Canon PowerShot S3 IS or Sony DSC-H7, Which would you buy?

I'm going to get one or the other, just need peoples thoughts between the
two.

Noob

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:58:02 -0500, Noob wrote:

> I'm going to get one or the other, just need peoples thoughts between the
> two.
>
> Noob

Why is it that you're limiting your choices? Have you actually looked
through them both? That was definitely one kicker for me.

ray@zianet.com (ray) wrote in
newsan.2007.06.13.14.06.51.838192@zianet.com:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:58:02 -0500, Noob wrote:
>
>> I'm going to get one or the other, just need peoples thoughts
>> between the two.
>
> Why is it that you're limiting your choices? Have you actually
> looked through them both? That was definitely one kicker for me.

Well, what did you see when you did that, and where did the
experience kick you?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

Noob wrote:
> I'm going to get one or the other, just need peoples thoughts between
> the two.
>
> Noob

I looked at the Canon (then S2 IS), and bought a Panasonic FZ5 instead.
Much more solidly built, and with a better lens performance.

David

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:20:24 +0000, Bert Hyman wrote:

> ray@zianet.com (ray) wrote in
> newsan.2007.06.13.14.06.51.838192@zianet.com:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:58:02 -0500, Noob wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to get one or the other, just need peoples thoughts
>>> between the two.
>>
>> Why is it that you're limiting your choices? Have you actually
>> looked through them both? That was definitely one kicker for me.
>
> Well, what did you see when you did that, and where did the
> experience kick you?

Quite frankly, I looked at the EVFs on all the cameras I cound find. This
has been a little while back and some new models have entered the market
since then. What I saw was that the low res 110k pixel EVFs were so
pixellated I could not stand it. Minolta had an EVF model with an
advertised 1mp EVF - it was great but to pricey. The Kodak P series at
220k pixels was quite acceptable. I bought a P850 from Kodak's online
store (refurb) last fall.

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk>
wrote in message news:UrUbi.4473$p8.2024@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
> Noob wrote:
>> I'm going to get one or the other, just need peoples thoughts between
>> the two.
>>
>> Noob
>
> I looked at the Canon (then S2 IS), and bought a Panasonic FZ5 instead.
> Much more solidly built, and with a better lens performance.

?! All the reviews I read said that the lens performance between the FZ7
and the S3IS was almost identical and I certainly wouldn't agree that the FZ
series are better built, I found quite the opposite when I tried them.

On the plus side the FZ7 did feel lighter if thats what you want in a Camera
but I prefered the Canon.

John Ortt wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
[]
>> I looked at the Canon (then S2 IS), and bought a Panasonic FZ5
>> instead. Much more solidly built, and with a better lens performance.
>
> ?! All the reviews I read said that the lens performance between the
> FZ7 and the S3IS was almost identical and I certainly wouldn't agree
> that the FZ series are better built, I found quite the opposite when
> I tried them.
> On the plus side the FZ7 did feel lighter if thats what you want in a
> Camera but I prefered the Canon.

I'm talking about real images, not reviewer's pixel peeping, but I'm also
talking about slightly different lenses. Perhaps Canon improved theirs
between the S2 and S3?

An important point is the handling of a camera, and if you found that the
Canon suited you better, it's the obvious choice.

David

Noob wrote:
> I'm going to get one or the other, just need peoples thoughts between the
> two.
>
> Noob

One big advantage of the Sony is the Li-Ion battery. With the Canon
you're stuck using AA batteries.

I really like the S5 since they added a flash shoe, and I'd probably
make the compromise of AA batteries in exchange for that feature, though
grudgingly since the Li-Ion battery is such a big advantage.

scharf.steven@geemail.com (SMS) wrote in
news:46715041$0$27219$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Noob wrote:
>> I'm going to get one or the other, just need peoples thoughts
>> between the two.
>>
>> Noob
>
> One big advantage of the Sony is the Li-Ion battery. With the Canon
> you're stuck using AA batteries.

Gee... I have exactly the opposite opinion.

I carry two sets of NiMH AA cells for my camera and recharge as
needed when traveling, but still have the option of buying a set of
alkalines almost anywhere in the world.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46715041$0$27219$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Noob wrote:
>> I'm going to get one or the other, just need peoples thoughts between the
>> two.
>>
>> Noob
>
> One big advantage of the Sony is the Li-Ion battery. With the Canon you're
> stuck using AA batteries.
>
> I really like the S5 since they added a flash shoe, and I'd probably make
> the compromise of AA batteries in exchange for that feature, though
> grudgingly since the Li-Ion battery is such a big advantage.

Advantage? What do you do when you're recharging your Li-Ion battery and
you want to take photos? With the AAs, there is no down time. And at over
500 snaps per pair of AAs, what advantage could the Li-Ion possibly offer?