Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V review

Just wondering, have you actually used a camera like this?

I used to make posts like yours until I saw the IQ that you get out of cameras like this.

I always prefer the local greasy spoon instead of a fancy restaurant. But if the food at the local greasy spoon is awful, I don't go back, just to prove I'm not a snob.

May 14, 2012permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4179087231/albums/birds-mostly-in-flight

So here some photos taken with HX-100V which is very similar. A lot of these pictures you just won't get if you are lugging 600mm of lens in front of an aps-c sensor and a tripod to relieve the weight. These are all handheld, many at 810mm equiv.

You are free to say they are a "greasy spoon". Of course that can be said of any photo if you want to compare to the next larger imager size.

May 15, 2012permalink

@ wb2trf

You have some nice shots there. Good job.

Still, what is the image quality like indoors, or using flash?

I was convinced by seeing decent shots like yours (obviously not birds, different camera) out of a Canon elph 300 HS to try it out, and it was /horrible/. I returned it to Best Buy the next day.

Under the right conditions these cameras can give you decent results, but especially for people or pets, when looking at hair, etc. everything is all smudged together.

I NEVER should have sold my Olympus C7070 on ebay. I'm looking for image quality like that out of a small sensor camera, something that actually rivals DSLRs.

And no, I am not a camera snob. I am willing to downsize photos, do whatever it takes to bump up the image quality. I did a lot of shots last summer on the beach with an Olympus Tough 3000, not exactly a high end wonder. But I'm starting to get pickier about what I waste my time with.

May 15, 2012permalink

bobbarber
I never use flash. Literally never. So I cannot say.
I do not use this camera for high ISO situations. I use a Nex because the image quality at high ISO (indoors, no flash) is much better. I do not use the Nex for long telephoto or even any bright light outdoor situations because the lens would be too big and because I prefer the great flexibility that this camera offers whenever there is bright light.
I look at the situation as there is no one piece of equipment that works for all situations. I cleave the world along the brightness line and use two cameras.

May 15, 2012permalink

zodiacfml

Though Sony had really improved the technology, retaining or better IQ while increasing MP count, I believe that the industry has to reverse the trend. I mean, lesser cameras would have the lower resolutions. It's a win for both consumer and manufacturer.
Most consumers will spend more on serious cameras to get more resolution while the sensible consumers get better DR on a cheaper camera, unless, these makers really intend to increase the MP count to impress and produce low image quality so that the MP race goes on.

May 14, 2012*permalink

Just Ed

I totally agree with you. People who are not tech savvy require a simple method to compare cameras, unfortunately pixel count seems to be the only thing the average Joe understands.

The camera manufacturers seem all to happy to serve the mass perception that pixel count equals quality. It's easier and more profitable for them not to argue, I guess!

May 14, 2012permalink

AmaturFotografer

The opposite happens here in more advanced user land. They thought that more mp is bad. Sometimes but not always.

May 15, 2012permalink

Pixel Judge

I don't believe I actually read the whole review of this 18MP c$#*%p!
Good to know DPR is reviewing it, amature bird photographers buying it, and enthusiastic readers comment on it, and Sony making it.

In this camera category, I would like to see the review of 12MP Fuji XS1. It has good useful range and bigger 2/3" sensor, which I think may produce better result than this.

DPR, if you can review Sony, why not Fuji? (or, if you can review this, why not the best/better ones in the category?)

May 14, 2012permalink

Cy Cheze

My interest in the Fuji XS1 faded after seeing that the lens tube sags, which would only worsen with time and distort focus. The dynamic range or sharpness in early buyers' test shots looked no better than in shots taken with 1/2.3" sensor zoom models (including other Fujis). Too many clipped highlights and blurred details. The higher cost and size (more than some DSLRs) was strike three. This here "amature" bird has enough brains to steer clear of an obvious trap.

