Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W200

Pros: Good build quality (far superior to the W90) w/ almost entirely metal case, manual mode a huge plus, other exclusives to the W200: accessory lens mounting ring and Sony's DR Optimizer (it works IMO)

Cons: Absolutely pointless to pack 12MP into a camera of this size, image noise issue at times, ISO6400 also a gimmick IMO, lens could be better, but what do you expect? (at least it's tiny and fast)

Summary: Let me start by saying I was a bit suprised after reading the CNET editor's review, having just returned from a weekend in the Poconos where I snapped away like crazy with my new W200. Overall I was quite pleased with the pictures, especially after a little post-processing in Photoshop. I am not a professional photographer, but have a good deal of experience with digital cameras and a basic understanding of photography. I should also mention that I'm an engineer and consider myself to have a fairly keen eye for detail. I've used a Sony DSC-V3 for several years now and have loved it. I decided I needed a more compact camera but with some manual control (not easy to find!) and wanted to stick with Sony for several reasons: I have my eyes on the new Sony Alpha DSLR (takes MS ProDuo media), I feel that their cameras in general are strong performers and I've been impressed with their ruggedness. As an active outdoorsman, my cameras receive a lot of abuse.

I wanted to address some of the issues noted in the CNET reviews (user and editor):

1) I feel the aggressive bashing of this camera in the editor's review was a bit excessive. While I have not had the chance to compare with all the other comparable cameras out there, I question a number of their complaints and feel like there was some nitpicking going on.
2) When will people stop complaining about small buttons and lack of an included memory stick? This is a compact camera - the buttons are obviously going to be on the small side. Why would they include a memory stick? What if you already own one? Even if they did, it would probably be smaller than you'd like. There is 32MB of INTERNAL memory so you CAN start taking pictures right away.
3) Lack of shutter priority a minor annoyance - at least there's a MANUAL MODE!
4) The flash is a little on the slow side (BUT: "seriously shot-impairing..." come on!) besides, who expects rapid response with flash photography. They didn't mention how much slower it is than the competition, 1 second? A half second?
5) 12MP is way too much, agreed. Certainly does more harm than good for the overall image quality. If you think you're going to print posters or crop out large portions of the image, think again. That said, it's ultimate resolution seems to be comparable to my old V3 at 7MP. Some cropping is definitely possible with good results, but remember this is a small CCD in a compact point-and-shoot. I didn't buy this camera to flaunt the 12MP spec, there are plenty of other reasons to buy it.
Oooooooo, my camera has more megapixels than yours - ha! Almost embarassingly ignorant.
6) ISO400 needed in bright sunlight? Maybe if you want to capture a bird in mid-flight, otherwise NO WAY. I think there is some truth to the somewhat slower shutter speed for this camera compared to others (under identical lighting conditions) and I would like to compare it with a few other cameras when I get a chance. I'm just not convinced that this is a major issue.
7) DRO works on my camera, with positive results - I made several comparison shots and noted an effect, but no affect . Kind of makes me question the test methods and/or completeness of the testing.
8) Where is the CNET labs noise test data? Why conduct it (or even mention it) if you're not going to discuss it? Noisy at high ISO - yes, I agree. Far worse than other compacts? I kind of doubt it, but again I have not made comparisons. I still have gotten usable images right up to ISO3600, good enough at least for viewing on a computer monitor.
9) Image compression is excessive, I'll agree with that. But since a realistic user would not expect to use all 12MP of resolution from a tiny camera like this, the presence of these artifacts (the severity of which, again, seems exaggerated in the review) is a non-issue IMO. Unless you're printing posters, you're not likely to notice.

One complaint I haven't seen mentioned is that the supplied battery charger is SLOW. You may be very tempted to buy the new charger, that Sony just came out with, for $60 - but come on Sony! That should really have been included.

Ok, sorry for the rant, but I had to vent a little. This thing may not be the quite what Sony has billed it as, but it's got plenty going for it if you want a little more from your point-and-shoot. One more feature that is OUTSTANDING: this camera can output to an HDTV at 16:9/1080i, and it looks GOOD, very good. It even makes impressive slideshows with wipes, pans, fades and various other effects, and music (which you can upload in mp3 format) - and all this done in-camera. But, you have to purchase the HDTV component cable separately.