
Currently with only a 10$ price difference between the two, its a tough call.
Marco (03/27/2009)
The W150 display has 230,000 pixels, the W120 has only 115,000. This is quite noticable. The only other differences I can think of are:
- W150 has more zoom (5x vs 4x)
- W150 supports Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB), great for HDR images
reply to this comment
- W150 has more zoom (5x vs 4x)
- W150 supports Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB), great for HDR images
does the Sony Cybershot W120 come in difrent colors? (underdog — 07/29/2008)
like red,black,lime green,ect
reply to this comment
Brenda Paro (07/30/2008)
It does! Pink, blue, black, and silver.
reply to this comment
Hef (08/08/2008)
Brenda's right, I just bought the pink one at Fred Meyer about an hour ago for $175. It's cute.
reply to this comment
which one is better W110 or W120? (RAMgr8 — 07/06/2008)
with respect to all aspect,i wan2 know which is better?
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (07/10/2008)
Pretty much the same camera with a few exceptions. the question is, are those exceptions ones you can't live without?
reply to this comment
Brenda Paro (07/11/2008)
The W120 has 7.2 megapixels, SteadyShot (image stabilization) and Face Detection. W110 is pretty much the same except it doesn't have SteadyShot or Face Detection.
If the price is a toss-up, I'd buy the W120 because the image stabilization never hurts!
reply to this comment
If the price is a toss-up, I'd buy the W120 because the image stabilization never hurts!
by James DeRuvo (07/11/2008)
Thank heavens I have Brenda to guard my back and provide the details! Well done, BP.
reply to this comment
Brenda Paro (07/11/2008)
No sweat. I was pretty much repeating what you said, just happened to know the specs behind it. :)
reply to this comment
Can this model "trim" photos taken? Basically take a picture, zoom to see a part of it and take that picture? (darlene — 06/23/2008)
Does the model W120 have the TRIM feature?
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (06/26/2008)
You're referring to a crop feature. I'm against those kind of features in cameras chiefly because you have limited control over cropping and usually after one or two crops, you can't crop any further. You're best bet is to do all your photo editing with software like Adobe Photoshop Elements (about $69) or Google's Picasa (free).
reply to this comment
Sony Cybershot W120 vs Canon Powershot SD1100 (clintmath — 05/27/2008)
i'm trying to decide between this camera and the canon powershot sd1100. Which one do you think would be better?
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (05/28/2008)
I suggest the Canon. In my opinion, it's a good idea to steer clear of SONY, as they tend to force their customers into proprietary technologies such as the memory stick, their own spin on formatting, cables and a host of others which the Canon won't do. Canon relies on SD cards, which are pretty much the standard in point and shoot for memory cards. This means you can use any you happen to currently have and they are much cheaper than memory sticks. You can also use them in other technologies like PDAs, DMPs, and even mp3 players, whereas that memory stick is only going to be used in another SONY.
Then there's the premium one tends to pay for the SONY nameplate.
Then again, if you have had a SONY in the past it may be a good idea to stay with the family as you can then continue to use your memory sticks from the previous model.
reply to this comment
Then there's the premium one tends to pay for the SONY nameplate.
Then again, if you have had a SONY in the past it may be a good idea to stay with the family as you can then continue to use your memory sticks from the previous model.
clintmath (05/28/2008)
Hi James,
Thank you for your answer. You have a few good points. However, in terms of camera features, quality and price, which would be a better deal? I heard the W130 has also got the smile shutter system which seems to be a further advantage.
Thanks, Clinton
reply to this comment
Thank you for your answer. You have a few good points. However, in terms of camera features, quality and price, which would be a better deal? I heard the W130 has also got the smile shutter system which seems to be a further advantage.
Thanks, Clinton
by James DeRuvo (05/29/2008)
Well that Smile shutter system is of particular advantage, but you can do the same thing simply by prefocusing and being jonny on the spot. Usually, automatic functions have a host of compromises behind them that by and large don't matter much unless it's not what you're wanting. Like if the ISO gets boosted automatically due to low light conditions and suddenly you're dealing with more noise in the shot than you'd like. Just an example. But I can envision someone smiling other than your designated target and getting that shot before your subject is ready.
