Is the Sony Cybershot W170 good?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pathfinder55, May 1, 2008.

  1. Pathfinder55 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    #1
    I would just be using this camera as a normal user nothing to special. Also is there another camera that is the same price that would be better? I want to get the best deal for the dollar.
     
  2. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #2
    If you like the W170 why not save some money and get the W130?

    What are you shooting? Reviewers complain the camera is not fast handling but if all your intended subjects are static speed is not an issue. Can you use a larger camera? Does size matter?
     
  3. Pathfinder55 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    #3
    I thought that the 170 was better than the 130. From what I can see the 130 costs less than the 170.

    I would probably just be shooting vacation photos and probably some action photos too like baseball games. Size kind of matters not that much though I just don't want it to be too big.
     
  4. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #4
    There is a good argument the lower priced 130 is a better camera. The 170 has _way_ to many pixels for the size sensor while the 130 was a more reasonable number.

    The way Sony and other consumer electronic makers market their gear is they make a line of in the this case camera that are identical except for one or two features then they price them at intervals of $20 or $50. The idea is that the buyer with $200 will buy the $200 model and the buyer with $150 will buy the $150 model. It works because most people don't know much abut "technology stuff" and assume that as long as they can aford it they may as well buy the more expensive model. This works to extract the most money from each customer.

    With cameras at first glance 12MP sounds like more than 8MP until you find out that it work just like at the pizza place. You order a "medium" and the guy asks you it you want it cut into 8 or 12 slices. In both cases 12 is not more. Just like pizza it matter a lot how big each slice it, with camera larger pixels are much better than small ones. You need a balance between quantiy and size. 6MP to 8MP seams to be about the right balance. for small point and shoot cameras

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

    Your wrote: "probably some action photos too like baseball games" When you do this one thing that can drive you nuts is "shutter lag" that is the delay between when you push the button and when the shutter snaps. The better camera have none of this some other small camera can do a "three count" before the shutter snaps. Hard to capture the ball hitting the bat with a delay like that.

    Have you read the specs on www.dpreview.com it's worth doing some reading there

    All that said -- Figure that advice is worth about about what you paid for it
     
  5. Pathfinder55 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    #5
    Thanks for that! :) I got what you were talking about with the pizza place. I read Pogues post about the MP Myth, it was good, I understand it a lot more now.

    Yes, I would like to have a faster shutter speed because the camera that I use right now is very slow.
     
  6. Pathfinder55 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    #6
    Also, what are the fastest shutter speeds? And what are the best ones that usually come in point and shoots?
     

Share This Page