Perhapse I should not put the topic here but seeing as how I do relate a digital camera's usability with my comptuer I will consider a digital camera a component.

I am looking to upgrade from my Canon S230 (4 years old) to either the lastest Canon or Sony. I mostly just take pictures but I also like to take video, but I'v noticed that most DC's only record for about 30secs to 3 mins depending on format. Are there any cameras out there that record longer, under 550$?

The one thing I hate the most now with my currect camera is how slow it is. Either taking a picture or browsing though them. If you have used either or both the lastest Sony or Canon what do you think is better?

Thanks for your input.

On the camera I have now a 30 second clip takes up 20mbs I have had a 256mb card since I got the camera. I figure it was a limitation with the software/file format's using with the camera and not the card?

If Sony & Canon had cameras that recorded more than 30 seconds they would lose sales on their digital video recorders.

These days the recording time is rarely limited. The only limit usually is the size of your card and the format you're recording in.
Digital video recorders do a lot more than a DC will do, and they have alot more optical zoom than a DC does.

Canon's (the more recent models) do not have a limit (besides the card size).
Here's an example of the SD450
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/ [...] elid=11939
The highest time they quote is 3357 seconds which is almost an hour of time.
And thats for a 512MB card.

Just do some research around. I found that if you're really into cameras and stuff, dpreview.com has some excellent reviews, including shutter time lag.

I got the SD450 and its shutter lag is pretty good. Its alot better than my 4 yr old Canon. Look for the DIGIC II processor - that's what cuts the lag down alot. I got the SD450 for like $250 at amazon.

I tend to stick with either Canon (if at all possible) or Nikon.

Thanks for the replay. I like the Canon SD700 the best, and the price is not bad.

Sony DC's have a higher MP count for the same money but I think they lack other features.

Anyone use Sony?

I noticed that too (sony's having higher mp count but less $).

My problem w/ sony is that I don't like their color reproduction. I've seen some shots from my coworker and his higher end sony and the colors looked somewhat flat to me. Casio's are worse too I think. That's why I tend to stay w/ Canon/Nikon - their color reproduction is the best, IMO.

The only thing I wish the Canon SD line had was full manual control like on the A-series. Perhaps the SD700 has it, but the SD450 doesn't.
In some situations its really hard to get a good shot w/o full manual control, you know?

To be honest, I just point and shot most the time. I never really mess with the settings. My old camera does not have that many anyway. If I get this new SD700 (I think I am) I will try and figure out what all manual settings mean.

Yeah, I know what you mean. For me I only really used manual controls when I was trying to shoot fireworks or a hard night-time shot. But the SD450 has some scene modes for those - not sure how good they work, but its better than nothing.

Hopefully someone else can comment on the Sony cameras.

If you get the SD700, you might want to invest in a high-speed card. I use SanDisk Ultra II's, which are pretty nice.
Its not necessary and I'm not sure if the SD700 would benefit from the higher transfer rate. But its really nice if you have a card reader - transfers are really fast.

I think anything I get at this point will be a big improvement over what I have now. I look forward to see what this camera can do. I may get that card, not sure as I don't have a card reader at the moment.

I'd recommend that you get a card reader. Then you don't have to plug your camera into your computer, you save camera battery life (which on the SD line is pretty precious), and you don't have to install drivers and whatnot.

I didn't have one before but now I don't know how I got by without it!