Usually, I advise waiting until the second or third year before taking advantage of a new technology like that. But I like the idea. The SD1100, on the other hand, is tested and seasoned by time over the last few years. That's where I'd be leaning. But those colors of the Sony! LOL.
In the end, when trying to make a final call, it may just come down to what camera feels good in your hand. Go to a local camera store and check both out side by side, holding them, feeling their center of gravity, the balance. How it sits in your hand. That usually sells me one way or the other.
reply to this comment
Usually, I advise waiting until the second or third year before taking advantage of a new technology like that. But I like the idea. The SD1100, on the other hand, is tested and seasoned by time over the last few years. That's where I'd be leaning. But those colors of the Sony! LOL.
In the end, when trying to make a final call, it may just come down to what camera feels good in your hand. Go to a local camera store and check both out side by side, holding them, feeling their center of gravity, the balance. How it sits in your hand. That usually sells me one way or the other.
i have this camera and i accedentally took out the batteries while the lens was open now it wont turn on what do i do? (CandyDoll3 — 05/18/2008)
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (05/20/2008)
Try resetting the camera (known as initializing for a sony).
reply to this comment
CandyDoll3 (05/28/2008)
thank you for your answer but i just have one more question how do you reset it
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (05/29/2008)
This is a fairly easy procedure which involves either going into your setup menu and choosing "reset" (or intialize), holding down the menu key for 5 seconds, or, removing the batteries for a few minutes. It may be that the firmware loading got corrupted and the camera just needs to be "rebooted," which is something that turning it on/off won't accomplish. But after which, you should have the camera reset to factory default settings.
reply to this comment
sweethero2006 (08/07/2008)
hay..i am sorry but can u plz tell me that is this camera shoot quality image or nt........u hv this cam...so i just ask u tell me
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (08/07/2008)
It won't power on at all? Strange. I'd try a separate set of batteries and see if you can get it to turn on. Then, reinitialize it back to factory default settings. While the batteries are out, also take a pencil eraser and clean the contacts.
reply to this comment
is there a charger in the box (robsmee — 05/06/2008)
reply to this comment
sweethero2006 (05/13/2008)
yes.....charger is available..........so do nt worry......go ..........bye
reply to this comment
robsmee (05/13/2008)
thanks most helpful!!
reply to this comment
Marco (12/23/2008)
Yes there is a charger;it's the one where you put the battery in the socket place thing and you put it in a wall outlet. Beware of the lengthy charge time; it takes about 4 and a half hours for a completely charged battery.
reply to this comment
Which is better Sony Cybershot W80 and W120 (mayur21 — 04/11/2008)
I am stuck between the Sony Cybershot W80 and W120 which one should I buy can anyone help me with comparison!
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (04/12/2008)
I don't think they'll be that much difference, frankly, other than a slighter larger MP. NOt even noticeable unless you're shooting enlargements above 8x10. And the more MP you get, the more noise at higher ISO.
reply to this comment
mayur21 (04/12/2008)
Which one do you suggest then!??? better buy?
I like both models but functionality wise which one is better.
reply to this comment
I like both models but functionality wise which one is better.
by James DeRuvo (04/12/2008)
Well, I don't honestly think it really matters ... unless there's a specific feature you're looking for that one has over the other. In this class, they're basically the same camera with a difference in MP on the chip. My counsel would chiefly be to get the camera with the LOWER MP, not the higher one. 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.
reply to this comment
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.
Sony Cybershot W120 Reviews
Sony Cybershot W120 Reviews by Digital Camera-HQ Users
- 5.0 out of 5
It's best to know your camera
(Sumeru — 08/16/2009)
I bought this one reading one of youtibe reviews and am so far more than happy with its performance. I've shot some beautiful landscapes using the "program" mode which is enough to shoot almost any kind of pics. For those who don't own the camera, the program mode has the highest number of options to optimize your pics. Being a jewelry designer, i've had to click some macro pics and the camera worked like a charm. When u try viewing the photos on an HDTV with trueHD (LG 42LH50), the pics seem like they've been taken on an SLR (yup!). Flash in the night pics helps. Only problem with this one is u can't use the specified SCN functions proplerly, e.g: "beach" mode can't be used to capture pics on a beach. Overall, I've compared W120's quality to a 12mp T900 and guess what, W120 wins hands down!!
