Chefelf.com Night Life: Why The Sony Cybershot DSCT10 Sucks - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1

Why The Sony Cybershot DSCT10 Sucks Monday, February 5, 2007

#1 User is offline   Chefelf Icon

  • LittleHorse Fan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,528
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY
  • Country:United States

Posted 05 February 2007 - 05:41 PM

A few months ago I took our camera into work where I foolishly dropped it while it was shutting down and it broke forever. This ticked me off quite a bit but I was at least able to have an excuse to go out and upgrade to a new camera. We'd gotten three solid years of service out of that one so it had done us good service.

After reading reviews and seeing the Sony Cybershot series I was convinced that after a long run as a Kodak supporter that moving to Sony would be the right move. I decided to go with the Sony Cybershot DSCT10. It was expensive. $399.99 doesn't seem like too much but when you consider the median price of digital cameras these days paired with the fact that I'm just a point-and-shooter, it was a little more than I wanted to spend. However, I figured it was worth it for something that was a little nice.

I elected to get the 4-year throw-it-down-the-stairs-and-get-a-new-camera plan and a memory stick which brought the price to $589.19 with tax, way more than I wanted to spend. Again, I figured it was worth it for a solid investment.

Three months into ownership I have solidly decided that this camera sucks. It's subpar in comparison to the four year old Kodak EasyShare DX7440 it was replacing. I would not expect such lackluster performance from a $199.99 camera let alone a camera twice the cost!

Here's a little rundown of some of the things that suck the most about it.
  • Redeye
    I don't expect a $400 camera get me a Pulitzer nod but it would be cool if once, just once, it could manage to take a picture that did not have redeye. You don't even have to have a person in the shot to have a pair of glowing orbs pop up in the center of the picture.
  • Blurry Pictures
    One of the things that attracted me to this camera the most was its image stabilization feature. That turned out to be a crock of steaming crap. You could put this camera on a tripod in the middle of field on a sunny day at noon and you'd probably have a streaky, blurry image.
  • Holy Flash!
    The flash on this camera is so bright that it overexposes every picture it takes. Every picture we took at Christmas looks like our family is a collection of ghosts speedily crossing in front of the camera. Furthermore, there's a constant battle between the blurriness you get without flash to the overexposure with it. You usually have to take six pictures of everything before you can find one you like. If you take a picture of the Christmas tree with the flash it's so bright you can't even tell there are lights on the tree. If you take it without the flash it's so blurry it looks like people are shooting colored silly string across the room.
  • Picture Rotation
    Our old camera had a simple feature that we grew to love, expect and completely take for granted. When you tilted the camera on its side it detected this and when you took a picture it showed it in the camera's display and when transferred on the computer rotated with the right side up. This camera goes back to the features I had on my camera in 2000 by not rotating the pictures properly so when you scroll through pictures you are forced to have to tilt your head to view them all.
  • It's Too Damn Small
    I'm all for compact gadgets but this camera is just too small. The flippy thing to expose the lens and turn the camera on is cool but with a size a little larger than an average credit card I find it so small it's almost impossible not to drop. This isn't a fatal flaw in its design, more likely personal preference of mine.

Needless to say this will be my last Sony camera purchase. I just switched back to a Kodak EasyShare with the V610. It's half the price but has all the features I've grown used to and, quite frankly, takes much better pictures.

I'm by no means a camera nerd. I simply like to point my camera at things and take pictures that come out in a non-blurry state. If you're looking for the same in your camera I'd highly recommend steering clear of the Sony Cybershot DSCT10.
See Chefelf in a Movie! -> The People vs. George Lucas

Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video

Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
0

#2 User is offline   Deepsycher Icon

  • Giantness of Heart
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 6,220
  • Joined: 22-December 05
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 05 February 2007 - 06:23 PM

Can't you get a refund under unsatisfactory goods that fail to deliver what they claim to do?

If I spent that amount of money I'd be taking it back on the instant with picture proof demanding for a refund.

Also how long does the battery last on there?

My suspicions. I noticed at Steves Cameras that they cleverly reported the battery capacity in watt hours and not milliamps. 680 milliamps doesn't seem much. Other reviews on the DSC N2 and DSC H2 they stated the capacity in milliamps.

I have problems with my camera. When I rotate the camera at an angle of the sky the cloud colour starts to change from blue to grey. Anything too close and black causes a blur on closeups. Poor exposure to dark conditions without a tripod. The Lithium battery life is poor and seems to discharge when it is not in the camera. Slight shadow from the lens at the bottom of the picture when using flash and no zoom for closeups. One good thing is the 10x optical zoom. But it is not as bad compared to a Fujitsu s3100 where I can't even take a picture without annoying artifacts and constant blur on anything too near.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 05 February 2007 - 06:42 PM

0

#3 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 05 February 2007 - 07:44 PM

Chefelf, I think your old camera is the same as the camera I've had for 4 years and still have.

As far as all the problems with your camera, it might be because you got a professional-level camera - in other words, needlessly complicated unless you are a professional photographer (or have plans to be one). The flash probably overexposes things because you have to manually set the aperture, it's probably blurry because you manually set the shutter speed, and the red eye reduction is probably another separate feature that you have to select in some hard-to-get-to menu. It's all the work of a manual, non-digital camera, except woo, it has a screen.

...Or, the camera is suck. It very well could be, I've seen sucky cameras. I just know a lot of my friends have had these problems with their shiny new digicams, and I have to use my knowledge of manual cameras to search through endlessly complicated menus to figure out how to work the damn things.

