wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes which is the best  model in SONY Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "which is the best  model in SONY" Watch "which is the best  model in SONY" New topic
Author

which is the best model in SONY

PRavi kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 13, 2007
Posts: 69
HI,

I thought of buying digital camera. Plase guide me which is the best model in SONY.
Chetan Parekh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 3636
I wish I could have this


My blood is tested +ve for Java.
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Don't know about Sony, but if you are looking for compact cameras, Canon Ixus models are probably one of the best out there.

Plenty of excellent reviews, comments and comparison at dpreview.com


[ flickr ]
marc weber
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 11343

Originally posted by PRavi kumar:
...which is the best model in SONY.

At over $47,000 (without the lens), the SONY Digital Betacam might be a little exclusive, but it is the "gold standard" for digital video.


"We're kind of on the level of crossword puzzle writers... And no one ever goes to them and gives them an award." ~Joe Strummer
sscce.org
Scott Selikoff
Saloon Keeper

Joined: Oct 23, 2005
Posts: 3697
    
    5

Originally posted by marc weber:

At over $47,000 (without the lens), the SONY Digital Betacam might be a little exclusive, but it is the "gold standard" for digital video.


Do you get a free PS3 with every purchase?


My Blog: Down Home Country Coding with Scott Selikoff
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
Originally posted by marc weber:

At over $47,000 (without the lens), the SONY Digital Betacam might be a little exclusive, but it is the "gold standard" for digital video.


Except that it's no use since it's Beta as in BetaMax. You see, VHS won the battle a long time ago and... oh wait... Oops!



"Never Mind..."
marc weber
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 11343

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
...VHS won the battle a long time ago and... oh wait... Oops! ...

A lot of news photographers continued using beta at home long after VHS had "won." I guess they are their own breed of tech geeks.
[ June 25, 2007: Message edited by: marc weber ]
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
Wasn't BetaMax a better product than VHS technically? I don't remember since I could not afford either format then, Ha!
marc weber
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 11343

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
Wasn't BetaMax a better product than VHS technically? I don't remember since I could not afford either format then, Ha!

That's my understanding, but I don't know the details. All I ever owned was low-end VHS players.
Nitin Nigam
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: 129
Hi,
Sony digital camera are really good. Their prices are on higher side but once you see the results you wont regret the price paid.
A good digital camera should have good opticals and good image processing both. Opticals of sony's camera are as good as others, but the image processing is far far better.
I have DSC T-50. It takes very very good photos even in poor light. Sony cameras are coming with image stabilizers that are really handy when you are shooting while moving(Shooting landscape snaps during journey) or when the object is moving(taking pictures of your friends on dance floor, they dont have to pretent to dance while giving a pose).
Sony DSC T-10 is also very good.


Nothing is impossible; for those who doesnt have to do it themselves.
myjotting.blogspot.com
marc weber
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 11343

I don't know much about digital photography, but I'll share what I do know:
  • Optical zoom good. Digital zoom bad. Basically, optical zoom is "real" zoom. It's done with the lens, so you don't lose digital resolution. But "digital zoom" is like enlarging a file in an editor application, and the image starts to look pixilated. So you're best off not using digital zoom at all in order to get the best source file, and then do your cropping/enlarging later.
  • A lens that you adjust manually to zoom (i.e., rotate or slide in/out) is faster and easier to use than power "in/out" zoom buttons. It's also a load off the batteries.
  • Most digital cameras come with a very small memory card, so factor in the cost of a high-capacity card. Also factor in the cost of a battery charger and back-up batteries.
  • Ashok Mash
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 13, 2000
    Posts: 1936
    Agree with Marc on the first point. Optical good, digital fake/bad.

    Zoom ring - depends on the class of the camera we are talking about I guess. Almost all compact digital cameras come with electronically operated zoom. All DSLR lens and most 'bridge' models (also known as 'prosumer' cameras) would have the zoom ring. If we are discussing that class, I would recommend a 400D or 30D. And start saving to buy quality glasses!

    I use a Canon 400D, and all the recent cricket photos in my flickr stream are with taken with a borrowed Canon 300mm F2.8 L lens, a professional class lens and is worth something like 4000 dollars! Ouch! The resulting image quality is worth it though!

    Memory cards are quite cheap these days. I paid $80 for a 1GB CF last August and recently I bought a 4GB for just $30!
    Henry Wong
    author
    Sheriff

    Joined: Sep 28, 2004
    Posts: 18118
        
      39

    Memory cards are quite cheap these days. I paid $80 for a 1GB CF last August and recently I bought a 4GB for just $30!


    Agreed. Memory cards are cheap, but if you buy one of the high speed DSLR cameras, don't cheap out. My wife recently bought the Nikon D80, mainly because it can share the same lenses that she uses on her Nikon N90. She doesn't like the newer plastic lenses as much as her older lenses.

