Product Reviews

Just when you thought consumer-level digital camera prices were going permanently low, 7- and 8-megapixel models have appeared and prices of higher-end models have once again popped back up. But are they worth the outlay?

Nikon's new model is a bit of a beast, a faux-SLR style model with an 8-megapixel, 2/3in CCD sensor. For your VAT-inclusive outlay of £700 it gives you the equivalent of a whole kit-bag's worth of lenses, with a long 10x zoom; the equal of a 35-350mm zoom range in a standard SLR. The Sony's specifications on paper are a little more modest: a 7.2-megapixel model with a smaller 1/1.8in sensor and a 4x zoom giving 35mm equivalent zoom range of 34-136mm.

The Sony's predecessor, the DSC-V1 (see issue 110, p88), was very much designed in the rangefinder mould, and the V3 takes the concept further: it's not a million miles from a Leica in its looks. A major limitation of the V1 was an LCD screen that was a little too small for comfort, but the V3 fixes that with a huge 2.5in display. Other obvious new features are two memory slots: one for Memory Stick and a new one for CompactFlash (a slider switch on the rear of theÊbody selects between the two). And if you'reÊwondering where the flash is, it's where you can see the Sony logo above the lens. It swivels round into place rather than popping upÊthough, so it's only about 35mm from the centre-line of the lens itself: a potential problem for red-eye. The Nikon's flash, by contrast, pops up and sits about 60mm from the centre line.

Although the lens extension of the Sony seems a little sluggish, the camera is set for use the instant it's fully extended, resulting in an average ready-to-shoot time in wide-angle mode of 3.2 seconds. The Nikon is almost as fast, managing an average of 3.6 seconds. Auto focus at normal focal lengths is quick in both models,

It's not all bad though. In most circumstances a 350mm zoom exacerbates camera shake to the extentÊthat a tripod is essential. Nikon combatsÊthis with its VR (vibration reduction) system, activated by aÊswitch on the barrel ofÊthe lens.ÊItÊhas two modes: Standard and Active. StandardÊallows for panning while takingÊa shot,Êfor instance when shooting a car.ÊActive mode doesn't allow for panning butÊkeeps a better grip on excessive shake. ItÊworks exceedingly well; you still need aÊsensible shooting stance and a reasonable amount ofÊlight if you're zoomed right in to 350mm, butÊitÊwill let you hand-hold shots thatÊwould otherwise be unfeasible. Nikon claims that VRÊgives you the equivalent stabilityÊof a shutterÊspeed three stops faster - 1/15th of aÊsecond, for instance, gives the sharpness of 1/125th. OurÊtests support this claim: it really does work, as long as you don't expect miracles.

Image quality is predictably excellent across both models, but neither is perfect. The Nikon suffers from higher noise levels than we're comfortable with, certainly much higher than from a digital SLR. There's also some chromatic aberration (purple fringing around the edges), but with such a wide zoom range this isn't surprising, and it's only in full wide-angle and high-contrast situations. But overall, while bothÊcameras offer more pixels, the resolution and clean quality of images from Canon's EOSÊ300D (see A List, p47) are still far preferableÊto our eyes.

So they're good, but in comparison to a digital SLR (and remember you can pick up an EOS 300D for £525) the Nikon lacks a great deal: theÊfeel and responsiveness; the super-fast manual zoom andÊauto focus; theÊabsolute imageÊquality. And you're limited to aÊminimum aperture of f8 too. The same criticisms can be levelled at theÊSony, but this isÊmitigated by the lower price and the fact thatÊit's considerably more compact than an SLR. Both are capable cameras, then, but the price premium for their megapixelÊratings and other cutting-edge features is too high.