SeanTech

Hot New Cameras - Outtakes from Wired

I wrote the cameras section for the Tools feature in Wired's upcoming December issue. As often happens, we had more material than pages to print it on. Here are some cool-looking new cameras that just didn't fit. Unlike with most articles in Wired, Tools items haven't been tested. (We write about them before they come out in most cases.) So I can't say for certain how good these cameras are, but they do look promising.

Compact Cameras

Little shooters are getting big powers these days. Sadly, camera-makers are still stuck in a megapixel pissing contest. But other growing numbers -- like ISO ratings for light sensitivity -- really will help you take better pictures in more places.

Fujifim Sticks to its Resolution

Fujifilm's latest ultraskinny resists the peer pressure to add ever-more useless megapixels. While rivals are cramming seven million photodiodes onto a miniscule 7.1-millimeter sensor, the Z3 sticks with a perfectly useful 5.1 million. That leaves room for bigger pixels that capture more light and might even produce clean images at the camera's ISO 1600 maximum light sensitivity. Despite its sensible specs, the Z3 is no dowdy digicam. It comes in a yummy pearlescent violet (as well as the industry-standard silver-gray finish). And it measures a sexy 0.8 inches thick all the time -- since the 3X optical zoom lens moves internally rather than popping out the front.

FinePix Z3, $250, www.fujifilmusa.com

Nikon's Little Wonder

Nikon jams the goodies into one slim package. The 7.1-meapixel camera maintains its slender 0.8-inch profile thanks to an internally zooming 3X lens. A three-inch high-res LCD covers the back, and built-in Wi-Fi lets you immediately dispatch photos via email or uploads to Nikon's picture-sharing service. To make connecting easy, Nikon bundles a one-year subscription to T-Mobile's Wi-Fi service, which is available alongside Vente cappuccinos at Starbucks coffee shops. The S7c also packs all Nikon's other clever features, such as face detection for snapping sharp portraits and electronic vibration reduction for processing the blur out of photos taken with a shaky hand.

Coolpix S7c, 379, www.nikonusa.com

Camcorders

OK, stop staring at YouTube and go shoot your own silly videos. With new consumer gear, you can produce slick shows that will make even Paris Hilton and Lonelygirl15 jealous.

Canon's Disc Jockey

There's nothing square about the DC22. Its wide CCD sensor natively captures standard-def videos in the 16:9 format of modern TVs, not the 4:3 box of old tubes (thought 4:3 is an optional setting); and it records them to three-inch DVD discs, not to boxy tapes. The mini DVDs hold up to 36 minutes of top-quality video and work directly in many PC and set-top players for immediately viewing the raw footage, without a trip to the PC editing program. But Canon does include authoring software for making cut and polished DVDs, as well.

DC22 DVD Camcorder, $699, www.usa.canon.com

Sony's HD Jukebox

This is Nirvana: A compact high-definition camcorder with a hard drive that holds hours of footage. The 10X zoom lens funnels light to a new complementary metal-oxide (CMOS) image sensor that Sony claims produces better dynaimic range (shading detail) than the charge-coupled device (CCD) sensors in most camcorders. And built-in microphones capture Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound. With the ability to hold 4 hours of high-def video or 7.5 hours of standard-def fare (at the highest quality levels), the 1.6-pound SR1 is an ultraportable video jukebox that attaches to any TV via the HDMI digital video and audio interface or analog component, S-Video, and stereo connections.

HDR-SR1 AVC HD 30GB Handycam, $1500, www.sonystyle.com

 
Accessories

HP's Zippy Printer

If you think a five-minute microwavable meal takes too long, you'll like the D7360 - which HP claims is the fastest photo printer on the planet. And whether or not it retains the record by the time you read this, 12 seconds is still pretty quick for a 4x6-inch photo print. The D7360 has slots for all major memory card types. And you can make fast photo fixes without a PC -- such as removing red eye and brightening highlights -- by tapping through menus on the printer's 3.4-inch touchscreen LCD. But what you do in seconds could last decades. Prints with HP's Vivera inks and Advanced Photo Paper are rated to last for about 30 years. And according to HP's tests, they even hold up after being dunked in water.