May 14, 2012*permalink

Yes, the up and down movement of the lens was quite frightening on the video I saw too - then I noticed the up and down movement of the back of the camera. That poor cam was getting some beating! I don't know if it was the same video, though, so if you have a link to one where a better tripod was being used used, the whole camera isn't moving and the guy is genuinely not messing about (yep, I've had a zoom compact in my film days that would have certainly given up the ghost with the treatment I saw meted out there) I'd like to see it as I still haven't made my mind up (and I've seen some excellent shots from the Panny...) that may help. I'd heard about them sagging under their own weight, but haven't seen that...
Buying a camera seems so difficult!

May 14, 2012permalink

Darlene Goff

With a DSLR, I darn sure better be able to pixel peep and crop deeply indoors or out according to lens used. With a compact or P&S, I better be able to pixel peep anything outdoors in fairly decent light. This camera seems to have gotten a bad review and a good rating. My Nikon P7100, my Nikon D50 / D70, my Canon G12, my Canon ELPH, my Pentax K-r, my Sony H2, and even my little Nikon P5000, I can pixel peep with. My Panasonic FZ35 is so-so on pixel peeping but takes such sharp contrasty pictures in good light that it makes the grade as well. Some of my best photos come from being able to crop. And I blow everything I shoot up to 100% and discard the losers.

May 14, 2012permalink

zos xavius

I have a fz-35, and the sharpness and contrast of that lens is really great for black and white street shots. I eventually got a k-7 and now the fz just collects dust. I got some really great shots out of it, but one day out of curiosity I put it on a tripod and took an iso 100 shot in daylight. I threw on the k-7 and used the lowliest lens, the kit lens, which admittedly is really not half bad. I matched the focal length and shot again. When I got both raws back to lightroom it was clear to me that the k-7 with inferior glass was still outresolving the fz almost 2-1. This tells me two things: firstly that the fz sensor size and lens are only capable of resolving 10mp at best. Secondly the sensor has massive noise reduction going on even in raw on. The fz, further destroying fine detail at 100%. The k-7 shot was nearly flawless only hindered by the kit lens. I was blown away at how much better the k-7 shot was. Also portraits are much, much better with fast primes and shallow dof. I can't see any point in carrying the fz, not when the k7 is only slightly larger. I do miss the dial in a focal length ability, but I don't mind carrying a couple of zooms and a few primes. The. Leica glass on the fz is truly amazing for what it is, but there are tremendous compromises going on there. A lot of the distortion is also hidden by the camera's raw processor. That all being said, I definitely loved the fz35, but anymore I want the best iq I can get. If a shots worth taking, it should be the best you can make it. If I really wanted something fz like, I think an omd or g3 would be right up my alley. I can't live with sensors any smaller. The lack of dr is huge to me. When I realized how much I could recover from the k7's raw files it was jaw dropping. The fz does makes some nice sorta grainy looking black and whites though. I learned to work with the sensor noise and incorporate it into my style. I like gritty, contrasty black and white a lot. Sorry for the long reply, but I used to love my fz and now it just feels like a toy.

May 17, 2012permalink

Francis Carver

I just love the "Carl Zeiss" text blazoned onto the lens of this thing. It's a total lie, of course.

May 13, 2012permalink

Rachotilko

I am surprised to read all the negative comments here. This camera's output is not meant to be cropped, rather downscaled. Especially when raising the ISO.

You may ask: why increase the resolution then, if it ought to be downscaled afterwards. The simple answer is: contrasty edges. If you compare the shot taken by any old 3MP compact camera and the downscaled output of this beast, you'll surely see much better defined edges in the latter sample.

May 13, 2012permalink

Sounds reasonable to me.
I downloaded a photo of a sparrow from some samples taken from a review of the Kodak Z990. Pixel-peeping the picture was not something that would impress, but resized to 'screen size' (and about life-size) it was really rather good. Sure, not many people are interested in having a nice photo of a sparrow, although I'd have been quite satisfied to have taken it - it all depends on what one wants the camera for!

