I've had the Sony DSC-F1 for about a year and a half now and I'm ready for an upgrade. I'd like the higher resolution of some of the newer cameras as well as removable storage.

Unfortunately none of the newer cameras seem to meet my needs that the DSC-F1 meets or if they do it is not apparent from the reviews.

Specifically, I almost never use the flash on my DSC-F1. In fact, since I purchased it I think I've used the flash less than 10 times. This makes the camera extemely useful. I can be at a restaurant with my friends and grab a picture without the flash bothering everybody including other people. I can snap pictures on the train. I can take pictures in a Museum where flashes are prohibited etc.

Last January I purchased both the Kodak DC-210 and the Epson Photo PC 600 but returned both (and lost about $200 in the process). The Kodak took much clearer pictures than my Sony probably due to it's resolution being 4 times that of the DSC-F1 but then I tried to use it as I use my Sony and it failed. None of the pictures with no flash came out. I've seen your tiraid(sp?) about people expecting to be able to take low light pictures without a tripod. I think your comments are mis-placed. You should be giving the camera manufactures grief over this and not the user. Some cameras can do it and some can't That's a plus for those that can.

I've wondered if the difference is whether the camera is based on Video Camera technology or Digital Camera technology given that several Video Camera manufactures are selling what they call 0 LUM cameras claiming they can take pictures in any lighting conditions.

The Kodak as mentioned above took either black images (like inside rides at Disneyland) or blurry images, like in a coffee shop at night. The Epson just refused to even take a picture in those conditions.

I would like a camera that takes at least 1280x960, uses Lithium batteries, uses SmartFlash or CompactFlash cards, can take low-light pictures, is small enough to put in your pocket, and has a swivel lens. I know this is possible but it won't happen unless people ask for it.

I'm not sure if this stuff is available in America but as examples of what can be done, here in Japan, Sony has a Digital VIDEO camera called the RUVI which is the size of the average Point and Shoot still camera (like a little smaller than a Minolta Freedom Zoom). It has a 3x optical zoom but it stores to a small removable hard drive.

Sony and Panasonic both have digital video cameras using standard digital video tapes where the camera's profile is smaller than a stardard American or Japanese Passport. If I remember correctly both of these cameras have at least a 10x optical zoom. You can read more on their Japanese websites (www.sony.co.jp) and I would guess Panasonic is (www.panasonic.co.jp)

Could you consider directing your complaints to the camera manufactures on these issues and also adding these issues to your reviews? Digital Cameras are not Film Cameras and shouldn't be limited to the traditional uses of a Film Cameras. We can expand what's possible but we need to ask for it.

-Gregg

-- Gregg Tavares (greggt@biggrub.com), July 20, 1998

Answers

Sorry to be so long in responding to your excellent post: We're trying to be more aware of cameras' low light behavior, but haven't yet really gotten a good test established for quantifying it. We have noticed that many recent cameras with relatively modest ISO 100 speed ratings actually do surprisingly well in low-light conditions. In particular, recent tests of the Toshiba PDR-M1, Canon A5 (which does go to a true ISO 400 in 640x480 mode), and the HP PhotoSmart C20 (review about to be posted in the next week or so) seemed to do quite well in low light. Unfortunately, most of these seem to go to quite a slow shutter speed before they begin pumping the gain on the CCD's sense amplifiers. This preserves image quality as much as possible, but at the expense of slow shutter speeds.

You mentioned video tecnology - This does indeed seem to allow for higher light sensitivities, albeit generally at lower resolutions/image quality. The Casio line of digicams appear to be video-based, and have quite astonishing low-light capabilities: They behave as though their equivalend ISO were ~3200(!) The QV-5000 seems to continue this tradition into the megapixel arena, although it's extreme low-light performance isn't quite as good as their earlier VGA-level cameras.

-- Dave Etchells (web@imaging-resource.com), August 20, 1998.

Yes,

I'm actually really sick of this DSC-F1. It's cool but I really really want a new camera. The pictures from the Coolpix 900 look really great. But I can't give up the way I use the camera which is (1) I keep it in my pocket when I go out on weekends (2) I take lots of indoor pictures at restuarants, at bars, at coffee shops, inside museums. Places where people would get annoyed if a flash was going off often.

If you'd like to see some examples, check out any of the pictures on my webpage, especially the ones of Japan. None of them used a flash or a tripod. Actually I think there is one flash picture on the ramen museum page. That page is actually a good example. All the picutres of all the packages and noodles and the ramen I ate and my friends were all taken indoors without a flash.

http://www.greggman.tierranet.com

The one thing I really one is clearer pictures though. At 320x240 or lower the pictures look fine but at 640x480 almost all pictures from this camera look blurry. that's not because of them being dark, even the pictures in sunlight are blurry at 640x480.

Someone please make something like a DSC-F1 that works exactly the same but ads compact flash, mega pixels, clearer pictures.

-gregg

PS: Here in Japan Sony actually makes a DSC-F3. As far as I can tell the only differences are 8meg internal instead of 4 meg and possible faster download times.

-- Gregg Tavares (greggt@biggrub.com), August 20, 1998.