motor

ae86_16v · 09-09-2005, 09:05 PM

Should I spend the extra money to buy the SD300 w/ 4MP vs the SD200 w/ 3.2MP.

Will it make that much of a difference?

Usage: Simple point and shoot, nothing great, just want to use something for road trips and vacations. Small is the key for me, that's why I am looking at the SD Series.

nthfinity · 09-10-2005, 01:01 AM

i havent looked at the specs sheet, but my opinion would be to save the money on the 3.2 MP, as the basic features on the two cameras appear to be the same.

3.2-4.0mp isnt a huge jump, really, so unless you can otherwise justify the price difference, id stay with the cheaper option

antonioledesma · 09-10-2005, 01:19 AM

go for the 3.2MP and buy a big SD memory card, you'll need it. If you're only going to use it like that, mail the pics, etc. the 3.2 MP will be the perfect choice. It seems that both cameras have the same specs except for the resolution

ae86_16v · 09-10-2005, 03:57 AM

Yeah exactly what I am going to use it for, just to mail pics to my friends, post some on Jabbasworld

. . . both are really the same family, same image processor and what not, just the resolution.

The price difference right now is about $80 American.

Dell has a deal right now w/ the SD200, camera only $160; w/ a 1GB Secure Digital Card it is $190. Where as the SD300 would be $240.

Thanks for the responses so far!!!

MartijnGizmo · 09-10-2005, 09:23 AM

Apart from that they use the same size sensor. On the SD300 they have to put more pixels in the same area, so they're smaller and will produce more noise. So unless you need the larger size, stick with the SD200.

ae86_16v · 09-16-2005, 04:00 AM

Damn, Dell.com has a whole bunch of deals now:

SD300 4MP - $219.05
SD400 5MP - $262.00
SD500 7MP - $347.00

Amazon now has the new Canon Powershot SD550 7.1MP for $400.00.