May 13, 2012permalink

ianimal

How many of the target buyers need 18 MP?
18 MP is good for cropping you say?
How many of the target buyers need 18 MP and does after processing
of images, like cropping etc?
The answer: less then 1% I guess.

Keep the MP around 12MP, and in stead increase the sensor size some.
We don't need more MP's, but some bigger sensors in these cameras
would be very welcome.

I bought a Panasonic FZ150 some months ago. It got ok image quality
for this kind of a camera. Also included a lens hood and you can use
it with regular filters. Some better EVF and in camera HDR is near all
I missing with the FZ150. It got 12MP, more then I need. So I use it at
16:9 format and 9 MP or just 2 MP (1080p resolution) sometimes.

May 13, 2012permalink

wetsleet

don't forget, a bigger sensor needs a bigger, heavier, more expensive lens as well, or compromise elsewhere like smaller aperture or range. You can't just nail in a bigger sensor.
I agree about the MPix however. Fewer pixels = bigger pixels = less noise and more dynamic range. I get by on 6Mpix in my old DSLR, so I'm sure 12Mpix is plenty enough.

May 13, 2012permalink

ianimal

Yes I know, but they could shorten the maximum focal length. Who need 800mm eq. range? A some bigger sensor, 12MP and e.g 24-400mm range would be enough for 99.999% of us. Instead the camera makers compete in MP's and zoom multiples, and less focus on image quality.

May 13, 2012*permalink

Ianimal: Oh yes those foolish camera makers again who target the 0.001% instead of following your market knowledge that would lead them to the 99.999%
Well, I need the 810mm. Isn't funny that I'm so rare and yet here I am reading this. What is the chance of that?
I also need to crop.
I'd guess that Sony knows that I'm not just in a 0.001% as you suggest but a large appreciative group.

Now according to the protocol of DPR you should establish your bona fides by telling me what high end DSLR you use and then sound condescending to me.

May 13, 2012permalink

chadley_chad

LOL wb2trf ... But you're right!

May 14, 2012permalink

Cy Cheze

The savant 0.001% has divine commandment to compare all cameras by full res pictures at high ISO blown up to pixel size. If they apply this obssessive-compusive approach to social or business relations, you can imagine the consequences.

May 14, 2012permalink

derfla1949

One had better avoid using the word quality in connection with the bitstrings produced by this product.

Cautiously speaking, the 72% rating is a bit surprising.

May 13, 2012permalink

expressocoffee

Looks to be a great camera

May 13, 2012permalink

Timo Voivalin

They should not show images full resolution. IQ makes me almost vomit, and probably even my vomit would have better IQ than this...

May 13, 2012permalink

alr

Coming from high end nikion DSLRs I new what to expect. I compared two cameras: Panasonic DMZ-FZ150 and Sony HX-200v

The most annoying freatures of this poorly designed Sony:
No thread for filters so lens is unprotected
No lens hood
Quality of 18 MP is worse than Panasonic 12 MP
Easy to screw up setting and take sketches instead of pictures in the bright light. Everything through a multi step menu.
And the worst: it takes forever: several seconds to take next picture.

So without a second hesitation I returned Sony and kept Panasonic.

May 13, 2012*permalink

"Coming from high end nikion DSLRs I new what to expect" Oh, you must be credible then. You own a high end Nikon, so now I know you must have valuable and important opinions. Good thing you established that up front.
I think you should say, "Coming from and Android 3 smartphone..", then I would would believe what you have to say because at least it would suggest you are original and not a slave to DPR fashion, that you have the courage to think differently.

May 14, 2012permalink

mingleby

Where the heck is the review of the Canon SX40HS?!?

May 13, 2012permalink

Jahled

What a dreadful camera. I'm sure it will sell well

May 12, 2012permalink

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.

May 12, 2012permalink

So, the shot is incredibly smudgy. Could as well be shot at 200mm equiv and upscaled. Have you look at the original yourself?
And where it is even written it was shot handheld?