Photosmart D7360, $180, www.shopping.hp.com

Kodak’s New Camera Tech

Kodak held a swank event at the Top of the Rock club in Rockefeller Center yesterday to show off a bunch of new products and technologies. The new technologies are described in an article I wrote for Wired News.

But I want to say more about one item, the new 6.1-megapixel EasyShare V610 (pictured above). It’s a swank-looking cam with a few very interesting features. One, it continues the two-lens concept begun with the V570. Using two sets of lenses and sensors (it hands off half-way through zooming) it provides a 10X zoom: 38mm-380mm in 35 millimeter equivalent. These photos taken from atop Rockefeller Center illustrate the awesome zoom power. (Click for larger pics.)

The only competitor I know of is the new Panasonic TZ1, which has a single 10X zoom lens group that makes it a lot fatter: 1.5 inches with the lens retracted vs. a little over an inch for the Kodak. And the Kodak’s lenses don’t protrude: It remains just as skinny no matter how much you zoom. One odd thing, though, is the handoff from one set of lenses to the other. As you told down the zoom rocker, the lens seems to stop mid-way. You must then release and press it again to get it to shift over to the other lenses. But the image onscreen is never interrupted. Pretty slick!

Another cool thing on the V610 is Bluetooth. It’s Kodak’s first cam with the short-range wireless capability and maybe the first cam with it. (I’m not sure.) You can use it to send photos to a PC or printer that is Bluetooth enabled. Though I’m not sure how helpful this is. If you do it in lieu of using a USB cable, OK, I see the convenience. But I think it’s pretty easy to just pop out the SD memory card and slip it into a card reader on a PC or printer. (Many of both items now have card slots built in -- and certainly more than have Bluetooth built in).

A nice thing, though, is that you can also use it to send photos to a Bluetooth-enabled phone. From there, you can upload photos to the Web. But beware the caveats: Most phones can only accept tiny, thumbnail-size pics via Bluetooth, so the V610 gives you upload options: QVGA (for most phones), XGA (for 4x6 prints and the phones that accept them), or full-res (6.1MP) for the very few phones that don’t limit he size of photo uploads. A Kodak rep told me that a few Nokia phones can accept full-res pictures over Bluetooth.

Whatever phone you have, you’re out of luck if it’s from Verizon, since they cripple Bluetooth and won’t allow any uploads. (Yet another reason why I chose not to sign up with Verizon.)

But how do the photos look? Fine for small display, but don’t go ordering giant prints from Kodak Easy Share Gallery (nee oFoto). We’re talking lots of pixel noise here, even with the flash turned on. For a somewhat cruel comparison, click on the images to the left comparing the Kodak (left) and the very high-performing Panasonic TZ1. (Top one is in auto mode with flash; bottom is ISO 800, without flash. Click for larger pics.)

I think there is some justice in this, since the TZ1 is the only other 10X zoom compact model out there. (In addition to having less noise, the Panasonic also has optical image stabilization to provide crisper shots in low light.)

One really cool thing about the V610, though is the awesome macro capabilities. I shot this $20 bill from about 3 inches away. (Click for full-res.)

Would I buy the V610. Eh, no. But then, I’m an image snob. It’s definitely suitable for little online photos. And packing all the zoom into such a slim model is pretty darn cool.

Budget Camera Picks

More leftovers from the would-have-been-great photography feature for the late Cargo magazine.

One of the many categories I was evaluating was budget cameras. I got through 4 new models before it all ended: The 4-megapixel Canon PowerShot A430 (about $160, street price) and Nikon CoolPix L4 ($130) and the 5-megapixel HP Photosmart M425 ($150) and Olympus FE-115 ($140).

