Sony Cybershot W170
Sony Cybershot W170
1
Hey! You should know that Sony has released a newer version of this product: the Sony Cybershot W350.
Sony Cybershot W170
Editor's Review
The W170 is several years old. Check out a newer model, like the W350. Here's what we had to say about the W170 when it was released in February 2008:
With face detection and smile shutter mode - which automatically captures an image when your subject smiles without the need of pressing the shutter, the Sony Cybershot W170 is an innovative 10 megapixel camera for those looking to capture those special moments that never come around again.
Specifications
- 10.10 Megapixels
- 5x Optical Zoom /25x Digital Smart Zoom
- D-Range Optimizer for low light focus, partial manual focus, "smile shutter" mode, which automatically captures an image when your subject smiles
- Super SteadyShot optical image stabilization
- MPEG-1 Movie Mode
- Multi-pattern, Center-weighted, Spot Metering
- 80-3200 ISO Levels
- JPG File Format
- 2.7 inch LCD
- MS Duo/MS PRO Duo with 15MB Internal memory
- Custom Lithium Ion Rechargeable
- Part Number: DSCW170-BN
- UPC: 27242726758
- Release Date: Feb 11, 2008
Shop for W170 Accessories
Sony Cybershot W170 Comments & Questions (write your own!)
language change (kim — 11/29/2010)
how do i change the language
from japanese to english
reply to this comment
from japanese to english
by James DeRuvo (12/01/2010)
Language settings should be in the setup menu, but you may have to reinstall the firmware. Recommend you download it from Sony USA. Probably has an update anyway.
reply to this comment
Sony W180 (Anica — 03/18/2010)
Wenn ich meine Sony W180 eischaöten möchte, zeig das Display immer "Turn the Power off and on again" an. Da hilft kein ein und aus schalten.Muss ich sie zur Reperatur bringen? Finde nämlich keine Fehlerbehebung hier im Netz.Ich hoffe einer kann mir helfen, denn ich habe sie erst 2 Monate und mich ärgert das.
reply to this comment
Liam McCabe (03/18/2010)
Halo! My German is a bit rusty, but I think you're asking about repairs. Try checking out this site:
support.sony-europe.com/rep... this helps! Tchuss!
reply to this comment
support.sony-europe.com/rep... this helps! Tchuss!
Is the W180 the newer version of the W170? (erin313 — 10/28/2009)
Is the Sony Cyber W180 a newer version of W170? I can't find reviews on the W180
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (10/29/2009)
Well, the W170 has been discontinued. So I'd assume that yes, it's an update.
reply to this comment
r7 (12/18/2009)
No. the 180 is a low end of the newer series. the 170 was the high end of the older series
reply to this comment
Zooming the photo (aarthi5585 — 01/22/2009)
i was inspired by the sony w55 of my neighbour and bought a sony w 170 digi cam recently. when i take a photo and then zoom in to that photo, the more i zoom the more blurred and grains it gets, where as in w55 the photos are very clear even while zooming till last. pls suggest if there is any change that has to be made
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/23/2009)
Unfortunately, no change will really help. What you are doing is essentially blowing up the image when you zoom into it. And as you do, like any blow up, you end up with a fuzzier image.
reply to this comment
Blurred pictures in burst mode please help! (nyost02 — 01/06/2009)
I just purchased a sony W170 Not real educated on digital cameras but wanted something fast and be able to take several pictures in a row of my son in action just doing whatever. This camera will keep taking pictures as long as you hold down the button but there all blurry so I would like to know if anyone knows how to fix that or if I made a bad choice of cameras.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/14/2009)
I don't necessarily think you made a bad picture choice, but remember that point and shoot cameras have a shutter lag, so as a result, it's real easy to get a blurred picture due to camera shake and just plain not getting used to the camera. You can eliminate about 80% of the lag by prefocusing and panning with the action. And you may want to initialize (reset) the camera to get it back to the factory default settings. But I'm betting you just need to take time getting used to the way the camera works.
reply to this comment
Does anyone know how to turn off the sound on this camera? It's driving me nuts. (skyglow — 12/24/2008)
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (12/26/2008)
Menu settings. I'd also try resetting/reinitializing the camera back to it's factory default settings.
reply to this comment
Stoddy72 (06/10/2009)
Simply turn the volume down to zero, or alternatively turn the beep option off in the shooting settings.
reply to this comment
i want to spend around 200$. what brand i model better for this amount. also i heard that sony are the best for the quality is it true (alex73 — 11/30/2008)
reply to this comment
camera? (12/02/2008)
I'd say Canon is probably the best for quality, but Sony does well, too. You can probably find cheaper Canon cameras, too.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (12/05/2008)
I wouldn't say SONY is the best. They make fine cameras, but you're also paying a nameplate premium and getting proprietary technologies that paint you into a technological corner with only their product lines to help.
Canon, on the other hand, gives you the best quality for the money with no proprietary obsessions. It'll also out perform the SONY in low light.
reply to this comment
Canon, on the other hand, gives you the best quality for the money with no proprietary obsessions. It'll also out perform the SONY in low light.
could the sony add another language of my camera? (enol21 — 11/28/2008)
it's been 6 mos since i bought my digicam sony W170 from a friend from Japan but i only have one language available which is Japanese. I want an english language setting? Could you please help me..