- 1.0 out of 5
Horrible Picture quality
(MissK — 08/07/2009)
the quality sucks....moved from the w55 and was totally disappointed..as far as im concern they could movve all the music features etc and provide better quality
- 2.0 out of 5
Very Disappointed
(Bill — 05/17/2009)
I gave away my 4mp sony dsc s90 before I got this one. I just assumed that the picture quality could only be better. What a mistake! I was shocked at how bad the indoor picture quality is on this one. Anything but broad daylight yields dark, grainy, and blurry pictures. The old camera pictures were 100% better! I guess I've learned my lesson on this one. You know what they say about assumptions! If you've got an older 4-5mp camera, DON'T trade it for something newer expecting better pictures. I've read that higher megapixels are actually making picture quality worse because they are cramming too many pixels on the same size sensor so they can claim the higher mp number. This actually degrades the quality because the pixels have to be much smaller and less light sensitive. What a rip off!
- 4.0 out of 5
W120 is Good One..
(Anwar — 04/17/2009)
I am Using Sony Digital Cameras about six years.. I started to use with DSC P9(4M) Camera... That's great one.. After I use DSC L9 - this also not bad..But more Pic's in Blur... Now I buy w120 - almost Six Months Now.. From my Experience... it's really great. main Point is Pictures had great quality and perfect.. No Blur..or Shaking... Very Intresting Features like Smile Shutter and Image Stabilizer.. etc.. The Prblm I found on W120 is Body get Hot while take pictures.., Also charger is Seperate.. We can't take pictures ..if Battery Charging Mode..(all old models have this function..and it's use full too)..
Regarding Pictures.. it had great quality.. I am working in Trading Company .. So I have to take more Pic's of Samples... Before I need to take at least 3 pic's for each ... But with W120... I AM REALLY HAPPY... IT'S PERFECT..!
- 1.0 out of 5
not worth it
(Becky Blackwelder — 04/15/2009)
I've been a sony cybershot user for almost 7 yrs. We used to have an older model that was 3.2 megapixels and decided a yr ago to upgrade....what a mistake. This updated model does not produce near the quality that our older one did. They may look good on the screen, but when blown up or reviewing on computer screen, they look blurred and terrible. We thought maybe it was a lack of knowledge in knowing all the features of the camera.....after reading and spending ALOT of time with the manual, trying different settings and backgrounds, no change or help. Some pictures are ok, but the majority are not good enough to have blown up and displayed. What a disappointment and a waste of money.
- 5.0 out of 5
AMAZING!
(caroline — 04/10/2009)
best thing ever! I love it so much! GET it!
I had a camera b4 this but this beats it by far.
- 2.0 out of 5
Not that great
(Ana — 04/05/2009)
It's been pretty good when I first got it. Then it starts having problems with zoom, tells me to turn it off and on again. It turns off by itself, even while recording. Doesn't always switch to a diffrent mode. When it's in a picture taking mode and I try to switch to view photos mode, it switches for a second and goes back to picture taking. I have to turn it off and on again for it to work normally. I really didn't like thist camera, wouldn't get the same one again.
- 4.0 out of 5
operations manual
(pancho d. tan — 03/17/2009)
how to handle tha unit w120 properly, and operational procedure.
