DSC-W300 - ISO 1600 & 3200 samples

My Sony T9 just broke and I started looking for a replacement. I never considered the DSC-W300 at first because I expected 13+ megapixels to have bad high ISO, but I was impressed enough by what I saw to buy one.

Here are some samples in a shop in Japan, taken at ISO1600 and ISO3200 at different resolutions. All other settings are standard except for the ISO and resolution.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lemonsoju/sets/72157605716895813/

What impressed me is that ISO3200 is VERY useable at 5MP - better than the Fuji in my opinion (I did take comparison shots but deleted the Fuji ones, so I can't post them). While it might seem perverse to have a 13MP camera and be happy with 5MP, I'm just pleased to find a P&S camera that generates ANYTHING resembling useable at 3200.

I can post more samples later if people are interested.

Rather surprising 3200iso performance for a non-Fuji ...



--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Yes we are interested by more samples and a real comparison between this sony w300 and either the fuji f100fd or the fuji f31fd (or 30) especially at high ISO (800 and above) and in shadows. Thanks in advance.

summerfunk said:

My Sony T9 just broke and I started looking for a replacement. I
never considered the DSC-W300 at first because I expected 13+
megapixels to have bad high ISO, but I was impressed enough by what I
saw to buy one.

Here are some samples in a shop in Japan, taken at ISO1600 and
ISO3200 at different resolutions. All other settings are standard
except for the ISO and resolution.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lemonsoju/sets/72157605716895813/

What impressed me is that ISO3200 is VERY useable at 5MP - better
than the Fuji in my opinion (I did take comparison shots but deleted
the Fuji ones, so I can't post them). While it might seem perverse to
have a 13MP camera and be happy with 5MP, I'm just pleased to find a
P&S camera that generates ANYTHING resembling useable at 3200.

Click to expand...

You deleted the Fuji ones?! - so much for backing up your 'better than Fuji' claims - Also not to be a wise guy but you must do these tests on a scene where you would actually -have to- use ISO1600/3200 - where there is looow light in the scene. I would be interested in a few 1600/3200 shots in a darker scene which is where the Fuji's can really shine over other P&S's.
Matt, PA, U.S.
TZ5, S5IS and F40fd
http://www.pbase.com/photofreak777/root&page=all

(Note: Camera's listed above are subject to change without notice and no camera's were harmed in the making of this message)
taken with my good 'old' S5IS:

summerfunk said:

I can post more samples later if people are interested.

Click to expand...

Photofreak7 said:

Also not to be a wise guy but you must do these tests on a scene where you would actually -have to- use ISO1600/3200 - where there is looow light in the scene.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because BEFORE I buy the camera, I would obviously have the opportunity to take it to a dark bar and take photos - not. I can only compare with the facilities available to me BEFORE I buy the camera. From the multiple shops I tried the f100 in, whatever photo I took with the f100 was substandard. You might claim that I wasnt in a "perfect dark" situation, but I doesnt need to be - using the zoom often requires ISO to be pushed up.

Quite frankly, I dont need to justify to you my personal decision that the Sony is better. This isn't the FUJI forum and I'm not intending to start a Fuji v Sony debate. I am offering the photos to others interested in the W300 who want to see samples.

Photofreak7 said:

I would be interested in a few 1600/3200 shots in a darker scene which is where the Fuji's can really shine over other P&S's.

Click to expand...

In no tests that I have made have I seen the Fuji shine over anything. But if you are so interested, go to a shop yourself and try the damn thing out, or go to the Fuji forum.

Peace.

Photofreak7 said:

You deleted the Fuji ones?! - so much for backing up your 'better than Fuji' claims

Click to expand...

Oh, and ps. I didnt delete the Fuji photos out of some "conspiracy" against Fuji. I deleted them because they were, quite frankly, a waste of disk space. It is MY opinion that the Sony did better. By all means go to a store yourself and compare the two cameras. The photos I presented were for those interested in the Sony.

I am not in anyway doubting your evaluation or the wonderful samples shown in the links found in another W300 thread, but I wonder why the opinions posted by owners in the camera database section...owner's opinions...are so very negative about the W300?

