Question re Sony DSC W5

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I bought the Sony DSCW5 a couple of days ago. I've just been using Auto
till I know what I am doing, if ever. I've done a lot of reading about
cameras, and photography for months but still have a lot to learn.
I've read the instruction manual, which doesn't explain everything. I
can see this is going to take me a while. The manual doesn't say much
about how to record movies, which is not a priority, but would be nice
to know if it works. I don't have a memory card yet, but the camera has
32MB internal memory which is good enough for me to get an idea of how
things work. I've been able to transfer images from the camera to my
computer. I don't find Picture Package supplied by Sony to be too good.
What I would like to know for now is I have printed a lot of shots to
see how they look and some shots taken on my apt. balcony, which is
quite a bright area, look a bit too light. Should be a little darker.
Some others taken outside are a bit too light as well. The camera has
manual contrast and some color adjustments, but I am using auto, so you
shouldn't need to adjust things, should you?
A general question - When they say 38-114 mm equivalent to 35 mm camera,
but other cameras have 36-108 mm - does it mean the 38-114 mm camera is
capable of wider shots? which has the advantage?
One other thing. About rechargeable batteries, is there much difference
if you get 2300 Nimh or 2500 Nimh?

Cathy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 18:19:15 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> I bought the Sony DSCW5 a couple of days ago.

Congratulations. I hope it works well for you. If I didn't get
the Fuji earlier this year, that very likely would have been the one
I'd have chosen. I wasn't much interested in the W7.


> I've read the instruction manual, which doesn't explain everything. I
> can see this is going to take me a while. The manual doesn't say much
> about how to record movies, which is not a priority, but would be nice
> to know if it works.

Not all cameras come with a complete printed manual. I'm not
familiar with Sony's practice, but if you have any doubts, make sure
there isn't a more complete manual provided on the accompanying CD.


> What I would like to know for now is I have printed a lot of shots to
> see how they look and some shots taken on my apt. balcony, which is
> quite a bright area, look a bit too light. Should be a little darker.
> Some others taken outside are a bit too light as well. The camera has
> manual contrast and some color adjustments, but I am using auto, so you
> shouldn't need to adjust things, should you?

Maybe, maybe not. But for your complaint you'd more likely want
to use Exposure Compensation rather than adjusting contrast or
color. Additionally, it's common for such adjustments to only apply
to the non-Auto modes. Exposure Compensation, on the other hand, is
usually allowed even in Auto mode. See if the W5 has more than one
method for calculating exposures. You really have to understand how
the camera does this to be able to take properly exposed pictures
consistently. It might take an average reading of the entire frame,
use only a small portion of the center of the frame, or use some
other method. This should all be described in the manual, even if
it says nothing about how best to take advantage of the different
exposure methods.



> A general question - When they say 38-114 mm equivalent to 35 mm camera,
> but other cameras have 36-108 mm - does it mean the 38-114 mm camera is
> capable of wider shots? which has the advantage?

Neither has an advantage. It depends on what kind of lens you
prefer. By 38-114mm, they mean that when using the zoom at it's
widest setting, it's equivalent to a 35mm camera using a lens with a
38mm focal length. And when you zoom the lens to the telephoto end,
it's as if you had a 35mm camera with a 114mm lens attached. If the
camera had a 36-108mm lens its widest angle position would be wider
than the W5's, but not by much (36mm vs. 38mm). Similarly, the W5's
114mm reach is only slightly longer than the other camera's longest
telephoto position, (114mm vs. 108mm). The focal length ranges of
these two zoom lenses are quite similar, and are fairly typical.
Some people prefer very wide angle lenses, and so a zoom that goes
down to 28mm or even 24mm (such as on the Nikon 8400) would be
preferable. This is often a good choice for landscapes and indoor
shots that you take in cramped quarters that need to include many
people. But other camera owners care little about wide angle
lenses, and prefer zoom lenses that go well beyond 114 mm. What the
W5 has is a pretty reasonable compromise that should satisfy most
people.



> One other thing. About rechargeable batteries, is there much difference
> if you get 2300 Nimh or 2500 Nimh?

Hardly any. But if the capacities are accurate, and if the former
powered the camera long enough to be able to take 230 pictures (a
completely made up number, BTW), the other might be expected to be
able to take 250 pictures per charge. Not a big deal, really.
When I put batteries in my Fuji, I grab whatever is convenient, and
don't worry about whether the batteries are rated at 2500mah or 1850
mah. If I have any doubt that they won't last long enough, I'll
take along another set of NiMH or alkalines, "just in case. . .".
But usually I don't, as with a freshly charged set of NiMH
batteries, I'd be hard pressed to take so many pictures that even
the 1850mah ones might run down. It might be different for you,
since I don't expect the W5 to be able to take as many pictures per
charge, as it uses only 2 AA's, vs. the 4 AA's that my camera uses.
You might want to put a pair of lithium AAs in a bag or in your
pocket for use only in emergencies. Remember? They're much lighter
than NiMH or alkalines, and last much longer. Or you could carry no
spares at all, as long as you'll be near one of the 10 million
stores that sell alkaline AA batteries if and when the NiMH
batteries run down.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:c0l4i1pce2dovs4rtui9nb6oqhfjpd38bi@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 18:19:15 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > I bought the Sony DSCW5 a couple of days ago.
>
> Congratulations. I hope it works well for you. If I didn't get
> the Fuji earlier this year, that very likely would have been the one
> I'd have chosen. I wasn't much interested in the W7.