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (11/29/2008)
Well, that's the problem with buying it out of the country. If you it doesn't have an English language option, you're stuck. You could contact SONY to see if you can flash the firmware with the English version. But I wouldn't do it unless they walk you through it. You could end up "bricking" the camera.
reply to this comment
how much this Sony W170 LENS is ? (marp — 11/27/2008)
i bought a brand new unit a month ago, then lately whenever i turn it on the lens just go in & out w/o stopping, though it has full battery.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (11/28/2008)
This can happen for a variety of reasons. It could be that there's condensation inside the camera causing the camera to malfunction. Or, even though the battery is recharged, it could be a faulty battery which isn't providing enough power to run the camera. One thing is certain, you need to send it in for repair while you still have a warranty for it.
reply to this comment
which is better sony w170 or canon a2000 is (kbees42 — 11/26/2008)
which is better a sony dsc-w170 or canon powershot a2000 is
reply to this comment
camera? (12/02/2008)
Well, they are two different types of camera, one an ultracompact and the other a larger point and shoot. If you want portability, go with the W170. If you want ease of use, go with the A2000.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (12/02/2008)
For comparison, you may want to check out this resource ( imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP... ). It takes pictures with each and you can compare them side by side.
I will say this. The A2000 has a much better Macro setting. And while the W170 seems to be a bit sharper at low ISOs, when you hit ISOs above 400, noise really makes details start to disappear due to noise. Then there's the fact that SONY products are largely proprietary - meaning if your in the SONY family, you're all in using SONY design for everything including your memory cards. This translates to being more costly. Then there's paying a premium for the SONY name plate.
But as MBrady said, if compact portability is what you want, it'll fit that shirt pocket easier than the A2000. But I'd go with the A2K.
reply to this comment
I will say this. The A2000 has a much better Macro setting. And while the W170 seems to be a bit sharper at low ISOs, when you hit ISOs above 400, noise really makes details start to disappear due to noise. Then there's the fact that SONY products are largely proprietary - meaning if your in the SONY family, you're all in using SONY design for everything including your memory cards. This translates to being more costly. Then there's paying a premium for the SONY name plate.
But as MBrady said, if compact portability is what you want, it'll fit that shirt pocket easier than the A2000. But I'd go with the A2K.
Does this camera allow you to zoom whilst recording videos/movies? (hughie02 — 10/09/2008)
I have been looking for a Compact Camera a lot like the Sony DCS-W170. I've did buy a W130, but once i got it home i realised that you are not able to zoom whilst recording videos. I ended up taking it back and am now looking for another camera.
I think its ridiculous that the Sony camera does not zoom whilst recording as the Sony Ericsson mobile phones DO have that function....
Does anyone know of a camera which has these functions?
1) Zoom whilst recording vidoes
2) Approx 8 megapixals
3) Approx 4x Optical Zoom
4) Approx 3x Digital Zoom
5) As many of the features the Sony w130/150 has, e.g face recognition, smile shutter, HD ready, connection to TV.....
Thanks
reply to this comment
I think its ridiculous that the Sony camera does not zoom whilst recording as the Sony Ericsson mobile phones DO have that function....
Does anyone know of a camera which has these functions?
1) Zoom whilst recording vidoes
2) Approx 8 megapixals
3) Approx 4x Optical Zoom
4) Approx 3x Digital Zoom
5) As many of the features the Sony w130/150 has, e.g face recognition, smile shutter, HD ready, connection to TV.....
Thanks
Rich Watson (10/11/2008)
Sure, all 3 Canons I have will do the zoom while recording movies.
They are the Canon Powershot A520, the Powershot A710, and the Canon Elph SD1000.
Please note that all three cameras are "old" technology, all 3 have been replaced by better Canon models, as each is over 2 years old.
GOTO newegg.com, click on Canon, and go pick out the SD1100, $170----U can't beat it for a compact camera. If U want a larger camera, pick out one of the Canon Powershot A500 series or the A700 series. Or U might really like the Canon SX100, my Mom has that and loves it.
I don't work at newegg, it just happens that I bought 3 cameras there (one was a camcorder). Nice company.
reply to this comment
They are the Canon Powershot A520, the Powershot A710, and the Canon Elph SD1000.
Please note that all three cameras are "old" technology, all 3 have been replaced by better Canon models, as each is over 2 years old.
GOTO newegg.com, click on Canon, and go pick out the SD1100, $170----U can't beat it for a compact camera. If U want a larger camera, pick out one of the Canon Powershot A500 series or the A700 series. Or U might really like the Canon SX100, my Mom has that and loves it.
I don't work at newegg, it just happens that I bought 3 cameras there (one was a camcorder). Nice company.
Which would be a better camera - the w170 or the w300? (RuhlmannM — 09/26/2008)
I was leaning towards the W170 due to the 5x optic lens, but notice that it is review as an A- where as the W300 is reviewed as an A. I need a camera that is versitile for family uses -action, stilllife, landscape. . . I just want the clearest, sharpest picture in an ultra compact camera -needs to fit in my purse. I do have a familial tremmor in my hands so I need the best stablizing feature also!
Michelle
reply to this comment
Michelle
Aditya D (09/30/2008)
I wouldn't quite go on the A vs A- its probably not a difference, the rating system is a little flawed, because it has to do with user reviews, and usually on people that have a problem review the camera and said not so good things about it. I also like the 5x optic lens, plus the upgrades like the 13.6 megapixels on the w300 are overkill and not worth the money, so I'd go with the w170.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (09/30/2008)
Not to mention that when the camera has only a handful of reviews, the results of the rating's system gets skewed and it takes time for a more realistic picture to present itself. check out this resource ( imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP... ). It takes pictures with each and you can compare them side by side.
