Swing by this site ( divephotoguide.com/index.ph...  ) for sample images using the W300. They're pretty sharp, IMHO.

Well, reviews are subjective. And it largely depends on who's shooting them. I usually also toss out the really praising reviews and the ultra negative ones. This eliminates the haters and the fanboys. What you have left is a pretty good picture of how a camera performs.

These camera's are quite a different breed. The W300 handles and looks just like your average p&s, but puts out higher resolution less-noisy images. It also sports a titanium coating and a manual mode. The LX3 is something completely different. It is unique among compacts, as it has a 24mm wide-angle (compared to the W300's 35mm) and a maximum aperture of 2.0 to 2.8. It's a great little camera, but has two major flaws. It's pretty poor at the tele end at 60mm and is also VERY expensive, around 2 times the W300.

A DSLR, quite frankly. Although the shutter delay is getting shorter, it's still a way of life in point and shoot cameras. If you like the convenience of point and shoot, the shutter delay is part and parcel. But there are ways to minimize it. Prefocus (press the shutter half way down), pan with the action. Use fast SD cards. That will cut your delay by as much as 80%.



but if you want a point and shoot that instantly takes a picture when you press the shutter, doesn't happen.

Well, the H50B isn't a dslr at all. It's what's called an "ultra zoom," large lens, but still a point and shoot. DSLR is a digital single lens reflex and that would be like the Sony Alpha cameras.

Technically the new Panasonic G1 mirror-less "SLR", announced Samsung NX series, and announced Olympus micro-three fourth cameras are technically not SLRs but perform like them.



Anyhow what you are referring to is called shutter lag and assuming the camera is on and powered up (Many Point and shoots range from 2-3 seconds while almost all DSLRS are under .25 seconds), is a combination of priming the Auto Focus/ Auto Exposure at half press (As stated above) and recording the image from the sensor to digital card. The final measurement is the time it takes to recover after the shot is recorded (Max Frames Per Second is the total of this). Many cameras will allow you to shoot continuously after you set the focus and this is the continuous mode (Many of the super/ultra zooms/advanced digital cameras on the market offer 13+ Frames Per Second at the same focus for X number of shots) this mode is sometimes called sports continuous mode or action continuous mode.



Many of the point and shoot cameras in fact can do 3 up to an astounding 10 FPS (Without the sports continuous mode on) now days- The DSC HX1 can do 10 FPS with a mechanical shutter and the Canon SX 1 can do 4 FPS (The switch from CCD to newer developed CMOS Sensors allow much faster speeds) . By comparison the Nikon D40 can only do 2.5 FPS and the D60 does 3 FPS. The D80 can do 5 FPS. The a350 can only do 2.5 FPS. So the short of it is some digital cameras on the market can in fact shoot just as fast as SLRs. They still power up slower though....



Basically the metric you want to look at is the AF/AE metric and the FPS metric and that will tell you which is better for your needs. You also may want to look at some cameras with sports continuous mode (Most of the Superzooms offer it)

It is lower quality (Anything over 3-4 MP if posted only on the web, but not printed out, is wasted anyhow)... but boy is it fun.... In all honesty the Nikon P90, Olyumpus SP line, Kodak Z line of superzoom easy shares, and Fuji s8000/81000 are really for the soccer moms/Nascar dads and for those who just want to goof off with a camera (In otherwords a Toy for both more advanced Armature/Professional photographers). The Zooms are way too long (Without Tripoding) especially the 24X and 26X zooms, the sensors too small for how many MP are pushed into them, and the lenses produce way too many aberrations. The Price is the real tip off (A 500+mm Equivalent lens) for under $400 and even under $250 as of this writing. They are what they are, and will take acceptable family photos especially of kids playing sports, Good for shots of the Garden, shots at family functions, vacation shots, shots of the family dog, etc etc....



I really want to get my paws on a Canon SX 1 or Sony Hx1 and see if they really do shoot full res at 4 and 10 FPS. Both the SX 1 and HX1 are bridge cameras....



If you can find one in a store to try, the Fuji FinePix s100FS more or less handles like an entry level SLR. I would recommend it over an entry level SLR if you don't want to completely dwelve into the SLR territory or are on a very tight budget, as they designed the lens first then the camera around the lens and did a fine job of it. The camera essentially is a SLR with a lens permanently affixed to it. Everyone was of course shocked when Fuji announced it in 2008 as most people who would want a beast like the s100FS would likely just buy an entry level SLR instead of such a SLR like bridge camera with a fixed lens....



If you are on a very tight budget and willing to give up some control and a viewfinder (but will get a very easy to use camera with good glass) the Nikon CoolPix L100 is selling under 270 and takes beautiful photos, is very responsive, and has a 15X zoom.



If you have the cash (AKA you want to spend in the 1.5K-2K+ price Range) a Nikon D300 with Nikkor 18-200mm VR Lens, Canon EOS 1D Mark III, or Sony Alpha700 all with quality 18-200mm lenses would be the Cadilac version of what we are talking about (A step to step and a half under what the pros would use ). If you want to save a bit on lenses, Sigma has been turning out some good quality camera glass and Tamron has been turning out acceptable budget lenses... Keep in mind that all of these lenses are of higher quality than what is on most of these superzooms. Nikkor camera glass is some of the best, if not the best, camera glass on this planet and that is very much reflected in the price- but is well worth it if you can afford it.

Well if money really isn't your issue, then why not invest in an entry level DSLR like the Canon XSi? You'll have full res for 12MP, no shutter delay, and far superior optics. And if you get into photography as a hobby, you can then upgrade to a better body and use your existing lenses. And even if you don't and just shoot it on auto, you're far better off.

Well, there isn't much you can do other than perhaps tape some opaque paper over the flash to diffuse it. YOu could also shoot slight over axis from your subject.

Yes, provided you stop taking anymore pictures because this will wipe off the record and make recovery difficult, if not impossible.



The procedure involves removing the memory card and insert it into a card reader.

Plug the reader to the USB port of the computer.



Next download a photo recovery software from the internet. Many will do the job satisfactorily, except for RAW files which needs better software.

A useful site to visit will be <a href="photosrecovery.com/">  this one </a> where you can download a free trial version.



Install the photo recovery software, run it and you will be able to get back all you photos that has not been damaged or overwritten.

As far as battery life... they're pretty much the same. The T700 is a bit sturdier because it has stacked lenses which do not extend, making it more durable and longer lasting. The downside is the T700 takes a slight bit longer to focus (like 0.2 seconds), plus it costs a bit more. If you want same features, lens, pictures, and less durability for a cheaper price, then the W300 is the way to go. If you want durability and very slim looks and features, you'll have to pay a bit extra.

I love the Sony you can not go wrong with sony they take great pictures, I own 5 and I have had about 7 other I upgrade all the time, I'm a tech junkie

My recommendation is the Kodak Z1085IS. Records in 720p HD and zooms while recording. Check out my review here ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita...  ).

IIRC, you'll need one of these bad boys ( sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/st...  ) to connect via HDMI.

Stands to reason that they would be. But then again, I'm against adapters and teleconverters from the very start. The problem is that A 2x teleconverter will magnify the images coming into your lens by 2. The downside is, that this will cause your camera to have to be compensated in it's exposure settings because of the loss of light by 1-2 stops. And depending on the quality of the glass in your teleconverter, you may also run into clarity issues. You will certainly run into some "barrelling" issues at the extreme end of your focal length. this will make the image look like you're looking out of a barrell. This can also happen with wide angle converters ass well.



To be honest, while you can purchase these options to add onto your existing lens, I don't recommend them because the tradeoffs involved simply outweigh the benefits in my mind.