I got the Sony W5 at a very good price and it was the most I wanted to
pay and includes a charger and two Nimh batteries.. About $50.00 US off
(rough conversion). It was on sale at a camera chain store and I bought
it at Staples who matched the price. I like Staples as they have been
good to deal with in the past. I thought I was going to get an even
greater bargain at Staples, who usually matches competitor prices plus
50%, but when I went there, they told me they stopped giving the 50%
part of difference in competitor prices and now is 10% which is the same
as the other well known camera stores here. They just changed it Sept.1.
Lost too much money, I read a few months ago, so not surprising. Still,
they could have waited another week. Oh well, I did OK. I didn't get a
memory stick pro yet. I will get one next week.

The W7 is about $100.00 more here and I think its much the same as W5
except for being
7 MP. The W5 is a little more heavy than I would like, but its hard to
get everything. If I want something light, I have to go into lithium
ions and if I ever had to replace one, they are around $70.00 US here. I
like the convenience of AA's, and the W5 has a 2.5 inch screen. It says
its been treated with anti reflection material so you can be seen fairly
well in the sun, which is true, but I found I had to use the viewfinder
when in the direct sun. The viewfinder is quite small but it will have
to do. I wouldn't have bought a camera with no viewfinder.

> > I've read the instruction manual, which doesn't explain everything.
I
> > can see this is going to take me a while. The manual doesn't say
much
> > about how to record movies, which is not a priority, but would be
nice
> > to know if it works.
>
> Not all cameras come with a complete printed manual. I'm not
> familiar with Sony's practice, but if you have any doubts, make sure
> there isn't a more complete manual provided on the accompanying CD.

I should have mentioned when I said above that I read the instruction
manual, that it was a printed manual I read. It has about 90 pages, some
of which covers batteries, memory stick etc. and some of it is not clear
to me because there is a lot I don't know about various settings.

> > What I would like to know for now is I have printed a lot of shots
to
> > see how they look and some shots taken on my apt. balcony, which is
> > quite a bright area, look a bit too light. Should be a little
darker.
> > Some others taken outside are a bit too light as well. The camera
has
> > manual contrast and some color adjustments, but I am using auto, so
you
> > shouldn't need to adjust things, should you?
>
> Maybe, maybe not. But for your complaint you'd more likely want
> to use Exposure Compensation rather than adjusting contrast or
> color. Additionally, it's common for such adjustments to only apply
> to the non-Auto modes. Exposure Compensation, on the other hand, is
> usually allowed even in Auto mode. See if the W5 has more than one
> method for calculating exposures. You really have to understand how
> the camera does this to be able to take properly exposed pictures
> consistently. It might take an average reading of the entire frame,
> use only a small portion of the center of the frame, or use some
> other method. This should all be described in the manual, even if
> it says nothing about how best to take advantage of the different
> exposure methods.

Does EV mean composure compensation? When you have the camera on auto
mode, doesn't that usually mean that the camera takes the photo at
proper settings? It might also be my printer doesn't print as dark as it
should on some jpgs. Its not only for printing photos though it can be
used for that as well as general printing. The W5 has only a few manual
settings.

> > A general question - When they say 38-114 mm equivalent to 35 mm
camera,
> > but other cameras have 36-108 mm - does it mean the 38-114 mm camera
is
> > capable of wider shots? which has the advantage?
>
> Neither has an advantage. It depends on what kind of lens you
> prefer. By 38-114mm, they mean that when using the zoom at it's
> widest setting, it's equivalent to a 35mm camera using a lens with a
> 38mm focal length. And when you zoom the lens to the telephoto end,
> it's as if you had a 35mm camera with a 114mm lens attached. If the
> camera had a 36-108mm lens its widest angle position would be wider
> than the W5's, but not by much (36mm vs. 38mm). Similarly, the W5's
> 114mm reach is only slightly longer than the other camera's longest
> telephoto position, (114mm vs. 108mm). The focal length ranges of
> these two zoom lenses are quite similar, and are fairly typical.
> Some people prefer very wide angle lenses, and so a zoom that goes
> down to 28mm or even 24mm (such as on the Nikon 8400) would be
> preferable. This is often a good choice for landscapes and indoor
> shots that you take in cramped quarters that need to include many
> people. But other camera owners care little about wide angle
> lenses, and prefer zoom lenses that go well beyond 114 mm. What the
> W5 has is a pretty reasonable compromise that should satisfy most
> people.

Thanks for the explanation. I like taking pictures of scenery if I get a
chance and the wider angle the better. I like widescreen movies, though
not 2.35 as its too narrow, but hopefully the W5 should be ok.

> > One other thing. About rechargeable batteries, is there much
difference
> > if you get 2300 Nimh or 2500 Nimh?
>
> Hardly any. But if the capacities are accurate, and if the former
> powered the camera long enough to be able to take 230 pictures (a
> completely made up number, BTW), the other might be expected to be
> able to take 250 pictures per charge. Not a big deal, really.