For various reasons, I was unimpressed with the Canon and the Olympus. And for various other reasons, I'm quite fond of both the HP and the Nikon.

I have to admit, though, that my heart goes to the Nikon L4. This is the first truly attractive budget camera I have seen. It's quite slim for a model in this class - especially considering that it has to hold two AA batteries. And it looks so darn cute. Plus it fits quite nicely in the hand, or in a pants pocket. The latter is out of the question with the bloated Canon and Olympus models. That in itself is a huge strike against the Canon and Olympus. You can't take any good photos with a camera if its clunkiness causes you to leave it at home. Another nasty thing about he Canon: It gorges on batteries. I got through perhaps two-dozen shots before the included AAs were drained. Yikes!

Also in the Nikon L4's favor: It is the only one of the cameras with a respectable LCD. It's 2-inch screen, though not huge, looks like a plasma TV compared to the 1.8-incher on the Canon and the 1.5-inch LCDs on the HP and Olympus cameras. The little screen on the back of the camera is probably the most important place for displaying photos -- more important than prints or even online galleries. I am yet to see someone (myself included) who doesn’t regularly hold up the camera and show friends the image onscreen right after taking a shot. With a 2-inch LCD, viewers can at least get a decent idea of what you have photographed.

The Nikon is also pretty good on image quality. I found it quite capable for both indoor and outdoor shots. Here are some samples. (Click small image for a larger popup.)

The Canon and Olympus were about as good under bright light, but had trouble when things got dim. As with all point-and-shoot Canons, the A430 produced fine colors under flash and abundant natural light but stumbled in low-light situations, where images were marred by excessive pixel noise.

The Olympus produced pleasant images with flash but suffered a complete meltdown in low light - in which everything turned Pepto Bismal pink. See below for comparison images from the Olympus (left) and the Canon -- each shot without flash. (Click small image for a larger popup.)

The Nikon image got a little pink without flash (though less so than the Olympus's), and the HP performs amazingly well - with very accurate color and minimal pixel noise. (Remember, this is essentially a torture test -- so I don't expect any of the photos to come out looking beautiful.)

Oddly, the HP fairs rather poorly with flash -- having more trouble with colors than when it shot without flash. For details, see this comparison of shots from the Nikon (left), which shot about as well as the Canon and Olympus, vs. an image from the HP, which appears rather dreary.

Since people are more likely to shoot with flash than without, and since they are more likely to carry a camera that is compact and has a large LCD, I feel the Nikon is the best pick here.

But I want to say a few more nice things about the HP. First, like the Canon, it has a full complement of controls -- including light sensitivity (ISO), white balance, and exposure compensation. The Nikon and the Olympus both omit sensitivity, and the Olympus even fails to include white balance. The HP also has a handy Design Gallery menu, which lets you do basic photo tweaks -- including removing redeye, rotating images, and adjusting colors right in the camera -- without a PC. Also, the HP is faster at processing photos, allowing you to shoot more pictures in a row than the Nikon can. And the extra megapixel could come in handy for making largish prints (say 8.5 by 11 inches or larger).

So there is no clear winner between the HP and the Nikon -- each has strengths and glaring weaknesses. But given the Nikon's better performance under flash and far nicer physical design (plus it's ultra-low price), I'm inclined to name it the best of this bunch.

Sony's Almost-perfect Slim Cam

A few weeks ago I gave my first impressions of Sony's new W50 pocket camera, based on using it for a few minutes at the PMA show. Well, I have now spent a week with it. In most ways, it's as good as I had initially suspected. But in one way, it fails quite conspicuously.

First the good. And the goodest of the good is how clean the photos come out. Sony has found, I believe, the ideal level of sharpening for a snapshot camera. Details are very distinct, without noticeable artifacts. And pixel noise is very low. Even blue skies - a very tricky subject mater -- look fairly smooth, not speckly.