May 12, 2012*permalink

I like the "where is it even written". It is written in my post. There is no tripod screw sensor nor field in the EXIF for that!

The point was not to recommend shooting at 1/20 and 810mm indoors handheld, but to illustrate that the claims that the portability and long focal length advantages of this class of camera are not nullified by an imagined need to carry a tripod in outdoor daylight conditions. That is simply a claim arising out of the prevailing ignorance of the comments in this section.

May 12, 2012permalink

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 . . .

May 12, 2012permalink

Vlad S

@ bartg. Image quality is not the only thing that matters. At least not to other people. Being able to take the shot also counts for an awful lot.

My mother in law is and avid hiker and a birder, but she is aging, had several surgeries on her hands, and her backpack is already heavy with the wine she must have with her. For people such as her these cameras are fabulous. They are good enough to keep memories, they show things that the photographer may not even seen with the unaided eye, and most important, they are not a burden to carry.
You, on the other hand, must be either paralyzed by the absence of a digital large format camera, or just can't take out your view camera to take any pictures.

May 13, 2012*permalink

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 . . .

May 13, 2012permalink

Royal PITA

@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!

May 13, 2012permalink

Lofi

"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.

May 13, 2012permalink

Royal PITA

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 :-).

May 13, 2012permalink

Royal PITA, I'll sign up for your perspective. The problem here is the degree to which people think that their equipment supports their ego. Note how frequently on this site people write about the equipment that they own as a sideways means of establishing their "credentials" to speak authoritatively. It is one of the most common rhetorical moves on this site and it is utterly without merit. I want to stake out the merit of "getting the shot" and "enjoying it on monitor at monitor size" and "never thinking about printing it" as at least on a par with anyone else's objectives, at least as carrying as much value as any other uses for this technology.

People here seem utterly unreflective about the degree to which they rely on mere things, equipment, to support their projected image of self-worth. It is pitiful, sad, really.

May 13, 2012permalink

Anepo

I don't buy that the camera is used at 810mm with 1/20 and no camera shake.
That is literally impossible without a tripod.
Even a DSLR can't get 810mm with IS on without being blurry at that speed.

May 13, 2012permalink

Anepo, what are you saying. Are you saying that my photo taken at 810mm and 1/20 handheld shows some camera shake. Maybe it does, a little, but not much. Are you saying that it wasn't shot handheld? I certainly wouldn't bother to falsify this. It was handheld.

A DSLR conveys no advantage in IS. Your citing that as evidence is merely an indication that you suffer from the dslr bias that is endemic here.

bartg "the only thing that matters, image quality". This statement couldn't be more unwarranted. Everything matters: cost, size, convenience, manufacturability, skill level required; in short everything. Otherwise a camera might cost $100,000 and be the size of a pickup truck. High end full frame cameras reflect image quality compriomises with respect to medium format cameras. Those are compromises to portability and cost. Get real.

May 13, 2012permalink

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)

May 14, 2012*permalink

(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.

May 14, 2012permalink

kshorter

Having owned many cameras through the years - still own an RB67, Canon 5D, waiting on my Oly OM-D E-M5, Fujifilm X10 and more; I purchased the HX-100V for my wife who is an avid bird watcher. Its been a perfect purchase and I have to admit, all pixel peeping aside, I've had a bundle of fun using this camera. When purchasing a camera such as this, you recognize up front you are making a world of compromises for the targeted use. In my case it was a question of my wife catching the birds and squirrels while sitting on the deck with a camera simple enough for novice use. For that this camera I'd say greatly exceeded my expectations. Trying to use manual or other features of the camera are frustrating but I found just leaving it in full auto it did a nice job. It allows my wife to successfully get the shots she wants without becoming a photographer. Its just a fun camera. Some pic's I shot are posted here .. http://www.shorterimage.com/Nature/Blooms/20175974_36ktWd#!i=1776672795&k=GWHGcjd

May 14, 2012permalink

bartg you have been imbibing fashionable ideas among dpr posters that are not true. Bigger pixel sites does not equal better image quality when measured at any viewing size. If your equation were true we would have 1 pixel cameras. For any given fabrication technology, when measured at any equivalent viewing size measured in real terms (in, cm), IQ is not improved by fewer pixels. This is not some vast conspiracy by marketeers and engineers of camera companies regarding which dpr readers actually are in possession of the secret contrary knowledge.