The Sony W5 and others like it from Sony, supposedly have "Stamina"
batteries which take more photos, so I will have to see. I charged the
batteries that came with the camera a couple of times and I've used the
LCD quite a bit and its 2.5" so probably takes more battery power. I
can't tell how many photos I took, but it says you can take 410 on one
charge, but that must be if you don't use the LCD. I got a lot less than
half of that.

> When I put batteries in my Fuji, I grab whatever is convenient, and
> don't worry about whether the batteries are rated at 2500mah or 1850
> mah. If I have any doubt that they won't last long enough, I'll
> take along another set of NiMH or alkalines, "just in case. . .".
> But usually I don't, as with a freshly charged set of NiMH
> batteries, I'd be hard pressed to take so many pictures that even
> the 1850mah ones might run down. It might be different for you,
> since I don't expect the W5 to be able to take as many pictures per
> charge, as it uses only 2 AA's, vs. the 4 AA's that my camera uses.
> You might want to put a pair of lithium AAs in a bag or in your
> pocket for use only in emergencies. Remember? They're much lighter
> than NiMH or alkalines, and last much longer. Or you could carry no
> spares at all, as long as you'll be near one of the 10 million
> stores that sell alkaline AA batteries if and when the NiMH
> batteries run down.

Yes, I don't think it will matter much as its not like I will be taking
a lot of pictures. I am only taking a lot right now because the camera
is new and its a novelty. Not many stores here have lithium AA's. I
think I only saw them in Best Buy. I don't go there very often, but I
will look next time and if they are lighter in weight, thats even
better.
I mentioned to Jack in another post, one reviewer of a Sony S90 which is
quite similar in features to the W5 and I was interested in it also
because it had a 2.5" LCD, said that non Sony AA Nimh batteries could be
problem in some Sony chargers. Maybe they meant they didn't charge
properly or something.
Thanks for the input.

Cathy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Download Picasa2. It will correct your light pictures and it's free.


> I will have to wait to buy a photo program. The camera came first and
> I will get other things later. Newer cameras are more money here than
> in the US, but I got the Sony W5 on sale for about the same price as
> they sell for in the US.
>
>> I wouldn't worry about what the lens is
>> equivalent to. Just take pictures and enjoy.
>
> I thought it would be interesting to know.
>
The larger the number, the greater the zoom. 35mm is better than 38mm
as it's a slightly greater zoom. The same is true for telephotos.
>
> I saw on the Sony S90 which I was also interested in and has much the
> same features as the W5, they said that the charger which came with
> the camera, (same charger as the W5) had problems with some makes of
> Nimh batteries because they were not Sony brand. I would be
> interested to know if you have you have had any problems in this
> regard? Thanks.

I don't use the charger that came with the camera. I use a
Maha(Powerex) M-204W. It's far superior to the Sony charger that came
with the camera. You can buy both batteries and chargers on line as I
did. Use google and type in Nimh batteries for digital cameras. Jack

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jack" <forrmark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96CD6AEF72DC1jafo@216.196.97.136...

> >> I wouldn't worry about what the lens is
> >> equivalent to. Just take pictures and enjoy.
> >
> > I thought it would be interesting to know.
> >
> The larger the number, the greater the zoom. 35mm is better than 38mm
> as it's a slightly greater zoom. The same is true for telephotos.

Larger number is a greater zoom? so a smaller number such as 35mm has
less zoom?

> > I saw on the Sony S90 which I was also interested in and has much
the
> > same features as the W5, they said that the charger which came with
> > the camera, (same charger as the W5) had problems with some makes of
> > Nimh batteries because they were not Sony brand. I would be
> > interested to know if you have you have had any problems in this
> > regard? Thanks.
>
> I don't use the charger that came with the camera. I use a
> Maha(Powerex) M-204W. It's far superior to the Sony charger that came
> with the camera. You can buy both batteries and chargers on line as I
> did. Use google and type in Nimh batteries for digital cameras. Jack

I might buy another charger later. We don't get Maha Powerex chargers
here, but I've seen
Panasonic, Energizer,Duracell, and Rayovac chargers and batteries in
various stores near me. I've never any need to buy online. We don't get
variety in brands of chargers as you do in the US, and they cost more
here, but one of the above brands should be OK. I just wondered if Sony
Nimh rechargeable batteries are better suited for the Sony Charger
rather than other brands, but you mentioned you don't use the Sony
Charger. Which would be the best charger and batteries between
Panasonic, Energizer and Duracell? or are they all about the same?

BTW, you mentioned you need a memory stick pro in order to try out the
movie feature on the W5, but movie mode works fine with only Internal
memory. You can't run it at Fine quality, but can use standard for about
25 seconds. I just wanted to see if it worked OK.

