On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:55:13 GMT, dirt.rider@hi.hinet.hr (Dennis) wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:35:26 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:

>>You have pretty well covered the differences (except that
>>the 110 has a built-in flash, but may not shoot mpeg
>>videos to Memory Stick[?]). For PC100 (similar) frame-grabs
>>compared with the PC9 and others, go to:
>>www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm

>thanks for your reply. I've already read through your web site and
>found it very useful.
>As far as MPEG is concerned in the catalogue I have it lists e-Movie
>as a feature of PC110. Regarding the built-in flash as far as I
>understand it can only be used for still shot photography, not for
>video, right?

Yes. And not very good for that - it is a small
source, too close to the lens, and easily shaded
by a WA converter, lens shade, etc...

>How would you compare the still capabilities of those
>two cameras? Would the still shots from 110 be good enough to print
>out on paper (using the highest res. setting, of course) and a lot
>better than those taken with 9? Are the lens better on 110
>(Vario-Sonnar T)?

For whatever reasons, the 110 still images are sharper
than the 9 images, but the 110 images are not good above
640x480, unless you don't mind a lot of color noise.
4x5 paper prints are adequate. BTW, there are some stills
shot with the similar PC100 on my web site - look for
the section with the 3-D images (some of these are 640x480,
try printing them to see what you get...).