It might be good for others if you addded your opinion in that section of dpreview.

Personally I am not in favour of one or another. I simply would like to compare. And from what I read on the dpreview forums (all forums together) I get the impression that comments, reviews and pictures presented by some readers are more useful to me than comments and pictures made in a shop.

This is why I can only repeat: if at all possible is there somebody who could and would accept to compare pictures of both cameras, if possible in low light. Why in low light? Simply because some interesting pictures can be made in dark places when one prefers not to use a flash or when such a flash is forbidden or useless anyway. Thanks in advance.

Ok. I will endeavour to get some pics in a darker scene - but I dont have a Fuji to compare with so it will be the Sony only. If someone living in Tokyo has a Fuji then I would be happy to meet and take comparison shots then I would be happy to do that. I have a Flickr Pro account so I can upload as much as I want.

I have added some shots that I took last night:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lemonsoju/sets/72157605722299219/

I dont claim these are the best photos in the world - but they are the only photos I have at the moment which dont have people in them.

One is a night scene in Shibuya at ISO800, one is the street at night (I had taken a similar photo with a Panasonic and I wanted to compare) and some shots at home testing. The photographs of the Nikon adapter, phone, etc were taken in a dark room and they were lurking in darkest shadows. Here is ISO 6400:



Note - 6400 is at 3MP (using the ISO+ function on the dial). Original available by visiting the set URL above.

I do have some high ISO Fuji shots which made me discard the camera from thought, but they were taken in another store. I will include one here:



Original available here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lemonsoju/sets/72157605723652418/

I am not saying this is directly comparable with the Sony, because it isnt - but it made me discard the camera. Look at the side of the sleeve of the left shop assistant and you will see a black "echo". I saw this in almost all of the 3200 and above shots that I took, and I didnt like it. It is visible on resize also.

When I only have one chance to get a shot (eg I'm giving the camera to a member of the public to take my photo) or when there is significant chance of shake or motion blur (eg photographing and advertisement I want to remember on a train) then I will increase the ISO. In my view, a camera with good high ISO should be able to take good pictures at high ISO in both bright situations and dark.

a) The camera uses similar excessive NR (even at NR low setting!!) and compression as done on other P&S from Sony.

b) It is still far behind Fuji F100fd at high ISOs. Effective resolution being less than F100fd.
At least that is eveident from samples at Imaging-Resource.
W300
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/W300/W300A7.HTM
F100fd
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F100FD/F100FDA7.HTM

c) Such "Booky" scene will look good from any of P&S at higher ISOs. The NR affect delcate gradation and fine details more than such blocky objects.

summerfunk said:

Here are some samples in a shop in Japan, taken at ISO1600 and
ISO3200 at different resolutions. All other settings are standard
except for the ISO and resolution.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lemonsoju/sets/72157605716895813/

Click to expand...

--
Best Wishes, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
Thanks for your time.

I accept IR shots are useful - but I prefer the real world. I couldnt get the Fuji to take a 3200 shot without the echo (see photo in this thread). The Sony doesnt have that echo. Would you like to comment on the Fuji photo included in this thread?

I don't see any such thing worth the concern (except some faint color bleeding, which is normal for ISO3200 from such cameras). I would rather prefer this shot to smeared "water color" from Sony W300. Just take a portrait shot (without flash) of a person with Sony W300 and see it yourself.
F100fd has sharper lens too.

summerfunk said:

I accept IR shots are useful - but I prefer the real world. I couldnt
get the Fuji to take a 3200 shot without the echo (see photo in this
thread). The Sony doesnt have that echo. Would you like to comment on
the Fuji photo included in this thread?

Click to expand...

--
Best Wishes, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
Thanks for your time.

So you saw the Fuji ISO 3200 photo that I posted and you are telling me that you are happy with the echo? I couldnt accept that. It is like a bad TV reception.



