wb2trf: As a user of the very similar HX-100V the review seems generally fair to me and most of the comments here are wildly off the mark, reflecting the insecure clubby snobbishness that is typical of people who need to see their equipment as an externalization of their ego.
The comments about needing a tripod to use the 810mm and the uselessness of the long zoom reflect simple ignorance. Here is a handheld shot at 1/20 and 810mm in indoor light, taken only to illustrate the remarkable effectiveness of IS in the HX-100V, which I am sure carries over to the HX-200V, and is true of its competitors probably. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4179087231/photos/1466743/dsc05439
Eventually you will all give up the notion of looking at pixels. The Nikon D800 and other cameras will teach you to find some other club handshake than simply denigrating higher pixel count. Those of you who want fewer pixels can always buy old cameras and extol their virtues on some "collectables" site.
I guess that settles the argument, then. Thanks for setting me straight. I'm sure others will fall in line shortly.
Now where did I leave my Zapruder print? Oh, there it is! Right under my single-pixel view camera. Best darn camera I ever had. And small . . . Oops, there I go again, mentioning my camera.
(con't)I’m not saying this thing should be APS-C, but if manufacturers had just stopped at 8-10MP for tiny sensors such as this a few years ago, this entire class of point and shoots would benefit from order-of-magnitude better imaging. I’m also not saying to go back to older technology; processing continues to advance - just don’t waste all that power on fixing the drawbacks of pixel density gone crazy.
Ok, real here . . .
Again, let me start by giving a nod to the miraculous list of features in this camera. I had no intention of disenfranchising anyone looking for massive zoom, 1080p60 video, optical stabilization, etc . . . This camera is indeed packed with many desirable features.
But these features are layered on top of a sensor that is essentially goes beyond physical limits for effective light gathering, and there really is no good reason for it. Companies have for years been in a “mine’s bigger” megapixel-pooting match, to the ultimate detriment of image quality. If people are truly using this for small prints or emails and such, is 18MP really necessary?
Bigger pixel sites = better image quality - there is no way anyone can dispute that. This camera’s noise reduction is working way too hard, and has a hard time with areas of low detail. That’s where many of the artifacts pile on.
(Hmm, shorter limit - read on next)
Thanks for the response, Vlad. Though difficult to type through my "paralysis," I'd like to address your camera-related comments. But first I must ask that you rein in you language. Are personal attacks really necessary, or (ever) warranted?
You do have a valid point. My utter disgust for the images this camera spits out blinded me to the benefits afforded the user by some of its features. I'll qualify my previous comment in that light.
At a minimum, at least reasonable image quality should be expected from a camera in this price range. Then, pile on the features; of course they are welcome. But none of them can fix a broken image.
My point is that folks that want features (I'm actually included here) don't need to put up with quality this bad. There are plenty of other, higher image quality point & shoots out there that share many of the HX-200V's features.
Back to the bellows . . .
I don't think harsh criticism of this camera or Dpreview's review are "off the mark" or unearned in any way. The bottom line in any camera is image quality. Bells, whistles, superzooms, stabilization or unusably high ISO need not apply. If the samples provided in the review were representative of the production camera, it's not worth a plug nickel.
If you like it, good for you! But please tell me why, in terms of the only thing that really matters: image quality.
You may dismiss that as an isolated, subjective opinion, but it doesn’t take any sophisticated image analysis to come to that conclusion. It screams up at you from each and every sample image.
Perhaps there’d be gold to mine from raw files from this camera, but well never know, will we? But with pixel density this high, the answer is most probably no . . .
What's going on here? What happened to your eyes? Images from this tiny over-pixelled sensor are just awful. Even for a "consumer" camera, and especially for a camera in this price range. They all look like they've been run through some filter du jour by someone that thinks that it makes it look like a watercolor, but over-uses it on everything because they have no taste or sense. Oh, sorry, too harsh?What happened to Dpreview's inclusion of "pixel density" in listed specs? Do you feel that this is no longer important? Is there some amazing feat of physics that would allow an 18Mp 1/2.3 sensor to capture anything but mush?Dpreview actually defends the lack of image quality by saying not to look too closely, or that people that buy these probably won't be making 11x14 prints. Really? Last I checked, 350 dpi is more than adequate for a quality print, if the image doesn't start out as crap, like these do.I've got an old 1.3Mp 1/2.7 Canon a50 that can shoot rings around this thing.Yuk.
So . . . Adobe has included and solved for the introduction of temporal distortion from rolling shutter effects? Because of this, the motion “profile” is not always static across the entire frame.
Good luck on that.