I was about to purchase the Sony until I read the review of the 2500L. I know there is a difference in price. Can anyone help me?

-- Ron ToKar (tokarr@wwics.com), November 25, 1999

Answers

Ron:

I made this exact decision in late October. Both are fine cameras. It comes down to which features are important to you. For me, I went with the C2500L because of the ISO adjustability and the fact that it uses Compact Flash. For me, the two cameras would have been the same price because I would need to buy an additional $500 of Sony Memory sticks. And I've always wanted a SLR type camera. So I took a deep breath and bought a (then) un-reviewed $1400 camera. I'm glad I did.

Still, I would probably be happy with the Sony had I gone that way. The MPEG capability is nice and the 5X zoom was of great interest to me. And if I remember correctly, it has no barrel distortion at all, an amazing feat for a zoom lens that size.

If you want to see some "real" vacation pictures taken with the C2500L, e-mail me.

Robbin

-- Robbin Merritt (RobbinM@swbell.net), November 25, 1999.

In market full of cameras that are pretty darn similar, these two are very different indeed.

The 2500 is at true slr camera, the only one at the prosumer level i'm aware of. The 505 doesn't even have a viewfinder at all, but it has an especially good LCD screen.

The 2500 has the best flash integration of any digital camera, while the 505 has no ability to use external flash at all. (Though you can use a slave). The on camera flash on the 505 kind of sucks, low power, lens barrel shadows at close range, no red eye comp.

The 2500 has a bigger, higher res CCD. Both have especially good lenses. The 505 has a bigger 5x zoom. I'd give the image quality edge to the 2500, once the images have been sharpened a comparable amount (505 does more in camera sharpening).

The 505 has a standard 52mm lens thread, pretty handy. I think the 2500 is a more professional oriented camera, better for studio work, the 505 is a really fun toy with a long zoom. I got

-- benoit (foo@bar.com), December 03, 1999.