Sony DSC-T33 reviewed

Sony's svelte DSC-T33 has been catching our eye for months now, tempting us to give up SD and CF for MS Duo (something that's less of a stretch now that we've got a PSP). And now that Imaging Resource has given it their usual thorough grilling and found it to be worthy, the temptation has grown. Calling the 5.1 megapixel camera an affordable unit that packs "more features into a smaller space than pretty much anything else out there." In fact, about the only thing they could find to gripe about on the $349 compact is the fact that its internal zoom lens created "significant blur on the right side of images at near-wide angle zoom." Okay, that's enough for us; no MS Duo (that was a close one!).

[Elias @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Blurred areas in a camera this small is a given. You have to almost EXPECT it with the optical limitations of such a small piece of glass, so the blur shouldn't be too much of an issue if you're seriously considering an ultra-compact -- they ALL suffer from peripheral blurring.

The reason I chose to go with the Canon Powershot SD400 over this Sony model was low-light performance. The bigger Canon lens allows more light to hit the sensor vs. the Sony lens, and therefore, produces less grainy images. Aside from the memory card issue, that was a key issue for me.

[shiftis @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I've got a DSC-T1. I like it.

[bowlhed @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

casio ex-s500 uses a T33 to wipe its ass.

but eriously id reccomend the casio over this

[Parched @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

The article mentions the lack of a speed burst shooting mode on the T7. This isn't true. There are two "speed burst" options on the T7. I know because I have a T7 and before I sat down and read the manual (i was on vacation..) I in-advertantly took some shots in this mode, and was wondering why the camera responded slowly. After downloading the pictures they showed a series of shots taken rapidly in succession (an elevator ride down the CN tower in Toronto).

[eatme @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

i got a t3. slickness. canon's are good, but no 2.5" lcd! sony's lcd's are kickass with 210k pixels. i agree with the bad low-light performance, but it takes perfect pictures day pictures and looks a lot cooler when you slip it out of your pocket.

[David Kaspar @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I've got a T1, I hate it:

Too small, difficult to hold steady while shooting
No tripod hole
No viewer
Does not stand well for self timer pictures

much more

[Colin @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I also have a T7 and love it.

[Elias @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Umm, I forgot to mention that Maria Sharapova doesn't endorse this camera, so everyone should rule it out pronto.

C'mon... she keeps a Canon Powershot SD400 up her skirt, for goodness sakes! That should be reason enough for everyone to get one.

[tallfella @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

I got a T3 instead of T33 because of the build quality, plastic just don't seem tough enough compares to metal. The weight also make it steadier to hold and shoot, where as T33 seemed cheap in comparison with no functionality differences what so ever.

I could of got a T7 but the manual lens cover don't appeal to me, until they release a T77 or something similar.

Low light is an issue but I've taken some unreal night shots by leaning the camera against something solid - like a table.

I love the small size of the thing (much more portable than anything else) and being a designer, blur sometimes actually adds class to shots... if you can appreciate it. If I'm not happy with exposure etc. Photoshop can correct most problems - it is a digital camera right?

I hate SLRs with their over complicated manual settings, before you can find oa "perfect" setting, the moment is gone, that's if you can bear carrying the brick of a thing along eveywhere where magic moments occur.

People always like to brag pixel sizes for enlargement, but if you are a true pro PShop user, you can enlarge a 5M image pretty huge by enlarging in incremental steps instead of one big step (or record an action to save manual labour) - a trade secret I tell ya.

In the end it's not the camera size or functionality but how you can take the shot and what you can do to it in post production... I love small cameras!

[zed @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

tallfella, SLR's have automatic settings. I took a Canon 10D with me and it couldn't take a bad pictures. I never even used a manual setting ever. I wouldn't remember what I learned in high school anyways. Another thing is a point and shoot does not give you the same depth of field a real lens gives.

[Ryan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Point-and-shoots are good for some things, such as fitting in your pocket, which is no small advantage, but to claim that a decent SLR is less able to capture a good photo is laughable. It is far, far easier to capture those moments with a camera that has instant-on (almost all SLRs other than the Rebel) and no shutter lag. Not to mention low-light situations: between good results at high ISOs and lenses designed to collect lots of light and stabilise the image, an SLR user could conceivably have access to 8 more stops of light for a sharp image than someone using a T33, which is an incredible difference.

[Francisco @ Dec 19th 2005 1:36AM]

Bit puzzled about choosing a T3 rather than a T33 because the T33 is plastic! I have a T33 and it's body is metal. All the T Series are metal. I have a Nikon F5 SLR and a Nikon Digital with microdrive, and I take my T33 everywhere because its grab shot quality is superb. Its macro quality is unbelievable, and I've been taking macros shots for 20 years.