But one thing. Don't get caught up in the "larger LCD screen is better" or "more MP is better" myths. For the most part, They aren't. ( 6mpixel.org/en/? )
reply to this comment
But one thing. Don't get caught up in the "larger LCD screen is better" or "more MP is better" myths. For the most part, They aren't. ( 6mpixel.org/en/? )
Tuba Paul (12/21/2008)
The W170 does have a larger lens than the W300. And costs less. In a small p&s camera, those extra megapixels are not giving you a whole lot you can effectively use due to the small physical size of the sensor
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (12/22/2008)
Agreed. 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 without a corresponding increase of chip size, causes them to lose light sensitivity. 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
The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels without a corresponding increase of chip size, causes them to lose light sensitivity. 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 W170, W150, or T300? (lookintobuy — 09/17/2008)
I want a 5X zoom at least, and all of these have that, plus they can zoom farther with digital. Are there any huge differences besides the price and LCD's? I like the fact that I can hold the "shoot" button down on the T 300 and W 170 and it takes multiple pictures. Does the 150 do that as well? I am just not sure that I want/need 10.1 megapixels. I am getting it for a military deployment in a week. Thanks for the help.
reply to this comment
Aditya D (09/18/2008)
First, I wouldn't consider digital zoom, its not something you want to get into, it will ruin your picture quality. The W150 and 170 should be, basically the same camera, except the 170 has more megapixels than the 150, which you don't really need for the $50 price difference. The T300 is a cool camera because its more durable (so it will break a lot less if you're in an environment where the camera can't always be snug and safe), but it also takes a little bit longer to focus because of the stacked lenses, plus its a bit more expensive. If you don't care about durability as much, and you want something that's cheaper and focuses a bit faster, go with the W150. All 3 of them have the burst mode you're talking about about (where you can take multiple pictures). If you have any other questions feel free to ask.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (09/20/2008)
Aditya is correct, but she fails to explain why. Digital zoom isn't really zooming at all. It's enlarging. Think of it like a xerox machine. When you enlarge a copy, you get a fuzzier image than the original. Enlarge it enough, and you'll end up with very blocky detail. The same can be said for digital zoom as it doesn't really zoom (compress the distance between the camera and the subject) into the image, it enlarges the image. The result is a more pixelated image, fuzzy on detail, and camera shake so pronounced that it's difficult to take an image. Digital zoom is a marketing ploy by camera manufacturers to make you believe you get more bang for the buck, but that bang ends up exploding your stills! I usually recommend to simply turn it off.
Agreed that the 170 has more megapixels. But that isn't really a good thing. 1) because you won't even see the advantage of those megapixels unless your image is enlarged above 8x10. since 99.9% of your pictures are snapshots, you'll never see that additional MP. But what you will see is 2) NOISE. Especially at ISO settings above 400. See, when you stuff more and more megapixels into those tiny CCD chips, those chips become LESS sensitive to light, not more. As such, noise crashes the party and the result is a disappointing still image.
I say if you're a Sony Fan (and I'm not - you'll get a better image with the Canon SX100) then I'd saw stick with the W150.
reply to this comment
Agreed that the 170 has more megapixels. But that isn't really a good thing. 1) because you won't even see the advantage of those megapixels unless your image is enlarged above 8x10. since 99.9% of your pictures are snapshots, you'll never see that additional MP. But what you will see is 2) NOISE. Especially at ISO settings above 400. See, when you stuff more and more megapixels into those tiny CCD chips, those chips become LESS sensitive to light, not more. As such, noise crashes the party and the result is a disappointing still image.
I say if you're a Sony Fan (and I'm not - you'll get a better image with the Canon SX100) then I'd saw stick with the W150.
Shutter Smile on Sony W170 no pics saved, any idea? (vgb — 08/31/2008)
It seems Shutter Smile Feature works, it flashes when somebody smiles, but there are no image or pictures found when I go to View or playback.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (09/04/2008)
One of the reasons why I don't trust automatic cameras that are "too automatic." Don't over rely on these great features or you may end up missing the shot.
Try resetting your camera and checking to see if your card is properly "seated."
reply to this comment
Try resetting your camera and checking to see if your card is properly "seated."
Which is better.... (JuneBug — 08/16/2008)
Sony cybershot 170 or Olympus Stylus 1010? Sorry no points to award for best answer. :-(
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (08/19/2008)
check out this resource ( imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP... ). It takes pictures with each and you can compare them side by side. They haven't tested the 1010, but they have tested the 1030 and comparing that with the Sony, I found that the Sony is sharper at all ISOs and has brighter colors.
It isn't an accurate comparison, but ballpark wise, the Sony 170 seems to have the edge.
reply to this comment
It isn't an accurate comparison, but ballpark wise, the Sony 170 seems to have the edge.
JuneBug (08/20/2008)
Thanks for your answer. But has anybody compared the 1010 to the 170?
reply to this comment
Mr. C (01/09/2009)
I looked at several brands of compact 10MP cameras, including the W170 and Olympus 1010. The Olympus 1010 only allows for 10 second video clips, which is almost worthless. The W170 is only limited by the memory stick size. You also get a viewfinder with the W170. The Sony has Intelligent scene recognition too, which isn't found on the Olympus. The Sony has a wide 28mm Carl Zeiss lens that will allow you to fit more in a picture (more people for example). I bought the silver Sony DSC-W170 and I'm loving it. I have no regrets. I was using a DSC-W5, which still works after 4 years, and wanted something newer. Sony doesn't skimp on their non-budget cameras. The W170 is mostly durable aluminum, including the tripod mount. I hope this helps!
reply to this comment
I am looking for a good camera, is it this one? (aishe — 07/21/2008)
Hi,
I have been looking for a good digital camera for 3 years and now, I thing that I have found him, because of the features. But is it really so good as it looks? Because it seems so cheap, compare to the other camera with these qualities. And what is wrong with the camera?
thanks,
Ema Stastna
reply to this comment
I have been looking for a good digital camera for 3 years and now, I thing that I have found him, because of the features. But is it really so good as it looks? Because it seems so cheap, compare to the other camera with these qualities. And what is wrong with the camera?
thanks,
Ema Stastna
Brenda Paro (07/22/2008)
This is a great camera, and if the features suit you I say go for it. The price is actually pretty comparable to what similarly-featured cameras are going for nowadays. As companies compete to create nice digital cameras the consumer wins in that the prices go down. :) This one is pretty average-priced.
reply to this comment
fibinjohn (01/15/2009)
which is better nikon P5100 or sony T700
reply to this comment
Which one is Better? Nikon Coolpix S550 OR Sony Cybershot W170. (prashant-mintoo — 07/11/2008)
I am looking for an Ultra Compact Digi-cam and it would be great if some one help me out in choosing the best one.