Check these examples by clicking the thumbnail to reveal a larger image (Sony on left, Canon on right):

Color is also quite pleasing. I saw no difference in quality between the colors from the W50 and from Canon's new PowerShot sd600. While the PowerShot line has considerable problems with pixel noise, it is the gold standard for color. And Sony has now met that standard in the W50.

Check these examples from an indoor still life shot with flash by clicking the thumbnail to reveal a larger image (Sony on left, Canon on right):

Sony also matches Canon -- to an uncanny extent -- in design. The W50 is nearly the exact same dimensions as the sd600. They also share rugged metal construction and nearly identical shutter and zoom controls. I could criticize Sony for being a copycat. But fact is, the Canon design is simply superb. So I give Sony credit for recognizing the fact.

The W50 also has some great features that the Canon lacks. One is higher light sensitivity: up to ISO 1000, vs. Canon's ISO 800. The actual specs don't matter, but the end result does. Under the same conditions, the Sony produces images with smooth or virtually smooth surfaces, while the Canon's are mottled with pixel noise.

Check these close-ups of photos shot at ISO 400 by clicking the thumbnail to reveal a larger image (Sony on left, Canon on right):

Sony also, as always, includes the ability to adjust flash intensity-- a huge omission on Canon's PowerShot series cameras -- which live up to their name by blasting most subjects with far too much ugly white light.

So what's the catch? You're going to need the flash, because the Sony performs abysmally in low-light settings. The problem is not pixel noise as with the Canon, but rather color distortion that cause images to turn horribly pinkish - like washing your white T-shirts together with a red towel. Going pink is not an uncommon problem with digital cameras. But as such, it's one that Sony should have remedied before releasing this machine. Sadly, the color shift negates one of the W50's best features - the ability to shoot in low light with minimal pixel noise. Yes, the images come out clean, but the wrong color.

For a glaring example, click the thumbnail image below. Those tiles are supposed to be gray.

The W50 is far from useless. It produces lovely images in daylight or with its flash. But it lacks the ability to capture the true color of indoor settings. It's a better camera than the sd600 and most other slim cams, but still not as good as Sony should be able to do.

Breaking up with Canon

No, no. I don't mean I will no longer talk to Canon. Actually, a lot of nice people work there. But unfortunately, many of the photos taken with their PowerShot cameras break up into a mess of grainy pixel noise.

This is not a new problem. In fact, noise is the biggest cause for buyer's remorse that I have had with the PowerShot sd450 Digital Elph I bought last year. The news, however, is that Canon doesn't appear to have done anything to solve the problem with the new PowerShot cameras it just introduced.

I recently tested the new 6-megapixel sd600 for what would have been a big photography article in the now-defunct Cargo magazine (R.I.P.). This is one of Canon's first pocket cams to boast ISO 800 light sensitivity. (They previously topped out at a very grainy ISO 400.) So I was hoping to see some improvement in the low-light performance, but I saw none.

Look, for example, at these ISO 400 photos shot with the old sd450 (top) and the new sd600.

I stared at them for a while in Photoshop (viewing them in "actual pixels" mode -- which would be way too big to reproduce online), and I found no difference. ISO 800 didn't look much worse, but since ISO 400 is already intolerable, ISO 800 is of no real benefit.

Am I being unfair to Canon, expecting their cameras to do more than is possible? No. Many other camera companies are doing a far better job with low-light/high ISO performance. The new Casio Exilim EX-Z600 and Nikon CoolPix S6, for example, had less noise. See these samples from the Casio (top) and Nikon.

These cameras go "only" to ISO 400, but they do it very well. That's far more valuable than Canon's mottled ISO 400 and 800.

Canon cameras do a lot of things right. They have snappy, slim designs and great, dead-simple interfaces. Canon also does a wonderful job with color -- legitimately earning it the huge popularity it enjoys with buyers.

But every day can't be a sunny day, and camera flash has its own problems. To keep up with our lifestyles (which include cloudy days and dark bars) Canon has to better embrace the darkness.

