Canon versus Sony

My wife and I are amateur photographers and have decided to make the jump to digital. For the most part, we're pretty much point and shoot for vacations, family, pets, etc...

We've been investigating digital for several weeks and are at a crossroads. A friend recently purchased a Sony F707 and subsequently received one for Christmas. He doesn't want to insult the giver by returning it, so he has offered to sell it to us for $699 (purchased from Sears serial number 134...). Until now, we were planning to purchase the S30 for roughly $500. We like it's simplicity and compact size, have read numerous positive reviews, and feel that it would be a good place to start with digital.

As amateurs, we're a little intimidated by the F707. Plus, it's a bit more bulky than we're used to. Finally, we've read about several F707 performance issues in other forums (none of which make any sense to me). However, we do realize that the F707 has many more features than the S30 and that its performance issues may be limited to certain older serial numbers. We look at the 707 as something we can potentially grow into.

We're looking for a little advice...are we crazy to pass up an F707 for $699, or do you think we'd be better off with an S30. Please note, we have no need to print anything other than 8x10's. Also, money is really not the issue, we're just trying to find the best product for our needs.

Thanks very much!

Hi Craig,

I would take a good look at the Canon G2. It is rated very high and takes excellent pictures. The price on the G2 is becoming lower very week.

Stephen

Craig Weimer said:

My wife and I are amateur photographers and have decided to make
the jump to digital. For the most part, we're pretty much point and
shoot for vacations, family, pets, etc...

We've been investigating digital for several weeks and are at a
crossroads. A friend recently purchased a Sony F707 and
subsequently received one for Christmas. He doesn't want to insult
the giver by returning it, so he has offered to sell it to us for
$699 (purchased from Sears serial number 134...). Until now, we
were planning to purchase the S30 for roughly $500. We like it's
simplicity and compact size, have read numerous positive reviews,
and feel that it would be a good place to start with digital.

As amateurs, we're a little intimidated by the F707. Plus, it's a
bit more bulky than we're used to. Finally, we've read about
several F707 performance issues in other forums (none of which make
any sense to me). However, we do realize that the F707 has many
more features than the S30 and that its performance issues may be
limited to certain older serial numbers. We look at the 707 as
something we can potentially grow into.

We're looking for a little advice...are we crazy to pass up an F707
for $699, or do you think we'd be better off with an S30. Please
note, we have no need to print anything other than 8x10's. Also,
money is really not the issue, we're just trying to find the best
product for our needs.

Thanks very much!

Click to expand...

I cannot comment specifically on either camera but I can suggest this...

Buy what you want and not something because it is a great price. The extra features might discourage your use of the camera. However, having the exact same camera as your friend might be very helpful.

Maybe you could borrow his "other" Sony for a day or weekend and see how you like it. If money isn't a problem, you could buy it and then sell it if you don't like it. You still would take a hit ($) but if you sell it this spring, it might not be too bad.

Hope this helps.

Jim

PS. Yes, the G2 is a wonderful camera but doesn't seem to make much sense as a suggestion in this instance.--Canon G2 & 420EX SpeedliteG2 in action - http://wok.nwsc.k12.in.us/vegas/http://wok.nwsc.k12.in.us

Craig Weimer said:

He doesn't want to insult
the giver by returning it, so he has offered to sell it to us for
$699 (purchased from Sears serial number 134...).

Click to expand...

Hmm, sounds a bit fishy to me. He doesn't want to "insult the giver" by quietly returning it, but will sell it to someone else?

Craig Weimer said:

As amateurs, we're a little intimidated by the F707. Plus, it's a
bit more bulky than we're used to. Finally, we've read about
several F707 performance issues in other forums (none of which make
any sense to me).

Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but there are more than a few issues with this camera that made it not the right tool for me. I owned one that I purchased for just $30 more than the price you've been offered, and ended up returning it to Sears.

I suggest you look at sample photographs, because that is always the bottom line. All the features in the world mean nothing if the final product isn't worth bragging about.

I did a little comparison of my own of the F707 and the G2 that I ended up staying with at http://www.pbase.com/bsiverly/faceoff .

Craig Weimer said:

We're looking for a little advice...are we crazy to pass up an F707
for $699, or do you think we'd be better off with an S30.

Click to expand...

I can't say I've used the S30, but I'm willing to bet that feature-for-feature, the S30 isn't the camera the F707 is, but the proof is in the photos.

My biggest problem with the F707 in the end is that most of my photos had a serious blue cast (especially ones with flash). Daylight shots in the shade or existing light indoors had a cold quality to them that I didn't find appealing. Most needed to have red added in Photoshop to get them to be acceptable... which is a problem since the F707 also had the tendency to over-saturate reds. So adding red to a photo with anything red in the picture was a big problem.