Thanks
Prashant
reply to this comment
Thanks
Prashant
Phil (07/14/2008)
Prashant, I would steer clear of the S550; over all picture quality is not great and the Image Stabilization feature is sub standard. You can check this site out for an extensive review of the W170. steves-digicams.com/ (2008 reviews)
You might also want to check out the Canon SD950 since the price has dropped. I own a S550 and my wife has the SD950. (2007 reviews)
reply to this comment
You might also want to check out the Canon SD950 since the price has dropped. I own a S550 and my wife has the SD950. (2007 reviews)
W170 vs W300 which one is batter (sofea — 07/08/2008)
W170 vs W300 which one is batter?
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (07/15/2008)
Kinda comparing apples to apples quite frankly. At lower ISOs (and smaller sizes) you won't really see a difference. Although I do think the W170 has better and bolder colors. But at higher ISOs, above 800, both invite a rediculous amount of noise to the party. 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.
reply to this comment
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.
olympus mju1030 in what better than sony DSCw170? (vk41066 — 07/01/2008)
email id: vk41066@gmail.com
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (07/08/2008)
For comparison, you may want to check out this resource ( imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP... ). It takes pictures with each and you can compare them side by side. The W170 is alot sharper at 200 ISO, and noise is extremely noticeable in the 1030SW at 1600 ISO.
reply to this comment
How good is the Sony Cybershot W170 at taking really close photos?...say details on a coin? (mnortje — 06/23/2008)
Or would the Sony DSC-T300 be a better buy?
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (06/25/2008)
for comparison, you may want to check out this resource ( imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP... ). It takes pictures with each and you can compare them side by side. The W170's macro is terrible. Very poor closeup range. As for the T300, well, unfortunately, that one hasn't been tested.
However, the specs say that the T300 ranges as follows:
• Auto/Macro: 8cm - ∞ (w), 80cm - ∞ (t)
• Close Focus enabled: 1cm - 20cm
That'll read a coin easy.
reply to this comment
However, the specs say that the T300 ranges as follows:
• Auto/Macro: 8cm - ∞ (w), 80cm - ∞ (t)
• Close Focus enabled: 1cm - 20cm
That'll read a coin easy.
mnortje (06/26/2008)
Thank you, you definately answered my question and the resource is great. I will go for the T300.
reply to this comment
what is the best feature of this camera? (amira11 — 06/20/2008)
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (06/23/2008)
Smile Shutter and Face Detection, I would say. But the Smile shutter (which will automatically trigger the shutter on a smile) could be a two edged sword if the wrong person smiles.
reply to this comment
Docrwm (11/07/2008)
Smile Shutter and Face detection, but the answer is that you can select which faces (infant, child, adult, or any) you want it to cue on for triggering the shutter. So, the previous best answer is just a bit uninformed.........
reply to this comment
which camera is generally better in the sense that the money spent was "worth it"- DSC-W170 or DSC-T300? (amira11 — 06/20/2008)
I'm about to buy a new camera, I'm not exactly a professional photographer however I love looking at pictures that have good quality, lighting and have a great appearance. I'm stuck between two different cameras
DSC-W170 and DSC-T300
reply to this comment
DSC-W170 and DSC-T300
by James DeRuvo (06/23/2008)
To be honest. NEITHER, IMHO. Not that Sony isn't a bad brand. They have some nice cameras. But Sony overburdens their cameras with an obsession with proprietary technologies that force their customers into the SONY revenue stream with accesories like the memory stick, their own spin on formatting, cables and a host of others which the other camera companies won't do. Sure, you can get third party memory sticks, but they're still more expensive and by and large slower than their SD/xD equivalents.
Additionally, there can be no denying that users tend to pay a premium for the SONY nameplate. Great cameras, don't get wrong. But is it worth the extra baggage? So far, I haven't bought one.
But personal prejudices aside, I do think the flash is underpowered. But since they're primarily designed around portait and small group shots, what point and shoot flash isn't? Colors and clarity are rather nice until you reach ISOs above 400, and then alot of noise gets invited to the party.
reply to this comment
Additionally, there can be no denying that users tend to pay a premium for the SONY nameplate. Great cameras, don't get wrong. But is it worth the extra baggage? So far, I haven't bought one.
But personal prejudices aside, I do think the flash is underpowered. But since they're primarily designed around portait and small group shots, what point and shoot flash isn't? Colors and clarity are rather nice until you reach ISOs above 400, and then alot of noise gets invited to the party.
Gene Alan (04/29/2009)
What is an updated version of Sony's W170?
I need a small camera with a view finder!
Side Note:
Friend bought a W170 in Jan 2008 = I'm looking for the latest version of W170?
reply to this comment
I need a small camera with a view finder!