DPR posters establish cred here by making three silly claims: 1. "I usually shoot with a full frame (Nikon, Canon)" 2. Of course the marketing people put too many pixels on it to wreck the IQ 3. That much zoom is impossible to use and useless. These statements do establish cult membership but not sense.

May 14, 2012permalink

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.

Silly me.

May 14, 2012*permalink

In the review (page 6, about IQ comparison at ISO 800) you write: "As you can see, the HX200V is probably the best in this particular bunch."

It is absolutely not what I can see. I see that Canon PowerShot SX40 retains the best color and low noise, Panasonic DMC FX150 has lowest noise but desaturated color, and Sony HX200V is the worst of the three.

May 12, 2012permalink

schorscho

+1 for a Fuji X-S1 review! I personally think it's most interesting bridge at the moment!

May 12, 2012permalink

Lofi

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.

May 12, 2012permalink

Seagull TLR

From the sample images on DPR, the DSC-HX200V has worse image quality than DSC-HX100V.

May 12, 2012permalink

Ashley Pomeroy

Has to be said that the image quality, on a per-pixel level, doesn't seem any better than the old Olympus C8080 wide zoom from 2004, or the Sony F828 from the same era. The HX200V produces a large file, but it doesn't look as good. The only real advance seems to be the longer lens and image stabilisation; I'm surprised that the technology has stayed static for eight years. Perhaps there's a fundamental limit to what you can do with small sensors, and it was reached a long time ago.

May 12, 2012permalink

If IQ "on per-pixel level" stayed the same between 8MP camera and 18MP camera, it is progress.

May 12, 2012permalink

TrojMacReady

@peevee:
especially considering the fact that the sensor is many times smaller than the one in the C8080.

May 14, 2012permalink

Ashley Pomeroy

Cor, I'd forgotten about DCResource. Always thought they were wasting their time, and they'd go the same way as Lone Star Digital, and the other one that I forget. That kind of job's too much for one man, but the revenues aren't enough to employ a staff, so eventually there'll be DPreview and probably Imaging Resource, and thingy. The bloke who uses his daughters all the time. The-digital-picture, that's it.

May 12, 2012permalink

pixel_colorado

Wow...that's a whole lot of text that has nothing to do with the review? ;-)

May 12, 2012permalink

mark625

How about Fujifilm's EXR Superzooms? Will they be reviewed? I was hoping that the HS20 would have a review of its own but that never happened... Now its the HS30 that's waiting in line...

May 12, 2012permalink

uw69

It would be nice if DPR would tell us what cameras they are going to review (and keep the list updated!)

May 12, 2012permalink

Josh152

If they did that they would have to put up with constant bitching from people who thought the order of the upcoming reviews was wrong or who were upset that DPR isn't planing on reviewing the camera they are interested in.

May 12, 2012permalink

Greynerd

I suppose we are looking for some logic in the reasons for which cameras are tested and there just is not any.

May 12, 2012permalink

How is HS30 any better? Now, if you would mention X-S1, it is a (somewhat) different story.

May 13, 2012permalink

Greynerd

It looks like the Canon SX IS superzooms are obviously being specifically excluded for review by DPR. The last one reviewed was the SX20 in 2009. As the SX40 is a popular contender in the class of cameras of which the HX200V is part it is starting to look conspicuous in its absence. The SX30 was never reviewed and it would be nice to compare the see how the SX40 compares against the Nikon 510, Panasonic FZ150 and the Sony whose reviews have been rushed online.

