I have a dilemma as we have a Disney Vacation scheduled for May 11th
and I am in need of a new digital camera. I have utilized the Sony
707 over the past five and a half years but I am now encountering
problems and technology has passed it by.
I was all set to purchase the H5 based on recommendations both
professionally (online and print articles) and personally (friends and
family) but I then saw the H7 coming out for close to the same cost as
the H5.
My question is do I try borrowing a camera for Disney or do I forgo
the H7 and get the H5. There does not seem to be a definitive date
for release of Sony's new model.
brn2rn75@mindspring.com wrote:
> I have a dilemma as we have a Disney Vacation scheduled for May 11th
> and I am in need of a new digital camera.
[]
> Thanks for any advice you can provide.
I would advise that you purchase as early as possible and start using your
new purchase right away:
- to eliminate the chance of infant mortality defects
- to be sure you are as familiar as possible with your new toy to speed
photo taking
Personally, I would go for a smaller and lighter camera such as the
Panasonic FZ7 or FZ8. The Sony H7 has a wider wide-angle end, which would
be useful. Neither has a swivel LCD which can be very useful in some
circumstances.
It's probably what feels best in your own hands which matters!
> I have a dilemma as we have a Disney Vacation scheduled for May 11th
> and I am in need of a new digital camera. I have utilized the Sony
> 707 over the past five and a half years but I am now encountering
> problems and technology has passed it by.
>
> I was all set to purchase the H5 based on recommendations both
> professionally (online and print articles) and personally (friends and
> family) but I then saw the H7 coming out for close to the same cost as
> the H5.
>
> My question is do I try borrowing a camera for Disney or do I forgo
> the H7 and get the H5. There does not seem to be a definitive date
> for release of Sony's new model.
My advice would be to look carefully at the new features you'll be
getting from an H5 or H7 and compare those with what the F707
provided to make sure that you won't be disappointed with one of the
newer cameras. It depends on how you use the camera and the type of
prints that you'll make. One thing that stands out is that the H5
has a 1/2.5" (small) 7mp sensor whereas the F707's 5mp sensor is
2/3" (larger). The usual result from cramming too many pixels into
an even smaller sensor should be poorer low noise performance. In
other words, when you need to use a higher ISO because the available
light is not sufficient, image quality will suffer. Based on
DPReview's full reviews this is the case. Here are some selected
quotes from the Conclusions pages that demonstrate this (and a few
other things) :
[F707] :
> • High quality, sharp and very fast (F2.0 - F2.4) 5x optical zoom
> lens (some macro distortion)
> • Generally quick AF, Hologram (Laser) assist for low light works
> better for large subjects
> • Excellent long exposures (up to 30 seconds, including noise reduction)
[H5] :
> • Some focus hunting at long end of the zoom (especially in low light)
> • Image stabilization doesn't seem quite as effective as competition
> • Some chromatic aberration
> • Strong purple fringing at high contrast edges
This isn't to say that the H5 is a bad camera. It did after all
get a "Highly Recommended" rating (barely). Most people don't make
very large prints, or make moderately large prints of cropped
images. If this describes your usage, and you don't usually take
pictures in less than bright light, the H5 could be a good choice.
I can't say the same for the H7 because I don't know anything about
it. It could be a better camera than the H5, but if it has a higher
resolution sensor without increasing the sensor size, it'll probably
be even worse than the H5 in this regard. Here are some more quotes
from the H5 Conclusion page :
> Like the H2, the H5 improves on its predecessor (the highly-praised
> DSC-H1) in several small but significant ways, both in terms
> of features and in the all-important matter of image quality. What it
> doesn't offer is a significant step up from the H2 in any respect (bigger,
> sharper screen aside). Of course there are differences in the output; the
> H5 has even worse purple fringing than the H2 and has slightly less
> impressive high ISO performance, but it seems a lot less prone to
> highlight clipping, so what you win on the one side, you lose on the other.
> At standard print sizes you'll see burnt out highlights a lot more than
> you'll see purple fringing, but it's still something Sony needs to address.
> The screen is lovely, but does come at a cost; slightly lower battery life,
> and the black finish is nice, but only you will know if it's worth paying
> extra for.
