shahid11235: This article suits better on a mobile phone review site.
iPhone might have a good camera (compared to some P&S). But, to me, it is quite irrelevant to publish such an article on a serious camera review site.
Considering camera phones are making big inroads into the compact camera market, if not making that market obsolete, and phone makers are becoming quite creative with their cameras. As an amateur photographer the quality of the camera device and app on my phone is quite important (the adage: the best camera is the one you have on you) and I'd far rather it gets evaluated by enthusiast photographers than mobile gamers...
Of course that's just me...
I agree (with Mike)... Very cool. Fun photography... what a concept! ;-)
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.
Each to his own. IMO phtotgraphy is about two things only: artistic expression and news/memories... Since both are 'in the eye of the beholder', it comes down to personal taste; what's good for one ilimit necessarily good for another. What did we look for in film, before there were (digital pixels)? Cameras and lenses, flashes and filters are all just tools to capture the meaning moment.
With audio equipment, I was once told by a top engineer: "If it sounds better to you, then it is better for you!" (talking about bying a cheaprecord player iver a Linn). I imagine that the same applies to photography (just visually). We all have different ways of interpreting light or sound signals. Expecting everyone to get pleasure in the same way you or I do, would be rather fascist.
Viva la difference, even if it does nothing but curry our poor taste :-).
@bartg... Um, about reining in language, your comment 23 odd hours ago (What's going on here? What happened to your eyes?) is no better...
Also, I have a Nikon D300s, And I've just replaced my FZ100 (granted, not the best image itself) with this Sony as the camera I take along to my kids' sporting events, on hikes, etc. Sure, for image, the Canon probably beats it, and maybe (maybe!) the Panasonic FZ150, but with the Sony I can be shooting a video, snap a picture quickly (!) transmit it to my iPhone with the transfer jet and have it on my FB site for my mum to see before I've even left the field - and in real world shooting (I can't speak for simulated studio scenes) the images are MORE than acceptable. When I get home, after some basic editing, some go onto flash drives and are displayed on my 46" 1080 TVs that I have around the house as picture frames with MORE than acceptable quality, etc...And when I go on a photo shoot for something serious... I take my Nikon kit...Perfect!
Ashley Pomeroy: It's a shame they couldn't build the wireless thing into the body. That's the way things are going. I've always maintained that entry-level photographers generally *need* pro-calibre cameras; they need fast, reliable autofocus to capture their kids, they need excellent high-ISO and flash metering for parties, and they need a built-in wireless transmitter to get the photos to Facebook. Until recently the only cameras that could do those things were pro-level, but now things are changing.
Entry-level camera buyers are essentially photojournalists, taking and sharing images of real life - maybe not whilst being shot at, but real life nonetheless. Something that future generations might relate to. Rather than boring seascapes and awful HDR rubbish that will die and be forgotten. The amateurs and the pros are alive; the people in the middle - with their tripods and graduated filters and waffling blog posts about their workflow - they're the dead ones. Dead inside.
@ rich12...and of course 'newsworthy' is a matter of perspective. Newsworthy to Granny is her grandkids, not Rupert Murdoch... And her eyesight may even still be good enough to tell the difference ;-).
Magnus3D: A totally ridicilous amount paid for what's only a temporary hype with washed out bad looking photos of uninteresting things. Facebook made a facepalm once again..
Could be that it not what they're getting, but what they're stopping someone else getting.