Cathy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy,
I forgot to answer your question. I don't know which of the chargers you
mentioned is best. I bought the Maha because an article I saw on line said
it was one of the best and it wasn't expensive. Any brand of battery will
work in any charger.
Jack

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jack" <forrmark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96CDB22FC5E42jafo@216.196.97.136...
> Cathy,
> I forgot to answer your question. I don't know which of the chargers
you
> mentioned is best. I bought the Maha because an article I saw on line
said
> it was one of the best and it wasn't expensive. Any brand of battery
will
> work in any charger.
> Jack

The ones I mentioned were Panasonic, Duracell and Energizer.
I definitely won't be buying one online. See my other message.

Cathy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:4aq6i1lg12aqro1f6tok54jgrn8u6nk0ne@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:34:58 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > I just wondered if Sony
> > Nimh rechargeable batteries are better suited for the Sony Charger
> > rather than other brands, but you mentioned you don't use the Sony
> > Charger. Which would be the best charger and batteries between
> > Panasonic, Energizer and Duracell? or are they all about the same?
>
> Among my diverse collection I have high capacity Sony AA NiMH
> batteries and a Sony charger. I haven't found a brand that the Sony
> charger wouldn't work with, and the Sony AAs charge nicely in any of
> my other chargers. I recall that several years ago Sony made some
> AA NiCads that were the only type that could be charged in their own
> CD player, but they could still be charged in any other brand of
> battery charger. It was the CD player's built-in charger that was
> designed to be incompatible with AA cells that didn't have a special
> gap in the insulation surrounding the batteries.
>
> As for chargers, they're definitely not all the same. All of the
> brands you mentioned make chargers that should be avoided, but
> Energizer and Rayovac also make very nice ones. Panasonic and
> Duracell may make good ones too, but I haven't seen their entire
> line. At a bare minimum, you want to see somewhere in the
> description on the package that the charger has the ability to
> charge 1, 2, 3 or 4 cells at a time. The poorer chargers can only
> charge cells in pairs. So even if you have no need to charge 1 or 3
> cells at a time, if the charger can do that, then it very likely has
> the ability to monitor each individual cell while charging. If the
> package doesn't say, a clue that the charger has a separate charging
> circuit for each cell is if you see that it has at least one LED for
> each cell that it can charge. So if you're looking for a 4 cell
> charger, it should have 4 or 5 visible LEDs, instead of 2 or 3.

I will keep these points in mind. By the way, does it matter if the
charger takes 1 hour, 3 hours, 6 hours?obviouly the 1 hour one is
faster, but are others which take longer just as good, even though they
take longer?

> As for the batteries, I haven't noticed a significant difference
> between brands, and as I've mentioned elsewhere, I prefer that the
> batteries NOT be all of the same brand. It's best to create sets of
> batteries (in your case with the W5, in sets of 2 cells each). That
> makes it easier to prevent getting the batteries mixed up if you
> aren't careful.

Good point. I will only be using 2 batteries, so they can both be the
same brand which is OK, as
batteries come in packages of 2.

When that wasn't possible, such as when I bought
> some at a lower price but had to buy them in larger quantities, I
> walked over to a local Rite-Aid and bought a bunch of tiny bottles
> of nail polish to mark the batteries with red, blue, brown or green
> polish (no more local hobby shops with their little bottles of
> enamel paint). I've had no problems with the polish wearing off,
> and it's worked out much better than wrapping a small piece of an
> Avery label around the batteries. Thin as the labels are, they're
> sometimes thick enough to prevent batteries from being easily
> inserted or removed.

Its a good idea about the nail polish, but I won't be taking that that
many pictures as I don't expect to be taking any trips any time soon. I
blew my money on a camera but will probably get a faster charger at a
later time and two more batteries and a memory stick maybe next week.
For extras I might get the two lithium AA's you mentioned before if I
can find them.

As for buying batteries, as I've said, brand
> isn't that important, at least in my experience. What I do look for
> are batteries with the highest capacity, but not because of a desire
> for the high capacity. If I get batteries having capacities of
> 2300mah or greater, there's virtually no chance that they'll be old
> stock that was sitting on a shelf for 2 or 3 years.

Thanks for the tips.

Cathy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:g267i1pns3ajmrvnog5lbqir84upsbtc29@4ax.com...

> Since I'm generally not time constrained I sometimes use the Sony
> charger which can take 4 hours or more to finish charging or the 1
> hour Rayovac. I occasionally use the Energizer 30 minute charger,
> and rarely use one of several chargers that need to charge overnight
> (about 13 hours)
>
> This is just a roundabout way of saying that a well designed
> charger can do a good job whether it takes an hour or longer and a
> poorly designed charger can take the same amount of time to finish
> charging. So don't let the charger's speed be an overly great
> factor in selecting a charger.

The Sony which came with the camera takes 6 hours to charge, so because
there will be periods of time I won't be taking any pictures, it might
be all I need, as I intend to get another two Nimh's probably Sony 2500
AA's just to have a couple extra in case I need them which I may not -
don't know yet what my pattern of taking pictures will be. I think I can
say that I am pretty sure you take a lot more pictures than I will be
taking. Also, just so I know, how long can I leave the batteries in the
camera if I am not going to be using the camera for say a few weeks or
what if it was longer?

