That is kind of dissapointing that the DSC-T200's screen contains the same amount of pixels as the DSC-T-70's, because it probably won't be as crisp. But despite that the DSC-T200 does have a wider capture range and a greater zoom. I personally am awed by the DSC-T200's large 3.5" screen, despite the fact it that it may not be as sharp as the DSC-T70's 3". It gives one more room to manuever when taking pictures, being able to press commands and see a larger picture. The question is is it worth the extra $100.
Also, Sony has already had a series of 3" touchscreen cameras, the DSC-N1 & DSC-N2. If anything, apple ripped off of sony's technology. But this is very unlikey because the two companies' goals concerning touchscreens are not very similar. In this case, apple is advertising a phone and apple is advertising a camera; they have totally different purposes.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
That is kind of dissapointing that the DSC-T200's screen contains the same amount of pixels as the DSC-T-70's, because it probably won't be as crisp. But despite that the DSC-T200 does have a wider capture range and a greater zoom. I personally am awed by the DSC-T200's large 3.5" screen, despite the fact it that it may not be as sharp as the DSC-T70's 3". It gives one more room to manuever when taking pictures, being able to press commands and see a larger picture. The question is is it worth the extra $100.
Also, Sony has already had a series of 3" touchscreen cameras, the DSC-N1 & DSC-N2. If anything, apple ripped off of sony's technology. But this is very unlikey because the two companies' goals concerning touchscreens are not very similar. In this case, apple is advertising a phone and apple is advertising a camera; they have totally different purposes.