May 12, 2012permalink

pixel_colorado

Sony must be purchasing more ad space than Canon? ;-)

May 12, 2012permalink

Josh152

God why is everything a conspiracy with some people.

May 12, 2012*permalink

Michael Barker

Well, since this Sony review is just an expansion of a dcresource review, you could go look at dcresource for the SX40: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sx40-review

May 14, 2012permalink

GirinoFumetto

This is a "Digital Camera resource page" review.
At last!
Too many opinions could confound!

May 12, 2012permalink

If you look around the internet you'll find that a number of people use superzooms primarily for bird photography and get surprisingly good results. The long lens reach with image stabilisation for the lowish price makes these cameras attractive - alternatives in MFT / DSLR etc. work out a lot more expensive. The smaller sensor allows for shorter focal lengths to supply this reach, easier macro because of depth of field.....
Before the world went digital I used to use a 24X zoom Hi8 video cam with steady shot for birds and got some good footage.
I have to admit, though, that I think the studio shots are actually, well, pretty horrible (as are those from the Panny - not really sure why DPR were so enthusiastic!). I was considering getting one - perhaps the Canon SX40 - but it looks like for general purpose photography it may not be a good idea.
Still, iif people are managing to get good photos from them, 'internet size,' ..
I'd prefer the small sensor with less pixels.

May 12, 2012*permalink

MarcusGR

Hi, Peterpainter.
If you are ready to lug around 950 grams, the right super-zoom for you (low-cost bird photography) should be Fuji XS-1. Pity DPReview doesn't want to test it and allow comparison to other super-zooms .... (see my comments down below).

May 12, 2012permalink

Hi MarcusGR
Yes, I think you are right. I'm not sure the weight is a problem - my current cam is 560grams and I really don't notice the weight, not sure that doubling it would make any real difference. I guess it's just the Canon is so much cheaper and does have a longer reach. The Fuji appears to have bettermid to high ISO and very effective stabilisation - so tempting.
It's interesting, though, that generalised reviews don't always give the Fuji the nod - a certain amount of 'reading between the lines' (i.e. I want this for a specific purpose) is needed with all these reviews.
Decisions, decisions......

May 12, 2012permalink

KonstantinosK

Peterpainter: I think the pics from the FZ-150 look nowhere near as overprocessed as from the Sony...
MarcusGR: The big problem with the X-S1 is its price. For that sensor you pay almost 35% more. For 700 euros you are well into medium range DSLR territory. DPR probably will have a review sometime.

May 12, 2012permalink

KonstantinosK
Yes, the price!
However, getting the 600mm equivalent reach (stabilised) means that a long (expensive) lens is needed for the DSLR and then the price rockets.
Closer in price, from what I can gather, would be something like a Panasonic G3 plus a Panasonic 100-300 zoom (stabilised and possibly betterI think from 'reading around' than the Olympus 75 - 300 for the purpose) - with the smaller sensor 35mm equiv 200-600. Still costs a fair bit more than the Fuji....
I get the impression (possibly wrongly), though, that it's easier (and often more effective) to stabilise the shorter focal lengths of the bridge cams.

May 12, 2012*permalink

KonstantinosK
As far as the Sony being more overprocessed looking: I have to admit I didn't look that closely - just thought 'yuck' - so thanks for pointing that out. I guess that in general the more overstuffed with pixels the more processing is needed to combat noise.
Perhaps the extra pixels give some advantage in light-gathering (or marketing?) and manufacturers are using noise profiling etc. etc. ...

May 12, 2012permalink

aris14

No matter the descent efforts of Canon in bridge cameras Panas still have the lead in this niche. Fuji especially suffers from its optics. These are all round cameras so someone needs overall performance.
One thing that pro photographers cannot understand is those cams ability for photo reporting or paparazzi staff content, since their vast majority are mainly Canon Nikon loyal subjects for some reason (lol).
As a camera this very Sony camera is just what marketing wanted for just to fill the brand's gamut gap.
Pana is the "inventor" of the niche, if I may say so, still has the more feedback of enthusiast owners/users and a good partner (Leica) so still offers very good products (except some mishaps such as FZ100, lol).

