Sony Cybershot DSC-T3 vs. Canon IXUS 40

Sony Cybershot DSC-T3
http://www.sony.com.hk/sonyWeb/sony/product/web/submitModel.do?mainCat=DigitalImaging&subCat=DigitalStillCamera&prodCat=Cyber-shot&valueAdded=feature&model=DSC-T3&uid=CON_FF3A0E5F9A4BF22F6A311A38EE2CFC7A&catType=consumer

Canon IXUS 40
http://www.canon-asia.com/ixus40_30/

Between the two, could someone please advise me as to which is better. (Even better, if someone has personal experience in using either of these, a nice review would be appreciated)

I'm kinda bogged down by all those different technologies (Digic, and all).

I'll be glad to clarify anything if necessary.

Thanks

ive recently just bought a new camera and i have found that canon are better than sony mainly because they use the standard compact flash card where as sony use there own type of card, also canon has alot better menu system and manual controls than sony do, overall alot more easier to use camera and cheaper memory cards, so id go canon anyday and canon's quality of camera and pictures is very respectable.

The storage format of a camera or the menu navigation has absolutely no relationship to the quality of hte images it will take.

Y2k88, just head down to the local camera store, have a play with them both and take a few photos. Get those photos burned to CD (take down a laptop, or buy some low-capacity digital camera memory for testing, then sell it on ebay or something when you're done) and look at them full screen on your monitor when you get home.

Play with the cameras and see which feels right in your hands. See which navigation system feels easiest TO YOU. But, don't leave out Nikon.

When you're spending a specific amount of money, personally I feel you get more for that money with Nikon than you do with Canon - even on point-n-shoots.

Your best bet for reviews is http://www.steves-digicams.com. They'll have reviews for both of those up there most likely, but bear in mind, some cameras run by different names in the US. I know for a fact that there's no camera in the entire USA that's called the "Ixus". I believe Canon call that range the "Powershot" in the US.

i think it does, an easier navigation menu makes it easier even for the novice to play with settings and get a better picture. You are right though depends on what you want, easier manual control or a camera with the best overall picture quaility in any setting when it comes to point and shoot.



Totally agree

To a point I agree, but what's easier for one person isn't necessarily easier for another person. What's easier and more comfortable as far as the navigation goes makes you more comfortable with the camera, and means you'll probably take better shots. BUT, how easy or comfortable an individual is with a given camera is unique to that individual.

So, the navigation system in and of itself doesn't mean one camera will take a better picture than another camera simply because the navigation system is different. BUT, that navigation system may make the user feel more comfortable with the camera as a whole to get the better shots.

Take the Olympus point-n-shoots, for example. I hate them, I really do. When it comes to film, I feel Olympus were second only to Nikon. When it comes to digital, I wouldn't touch them with a 10ft pole. I've never taken a decent photo with an Olympus digital.

Also look at the Sony's. I used to have the Mavica FD-83. A 7 or 8 year old camera. A couple of years ago I had the more recent Mavica CD-250. While their menu navigation was almost identical, and the buttons were similarly located (except with a more updated, ergonomic design), the CD-250 felt more comfortable physically because of those design updates, but the FD-83 was capable of producing much better quality photos.

Now, those two Sony's are low-end compared to what's out today. The FD-83 had a max optical resolution of 1024x768 (1280x916 interpolated), and the CD-250's max is 1600x1200, but they're both essentially the same camera, and while navigationally almost identical, the more expensive, higher MP camera had crap autofocus, crap lenses, and a crap CCD compared to the high quality parts they used when they constructed the FD-83, and 1024x768 is more than you need if you're only taking occasional shots to put on your website. If you're not intending them to be used for print, or selling stock images, no problem.

Again, look at Canon vs. Nikon. In the high end digital SLR, they both have very different navigational systems. I'm very used to my D100, and can adapt pretty easily to Nikon's other digital SLR cameras. I've held and used several high end Canon digital SLR's (including their $8,000 EOS 1DS Mark II), and I just could not get used to it. An eight thousand dollar camera, and I couldn't take a decent single shot with it. Give me my Nikon any day. But, in the right hands, the Canon cameras can also produce absolutely wonderful results. And on the other hand, there are many photographers out there who can't get used to Nikon cameras, and shoot like crap with them, but love the Canon navigation system, yet there are also many photographers out there producing photos just as wonderful with Nikon cameras.

So, like I said, while the navigation sytem in and of itself bears absolutely zero relationship to the quality of the image, a navigation system that a user feels comfortable with means (more often than not) a camera a user is comfortable with, and therefore more likely to take better shots, but which navigation system is easier for any given person is entirely dependent upon that person.

Also, even systems with identical navigation (like the Mavicas), there are very big differences in quality between the cameras proving that the navigation system bears no relation to the final result.

Now I shoot a Nikon D100, and I was thinking about saving up for the D2x until Nikon announced a HUGE price drop on the D2h a couple of days ago (going down from $3299 to $1999), so I might get one of those to tide me over until I get the D2x.

I was just generaly speaking no harm intended, for me it's canon, i pickup the Powershot A95 that i currently own and can take pics with good results same with the Canon EOS 300, but i pickup a cheap Fuji or even a sony and i really dont like it, i havn't used a nikon to date so i can't comment. So yeh the menu i ment generally but it's really whatever your comfortable with.

A mate of mine had the EOS 300 and his son had a Sony at some fireworks the other night just walking around pointing and shooting and the sony got the clearest most vivid and overall better pics the eos prob would have been better on a tripod but when your walking around and want automatic point and shoot why not use the sony, depends how hardcore you are and what results you want lol

But anyway sorry for taking this thread off topic, best option for Y2K88 is to goto a shop play around with a heap of different types and see what you feel comfortable with and has the results you like the most

Don't worry, no harm taken

Hey, at least we both agreed on the point, the best way for him to know which works best for him is to play with 'em