PMA- What I saw, and what the cameras saw

The one great thing about the Photo Marketing Association show (aside for being near Disney World!) is that it allows journalists (or anyone else) enough time to talk with all the camera companies and actually play around with the equipment. Nearly every company allowed me to pop a memory card into their cameras (even some that were pre-production) and take all the test shots I wanted to -- often shots of the PR, marketting, or engineering reps whom I forced to model for me.

So, rather than summarize everything I saw at the show -- which you can already read about on various Web sites and blogs -- I decided instead to show you some of the noteworthy things I observed. (Click photso to get larger -- 800-pixel-wide -- versions.)

Sensitivity

Everybody wants to take nice photos indoors, where the light is usually low. And some of the camera companies want to help them out.

Sony, for example, is pushing all of its new cameras to ISO 1000 sensitivity. I wrote up several of the new models (with sample images) a few days ago. Here' one that I missed -- The H5. It sports a hefty 12X zoom lens with optical image stabilization like it's predecessor, the H1. But this camera also carries a lens meeting the strict standards set by Zeiss. Such a lens was noticeably absent from the H1.

The H5 did a pretty good job with high sensitivity through about ISO 400, as you can see from these photos (of my victim from Sony PR) that progress to higher and higher sensitivity from top to bottom.

Starting at ISO 80

Then ISO 400

Then ISO 800

And finally ISO 1000

In addition, I took advantage of the new higher resolution still shots (4MP) from Sony's extremely cool new mini high-def camcorder, the HDR-HC3. Not bad for a camcorder.

 

And it really is a tiny machine - at least compared to other HD cams. Here it is in my hand.

Pixel Noise

Both Kodak's V603 and Panasonic's FX01 slim cams are doing a nice job with pixel noise at high ISO. Of course, for them, "high" means ISO 400. But at least they are managing that pretty well. The Nikon P3 didn't appear to do quite as well. But I beleive it was a preproduction model, and the setting was a tad darker. So I'm reserving judgement.

Here, at ISO 400 are:

The Kodak

The Panasonic

and the Nikon

Still no match for a pro camera

But to prove that SLRS are still way better than pocket cams, here are some tantalizing clean-looking images from Canon's new 30D semi-pro camera at:

ISO 800
ISO 1600
ISO 3200

PMA -- Casio's Simple Tricks for Party Pics

With the megapixel race basically over, we're entering a golden age of digital photography in which camera makers can stop competing on specs and concentrate on adding features that make these things really useful -- especially for folks without the expertise (or desire) to constantly fiddle with settings.

Casio is certainly taking on that challenge. For years, the company has been adding "Best Shot" scene modes that go way beyond the usual suspects such as portrait, landscape, and sport in order to optimize settings for various environments.

At PMA, Casio made what I thought was an over-hyped announcement about its new eBay mode for optimizing shots of small objects (such as vintage Fisher Price Little People Dogs) that you might sell on eBay. Essentially, it's a macro mode.

Not a bad idea, but what really excited me was an even simpler mode called "soft flash." And unlike the Best Shot modes, which are getting buried in an ever-growing collection (now totaling 34), soft flash is an easy-to-access flash option, just like auto, redeye reduction, or slow synchro. And all it does is decreases the flash intensity by about 50%.

This is great! Simple, but really great.

Usually, the flash is way too powerful. Since camera makers don't know what we'll be taking pictures of, they just assume the worst-case scenario -- something about 10 feet away. And they make the flash correspondingly supercharged. But I typically use my pocket cam to take close-up photos of friends. And if they are the least bit fair-skinned, they come out looking rather Goth. Take this -- admittedly extreme -- example of my poor buddy Matt taken with my Canon PowerShot sd450. (Click on any photos for an 800-pixel-wide version.)

He looks like one of the glowing white aliens from Close Encoutners -- perhaps fixing to abduct rosy looking Aubrey (who's far enough back to avoid the worst of the flash burn).