Side Note:
Friend bought a W170 in Jan 2008 = I'm looking for the latest version of W170?
thar5740 (05/16/2009)
I just want to add that ALL of Sony cameras are overrated and overpriced! The only one I owned that was half-way decent was the W80, which I decided to sale on Ebay to get the Fujii Finepix f40, which by the way is underrated! I previously owned the Sony T100 which received CNET's covenant "Editor's Choice Award" Personally I think they are partner up with Sony because that camera did not perform as well as they stated. Sony cameras cannot handle ISO pass 200!!. My Fuji kicks butt at 800!!! So my advise, by Sony upon a lot of research and testing!!!!!
reply to this comment
PringlesCan (10/11/2009)
This is a great camera. I don't understand why people with no background in photography are so quick to blame the camera. If you bought the camera at a reputable dealer instead of reading biased reviews and ordering at the cheapest place online, you could return with questions and troubleshooting when you obtain unfavorable results.
QUICK TIP: If you're shooting in full auto modes Sony is VERY aggressive in upping the ISO to the point where photos have an almost cartoonish appearance. Just to point this out, ISO 3200 is going to be extremely grainy regardless of vendors, and Sony smooths it out to make a suitable 4x6 print in low-light, not for you to zoom all the way in. Never use the High ISO mode unless you absolutely have to.
This camera works best in P mode setting the ISO manually. I have blown up macro shots to 24x36 I took with this camera at 80 ISO. You have a point and shoot with a 5x optical, 28mm wide, Carl Zeiss lens, with an amazing ISO 80-3200 range. You can make it work, dummy settings are for dummies. High ISO, is for LOW-LIGHT, in an otherwise impossible situation, not an excuse not to use the flash.
Most of the good photos you see, are being taken with an SLR, not a point-and-shoot. So you have to adjust your expectations accordingly.
DISCLOSURE: I work in a camera store (that sells all brands) and also prints photos and enlargements. I can attest to the quality of this camera, because I own it (out of all the cameras on the market at the time of purchase, I chose this one.) I also know that prints are excellent and you can make beautiful enlargements.
CONS: This camera's major flaw is overly aggressive ISO.
NOW WHAT??? Check out Sony's new cameras with CMOS sensors [the type used in high-end SLRs], there has never been a series of point and shoot cameras worth being excited about in years. Forget about face detection; how about performance in low-light, 10 frames a second, and seamless panoramic. You can't read about some things, you need to experience it, find a Sony dealer and be wowed. DSC-WX1 DSC-TX-1 are amazing.
reply to this comment
QUICK TIP: If you're shooting in full auto modes Sony is VERY aggressive in upping the ISO to the point where photos have an almost cartoonish appearance. Just to point this out, ISO 3200 is going to be extremely grainy regardless of vendors, and Sony smooths it out to make a suitable 4x6 print in low-light, not for you to zoom all the way in. Never use the High ISO mode unless you absolutely have to.
This camera works best in P mode setting the ISO manually. I have blown up macro shots to 24x36 I took with this camera at 80 ISO. You have a point and shoot with a 5x optical, 28mm wide, Carl Zeiss lens, with an amazing ISO 80-3200 range. You can make it work, dummy settings are for dummies. High ISO, is for LOW-LIGHT, in an otherwise impossible situation, not an excuse not to use the flash.
Most of the good photos you see, are being taken with an SLR, not a point-and-shoot. So you have to adjust your expectations accordingly.
DISCLOSURE: I work in a camera store (that sells all brands) and also prints photos and enlargements. I can attest to the quality of this camera, because I own it (out of all the cameras on the market at the time of purchase, I chose this one.) I also know that prints are excellent and you can make beautiful enlargements.
CONS: This camera's major flaw is overly aggressive ISO.
NOW WHAT??? Check out Sony's new cameras with CMOS sensors [the type used in high-end SLRs], there has never been a series of point and shoot cameras worth being excited about in years. Forget about face detection; how about performance in low-light, 10 frames a second, and seamless panoramic. You can't read about some things, you need to experience it, find a Sony dealer and be wowed. DSC-WX1 DSC-TX-1 are amazing.
Sony W170 or Canon SD 870 IS? i am so confused. (min2x — 06/15/2008)
i have read so many great reviews about canon 870 IS. i just want to know if Sony W170 surpasses canon 870's performance. both have wide angle lens which i prefer. but W170 has longer digital zoom and higher MP and new features like iSCN and advanced face detection. but if canon's photo quality and image stabilization is still better, i will still choose this.
it's for personal use and travel. i also take a lot of pics at night during parties, dinners and clubbing aside from usual day activities. i am great with technical stuff so it's ok if the camera has some advanced options, i will even find them interesting.
which should i buy?
reply to this comment
it's for personal use and travel. i also take a lot of pics at night during parties, dinners and clubbing aside from usual day activities. i am great with technical stuff so it's ok if the camera has some advanced options, i will even find them interesting.
which should i buy?
Phil (06/16/2008)
The Sony gets good reviews except for its flash capability. Evidently the sensor is too small to handle 10mp in low light situations. The price of the W170 is closer to the prices of the Canon SD790 and SD950.
If you want to shoot a lot of pictures at night under low light conditions, parties etc, none of the compact or sub-compact cameras are going to give you a lot of flash. You will probably have to buy a Metz 28 CS-2 Digital Slave Flash, and it goes for about $130.
The SD950 has the longest flash range. 15ft wide angle and 8ft telephoto. One thing I have learned about shooting in low light using the face detection feature; faces will be perfectly exposed and the back ground dark. Flash exposures seems to work better using Area Focus Mode.
reply to this comment
If you want to shoot a lot of pictures at night under low light conditions, parties etc, none of the compact or sub-compact cameras are going to give you a lot of flash. You will probably have to buy a Metz 28 CS-2 Digital Slave Flash, and it goes for about $130.