Anyway, good luck with the new camera, and I am incredibly jealous - as the camera I have now, as you are probably aware, won't take a picture until a second or two after you've pressed the button, making candid shots nearly impossible. sad.gif
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#4 User is offline   Deepsycher Icon

  • Giantness of Heart
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 6,220
  • Joined: 22-December 05
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 05 February 2007 - 08:26 PM

Good thing when a camera offers manual settings but I'd expect that to be stated in the instructions. Assuming to be read. Even though everything has to be slim 680 milliamp battery capacity seems unprofessional if the camera uses a lot.

Unless all that money went towards the quality of the slim design and not the features or maybe even a fault.

If you are not happy can't you take it back?
0

#5 User is offline   looktothesky Icon

  • Tudo Bem.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,542
  • Joined: 10-November 03
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:Portugal

Posted 06 February 2007 - 08:55 AM

QUOTE (Spoon Poetic @ Feb 5 2007, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Chefelf, I think your old camera is the same as the camera I've had for 4 years and still have.

As far as all the problems with your camera, it might be because you got a professional-level camera - in other words, needlessly complicated unless you are a professional photographer (or have plans to be one). The flash probably overexposes things because you have to manually set the aperture, it's probably blurry because you manually set the shutter speed, and the red eye reduction is probably another separate feature that you have to select in some hard-to-get-to menu. It's all the work of a manual, non-digital camera, except woo, it has a screen.


I totally agree. I have a Sony S600 camera (got it during the summer last year), and it had all of the same problems you have - the bright flash, the blurry subjects... the problem with the Sony cameras is that it takes a while to figure out how to even take a great picture. The Automatic function is totally useless if you want something great to come out of it. lol. sad.gif wub.gif

This post has been edited by looktothesky: 06 February 2007 - 08:55 AM

PRECIOUS VELIUS....
0

#6 User is offline   Jen Icon

  • Mrs. Chefelf
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 408
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The wilds of Spanish Canada in NYC
  • Interests:Being Chefelf's girlfriend has been an interest of mine for some time now. I also enjoy am interested in packing, unpacking, and organizing acres of cardboard boxes into a livable structure.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 06 February 2007 - 10:43 AM

Chefelf is too kind to mention it in his article, but I helped our switch back to Kodak along by accidentally leaving the Sony at a bar during the worst party ever! But the replacement camera is superior (for our needs) in almost every way, so it may be a blessing in disguise.
0

#7 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 06 February 2007 - 12:02 PM

I miss manual cameras with film that has to be developed. I'm probably just too nostalgic. I do think that digital cameras are a really cool and useful invention, but simetimes I just get wistful and wish for a 35mm.
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#8 User is offline   Gobbler Icon

  • God damn it, Nappa.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,560
  • Joined: 26-December 05
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Three octaves down to your left.
  • Interests:Thermonuclear warfare and other pleasantries.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 06 February 2007 - 12:37 PM

Three words: Digital SLR cameras. They just rock.

Quote

Pop quiz, hotshot. Garry Kasparov is coming to kill you, and the only way to change his mind is for you to beat him at chess. What do you do, what do you do?
0

#9 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 06 February 2007 - 01:24 PM

I love my manual 35mm SLR, and I LOVE developing my own photographs. There's just something different about a manually developed photograph, too. But I like digicams for the convenience, and plan on someday shelling out the bucks for a digital SLR... That will take a while, though - I have more important things to spend the money on... pinch.gif
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#10 User is offline   Gobbler Icon

  • God damn it, Nappa.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,560
  • Joined: 26-December 05
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Three octaves down to your left.
  • Interests:Thermonuclear warfare and other pleasantries.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 06 February 2007 - 02:45 PM

I haven't, but then again, I also haven't got the money, too. Being a poor student and having to pay insanely high tuitions sucks. >_>

Quote

Pop quiz, hotshot. Garry Kasparov is coming to kill you, and the only way to change his mind is for you to beat him at chess. What do you do, what do you do?
0

#11 User is offline   Chefelf Icon

  • LittleHorse Fan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,528
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY
  • Country:United States

Posted 07 February 2007 - 06:55 PM

QUOTE (Jen @ Feb 6 2007, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Chefelf is too kind to mention it in his article, but I helped our switch back to Kodak along by accidentally leaving the Sony at a bar during the worst party ever! But the replacement camera is superior (for our needs) in almost every way, so it may be a blessing in disguise.


Well... it was worth it. The new camera's much better. smile.gif

QUOTE (Slade @ Feb 6 2007, 12:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I miss manual cameras with film that has to be developed. I'm probably just too nostalgic. I do think that digital cameras are a really cool and useful invention, but simetimes I just get wistful and wish for a 35mm.


Really? Why would you miss that? That sucked. Do you miss rotary telephones as well?
See Chefelf in a Movie! -> The People vs. George Lucas

Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video

Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
0

#12 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 07 February 2007 - 07:26 PM

Aww, don't be mean, 35mm manual SLRs are awesome. I <3 developing pictures myself. The dark room is one of my favourite places. (Unless I have a psycho-professor lording over me)
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#13 User is offline   Deepsycher Icon

  • Giantness of Heart
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 6,220
  • Joined: 22-December 05
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 07 February 2007 - 07:51 PM

Me? I miss the brick analogue phones and an old Pentax SLR film Camera that got lost. I was going to make use out of the flash.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 07 February 2007 - 07:52 PM

0

Page 1 of 1


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size