I'm still not convinced Sony has addressed the flash problem, and the samples I've been seeing on fixed cameras still fail to impress. You'll need to judge for yourself, however. I was able to get some good images with the 707 (some better than I could have managed with any other digicam in its price range), but most of them had one problem or another, and I'm sure it would have gnawed at me for as long as I owned it.

Craig Weimer said:

Please
note, we have no need to print anything other than 8x10's. Also,
money is really not the issue, we're just trying to find the best
product for our needs.

Click to expand...

If you're only doing 8x10, there are plenty of terrific 3MP cameras out there, and you'll be able to get started and upgrade to the powerhouse cameras when you've got the experience... and when they make them better.

Heck, with the money you save, you can buy extra accessories, more memory... maybe even a microdrive if the camera you choose supports it. Nothing better than one of those, in my opinion. There are some great close-out specials on some incredible cameras... there are some terrific deals on the Nikon Coolpix 990, for example.

I feel the F707 is flawed, but the next one will almost certainly be better, and we may see it sooner than later (if Sony's track-record stays the same). The G2 is a good second-generation camera, where Canon got to fix most of the flaws with the G1. Some experience auto-focus issues with the G2, on the other hand... I've not experienced that, but I got used to the quirky autofocus on the G1 and I'm a long-time EOS user. It takes practice, no doubt, but with digital cameras, film is pretty cheap.

Good luck!

Bryan

Like you and your wife I too was a dabbler in 35mm photography. I never really was able to get serious about it because, let face it, developing film is expensive and not everyone can afford to waste a whole roll to get one good shot. For this reason mainly I made the jump to digitial. My first digital camera was a Sony Mavica FD-90.

Immediately I noticed I was taking better pictures. This is because of digitials two big benefits.

1. LCD allowes you to compose your pictures better because you will see the final image before you click the shutter.

2. It cost nothing to opperate. Now I can retake an image 20 times until I get it right and it cost me nothing but time. You can waste 50-100 shots just experimenting with exposures, shutter speed or white balance and it still cost you nothing.

Now here is the downside to all of this. As my photography improved I found myself limited, because as good as the Mavica was it was somewhat limited in scope and performance. In less than two years of owning the Mavica I found myself needing a new digital camera in order to further my skills. The F707 more advanced than the S30. Should either you or your wife decide to explore your talents further, the F707 will be able to take you further than the S30. Since the price is right, why not go for all you can?

Clifton
http://www.pbase.com/klyphton

Craig Weimer said:

My wife and I are amateur photographers and have decided to make
the jump to digital. For the most part, we're pretty much point and
shoot for vacations, family, pets, etc...

We've been investigating digital for several weeks and are at a
crossroads. A friend recently purchased a Sony F707 and
subsequently received one for Christmas. He doesn't want to insult
the giver by returning it, so he has offered to sell it to us for
$699 (purchased from Sears serial number 134...). Until now, we
were planning to purchase the S30 for roughly $500. We like it's
simplicity and compact size, have read numerous positive reviews,
and feel that it would be a good place to start with digital.

As amateurs, we're a little intimidated by the F707. Plus, it's a
bit more bulky than we're used to. Finally, we've read about
several F707 performance issues in other forums (none of which make
any sense to me). However, we do realize that the F707 has many
more features than the S30 and that its performance issues may be
limited to certain older serial numbers. We look at the 707 as
something we can potentially grow into.

We're looking for a little advice...are we crazy to pass up an F707
for $699, or do you think we'd be better off with an S30. Please
note, we have no need to print anything other than 8x10's. Also,
money is really not the issue, we're just trying to find the best
product for our needs.

Thanks very much!

Click to expand...

Klyphton said:

The F707 more advanced than
the S30. Should either you or your wife decide to explore your
talents further, the F707 will be able to take you further than the
S30. Since the price is right, why not go for all you can?

Click to expand...

Again, the proof is in the photos and whether they fit the taste of the one taking the pictures. A feature-laden camera that takes inferior photos isn't much of a gain.

For example, you can have all the horsepower in the world, but the speed limit is 65, and getting you there in comfort is always a consideration. Or another: why is it that those fancy-looking store-bought cakes never tast as good as my grandmother's? The bottom line for me is how it tastes, not its form or function necessarily.

Bryan

Tigadee (a really nice guy in the Sony Talk Forum) just posted a gallery that compares the long zoom of the Olympus C2100UZ and the Sony F707. Although the comparison was meant to show how well the 707's digital zoom holds up in comparison to a true 10x zoom on a lower resolution digicam, the photos show well the color differences of the F707.