The SD950 has the longest flash range. 15ft wide angle and 8ft telephoto. One thing I have learned about shooting in low light using the face detection feature; faces will be perfectly exposed and the back ground dark. Flash exposures seems to work better using Area Focus Mode.
min2x (06/17/2008)
Hi Phil, but i really prefer large LCD screen 2.7 to 3" inch and wide angle lens (not the normal 35mm). so if I don't focus too much on flash capability, which should i buy? i am deciding between sony w170 and canon SD 870... Thanks so much.
reply to this comment
Phil (06/17/2008)
Min, you will be happy with either of these cameras. One of the most important things to do with any camera is to read the manual and try shooting with different settings. If pictures are not up to par with certain settings, experiment with other modes and settings on the camera.
In your price range, I would also consider the Panasonic TZ5. It is a 9mp camera with a 10x zoom (28mm-280mm) and a 3 inch LCD.
These are good sites for camera reviews. Write down the features that are most important and then read the reviews. Check out the Panasonic at the first one.
dcresource.com/reviews/allr...
steves-digicams.com/
reply to this comment
In your price range, I would also consider the Panasonic TZ5. It is a 9mp camera with a 10x zoom (28mm-280mm) and a 3 inch LCD.
These are good sites for camera reviews. Write down the features that are most important and then read the reviews. Check out the Panasonic at the first one.
dcresource.com/reviews/allr...
steves-digicams.com/
by James DeRuvo (06/17/2008)
Frankly, Phil, most chips are too small to handle 10mp ( 6mpixel.org/en/? ). Squashing more and more MP into a small 1/6" chip only serves to lessen light gathering sensitivity and invites more noise to the party. I do agree with you, however, than any point and shoot compact camera is only going to have limited flash capability since flashes in P&S cameras are designed around portraits and small groups shots. Outside of that, the flash dissipates dramatically ... beyond about 10 feet or so.
Min. I advise against the 3" LCD simply because it'll suck up your battery power about 10-15% faster than a 2.7" screen will. Better to have a viewfinder, IMHO.
I say go with 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 Camcorders, PDAs, DMPs, and even some mp3 players - no matter who makes them, whereas that memory stick is only going to be used in another SONY.
reply to this comment
Min. I advise against the 3" LCD simply because it'll suck up your battery power about 10-15% faster than a 2.7" screen will. Better to have a viewfinder, IMHO.
I say go with 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 Camcorders, PDAs, DMPs, and even some mp3 players - no matter who makes them, whereas that memory stick is only going to be used in another SONY.
is sony w 170 is better than canon 870......which one is more preferable sony w170 or sony w150 or canon sd 1100 or canon sd 870....please suggest... (sweethero2006 — 06/15/2008)
sony w170 or sony w 150 or canon 1100 or canon sd 870!!!!!!!
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (06/16/2008)
Probably the best way to determine which one you like best is to swing by this resource ( imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP... ). It takes pictures with each and you can compare them side by side.
Doing so, I find Canon cameras a tad sharper.
But I can tell you this about SONY. They're proprietary obsessed. 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 no matter who makes them, whereas that memory stick is only going to be used in another SONY.
reply to this comment
Doing so, I find Canon cameras a tad sharper.
But I can tell you this about SONY. They're proprietary obsessed. 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 no matter who makes them, whereas that memory stick is only going to be used in another SONY.
Mr. C (01/06/2009)
I own both Nikon and Sony equipment and I own the W170. While Sony does use proprietory formats, their image quality is very comparable to Nikon and Canon. Sony's build quailty is usually better, at least on the point & shoot cameras, compared to Canon. A friend of mine has a SD1000 and we compared that to my W170. Image quality is very similar but, there were some hardware differences worth noting. The SD1000 starts up faster but, the W170 has a wide angle lens and a 5x zoom. If I had to choose, I'd buy a Sony. I found the W170 worth the extra money but, you could save some $ by buying the W150.
reply to this comment
Canon SD870IS, Canon SD790IS or Sony DSC-w170? (elysag — 06/10/2008)
I have narrowed my choice down to these three. I was choosing between the two Canons and then the salesperson strongly recommended I also consider the Sony, making my choice harder. I like the wide-angle lens feature, which is making me lean towards the Sony or the 870. Am I going to notice the difference between 8 and 10 MP, making me rule out the 870 and then choose between the Sony and the 790? I have a Nikon SLR, which I love, but am looking to replace my fairly old Canon 4MP for tossing in my bag and taking with me for travel. Thanks in advance for the help. There are too many choices!
reply to this comment
Andrew Skinner (06/13/2008)
Elysa,
I am a big fan of the Canon cameras (I currently own 3). That being said, this Sony W170 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) looks impressive. If you're just looking to play around with the camera on trips, the difference between 8 and 10 MP is not going to be huge. What will be a big difference is the optical zoom. The W170 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) has 5x optical vs the 3.8x on the Canon SD870 IS ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) and the 3x on the Canon SD790 IS ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ). The ISO range on the W170 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) is also a lot higher, wich will help adjust for lower lighting situations. This looks to be the camera I would pick for what you want to use it for. Good luck and happy shooting.
Andrew
reply to this comment
I am a big fan of the Canon cameras (I currently own 3). That being said, this Sony W170 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) looks impressive. If you're just looking to play around with the camera on trips, the difference between 8 and 10 MP is not going to be huge. What will be a big difference is the optical zoom. The W170 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) has 5x optical vs the 3.8x on the Canon SD870 IS ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) and the 3x on the Canon SD790 IS ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ). The ISO range on the W170 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) is also a lot higher, wich will help adjust for lower lighting situations. This looks to be the camera I would pick for what you want to use it for. Good luck and happy shooting.