Cathy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave C." <c9ar9dar9elli@9c4.n9et> wrote in message
news:4324380b.0@paperboy.c4.net...
> Hi Cathy,
>
> I read all these valuable posts about the Sony W5 camera and I can't
add
> anything more except to reinforce a few points. My charger has four
> separate circuits so that each battery charge is independent. I has
one
> earlier that charged them in pairs and often two batteries may not be
> exactly the same and one of the pair may not get a maximum charge.

Yes, that could happen. Its something to keep in mind.

> When I first got the camera, I also took all my pictures on "auto."
Now, I
> take all my pictures in the "P" mode or program mode. That way, I got
used
> to learning what all the settings are. And in the "P" mode, I have
> everything set at the default settings and can change any setting
easily.
> Staying in the "P" mode sort of makes me learn all about what the
setting
> are and what they can do.

I haven't got that far yet. There is still a lot I don't know how to do.
How did you find the printed manual which came with the camera? Its
quite good, but doesn't explain things as much as I would like, but
maybe thats just my slowness at learning some things.

> When I bought the camera, I bought a 256 mb Memory Stick Pro in order
to
> take video in the "fine" mode because the results in the fine mode are
> excellent considering it is basically a still camera.

I don't have a memory stick yet - can't afford everything at once ,
but will get one soon. I experimented with movie mode, and it worked out
OK. I have just the 32 mb internal memory, but its enough for a 20
second video for testing. I took the movie of myself with self timer.
You can't use fine mode with internal memory, but can use standard,
which I thought was quite good.
I tested it in my living room and you don't know if you speak loud
enough or not, till you transfer the shots to the computer, and when I
played it back there was a loud buzzing/humming sound in the background
and I wondered if there must be something wrong with the sound, and I
found later that it was the sound of my window air conditioner. The
microphone in the camera is very sensitive.

> When I first got the camera, I would take it with me and take pictures
of
> trivial things just to get experience using it.

Probably everyone does this.

> I take all my pictures at the 5 meg level, "standard" resolution, and
I
> download them into the computer in the "fine" mode.

So far I've been doing that, but will be better when I get a memory card
since I have to keep deleting some shots to make room.

> I found the software that came with W5 is only fair. I have an older
Fuji
> 2800 camera and the software that came with it (FinePix software) is
> compatible and works very well.

Yes, I would agree. The Picture software is not too great. I use Win
98SE and had to install a USB driver but that was ok. The pictures are
transferred ok from the camera to the computer, but I found when I tried
to Save them it displays an error saying "can't be saved" or some
annoying message. Do you have that problem ? Maybe its because I am
using win 98SE. I have Win 2K on a separate partition on my hard drive,
but you also need the same driver for it, so could have the same
problem. For Win XP you don't need to download a USB driver.I downloaded
HP software before, and it seems to be better. Are there better free
software programs for transferring images from the camera to the
computer.. (preferably simple ones)?

> I think it is a great camera and best of luck with it. Your posts
show you
> will do very well with it.

Thank you (I think
I've done quite a bit of research on digital cameras for months now, and
looked around at a lot of cameras and saved my pennies to buy one. There
is still much for me to learn though.

