are ultra compact digital cameras not as good as a normal one?

[osiris43]

I mean if normal cameras (e.g. sonycybershot DSC) takes better photos than a ultra compact one (e.g. Sony T-70 or t-200)

or not?

[California L33]

I think the biggest advantage a 'normal' camera would have is the ability to have better glass on it. I can't help but think that there have to be compromises in lens design when it has to fit in a very small envelope, and fit inside the camera when off, but that said, my recent interest in the potential for small digital cameras to do some of the 'serious' photography I'd been reserving for 35mm comes from seeing the image quality of an ultra compact 8mp Nikon (forgot the model number), which was very good- keeping in mind I was looking at party pictures and not test charts. The owner even said that even at full resolution on his computer screen he had a hard time telling the compacts from those taken with his full sized DSLR.

I started a thread here about my search for a compact, and ended up with a small point and shoot instead. You can see my reasoning for it here-

Serious Compact Camera?

[sutherland]

The biggest difference is in feature, the DSC-W series offers optical zoom. T series, only digital zoom. Both bodies (W and T series) are quite compact and are easily portable. I've been a huge fan of the W series for quite some time and find their interface and image quality to be quite satisfactory for their price point.

Canon PowerShot series is also very very impressive. I believe the T series serves style first and function second.