Andrew
sweethero2006 (06/15/2008)
no doubt canon sd 870 is best in compair to sony.................
reply to this comment
Serge (06/25/2008)
SD870 Aperture is much better! Plays big difference?
Sony: Lens Aperture F/3.3-5.2
Canon sd870: Lens Aperture F/2.8-5.8
reply to this comment
Sony: Lens Aperture F/3.3-5.2
Canon sd870: Lens Aperture F/2.8-5.8
pankaj (08/27/2008)
i want a still camera with specification
1. more than 5x joom (i like 10x joom)
2. sony brand
3. best picture in low light
reply to this comment
1. more than 5x joom (i like 10x joom)
2. sony brand
3. best picture in low light
How does the W170 compare to The Samsung NV24 (johnk — 05/19/2008)
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (05/22/2008)
Well, from the pictures I've seen, the NV24 is a noise generating machine. Even at ISO 200 the noise in the picture is seriously noticeable. I think the W170 wins by default.
reply to this comment
Sony DSC - W170 or W150 or Canon SD 850 ? (silmaril13 — 05/18/2008)
i'm having trouble to choose which one would be better . i would go with sony if i did use zoom while recordin movie clip . Canon does that . i wonder if W 170 can do that ? i couldn't find any information about that. please.. i'm wide open to any advise. i want viewfinder optical, hight megapixels and optical zoom , 30mm- 150mm aprox. ...please help me
reply to this comment
i'm having trouble to choose which one would be better . i would go with sony if i did use zoom while recordin movie clip . Canon does that . i wonder if W 170 can do that ? i couldn't find any information about that. please.. i'm wide open to any advise. i want viewfinder optical, hight megapixels and optical zoom , 30mm- 150mm aprox. ...please help me
by James DeRuvo (05/20/2008)
for comparison, you may want to check out this resource ( imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP... ). It takes pictures with each and you can compare them side by side.
reply to this comment
When W170 be available in the Philippines? (anginett888 — 05/04/2008)
I want to buy W170 here but not allowed to ship in Philippines.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (05/22/2008)
You may want to try eBay ( cgi.ebay.ph/Sony-Cybershot-... ) ...
reply to this comment
is dscw-170 better than dsc-t300 in performance (parthamajumer321 — 05/03/2008)
i want to say is w-170 is better than dsc-t300 in performance (when i will take a photo in low light)
reply to this comment
Andrew Skinner (05/15/2008)
Both cameras will bring the ISO up to 3200, which effectively allows more light in to your photos, but adds graininess to the picture. They also both have some newer technology for low light shooting though. I would have to say that they will perform similarly in low light situations at the widest angle. You might have slightly better performance from the W170 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ), because its aperture is wider at the widest angle (f/3.3 vs f/3.5). It won't give that big of a difference though. I think you need to look at what else you want out of the camera to make your choice. Good luck.
Andrew
reply to this comment
Andrew
parthamajumer321 (05/16/2008)
thanks for your advice.
reply to this comment
Andrew Skinner (05/16/2008)
I'm glad we could help. Please come back with any other questions or issues.
Andrew
reply to this comment
Andrew
JH (06/12/2008)
sorry how about between the W170 and the W300 is the ISCN make a big difference?
reply to this comment
Andrew Skinner (06/13/2008)
JH,
Sony's iSCN, or intelligent scene recognition, technology is designed to take a second photo based on what the camera is programed to think the optimal settings are. If the user's settings match what the auto settings would be, then a second photo is not taken. In my opinion this would only take up extra memory on the camera.
While it may sound interesting on the surface, I see it more as an annoyance. You would have to hold the camera in place for another shot, and you might miss something else that you wanted a photo of.
Andrew
reply to this comment
Sony's iSCN, or intelligent scene recognition, technology is designed to take a second photo based on what the camera is programed to think the optimal settings are. If the user's settings match what the auto settings would be, then a second photo is not taken. In my opinion this would only take up extra memory on the camera.
While it may sound interesting on the surface, I see it more as an annoyance. You would have to hold the camera in place for another shot, and you might miss something else that you wanted a photo of.
Andrew
Tuba Paul (12/21/2008)
The W170 has larger glass than both the T300 as well as the W300--many people overlook the importance of the lens in front of the electronics on digital cameras, but it can make a huge difference.
reply to this comment
janine (02/25/2009)
re the larger glass on the lense ...does the W210S also have the larger glass? Does either of them have a wide angle lense?
reply to this comment
jo (07/19/2009)
how much is the average price sold out in malaysia?
reply to this comment
i want camera with litihum-ion battary (amitsharma3636 — 03/07/2008)
camera with 8-10 megapixel lens and 3x-5x optical zoom with the range of Rs. 8000-15000/-
reply to this comment
Aditya D (03/15/2008)
I would get the new Canon, the SD1100 that has 8 megapixels, and the best features, and the best processor out of cameras at that price. On the Canon site the SD1100 is $249.99, which is approximately Rs. 13750. Hope this helps, if you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
reply to this comment
Krystal (04/01/2008)
I've always been a fan of the olympus stylus collection. The good thing about rechargeable litium ion batteries is that you can buy spares for cheap to use as back-up. Great for long days of taking pictures ie. zoo, family parties...
reply to this comment
Mr. C (01/06/2009)
I own the DSC-W170 and a Nikon S550 and I'd buy the W170. Most compact point & shoot cameras today have Li-Ion batteries but, Nikon and Canon don't display a battery metter. Sony's cameras have a battery display that tells you, using four segments, the battery power remaining. If you buy the Sony NP-FG1 battery, it gives you the minutes remaining on the battery.
reply to this comment
Sony Cybershot W170 Reviews
Sony Cybershot W170 Reviews by Digital Camera-HQ Users
- 4.0 out of 5
Great
(Herb — 07/17/2009)
This is my second Sony the first being a w80, this one is far superior, pictures are sharper many more features. this is a good choice camera.