Cathy

> Regards,
> --
> Dave C.
>
> c9ar9dar9elli@9c4.n9et
>
> Remove the five 9's (leave the 4) for email.
>
>
> "Cathy" <not@nothing.com> wrote in message
> news:G7ydnZ2dnZ3RCM3LnZ2dnT3yv96dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@rogers.com...
> > "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> > news:c0l4i1pce2dovs4rtui9nb6oqhfjpd38bi@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 18:19:15 -0400, Cathy wrote:
> >>
> >> > I bought the Sony DSCW5 a couple of days ago.
> >>
> >> Congratulations. I hope it works well for you. If I didn't get
> >> the Fuji earlier this year, that very likely would have been the
one
> >> I'd have chosen. I wasn't much interested in the W7.
> >
> > I got the Sony W5 at a very good price and it was the most I wanted
to
> > pay and includes a charger and two Nimh batteries.. About $50.00 US
off
> > (rough conversion). It was on sale at a camera chain store and I
bought
> > it at Staples who matched the price. I like Staples as they have
been
> > good to deal with in the past. I thought I was going to get an even
> > greater bargain at Staples, who usually matches competitor prices
plus
> > 50%, but when I went there, they told me they stopped giving the 50%
> > part of difference in competitor prices and now is 10% which is the
same
> > as the other well known camera stores here. They just changed it
Sept.1.
> > Lost too much money, I read a few months ago, so not surprising.
Still,
> > they could have waited another week. Oh well, I did OK. I didn't get
a
> > memory stick pro yet. I will get one next week.
> >
> > The W7 is about $100.00 more here and I think its much the same as
W5
> > except for being
> > 7 MP. The W5 is a little more heavy than I would like, but its hard
to
> > get everything. If I want something light, I have to go into lithium
> > ions and if I ever had to replace one, they are around $70.00 US
here. I
> > like the convenience of AA's, and the W5 has a 2.5 inch screen. It
says
> > its been treated with anti reflection material so you can be seen
fairly
> > well in the sun, which is true, but I found I had to use the
viewfinder
> > when in the direct sun. The viewfinder is quite small but it will
have
> > to do. I wouldn't have bought a camera with no viewfinder.
> >
> >> > I've read the instruction manual, which doesn't explain
everything.
> > I
> >> > can see this is going to take me a while. The manual doesn't say
> > much
> >> > about how to record movies, which is not a priority, but would be
> > nice
> >> > to know if it works.
> >>
> >> Not all cameras come with a complete printed manual. I'm not
> >> familiar with Sony's practice, but if you have any doubts, make
sure
> >> there isn't a more complete manual provided on the accompanying CD.
> >
> > I should have mentioned when I said above that I read the
instruction
> > manual, that it was a printed manual I read. It has about 90 pages,
some
> > of which covers batteries, memory stick etc. and some of it is not
clear
> > to me because there is a lot I don't know about various settings.
> >
> >> > What I would like to know for now is I have printed a lot of
shots
> > to
> >> > see how they look and some shots taken on my apt. balcony, which
is
> >> > quite a bright area, look a bit too light. Should be a little
> > darker.
> >> > Some others taken outside are a bit too light as well. The camera
> > has
> >> > manual contrast and some color adjustments, but I am using auto,
so
> > you
> >> > shouldn't need to adjust things, should you?
> >>
> >> Maybe, maybe not. But for your complaint you'd more likely want
> >> to use Exposure Compensation rather than adjusting contrast or
> >> color. Additionally, it's common for such adjustments to only
apply
> >> to the non-Auto modes. Exposure Compensation, on the other hand,
is
> >> usually allowed even in Auto mode. See if the W5 has more than one
> >> method for calculating exposures. You really have to understand
how
> >> the camera does this to be able to take properly exposed pictures
> >> consistently. It might take an average reading of the entire
frame,
> >> use only a small portion of the center of the frame, or use some
> >> other method. This should all be described in the manual, even if
> >> it says nothing about how best to take advantage of the different
> >> exposure methods.
> >
> > Does EV mean composure compensation? When you have the camera on
auto
> > mode, doesn't that usually mean that the camera takes the photo at
> > proper settings? It might also be my printer doesn't print as dark
as it
> > should on some jpgs. Its not only for printing photos though it can
be
> > used for that as well as general printing. The W5 has only a few
manual
> > settings.
> >
> >> > A general question - When they say 38-114 mm equivalent to 35 mm
> > camera,
> >> > but other cameras have 36-108 mm - does it mean the 38-114 mm
camera
> > is
> >> > capable of wider shots? which has the advantage?
> >>
> >> Neither has an advantage. It depends on what kind of lens you
> >> prefer. By 38-114mm, they mean that when using the zoom at it's
> >> widest setting, it's equivalent to a 35mm camera using a lens with
a
> >> 38mm focal length. And when you zoom the lens to the telephoto
end,
> >> it's as if you had a 35mm camera with a 114mm lens attached. If
the
> >> camera had a 36-108mm lens its widest angle position would be wider
> >> than the W5's, but not by much (36mm vs. 38mm). Similarly, the
W5's
> >> 114mm reach is only slightly longer than the other camera's longest
> >> telephoto position, (114mm vs. 108mm). The focal length ranges of
> >> these two zoom lenses are quite similar, and are fairly typical.
> >> Some people prefer very wide angle lenses, and so a zoom that goes
> >> down to 28mm or even 24mm (such as on the Nikon 8400) would be
> >> preferable. This is often a good choice for landscapes and indoor
> >> shots that you take in cramped quarters that need to include many
> >> people. But other camera owners care little about wide angle
> >> lenses, and prefer zoom lenses that go well beyond 114 mm. What
the
> >> W5 has is a pretty reasonable compromise that should satisfy most
> >> people.
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation. I like taking pictures of scenery if I
get a
> > chance and the wider angle the better. I like widescreen movies,
though
> > not 2.35 as its too narrow, but hopefully the W5 should be ok.
> >
> >> > One other thing. About rechargeable batteries, is there much
> > difference
> >> > if you get 2300 Nimh or 2500 Nimh?
> >>
> >> Hardly any. But if the capacities are accurate, and if the
former
> >> powered the camera long enough to be able to take 230 pictures (a
> >> completely made up number, BTW), the other might be expected to be
> >> able to take 250 pictures per charge. Not a big deal, really.
> >
> > The Sony W5 and others like it from Sony, supposedly have "Stamina"
> > batteries which take more photos, so I will have to see. I charged
the
> > batteries that came with the camera a couple of times and I've used
the
> > LCD quite a bit and its 2.5" so probably takes more battery power. I
> > can't tell how many photos I took, but it says you can take 410 on
one
> > charge, but that must be if you don't use the LCD. I got a lot less
than
> > half of that.
> >
> >> When I put batteries in my Fuji, I grab whatever is convenient, and
> >> don't worry about whether the batteries are rated at 2500mah or
1850
> >> mah. If I have any doubt that they won't last long enough, I'll
> >> take along another set of NiMH or alkalines, "just in case. . .".
> >> But usually I don't, as with a freshly charged set of NiMH
> >> batteries, I'd be hard pressed to take so many pictures that even
> >> the 1850mah ones might run down. It might be different for you,
> >> since I don't expect the W5 to be able to take as many pictures per
> >> charge, as it uses only 2 AA's, vs. the 4 AA's that my camera uses.
> >> You might want to put a pair of lithium AAs in a bag or in your
> >> pocket for use only in emergencies. Remember? They're much
lighter
> >> than NiMH or alkalines, and last much longer. Or you could carry
no
> >> spares at all, as long as you'll be near one of the 10 million
> >> stores that sell alkaline AA batteries if and when the NiMH
> >> batteries run down.
> >
> > Yes, I don't think it will matter much as its not like I will be
taking
> > a lot of pictures. I am only taking a lot right now because the
camera
> > is new and its a novelty. Not many stores here have lithium AA's. I
> > think I only saw them in Best Buy. I don't go there very often, but
I
> > will look next time and if they are lighter in weight, thats even
> > better.
> > I mentioned to Jack in another post, one reviewer of a Sony S90
which is
> > quite similar in features to the W5 and I was interested in it also
> > because it had a 2.5" LCD, said that non Sony AA Nimh batteries
could be
> > problem in some Sony chargers. Maybe they meant they didn't charge
> > properly or something.
> > Thanks for the input.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sorry for top posting, but its short. Thank you for the battery advice
ASAAR.

