I read Nex-5 and the first question that comes to mind: Does it overheat?
Lofi: Thank you for the samples. They confirm the usual Sony blurry pattern awfulness:
Just look at the landscape. Probably good enough for those who watch the pictures on a mobile phone. I had higher expectations for the price.
Sigh, Sony won't change a thing as long as you fanboys accept their failure and find flimsy excuses for their flaws. Other brands can do it better, so why can't Sony?
One can always find excuses. Check the fence better. No rusty fence is that washed out and blurry. And check the other pictures. Same problem.
Being a "compact camera" is not an excuse, especially not when other brands manage to give better results at a lower price. Sony compact cameras have been plagued by this for years, I don't see a considerable change.
Thank you for the samples. They confirm the usual Sony blurry pattern awfulness:
Where are the 720p/120 samples? :-D
Wow, these images are awful. Typical patterns / blurring we know of Sony pocket cameras of previous years. It's become better, but still not worth the money. I'd rather stick with a Canon when I'd need a pocket camera.
720p with 120 fps? Example videos please :-)
Does it overheat?
The loss of detail is impressive with this one, when you look at the samples larger than screen size :o
The only thing I'm interested in is the image quality. If it's still the washed out, noisy, detail loss image quality that Sony has for years now in their compact cameras, then they can still keep them.
1080/60p. The Nex-5N and the Nex-7 already have problems with that. This camera seems to be even smaller. So does it overheat?
Does it overheat? ...
Jogger: pretty boring update. the builtin flash is nice though.
I dismounted the flash of my Nex-5N a week ago. I figured I never used it. Neither had the need to use it.
Question 1: does it "click"?Question 2: does it overheat?
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.
"Eventually you will all give up the notion of looking at pixels" What else is there to look, it's the only thing that matters. If I would like to look at pictures with a 1024x768 resolution, i could also look at pictures of my mobile phone from 2008.
For this camera Sony took last years ugly image quality, increased the image size, labeled it 18MP and that's it. I wouldn't use this camera even if someone gave it to me for free. Even when you resize the pictures to half their size, then you see a lot of watercoloring and patterns. This camera makes peoples faces look ugly. Who wants to be photographed like this? It's a real disappointment. The low dpreview score for image quality is still too high in my opinion.
So the deblur function was all in all a marketing fraud?