Is Sony DSC-T200 Worth it?

[20glove]

Hello all,

My local Best Buy is clearing out their Sony 8.1 MP DSC-T200 for $199.

Is it worth it?

I am looking to have compact camera that will give me excellent outdoor pictures, good indoor pictures, and ok night/dark inside pictures.

I used to a CD Mavica camera that was awesome but when I got my Sony Handycam it was just too big to carry around with a camcorder.

I tried to take pictures using my camcorder and it was really a waste. I compared those pics to the pics that I use to take on my CD Mavica and it really sucked.

So I am looking for a compact camera that will fit in my camcorder bag but gives me "at least" 85% of the picture quality I had with the Sony CD Mavica.

Let me know if you think I should go out and get it... they close at 10pm my time and it is 7:54 my time now. They had 10 at that price yesterday morning and now are down to 3 today.

Let me know.

[Photo-John]

Ohhh - you didn't give us much time. I just looked at your post. Let us know what you decided. If you're comparing to a Sony Mavica, I think you will be very pleased with the T200. Digital cameras have come a long way in the past couple of years. And to be honest, I hated the Mavica cameras. The Sony T-Series cameras have mechanical image stabilization and very nice sensors. The weak link, in my experience, are the lenses. But they aren't bad - just not the best there is to be had.

I hope you survived without our help. And I hope you'll check back in to let us know what you decided. And if you still need help, we'll be here :-)

[20glove]

Ohhh - you didn't give us much time. I just looked at your post. Let us know what you decided. If you're comparing to a Sony Mavica, I think you will be very pleased with the T200. Digital cameras have come a long way in the past couple of years. And to be honest, I hated the Mavica cameras. The Sony T-Series cameras have mechanical image stabilization and very nice sensors. The weak link, in my experience, are the lenses. But they aren't bad - just not the best there is to be had.

I hope you survived without our help. And I hope you'll check back in to let us know what you decided. And if you still need help, we'll be here :-)

Yes... I ended up getting it.

I used it a couple of times both indoors and outdoors.

It is much more compact than the Sony Mavica. The image quality is a major difference from taking pics on my HD camcorder. I took pics in 3 mp and compared them to the pics from my camcorder 3.1 mp and the difference is amazing. I was comparing these pics on my Sony SXRD through my PS3 via memory card... and the details from the t200 were clear and the color was just so bright and lively as opposed to my camcorder pics which were dull, fuzzy, and very little detail, it was as if I was looking at pics taken with condensation on the lens.

I then took some similar pics that were on my mavica CD's and then compared them on my 20" apple iMac screen. The gap was not as wide as comparing the T200 to the HD camcorder. But the differences I noticed was less red eye on the pets in the same room with what appears to be the same amount of light. Red eye showed up more using the T200, but this was using the general settings right out of the box. The clarity of the pics though are amazing again using the T200. The colors are much more bright and realistic as opposed to the Mavica pics. This is not something I would have noticed if I was not comparing one to the next but there is quite a difference. The colors on the Mavica appeared a bit more natural (almost like comparing TV's SXRD and Samsung DLP are really bright and fun while the Mitsubishi DLP's are more natural and not as fun, if you know what I mean).

I love the detail of the objects using the T200... I mean the objects in the room really look 3 dimensional as opposed to the Mavica which looked flat or on one plane, I hope this makes sense. Remember I am a casual user as opposed to a photo veteran.

Overall, with the quick and minor use, I like the T200. I will let you know more when I use it more and set up all the settings. But for what I need compact, clear and bright pics, and ease of use this appears to be the camera for me. Also comparing prices, I feel with the features this camera offers as compared to anything else in the $199 price range I got a steal of a deal. I mean most in its price range were less pixels (5.1, 6.1, 7.1), 3x zoom as opposed to 5x zoom, and the screens were bigger 2.7" compared to 3.5", and the cool features that I may not use like smile control were on this as well which were not on other cameras at this price range.

I was comparing the Canon Elph to the Sony t200 and the feel of this camera in my hand was a little awkard as opposed to the Elph but I feel I will get used to it. I felt the build quality between the Canon and Sony were about even. The salesman liked the quality of the pics better on the Canon but told me I would not notice a $150 difference. The Elph I was looking at was 7.1mp with 3.2" screen (I think) for $350 and he had said I would not notice that much of a difference. I also compared this camera too the Casio, Olympus, and Nikon and the salesman I dealt with felt and I felt that after comparing all of these with features, build quality, and ease of use... I felt again that this was a STEAL of a deal. So I guess I am happy. I do not think though if I had to pay full price I would have gone with the T200, I would have gone with the Elph over the Sony and maybe the top of the line Casio over the Sony... but at $199 I feel I got a heck of a deal and best for what I needed withing my budget (actually under budget).