Cathy

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:i9v8i1pk5ehk7v6ibkbu3ue7hq2qt6k6gj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:55:20 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > The Sony which came with the camera takes 6 hours to charge, so
because
> > there will be periods of time I won't be taking any pictures, it
might
> > be all I need, as I intend to get another two Nimh's probably Sony
2500
> > AA's just to have a couple extra in case I need them which I may
not -
> > don't know yet what my pattern of taking pictures will be. I think I
can
> > say that I am pretty sure you take a lot more pictures than I will
be
> > taking. Also, just so I know, how long can I leave the batteries in
the
> > camera if I am not going to be using the camera for say a few weeks
or
> > what if it was longer?
>
> That I can't say because it depends on the camera's design. Some,
> like my old Canon Powershot S10 (which uses NiMH AAA batteries in a
> proprietary case) drain the batteries slowly when the camera is
> powered off, but at a much higher rate than most other cameras. So
> the manual suggests removing them if the camera won't be used soon.
> This is not the standard warning to remove batteries when a device
> won't be used for a long time. I wouldn't be able to count on
> taking many pictures if the battery was left in the camera for more
> than about a week. Nothing is lost when the battery is removed
> since a button cell maintains memory and keeps the clock running.
> And here, the battery is drain is extremely low, since after nearly
> 5 years the original battery is still in the camera. The Fuji
> (which doesn't have a backup button cell) drains the battery very
> slowly, and I can count on it being able to take a good number of
> pictures even if the batteries were in the camera for 3 or 4 weeks.
> I'd guess that the Sony W5 also would drain the battery very slowly,
> but it's only a guess so you'll have to find that our for yourself
> or from someone else that has a W5.
>
> I assume that the W5 doesn't have a button cell backup battery.
> If that's the case, and if the W5 doesn't substantially drain the
> batteries, I'd replace them with a freshly charged pair every 4
> weeks or so. If you forget about changing the batteries, there's a
> chance that after 3 or 4 months that not only will the camera have
> lost its settings and image counter (if it doesn't store this data
> in non-volatile memory) but that one of the two NiMH AA cells will
> have been damaged. Not a tremendous loss in the big scheme of
> things, but annoying. Especially so since you probably won't find
> this out until you have a reason to use the camera again, and you
> might waste many hours trying to recharge the batteries only to
> discover that they're virtually unusable.
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:10:51 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> I meant to ask you - when you say above about a button cell backup
> battery, do you mean a button battery which keeps the time, day and
> date? I thought that most digital cameras have one? I thought I read in
> the printed W5 manual that it has a button backup battery, but I would
> have to check again.

Yes. My Canon S10 has one but the Fuji (and some other brands)
don't. Cameras shouldn't really need one with a good clock chip
that uses little current, since a small capacitor should be able to
keep the clock running far longer than is needed to change the
battery, maybe a day or more. But most devices that use capacitors
limit you to much less. Some of Palm's older PDAs were notorious
for having substandard capacitors that as they aged would only give
you a second or two to change batteries, and if you weren't quick
enough, not only would the date/time be lost, but all of its data as
well. If you think you recall seeing a mention of the backup
battery in the W5's manual then it probably has one. I only assumed
that the W5 didn't have one as it is a fairly new design and Sony
could easily have designed the camera to not require one, space
savings usually being more desirable in a compact camera. It would
be nice if like my S10, the W5's button cell can operate for many
years even when the main batteries aren't installed in the camera.
That would allow you to safely store the camera for several months
with the AA batteries removed. I had an old HP handheld computer
that wasn't so kind to its backup button cell. If the 2 AA
batteries were removed, the button cell wouldn't survive more than a
couple of hours, and that's with the power off.


[from previous msg.}:
> Sorry for top posting, but its short. Thank you for the battery advice
> ASAAR.