I often try to fix this by covering about half the flash with my finger. But I far prefer Casio's method. To see how well it works, check out these two shots taken at PMA with the Z600 camera. The product manger, Scott, was one of the many good sports at PMA who modeled for dozens of test shots with their companies' cameras.

The top photo was taken with standard flash. The second with soft flash. Neither is perfect, but the second is way better. We see something like natural coloring on his face, and a lot less of the shininess from too much flash hitting pale skin. (A redeye reduction version of soft flash would be a nice addition in the future.)

I later learned that Pentax also recently came out with a similar flash option. I hope all the camera makers follow suit. (Canon?)

PMA - Hands on with Sony's New Digicams

During the Photo Marketing Association show -- currently happening in Orlando -- Sony held a press event at the Hard Rock at which reps were handing out dozens of cameras. Unfortunately, they were only for us to take test shots at the event. It wasn't a schwag fest. (Just kidding. I never accept schwag, anyway.)

Among the new models were three -- the 6-megapixel W30, W50 and S600, that I blogged a few weeks ago, when Sony first announced them. I also got to try out another model, the 8.1-megapixel W100.

What had impressed me most about the cameras was their claimed ability to shoot at high light sensitivity (ISO). As I have written again and again and again , high ISO is one key to capturing natural ecolor, becaus it lets you forego the lousy-looking light from camera flash. But replacing lousy flash light with lousy grainy images isn't much of a bargain. So I really wanted to see how the Sonys handled high ISO levels.

Overall, they did pretty well. As with virtually all cameras, you never want to actually use the highest ISO setting (unless you will be displaying the picture at far below its full size -- no more than a 4"x6" print or in an even smaller image online). But Sony's pocket cams did pretty well one or two steps below the top of the ISO scale.

The slim, 6MP W50, for example, handled ISO 400 extremely well. (My fairly new Canon sd450 looks awful at this level -- like a Monet or Seurat painting gone horribly wrong.)

Check out this closeup of a photo of flowers, reproduced first at full size (pixel-for pixel) and again greatly reduce (Click photo to get and 800-pixel-wide version.)

You will see some noise on a big print, but very little at any point under full size. Even ISO 800 (top) and ISO 1000 are acceptable for small online pictures, like these.

I didn't actually shoot with Sony's W30, but the only difference, I believe, is a smaller LCD on the back (2 vs. 2.5 inches) and of course a smaller price up front. So I would expect it to perform similarly.

The low-priced S600 did about as well, also. The main drawback to the S600 is that it's a scale model of a brick. And it lacks some of the advanced control options of the W models. But for $199, it's a pretty good deal.

Finally, I tried out the W100, which goes to ISO 1250. Of course that didn't look good, but ISO 400 looked fantastic, and ISO 800 wasn't laughable. See the ISO 800 photos below. The first is scaled to a reasonable size for online posting (800 pixels wide, click for full-size); the other is the same photo, pixel-for-pixel.

The W100's high resolution (8.1 megapixels), combined with its low noise should enable some respectable large prints.

Fujifilm's three new pocket cams -- one with awesome low-light capabilities

Fujifilm today announced three new compact cameras that I saw in a sneak-peek session at last month's Consumer Electronics Show. The FinePix A600 is a moderately priced 6.3-megapixel model with 3X zoom and 2.4-inch LCD expected to sell for $249 in June 2006.

The other two have some especially cool amenities.

The FinePix F650 (at left), is pocket-sized but with some big features, including a 3-inch LCD screen and an impressive 5X optical zoom lens (equivalent to 36-180mm on a 35mm camera). It will be out in June, listing for $349.

And the FinePix F30 (at left), sounds incredible. It shoots at a light-sensitivity of ISO 3200. This is unheard of for pocket cameras - which generally go to ISO 400, or maybe ISO 800. Just yesterday, I marveled at Sony's cameras that shoot at ISO 1000. Fuji's new camera dwarfs that.