Here's the gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/tigadee/big_zoom_shootout

Olympus cameras have a pretty good reputation for accuracy of color, and when compared to the Sony, the difference is obvious. Here, we don't have to tackle the overdone subject of Sony reds, but just look at the different rendering of the greens in the foliage. Or the additional level of cyan in the skies.

If that looks OK to you, then perhaps this might be a good camera buy. I don't find this acceptable, on the other hand, and it was perhaps the major reason for my returning the F707.

Bryan

I just looked at the camparison's you posted.

I do see color differences. I just wish my untrained eye could say which one looks bad. If i were only looking at a single photo I would say either of them looked good. I have been noticing people talk many times about color. but isn't color in the eye of the beholder? especially when the photographer is the only one who knows what the original scene looked like. (IF he can remember color detail a year later)

I am new to Photography, although I am on my third digital camera (G2) before I was only into snapshots
Perhaps with time my untrained eye will become the master of my craft.

Untill then I suggest that others like me, just take a look at photo's and if they look good, be happy-- http://pbase.com/sidmind

sidmind said:

Untill then I suggest that others like me, just take a look at
photo's and if they look good, be happy

Click to expand...

My point exactly. If the colors and the images look good to you, that's what is most important.

There were certain films I didn't use because I didn't like the colors, and others that I preferred because the color was more "true" to me. Unfortunately, with digital cameras, you don't have the same flexibility.

There are things other than color to consider from samples as you compare digital cameras. Look for the level of purple (or blue) fringing in high contrast areas. Look for color-noise in shadows and in the skies. Look at highlights in brightly lit scenes... is all detail lost? Is the general sharpness of the image acceptable? However, color accuracy is probably at the top of my list.

Bryan

sidmind said:

I just looked at the camparison's you posted.
I do see color differences. I just wish my untrained eye could say
which one looks bad.

Click to expand...

Planet Sony is a strange place where greens are lurid, reds are glowing and skies are cyan. The fact that so many people seem to find these colours appealing has always been a mystery to me. Maybe some people lack sufficient cones/rods in their eyes and therefore need extra colour stimulation from vivid / oversaturated photos. I don't mean this facetiously, I do actually believe that some eyes need more stimulating than others.

sidmind said:

If i were only looking at a single photo I
would say either of them looked good. I have been noticing people
talk many times about color. but isn't color in the eye of the
beholder?

Click to expand...

To a degree yes, because all our eyes are different. But there's a point beyond which the majority of people will be able to detect that a certain colour isn't natural. Note the word "natural", rather than "pleasing" - the Sony forum is full of people talking about "pleasing colours" rather than natural colours. Everything is subjective of course, but I don't find Sony colours pleasing because to me they usually look just plain wrong to my eyes.

sidmind said:

especially when the photographer is the only one who
knows what the original scene looked like. (IF he can remember
color detail a year later)

Click to expand...

Well I'd hazard a safe bet that no matter where you are on this planet of ours, skies usually aren't cyan. This picture looks like one of those nasty 1970s faded seaside postcards:

http://www.pbase.com/image/819988

Truly horrible colour to my eyes at least.

Cheers
Martin
http://photos.runic.com

Martin Eager56124 said:

Well I'd hazard a safe bet that no matter where you are on this
planet of ours, skies usually aren't cyan. This picture looks like
one of those nasty 1970s faded seaside postcards:

http://www.pbase.com/image/819988

Truly horrible colour to my eyes at least.

Click to expand...

well I looked at the photo, then went outside and looked at my own crisp Oklahoma flat land sky. and I dont see much difference.
I really don't see any cyan.

I feel I have my monitor calibrated fairly well. it's a Silicon Graphics 21" monitor. I think I will go back to the monitor calibration page
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/index.htm
and see if my screen needs tweaking.
-- http://pbase.com/sidmind

sidmind said:

I feel I have my monitor calibrated fairly well. it's a Silicon
Graphics 21" monitor. I think I will go back to the monitor
calibration page

Click to expand...

Or I'd be happy to trade you for my 19" CTX that is perfectly calibrated.

Bryan

You can pick up a SGI monitor on Ebay cheap.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1313546309
here is one. be carefull with SGi monitors most won't work with a PC
and you have to have a 15pin to 15pin cord.

I will gladly sell you my SGI workstation.. hint hint

Bryan Siverly said:

sidmind said:

I feel I have my monitor calibrated fairly well. it's a Silicon
Graphics 21" monitor. I think I will go back to the monitor
calibration page

Click to expand...