May 12, 2012permalink

harrisoncac

In Canada this nice camera is only available at Sony Style store and the price is WOW $550.00. This is the same price as Canon T2i's or Sony's A35's.

May 12, 2012permalink

Cy Cheze

The same as a T2i or A35 with one lens only. A 300mm tele will cost another $400 or more. A discounted HX100 might be a better deal.

May 14, 2012permalink

tesch

It's a point and shoot!!!!!!!! Get over it! I can't believe the amount of negitive comments for a review of a P&S. Has anyone even used this camera?

May 12, 2012*permalink

You've got a point, but in some cases the IQ from these cameras is /really/ bad. I returned the Canon elph 300 HS the other day because of poor image quality, the first time I've ever returned a camera for poor image quality in my life. I knew beforehand it was "just" a point and shoot, and I wasn't expecting much, I just wanted a tiny camera to stick in my pocket for emergencies when I couldn't carry anything else, but wow, I mean the pictures were just awful. I'm not saying this camera is that bad, but it is one thing to see some ugly samples on the Internet and kind of laugh it off, and another thing to see your own pictures look that way.

May 12, 2012permalink

John Koch

A P&S, yes. But it's relatively expensive, almost as pricey as a 2011 intro DSLR on liquidation. Were the HX sold primarily as a videocam, that also shoots better still photos than most videocams, perhaps the rating would be stellar. Lack of manual controls in video is irrelevant to most travelers or casual shooters. At most, one occasionally needs manual focus. The real handicap is that, after two years, there remain few means to share 1080 60p video with Aunt Emma or Cousin Thad, still wedded to their Trinitron and Pentium 1.

May 12, 2012permalink

Seagull TLR

@tesch No, I haven't tried the Sony HX200V. From the sample images on DPR, I can tell you that, in term of image quailty, it is not much better than my $90 Canon A1200.

May 12, 2012*permalink

King Penguin

It's no Leica for sure........ :)

May 12, 2012permalink

I'm not sure there are any small sensor cameras worth buying anymore.

The best image quality I see is from the Olympus XZ-1 (in raw mode), but the video is crap, and I want decent video.

I haven't looked too closely at the overpriced Fuji models.

May 12, 2012permalink

Agree. Maybe water-tight "tough" models for some. At least you can take them where you phone would not go.
Oly XZ-1, as well as Pana LX5 are just old. Fuji X10 and to lesser degree Canon S100 provide as good or better image quality and modern features. Just a little differentiation from the rest of them P&S. Not sure if it really matters.

May 12, 2012permalink

Jogger

I bought the Sony HX9v because of the awesome video,16x zoom, and IS. Very hand for bike rides. Ive probably taken less than 100 photos on it in the past year.

May 12, 2012permalink

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.

May 12, 2012permalink

jaykumarr

In final words ('Good For') this should be changed to refers this camera HX200 instead of panny's FZ150

//The ultimate 'general purpose' camera, the FZ150's versatile 24X zoom lens is just as capable when it comes to wideangle landscapes as it is for extreme telephoto shots//

of course, this comment may be removed after correction is made.

May 12, 2012*permalink

Richard Butler

Is there any chance you're comparing the camera to the FZ150? If you are, it'll replace the text at the bottom.

May 12, 2012permalink

jaykumarr

yes, i was. now i understand.

May 12, 2012permalink

Ibida Bab

Image quality is excellent, depending on what diopter glasses you have on.

May 12, 2012permalink

Sergey Borachev

Jeff Keller, please don't go overboard with your opinions. You are wrong about this Sony having every camera feature ever invented.

Here are some of the things that it does not have but other superzooms do:

- It does not have RAW,

- It does not have super wide FOV (24mm),

- It does not a hot shoe,

- It does not have high speed video (slow motion), and

- It does not have many buttons, much much less than some others.

