Sony Cyber-shot DSC-T9 reviewed

You'd think there wouldn't be much more to say about Sony's DSC-T9 other than that it's light, thin, takes decent pics and sells for about $450. But CNET has given the cam a once-over, and finds much more to talk about, declaring it a "great tool whether you're a casual shooter or a more serious photographer." Outstanding features cited by the reviewer include an "above-average" 6-megapixel imager, 58MB of internal memory, image stabilization, and a handy slideshow mode that lets you use the camera as a pocket photo album. Despite an overall positive impression, CNET did find some problems with the camera's lens, including sluggish low-light performance and relatively unsaturated colors. Despite these misgivings, the reviewer declared the T9 "darn good for an ultracompact snapshot camera."

[Carlos @ Jan 12th 2006 4:42PM]

I think that for a better price i will get the new Casio Exilim EX-S600

http://world.casio.com/exilim/en/ex_s600/

[Brad @ Jan 12th 2006 5:18PM]

Here are some DSC-T9 sample images:



http://www.416-1100.com/gallery/1074988



Personally, I'm waiting for this camera to come out after shopping/researching for two months now. I looked at the above mentioned Casino, but feature sets were not up to par, plus I'm not too keen on using a "cradle only" connection.

[Victor @ Jan 12th 2006 5:20PM]

I just wonder why they put so much money on a huge LCD screen (and charge you so much for that, as well as the high pixel count ccd) and skimp on that tiny lens.



I dont know about you all, but I have a 3.1 MP camera that takes great images, all due to I think, the full sized real lens.

[Patrick Dodds @ Jan 12th 2006 5:56PM]

Me? I like a viewfinder - despite what they and everyone else says, those LCD screens just aren't as easy to use as good old eye-through-the-camera usability. Sure you have to make allowances for parallax and the like but ultimately it is so much quicker - plus holding a camera against your face reduces shake. As for "sluggish low-light performance", this is a real shame as the best pictures are often those in low light (ever take a great pic with flash as your main light source? Very difficult to do as it kills most images dead).

[Damian Byrne @ Jan 12th 2006 6:10PM]

Im still holding out for this one, it's had so many good reviews.

[peter shi @ Jan 12th 2006 9:58PM]

I love this kind of review of review because I don't have to read the actual review any more:)

[John Henry Brown @ Jan 13th 2006 2:04AM]

Aperture f3.5 = not much light getting in the camera = long exposure times to compensate = blurry photos.

Lens in upper right corner = just where your left index finger wants to rest = dirty lens = blurry photos.

[Oliver @ Jan 13th 2006 5:34AM]

I bought the DSC-T5 in December to take with me on vacation. After 3 weeks and 450 photos I can say that I'm generally very pleased with the purchase. I wanted something that can be slipped into a pocket and not noticed until the time comes when i need to use it, and still take decent photos. The T5 fits that bill perfectly, and I'd imagine the T9 goes even further to that end.



The only issue I have with it (surprise, surprise) is the quality of night/dark shots. It can really be quite bad, although perhaps if i had turned night mode on (instead of leaving the setting's to auto) then things would have improved.



But overall I do think Sony make some nice cameras.

[Luis Villa @ Jan 13th 2006 8:10AM]

I have to second/third/whatever the 'night shots suck'. I bought my DSC specifically so that I could slip it into my pocket before a night out on the town, but it has proven basically useless for that because the picture quality in anything but the best lighting is very subpar.



The color saturation is also sort of lame, but that isn't as problematic.



FWIW, a friend has an exilim, and it appears to do very well in low light.

[Cris @ Jan 13th 2006 8:46AM]

I own a DSC-T1. I really like it a lot for it's ultracompactness but my gripe is the night pics. It takes terrible low light pictures. Which ultracompact camera is good for low light pics?

[Marky @ Jan 13th 2006 2:30PM]

I bought my T9 (black) on December 2 in Hong Kong. An amazing camera in most situations, and my friends were all impressed (even Exilim users!). I do agree that it doesn't do so well at low lights, but, for a thin and advanced camera that can be operated by my right hand alone, nothing surely beats it.

[Paul @ Jan 13th 2006 3:20PM]

I bought the T1 for the wife and we owned it for about a week and had to return it because anything but bright sun light (or flash) shots turned out like crap. If so, it sounds like the T9 could be everything we wanted the T1 to be.

[Paul @ Jan 13th 2006 3:26PM]

I bought the T1 for the wife and we owned it for about a week and had to return it because anything but bright sun light (or flash) shots turned out like crap. Shouldn't the anti-shake technology alleviate some of these low light/blurry shots? If so, it sounds like the T9 could be everything we wanted the T1 to be. If not, then...damn, disappointed again cause we were planning on buying the T9.

[Eric @ Jan 15th 2006 4:31PM]

I purchased the Sony T9 in Japan last month (December) and this camera blows away all the other digital cameras I own. For it's credit card size, this is a huge camera. It is also alot of fun to use. The positive aspects overide the minor negatives mentioned in reviews, all in all, the T9 is for it's size and price,is one of the best digital caneras on the market.