Or I'd be happy to trade you for my 19" CTX that is perfectly
calibrated.

Bryan

Click to expand...

-- http://pbase.com/sidmind

Here is another site where yo can compare the S30 vs the Sony 707,

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

I personally like better the quality of the S30, it sounds that this a no brainer, do you want waht you want for less money?.....go for the S30.
ER

Bryan Siverly said:

Tigadee (a really nice guy in the Sony Talk Forum) just posted a
gallery that compares the long zoom of the Olympus C2100UZ and the
Sony F707. Although the comparison was meant to show how well the
707's digital zoom holds up in comparison to a true 10x zoom on a
lower resolution digicam, the photos show well the color
differences of the F707.

Here's the gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/tigadee/big_zoom_shootout

Olympus cameras have a pretty good reputation for accuracy of
color, and when compared to the Sony, the difference is obvious.
Here, we don't have to tackle the overdone subject of Sony reds,
but just look at the different rendering of the greens in the
foliage. Or the additional level of cyan in the skies.

If that looks OK to you, then perhaps this might be a good camera
buy. I don't find this acceptable, on the other hand, and it was
perhaps the major reason for my returning the F707.

Bryan

Click to expand...

sidmind said:

well I looked at the photo, then went outside and looked at my own
crisp Oklahoma flat land sky. and I dont see much difference.
I really don't see any cyan.

Click to expand...

So, this looks more like the sky outside to you:

http://www.pbase.com/image/819988

Than this:

http://www.pbase.com/image/819987

Fair enough if that's the case, but I've personally never seen a sky the colour of the first shot. Admittedly I've not travelled to every corner of the globe - skies round this part of the world usually take on this colour:

http://photos.runic.com/skywards.html

Cheers
Martin

when I have both photos's side by side, I do like the color of the sky better on the OLY, but I also notice that everything else seems darker too.
The trees in the lower portion. Would this be contrast???

OK see what you think about this, after I notice that the trees seem darker on the oly, I put the image into photo shop, and imidietly see a difference between the two images. I am doing a comparison right now of the two exact same images. 1# Internet explorer #2 Photoshop 6.0
and there is a major difference in color of the sky and trees.
arrgghhh

so I check my color profile, and Windows is set to srgb and photo shop is set to "Epson Styles photo 820" color profile

after changing the profile back to srgb in photo shop everything matches the Web. but it looks better with the epson profile.

I can see where this get's into a whole new realm of image comparison. everyone who has a different profile, or different monitor or a list of many other items are all going to see slightly different color depths.

just a quick poll, what color profile do you use on your WIndows system, and do you match it up in Photo shop?
-- http://pbase.com/sidmind

sidmind said:

when I have both photos's side by side, I do like the color of the
sky better on the OLY, but I also notice that everything else seems
darker too.
The trees in the lower portion. Would this be contrast???

Click to expand...

The Oly shot is a little underexposed because it has metered for the sky. It looks better in Photoshop with the sRGB profile.

sidmind said:

just a quick poll, what color profile do you use on your WIndows
system, and do you match it up in Photo shop?

Click to expand...

sRGB - this seems to give the best compromise between screen and printer colour matching for me.

Cheers
Martin

Craig Weimer said:

My wife and I are amateur photographers and have decided to make
the jump to digital. For the most part, we're pretty much point and
shoot for vacations, family, pets, etc...

We've been investigating digital for several weeks and are at a
crossroads. A friend recently purchased a Sony F707 and
subsequently received one for Christmas. He doesn't want to insult
the giver by returning it, so he has offered to sell it to us for
$699 (purchased from Sears serial number 134...). Until now, we
were planning to purchase the S30 for roughly $500. We like it's
simplicity and compact size, have read numerous positive reviews,
and feel that it would be a good place to start with digital.

As amateurs, we're a little intimidated by the F707. Plus, it's a
bit more bulky than we're used to. Finally, we've read about
several F707 performance issues in other forums (none of which make
any sense to me). However, we do realize that the F707 has many
more features than the S30 and that its performance issues may be
limited to certain older serial numbers. We look at the 707 as
something we can potentially grow into.

We're looking for a little advice...are we crazy to pass up an F707
for $699, or do you think we'd be better off with an S30. Please
note, we have no need to print anything other than 8x10's. Also,
money is really not the issue, we're just trying to find the best
product for our needs.

Thanks very much!

Click to expand...

Thank you everyone for your advice. We decided to go with the 707. If the price was equal, we would have given serious consideration to the G2. We're looking forward to learning about photography and growing into this camera. Happy New Year to all of you.

Craig