> Compared to the most obvious competitors - the Canon S3 IS and
> Panasonic DMC-FZ7 - the Sony H5 scores highly in handling, features,
> overall image quality and ease of use, and only really falls short in
> a couple of areas; burst mode, focus speed in low light (specifically at
> the long end of the zoom), and the purple fringing. The Canon S3IS
> wins hands-down when it coes to movies, the FZ7's lens and superior
> image stabilization means that at lower ISO settings it still, just, rules
> the roost when it comes to edge-to-edge sharpness, but the H5 offers a
> very attractive overall package that handles better than either, and - if
> that's what you like in a camera - has that nice big screen to boot.
>
> The choice when looking at this class of camera is a difficult one, and one
> that more often than not comes down to handling, personal preference
> (in terms of the actual output) and how important certain specific
> features (in this case the screen, basically) are to you. The H2 represents
> far better value for money than the H5, which is why I still consider it to
> be the pick of the bunch, but the H5 still offers an awful lot of 'bang
> for your buck'. Whilst it would be unfair to penalise the H5 simply
> because it doesn't offer a lot more than the H2 in terms of real benefits,
> I would point out that whereas the $399 H2 was an easy choice for a
> Highly Recommended, the H5, like the Canon S3 IS, was a much closer call.
While I can't determine whether the H7 would be a better choice, I
can easily say that you'd be better off getting an H5 now even if
the H7 became available close to May 11. This is because both the
H5 and H7 (and any other new camera) will be so different than the
F707 in handling and operation that if you don't want to miss or
ruin many good shot opportunities, you'll want to practice first,
familiarizing yourself with the camera at home. Better to fight the
learning curve there than to make many mistakes during your Disney
vacation. Another camera you may want to consider is Fuji's S6000.
Unlike the other cameras it doesn't have Image Stabilization, but it
makes up for that with much better image quality at high ISOs, due
no doubt to having a fairly large 1/1.7" sensor with a reasonable
number of pixels (6.3mp). From DPReview's conclusions :
> The demise of Konica Minolta's camera division has left Fuji as the
> only option for the buyer wanting a fully-featured big-zoom 'bridge'
> camera with a true wideangle lens. For this reason alone the S6000fd
> will be on many shortlists; throw in the fact that it shares the
> universally acclaimed 6.3MP Super CCD sensor found in the F30 and
> you have a very compelling proposition indeed.
>
> And in many ways the S6000fd doesn't disappoint; the resolution is
> excellent, and at lower ISO settings it puts many of the more popular
> 'super zoom' models to shame. At ISO 400 and 800 it is quite literally
> in a class of its own. The high ISO output might not worry the SLR
> manufacturers (the sheer scale of the difference in sensor sizes puts
> paid to that), but it is better than most competitors by a fairly wide
> margin. It's also actually a very nice camera to use, and comes about
> as near to SLR-handling as any fixed-lens camera ever has - though
> the user interface could do with a little more work.
. . .
> Although prices are so variable that it's impossible to make a definitive
> statement, the S6000fd is also fairly inexpensive - certainly compared
> to even the cheapest DLSR with a lens/lenses to cover the same
> 28-300mm range. At lower ISO settings it can also produce output that
> for many people won't produce prints significantly different to a DLSR
> with a kit lens - and you get the added benefit of live preview and movie
> mode.
. . .
> Put simply, whether the S6000fd is a better choice than, say the Canon,
> Sony or Panasonic super zoom models depends on the type of photography
> you do and the conditions you shoot in. If you tend to stick to the wide end
> of the zoom, do a lot of hand-held low-light work in situations where image
> stabilization doesn't help (basically if the subject you're shooting is moving)
> and don't need a really long zoom, the Fuji is ideal. If you want to do a lot
> of long telephoto work - especially in good light - I'd go for one of the
> alternatives. Do not, however, be seduced into thinking that the 6.3MP
> pixel count puts the S6000fd at a disadvantage compared to its 7,8 or
> 10MP competitors; the resolution is one of the best of any 'super zoom'
> camera, and at ISO 200-800 the S6000fd retains far more detail.
Sony H5 or Do I Wait for the H7? 
Linear Mode