High ISO is a big deal because it means you can capture scenes in low ambient light, without flash. Using flash is pretty much like saying "I surrender. This is too dark to capture with the real light, so I'm going to flood it with an ugly white headlight just so I can get something." (There are exceptions, of course. For example, pros with expensive, external flash units can bounce the flash off walls or other objects to diffuse the light and infuse it with more pleasant color. But that's near impossible with the built-in bulbs on point-and-shoot cameras.)

Fujifilm showed me some photos taken with the F30. And assuming they weren't doctored, the technology really works. ISO 3200 was kinda grainy -- probably good only for a small photo on Web site - however, that's probably where most photos end up now, anyway. And the lower ISOs were impressive. ISO 1600 would be tolerably for at least a 4x6 print (perhaps a bit larger), and ISO 800 was downright nice: Even a print of up to 8.5x11 probably wouldn't show too much grain.

There is no magic to this performance: Fujifilm has just been working hard on it for a long time. The company developed its own charge couple device (CCD) sensors with pixels that are aligned to absorb more light than those in a standard camera CCD. And Fujifilm's Real Photo processor does a good job of removing pixel noise. For example, it makes to passes on each photo.

In addition, the camera has something called i-Flash, which Fujifilm claims results in better pictures "because it can detect more accurately the subtle lighting differences within a scene, and then light the subject accordingly with a wider range of flash intensities.  This is accomplished with an adjustment to the flash’s intensity based on a variety of factors including subject position in the frame, subject size, ambient light and backlight intensity."

I haven't tried this, so I have no idea if it works. But I welcome any effort to improve the generally lousy flashes on compact digicams.

Some other specs: The F30 has a 6.3-megapixel resolution, 2.5-inch LCD, and 3X optical zoom (equivalent to 36-128mm on a 35mm camera). It will be on sale in May 2006, listing for $399.

New Pocket Cams - Sony seems to get it

Sony today announced two new 6-megapixel compact digital cameras - the DSC-W50 ($250, at left) and the DSC-W30 ($230). All I have are specs and photos about these new cameras, but I like what I see -- especially their light sensitivity capabilities. Both cameras go to ISO 1000 - very rare on a pocket camera, most of which stop at  ISO 400.

The higher the ISO, the higher the light sensitivity, but the greater the chance of getting grainy pictures. My Canon sd450, for example, stops at ISO 400, and even that looks splotchy. In fact, I've been using it as an artistic effect, as you can see at left in another picture of my  niece, Brooke. (Click for larger image.)

The biggest benefit of ISO in a pocket camera is that you don't have to use the flash as much. And unless you are taking mug shots or drivers license photos, you probably don’t want flash. It totally kills the natural light and shading, making any photo in any setting look like it was shot in the same spare, overlit warehouse. See the photos at left for examples with (above) and without flash. (Up top is the bride, Melissa, dancing with her dad.)

High ISO capability is a hallmark of pro-style single lens reflex (SLR) cameras. Canon's 20D, for example, goes to ISO 3200. That's practically night vision! SLRs can do it because they have comparatively huge image sensors that suck in a tremendous amount of light. And in my opinion, there is no substitute for size when it comes to image quality.

So far, Fujifilm has pretty much been on its own with pushing high ISO capabilities in pocket cams. And the results have been quite nice. Look for example at the detail crops of two ISO 400 shots of the quirky still life I've been using for camera testing. (Yes, that is a Sigmund Freud action figure.) The one at the top was shot by a 5-megapixel Canon sd400. The one below is from a 5MP Fujifilm FinePix Z1. (Click for larger images. The second isn't focused well: My fault, not Fujifilm's.) It would be interesting to see how these Sonys compare to the good work Fujifilm has been doing.

Other details about the Sony cameras. The W50 has a 2.5-inch LCD and will be available in March. The DSC-W30 has a 2-inch LCD and should be available by the end of February. Both cameras have 3X Zeiss optical zoom lenses, 32 megabytes of built-in memory, and take Memory Stick Duo or Memory Stick PRO Duo cards.