    It's blistering fast, she uses the 160x sd cards -- 2GB for about $40. It is not worth saving a few dollars, if you have to wait a 1/2 second between shots. It may not seem like much, but it's the difference between getting and missing an action shot.

    Henry


    Books: Java Threads, 3rd Edition, Jini in a Nutshell, and Java Gems (contributor)
    David O'Meara
    Rancher

    Joined: Mar 06, 2001
    Posts: 13459

    Originally posted by Henry Wong:
    It's blistering fast, she uses the 160x sd cards -- 2GB for about $40. It is not worth saving a few dollars, if you have to wait a 1/2 second between shots. It may not seem like much, but it's the difference between getting and missing an action shot.


    Absolutely. Once you get beyond 6MP cameras the quality doesn't change much for casual users but other features such as start-time and time between shots is much more noticeable. Favour medium size faster cards rather than larger slower ones.
    Ashok Mash
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 13, 2000
    Posts: 1936
    Originally posted by Henry Wong:
    It's blistering fast, she uses the 160x sd cards -- 2GB for about $40. It is not worth saving a few dollars, if you have to wait a 1/2 second between shots. It may not seem like much, but it's the difference between getting and missing an action shot.

    Henry


    Yes and no. I agree, spending money on faster cards is the right thing to do, but from my experience, unless you are a dedicated sports, high speed action shooter, you probably don't need that speed.

    The Canon 400D that I use can do 3 exposures per second, and on RAW format (approx 10MB per picture) it can do 10 - 12 bursts continuously before the internal buffer fills up. I tested the 1GB Sandisk Ultra II (fast) card against 4GB Sandisk (not Ultra, fist generation, slower) card, and even shooting continuous frames at the cricket match to capture bowling actions (thats how I got the shot of Sachin and a few others getting clean bowled, ball making contact to the stumbs, bails flying in the air shots...), I didn't have problem with the time it takes to write buffered images to the slower 4GB card. In fact, when I counted and compared the seconds, it was only about two seconds slower than the faster card, to shed the entire 10 or 12 images from the buffer - about 100MB or data. Downloading from the card to PC is considerably slower though, but you are not usually under any time pressure at that stage.

    For a casual, one snap at a time user, the card speed makes that much of a difference, IMHO.
    [ June 27, 2007: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]
    Devesh H Rao
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Feb 09, 2002
    Posts: 687

    Originally posted by Ashok Mash:


    Yes and no. I agree, spending money on faster cards is the right thing to do, but from my experience, unless you are a dedicated sports, high speed action shooter, you probably don't need that speed.


    [ June 27, 2007: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]


    Burst mode is also useful in

    1. Capturing a kid in action
    2. Capturing birds in flight
    3. Capturing a sports action as you rightly pointed out.
    4. Capturing a sequence which you want to present in a pictoral fashion later on.
    5. Capturing a frame which is still but you are in a moving object say from a car.

    So I kind of would like to the dedicated to sports comment.

    Speaking from personal experience I normally keep my D80 in burst mode, you never know when a sequence excites you.

    I use a highspeed 2GB sandisk memory card and I guess it was worth the investment
    R K Singh
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 15, 2001
    Posts: 5370
    Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
    Don't know about Sony, but if you are looking for compact cameras, Canon Ixus models are probably one of the best out there.


    Compact camera, generaly have their own custom battery.

    I prefer camera with AA battery.
    So that even if your battery is not charged, you can buy from any near by shop and shoot.


    "Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
    Ashok Mash
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 13, 2000
    Posts: 1936
    Originally posted by R K Singh:
    ..camera with AA battery. ...buy from any near by shop and shoot.


    Thats a very good point. The only downside with cameras that take AA cells are that they are usually larger than models with their on LI cells. May be tere are cameras out there that takes AAAs?
    R K Singh
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 15, 2001
    Posts: 5370
    Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
    The only downside with cameras that take AA cells are that they are usually larger ..


    very true.. but today I thank my friend who advised this to me.

    becuase I myself had bought batteries 3-4 times. (note: normal AA battery wont work but you have to buy those come with long life)
    PRavi kumar
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 13, 2007
    Posts: 69
    HI Guys,

    Thanks for all you for provide the valuable suggestions. I decide to bye Sony DSC-H9 model.

    Regards,
    Ravi.
    Nitin Nigam
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jul 03, 2006
    Posts: 129
    Hi Ravi,
    Do share your experience with your camera among us once you get hold of it.
    All the best.
     
    I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
     
    subject: which is the best model in SONY
     
    Similar Threads
    which one is the best one to buy in sony ericsson mobiles?
    which PDA?
    Recommendations for a laptop?
    Suggest me a laptop
    Best phone for SCMAD