I had another Sony Cybershot camera which i lost.  When i bought this one online i thought it was buying the same one, but it ended up being a slightly different one.  I'm a fan of the Cybershot line.  They seem to take pretty good pictures, while being a simple camera to use.  They're also relatively inexpensive, especially when purchased used.  My main problem with this camera was the lack features compared to my other one.  It also seems to go through batteries much quicker for some reason.

fixedschwinn

Minneapolis, MN

The Sony Cybershot P72 Digital Camera is a decent camera with a decent megapixel of 3.2. Its alright, does the job quickly, and takes nice photos for a 3.2 mega pixel camera. The display screen however, is quite small and has a "digital" like screen. It also has a manual look that you find in dispensible cameras. The camera seems to use up it's battery pretty quickly, and doesn't come with rechargeable batteries, it fights conventional AA batteries. The Sony Cybershot P72 Digital Camera also has flash and still shutter that stops any slight motions when pressing the photo button. The pictures are fair as well as the quality, it is good at taking pictures from far away distance but not so good at taking small, highly detailed photos. If you take the picture right, however, they look really good. The recordings are fair quality with fair sound. There are many features in this camera but it is hard to use them with the small buttons and the small screen. This camera has fair zooming power, but not that precise. The camera itself is pretty bulky and heavy, but overall, it a pretty good camera. 

kllp101

Los Angeles, CA

When we first converted to digital camera, I was skeptical, and clung to the idea of film.  What would we do with all of these digital files?  Would anyone ever see them?  Would I learn to use the damn thing or would it be even harder than my last cellphone was?  Well, I fell in love.  The Cybershot 3.2 is sweet, light, easy to use.  The newer models are even smaller with betterMegapixel ratings.  I could look at the controls and I knew what to do - it was similar enough to my film cameras, and yet had the digital capacity.  I didn't think I would get used to focusing my photos by looking at a screen instead of through the lens.  The screen on the Cybershot 3.2 is small, and I'm sure the newer ones are brighter, clearer, even bigger.  The screen proves to be an advantage when you are shooting from a high vantage, like over the heads of a crowd, or down into a ravine.  You don't have to press your face to the camera in order to see what you are getting I've worked less with the photo software which came with it, but my husband says it, too, is intuitive and easy to use.  Easy to organize photos and folders to manipulate the albums around, as well as edit the photos themselves.  My sister-in-law has a feature on her camera which edits "on the fly" to "optimal" settings of light and dark and cropping - but I prefer to do that later, when I can study the composition and see what is best.  I would never push a button on a camera to "correct" what I am seeing..   We've had the Sony for a few years now, and it has proved to be hardy, sturdy, and durable.  Even though its 3.2 megapixels is out of date, I would recommend the Cybersot format to anyone. We still have yet to figure out whether we want prints or what we want to do with all of these files, and we haven't shared photos nearly as much as we did with film cameras - but I'm sure that the photo service sector is rapidly catching up.  At least we no longer have to print a "whole roll" to see if we got anything good!  We can print only what we know is good.

JanCarol

Bloomington, IN