- 2.0 out of 5
Good until it decides to stop working
(Kimberly — 03/08/2009)
I received my first sony cybershot in December of 2007. I loved the camera. It took quality photos.... at first. After one year it would work sometimes. I would turn the camera on. the zoom would go out, go in part way and go back out. The screen would say TURN CAMERA ON AND OFF AGAIN. I would do just that and it would say the same thing. and a few days later it would work just fine. I got so frustrated with it I busted the zoom right off.... since i had already bought 3 extra batteries (not cheap) and extra chargers I decided it was a year old and I probably didn't take that great of care with it. I bought the same camera 7.2 pixels this time. Had quality photos again. Took extremely good care of it this time. It is not even a year old now and the zoom thing started to happen again.... a day later it worked but the flash will not turn on. It says the flash setting cannot be changed. I called the tech support. They had me try a number of different things...... still no flash. my 6 month old camera is now my biggest waste of money EVER! I am trying to find the receipt so I can get it fixed under the warranty. I loved the camera when it worked but will never buy a sony cybershot again. I am even considering not buying any sony camera. A throw away camera is more useful to me.
- 5.0 out of 5
my sony w120
(trishane — 01/17/2009)
In my honest opinion, Sony w120 is truly the one to beat. I content with it.
- 1.0 out of 5
Unsatisfied with Sony!
(Mary — 01/13/2009)
I bought this camera and used it to important holiday trips, and I was very disappointed with the quality of the pictures, and knowing I cannot pro-create any of my trips.
I tried all settings, and nothing seems to come out clearly. All pictures, with light or low light, day or night, comes out pretty grainy. Returned it back as soon as I got home from the trip.
- 5.0 out of 5
Fabulous
(Anamarie — 12/29/2008)
This camera has great picture quality, incredible features, and you can't beat the price. The features are great and I love the easy settings and view finder. I don't know what people are talking about with low light. The pictures turned out great for me. The only downside is the memory stick, which costs more and isn't compatible with all computers. The SD cards in normal cameras are much easier and more universal.
- 5.0 out of 5
New to this camera but loving it
(Shane — 12/26/2008)
I'm not sure why so many are having problems with low light photos. Maybe I'm just not that picky but my pics are coming out great. I just got this for Christmas to replace my DSC T1 and I am very pleased so far.
I love all the options available and the clarity of the pics.
I've been a dedicated Sony electronics customer for many years and have as yet to be disappointed.
- 5.0 out of 5
Very Good
(Rohan — 12/11/2008)
Very good camera. So may features are included to get good picture at any type of condition.
- 4.0 out of 5
Price is Sweet
(Evens Wong — 11/17/2008)
For 139.99 it's a great deal for a Sony with features of W120.
Could spend more for better quality, why though for the average person. A civic gets you from point A to B just as a Lexus would. The W120 takes pictures satisfactory.
- 2.0 out of 5
Not happy with picture quality!
(Teresa — 11/10/2008)
I love to scrapbook but am not a prof photographer. I took about 60 pics. The picture quality for the indoor pics was terrible. I just returned the camera and bought a Canon.
- 3.0 out of 5
problem
(Subrat kumar sahu — 09/29/2008)
low light no good quality picture
- 2.0 out of 5
Disappointed
(Darla — 08/11/2008)
I got this camera as a b/day gift. I have been into photography for many many years. While I do enjoy having a camera that I can carry in my purse, this camera is being exchanged today for something else. It takes great pictures outdoors, but if you want to photograph anything indoors then this is just bad. Anything in low light produces noisy/pixilated/blurred and just an overall bad quality. I'm very disappointed and on my way to exchange it for a Canon. Sorry Sony :(
- 3.0 out of 5
With good lighting, ok. With Low light, HORRIBLE!
(vic — 06/29/2008)
Horrible, horrible, horrible. Just horrible when it comes to low light situations. After purchasing the camera and taking my 1st set of pictures, everyone was saying how neat the camera was with the face recognition and how beautiful the pics looked on the LCD. we were inside a restaurant with ok lighting as expected. but the pictures did look good...on the LCD. but when i got home and downloaded the images on to my computer, what a noticeable difference in the picture quality. pixelation and distortion like crazy. and then i took some pictures outdoors, at night. same situation. look great on the camera LCD, horrible once on my computer and blown up. bottomline, if you're just looking for a camera to take ok photos to send via email, this camera, like most others, will do. but if you want to actually make prints from pictures taken by the Soney W120, forget about it.
