Thursday, March 24, 2005

No red eye for $60?

Sorry to bore you, but I'm still fixating on the digicam situation (hey, by the time I've made up my mind the prices will fall!) I've been comparing the Sony Cybershot DSC-W1 to the front-runner P200 because it's about $60 cheaper and has the advantage of using AA batteries instead of the proprietary "Infolithium battery" that the P200 uses. Granted, it's oonly 5 megapixels while the P200 is 7, but I don't need all that megapixelage--I never do prints and if I were to print I know 5 megapixels would more than suffice.

But the issue I'm hanging up on is that the P200, amazingly for a sub-compact camera, gets far less red-eye in flash shots. The W1 has terrible red-eye problems because the flash is much closer to the lens. I avoid using flash whenever possible, mostly because I don't like the shadows and hot spots it throws, but wouldn't it be lovely to use flash when you need to and not turn people into demons? Is losing the red-eye worth $60 to me?

1 comment:

Steve said...

I hate to say it... but in situations like this I've taken to using an idea my father taught me as a child. Figure out how long it takes you to earn that $60 and see it is worth it from that perspective. That advice always made it painful to buy toys when I was little since it took months to save enough money to buy anything... But I still find myself using this to justify or reject a questionable purchase.

I guess Mel Brooks' quote: "You mock the thing you are to be" applies to me...

Or figure out how many pictures you are likely to take and amortize the cost over each photo. 6000 photos at one cent each...

So those are the Left Brain arguments...

How about: "It's just 60 bucks; what the heck!"

Good luck!