May 12, 2012*permalink

h2k

Interesting comment. I just read the conclusion page. As raw wasn't mentioned in the pros or cons, i deducted that raw is supplied, only to learn here it is not supplied. (I did not read the details pages though, but no raw should be mentioned as a con certainly.) (FWIW, i thought style-wise, the conclusion read more like Jeff Keller than DPR, with a certain colloquial tone you usually don't get on these black pages.)

May 12, 2012permalink

Revenant

I think the absence of a feature, in this case raw, should only be counted as a con, if the inclusion of that feature is to be expected in a camera of that specific type. But raw is usually only included in compacts/bridge cams aimed at enthusiasts and prosumers, while this Sony super-zoom is a mass-market consumer product.

May 12, 2012*permalink

KonstantinosK

The pics look quite ugly and unnatural even at low ISO. The FZ150 looks way better. At the studio scene comparison though, what strikes me is just how bad does the Olympus SP 810 UZ look. Yikes!

May 12, 2012permalink

G-D

Sony sells to the masses. Features sell, quality doesn't. That's a marketing law. Camera quality has been declining for years now.

But it's not just Sony, it's a general trend for all mass-munufacturers, for camera's, cars, TVs, computers, etc...

It's strictly business.

May 11, 2012*permalink

Hilarious. Everything is getting worse! That should be good news. It means you can get old better stuff cheap. "Strictly business" yea that never produced anything worth while.

I seriously think DPR should be worried about the average age of its readers.

May 14, 2012permalink

WalterPaisley

Seems like ~$450 is a LOT of bucks for a mediocre p&s w/o raw.
I loved the Sony R1 & F828.
Glad I bought the Panny FZ150.

May 11, 2012permalink

Ultan

Compare the studio test shots with the Canon G1 X, for instance on the globe. Judging by which size type is visible, the G1 X does as well at ISO 3200 as the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V does at ISO 200! At ISO 3200 on the Sony, even the "INDIAN OCEAN" label on the globe is illegible - the second "I" has been smeared away, the "OC" is nearly gone!

It's irritating that the ratings on the conclusion page can't be compared between the two - even though they are competing cameras - somehow the G1X has been classified as a "Mid Range Interchangeable Lens Camera / DSLR", even though it has a fixed lens, is smaller in every dimension and weighs less than the Sony, and there is an "enthusiast large sensor compact" category. (Another error in the G1 X review is the date - it says Jan 2011; it should be 2012). In fact, none of the cameras with a decent sensor size can be compared with the phone-cam-size sensor cameras like this Sony, even when the big sensor cameras may be smaller and lighter.

May 11, 2012permalink

Ultan

(Continued)
The G1 X has over 9.3x the sensor area of the Sony, pixels 11.8x bigger, but costs only 1.67 times as much as the Sony. Lenses are just about as fast - both f/2.8 wide, f/5.6 vs. f/5.8 tele. Both have image stabilization. The wide angle equivalent is about the same 27mm vs. 28mm. The Sony goes to 810mm, which, while impressive, is useless without either a tripod or full sunlight. The Canon only goes to 112mm, which is good enough for most purposes. The Sony is over 5x faster in taking bursts of pictures, but its JPEGs are filled with artifacts and it has no RAW capability. Unless you never take pictures indoors or at night and do daytime sports photography on a tight budget, the Sony is the wrong camera.

May 11, 2012permalink

marike6

The HX200V and G1X can't be compared because they are two totally different classifications of cameras. The Sony has a small 1/2.3" sensor and the G1X has a sensor very close to APS-C in size.

It like trying to compare m43 to medium format. It's not at all a valid comparison, and camera weight has nothing to do with it. There are some backlit CMOS 1/2.3" sensors like the one in the Pentax Q that have great IQ for a sensor that size, but in general it's not at all useful to compare IQ across categories especially when the size difference is as dramatic as the comparison you are trying to make.

May 11, 2012permalink