No problem, and you're welcome.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:kp89i1tq0aontk93kmh9pa4nj5qdm8nlch@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:10:51 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > I meant to ask you - when you say above about a button cell backup
> > battery, do you mean a button battery which keeps the time, day and
> > date? I thought that most digital cameras have one? I thought I read
in
> > the printed W5 manual that it has a button backup battery, but I
would
> > have to check again.
>
> Yes. My Canon S10 has one but the Fuji (and some other brands)
> don't. Cameras shouldn't really need one with a good clock chip
> that uses little current, since a small capacitor should be able to
> keep the clock running far longer than is needed to change the
> battery, maybe a day or more. But most devices that use capacitors
> limit you to much less. Some of Palm's older PDAs were notorious
> for having substandard capacitors that as they aged would only give
> you a second or two to change batteries, and if you weren't quick
> enough, not only would the date/time be lost, but all of its data as
> well. If you think you recall seeing a mention of the backup
> battery in the W5's manual then it probably has one.

I checked the manual and it says there is a rechargeable memory in the
camera to keep the clock and time set and says if you just use the
camera for very short periods of time, the battery will diminish, and
also says if you don't use it for a month, the battery could be dead,
and if this happens to put new AA's in and leave for 24 hours, and the
rechargeable camera memory will be charged up again. It says the camera
will work but without the date and time. I don't set the clock to print
the date on my pics which is a separate setting.

I only assumed
> that the W5 didn't have one as it is a fairly new design and Sony
> could easily have designed the camera to not require one, space
> savings usually being more desirable in a compact camera. It would
> be nice if like my S10, the W5's button cell can operate for many
> years even when the main batteries aren't installed in the camera.

It would seem it won't work for very long if you don't use the camera
for a while. Would this inner rechargeable battery probably be a small
button type battery such as in quartz watches or in your computer?,
though those kind of button batteries can be replaced by yourself, but I
guess you can't do that with a digital camera "clock" battery?

> That would allow you to safely store the camera for several months
> with the AA batteries removed. I had an old HP handheld computer
> that wasn't so kind to its backup button cell. If the 2 AA
> batteries were removed, the button cell wouldn't survive more than a
> couple of hours, and that's with the power off.

Maybe thats the same with the battery in my camera.
BTW, in the manual it mentions batteries you can't use and they are
Nicad, manganese and lithium. Remember we talked about lithium AA's ?

Cathy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:23:13 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> I checked the manual and it says there is a rechargeable memory in the
> camera to keep the clock and time set and says if you just use the
> camera for very short periods of time, the battery will diminish, and
> also says if you don't use it for a month, the battery could be dead,
> and if this happens to put new AA's in and leave for 24 hours, and the
> rechargeable camera memory will be charged up again. It says the camera
> will work but without the date and time. I don't set the clock to print
> the date on my pics which is a separate setting.
>
>> I only assumed
>> that the W5 didn't have one as it is a fairly new design and Sony
>> could easily have designed the camera to not require one, space
>> savings usually being more desirable in a compact camera. It would
>> be nice if like my S10, the W5's button cell can operate for many
>> years even when the main batteries aren't installed in the camera.
>
> It would seem it won't work for very long if you don't use the camera
> for a while. Would this inner rechargeable battery probably be a small
> button type battery such as in quartz watches or in your computer?,
> though those kind of button batteries can be replaced by yourself, but I
> guess you can't do that with a digital camera "clock" battery?

I'm sure that the W5 doesn't contain a "button" type battery. The
one in my Canon S10 is easily replaceable without opening the
camera. Whatever the W5 contains, be it a rechargeable battery or
something else (such as a small "super" capacitor), it probably is
soldered to a circuit board within the camera.


>> That would allow you to safely store the camera for several months
>> with the AA batteries removed. I had an old HP handheld computer
>> that wasn't so kind to its backup button cell. If the 2 AA
>> batteries were removed, the button cell wouldn't survive more than a
>> couple of hours, and that's with the power off.
>
> Maybe thats the same with the battery in my camera.
> BTW, in the manual it mentions batteries you can't use and they are
> Nicad, manganese and lithium. Remember we talked about lithium AA's ?

I think it's more like the Canon S10. With the main battery
removed, the backup button cell powers only the clock and perhaps a
small amount of volatile memory. But the camera can't be powered on
until the main battery is in place. NiCads probably work well in
the camera, but would have much less capacity than NiMH. Whether
that's the reason why Sony doesn't recommend their use is open to
question. Years ago Sony sold NiCads, but the last time I checked
the Sony Store, their only rechargeable batteries were either
lithium-ion and NiMH. And unlike many AA/AAA chargers, Sony's
aren't NiCad/NiMH compatible. They charge only NiMH. If I recall
correctly, the use of Manganese batteries may be discouraged because
they give off corrosive fumes. I vaguely recall something to this
effect in some of my old Heathkit assembly manuals. And yes, I
recall the discussion of lithium AAs. It's too bad Sony warns
against their use. I think they'd work fine if they weren't fresh.
That is, if they had been used slightly in a flashlight or other
equipment to lower their voltage, not calendar "aged" to lose their
freshness. But I haven't played around with, nor tested lithium AAs
to see what their resting voltage is after they've lost some of
their capacity, so it's not worth the risk trying to use them. In
any case, despite slightly greater weight, alkaline AA batteries are
nearly as good if used as emergency backup batteries, and they're
much less expensive.