- 4.0 out of 5
small and easy to use
(Sudam — 04/18/2009)
I have'nt seen a digital camera like this... This is a good zoom lens camera because it can zoom 5x as longer(optical)... and the digital zoom also goes up to 25x... Smile shutter and Face defention are marvelas technologies that camera should have... I never leave this camera untill 2015
- 2.0 out of 5
Poor picture quality
(DADGE Joanna — 03/08/2009)
In a comparison test with 4 megapixel Olympus C765 ( now 5 years old) every picture was inferior on the Sony. A waste of time having 10 megapixels if most of the time you could not possibly enlarge any part of a picture without losing even more quality.
I wish I had not bought it, but I suppose I'm stuck with it now!
- 5.0 out of 5
sony w170 vs olympus 1050sw
(steven choo — 02/20/2009)
i have this this model sony w170 , it was very very great night for me ,, camera most important thing is night scene shot so this sony w170 take night shot very great picture and this camera many funtion for kids for man also easy to use ....
this sony w170 vs olympus 1050sw picture quality sony picture quality more nice !!! if u want to buy camera for travel just buy this Sony W170 and best price ,of you want water proof but not care picture quality then just buy olympus 1050sw
- 2.0 out of 5
Not for me
(Dennis — 01/08/2009)
I am convinced that if anyone rates this camera highly for picture quality, it only means they either have low expectations or they have nothing to compare it to. For me it lacks detail and clarity when compared to my daughters Nikon S51. The identical 10 shots taken in all different situations were all better on the Nikon. I had hoped this Sony would be an upgrade but it's going back to the store. It's easy to use but I'm sorry that's where it ends.
- 5.0 out of 5
great camera
(rachael — 12/30/2008)
beautiful camera to look at, compact, with great image quality when reviewing pictures both on the camera and once they've been uploaded.
the smile shutter is amusing, and a great conversation piece! people never believe me at first ;)
- 5.0 out of 5
impressive
(Ian — 12/27/2008)
good steady shooting. easy to use. very compact and light. zoom is okay.
- 4.0 out of 5
Good Photo - Questionable Video
(Kyle Pointer — 12/26/2008)
I ended up with this nice little camera as a Christmas gift this year. Normally, I shoot with a Nikon D70s or D90, so I am slightly spoiled in the realm of image quality.
That said, I believe this is an excellent camera if you can find it in your heart to accept a few small flaws.
Cons -
Image Quality - not as good as my SLR, but not bad for a point & shoot... also, the Sony camera seems to go more for color than texture... if you catch my drift.
Menu System - Sluggish, not horrible... except when deleting a photo, because there is no dedicated "delete" button. You can, however, select multiple photos to delete as a batch, so this isn't horrible
Full Manual Controls - there are none :(
Memory Format - You have to use Sony memory sticks... not really a dealbreaker, but I *already had* a bunch of SD cards that worked just fine.
Flash - Not the brightest flash I've used on a point & shoot... and it's easy to cover with your fingers
Shape - The camera body is not as ergonomic as it could be. It is hard to hold with one hand, especially when you're trying not to cover up the flash.
Shutter Release - It wiggles... not a huge deal, but it's weird.
Pros! -
Optics - Nice, Big, Quick - I can't pretend I'm an expert, BUT the quality seems pretty good. 5x optical zoom is a plus, but not extraordinary.
Speed - This camera shoots exceptionally fast. Dealing with the menu system is another story.
View Finder - THANK GOD! I can't stand it when a camera doesn't have a viewfinder. This one isn't the best... I'd say you get around 80-85% of the frame in the viewfinder, and there's no adjustments for glasses people, but it's there, and it works. My last point & shoot died because I broke the LCD... and there was no viewfinder.
Display - I love the display. I also love the live histogram available on the display.
Conclusion -
Basically, this is a very nice, high-end point & shoot. There's a few little quirks with it, but they aren't really too bad. I know it looks like I probably hate this camera, because I wrote so much more on the negative half, but that's only because I'm coming from an SLR and take a lot of these things for granted. Everything that I didn't mention is basically perfect. This camera has a few extra features like smile recognition, which I will personally never use, but some people might get a kick out of.
BASICALLY - This is an *excellent* Point & Shoot. Just don't expect it to be an SLR.
- 1.0 out of 5
Lenses broken within 12 minutes
(Johannes Naumann — 09/08/2008)
After unpacking and charging of the battery the Zoom lens got stuck after 2! full range operations and the take of 3! Photographs. Message on the screen: Switch off and on again.
The camera obviously tries to move the lens but always ends up with the same message.
- 4.0 out of 5
Really good and Handy
(santhosh — 07/25/2008)
Recently i bought this camera....
It is really superb....Picture clarity is very good....this is my first camera....so i felt very good about this....
If u dont have any camera...i can suggest you to go for this...
- 5.0 out of 5
best I've owned of 2 others
(jay maya — 07/10/2008)
I got this camera to have what I was saying "the last camera I'll need" Well the camera has very good resolution, zoom and video. Easy to use with any of the multiple settings it has. The screen is plenty in size, clear viewing and very compact, flash great, it just feels that I had gotten the best and for the prize at Brandsmart in Fl reduced to under $200. I got the 3 year uncoditional warranty. I feel this camera will take me a long ways before I'll be needing another ultra compact with so many good features and easy to use. More than I really need at this time, but is better to get more than not to have enough.