At the end of the day, you and I both need to have cameras that we are happy with. I am glad you like the Fuji, and I like the Sony. Which camera is "best" is a personal choice. I dont think there is any point of arguing - I never intended this to be a Fuji v Sony debate. I wanted others to have access to samples from the Sony because there are not many reviews around.

summerfunk said:

So you saw the Fuji ISO 3200 photo that I posted and you are telling
me that you are happy with the echo? I couldnt accept that. It is
like a bad TV reception.

Click to expand...

That is expected to be like BAD TV Reception as Signal to Noise ratio is way higher at such sensitivities on such small sensor cameras.

summerfunk said:

At the end of the day, you and I both need to have cameras that we
are happy with. I am glad you like the Fuji, and I like the Sony.
Which camera is "best" is a personal choice. I dont think there is
any point of arguing - I never intended this to be a Fuji v Sony
debate. I wanted others to have access to samples from the Sony
because there are not many reviews around.

Click to expand...

Yes. It is a matter of personal choice. But you wanted to put forth your reason for liking W300. So you should be ready to listen to other's reasons also.

I am posting couple of crops from W300's & F100fd's ISO1600 images (identical setup) from site http://www.Imaging-Resource.com . I like that site for using identical scenes for various camera's sample images.
below is F100fd



Below is W300's



Let the audience be the best judge.
--
Best Wishes, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
Thanks for your time.

Fuji picture much better, more deepness, more volume, better colours, etc. By far.

Fuji photo looks polarized.. and funny that I can't see the pink band that everyone is complaining about on the Fuji high ISO photos. Cropped out?

Do you have a Fuji? How about posting some of your real world high ISO photos at 1:1.

Again: I am stating my personal preference, based on having taken photos with the Sony AND the Fuji. I am posting my samples so that others have access to Sony samples and can make their own decisions.

By the way - there are 3 Sony ISO1600 images at imaging resource that you could have cropped from - low NR, standard, high HR. You didnt say which you chose. You probably didnt know there was a difference.

I am probably unable to understand and compare. But looking rapidly at the image-resource samples, comparing fuji 30, fuji 100 and sony w300, at 1600 ISO (chart colours), my impression is that fuji 100 produces a sharp but very noisy picture, the sony w300 produces a blurred much less noisy picture and the fuji 30 a sharp low noise picture (noise close to the sony, but picture seems sharper). Conclusion: the fuji 30 seems the best compromise. But this is perhaps entirely subjective.

a) I hope you are not venting your frustration here . Cool down. W300 is good camera.

b) BTW these photos crops are at setting NR Low. I don't bias my judgement based on my ownership. I don't own any of these two, but am not blind either. I do own 2 different Sonys (R1, S600), 2 Canons (TX1, S2IS) and 2 Fujis (S602, V10) though. Your own testing is nowhere near to what Imaging-Resource does.

c) And if one was not blinded by his biasedness, he could have read my initial post, which talks about observation at NR low setting!! Read again:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=28355689
d) Now how about a comparision of the details at ISO1600?
Below is F100fd:



Below is W300 (NR Low):



Again the crops are from http://www.Imaging-Resource.com site, which I consider neutral as they don't own every camera they test. Let audience be the best judge. (You did make a loud claim that W300 is way better than Fuji f100fd as per your testing. It was not merely about test images of W300).

summerfunk said:

By the way - there are 3 Sony ISO1600 images at imaging resource that
you could have cropped from - low NR, standard, high HR. You didnt
say which you chose. You probably didnt know there was a difference.

Click to expand...

--
Best Wishes, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
Thanks for your time.

That is honest observation. You are right.

W300 produce cleaner images at the cost of fine details and fine color gradations. F30 (and its successor F31fd) was the low light king of P&S cameras. It is still being talked about because of that.

Although not as good as F30, F100fd produce excellent images upto ISO800, which other P&S cameras will do well to match.

arinel said:

I am probably unable to understand and compare. But looking rapidly
at the image-resource samples, comparing fuji 30, fuji 100 and sony
w300, at 1600 ISO (chart colours), my impression is that fuji 100
produces a sharp but very noisy picture, the sony w300 produces a
blurred much less noisy picture and the fuji 30 a sharp low noise
picture (noise close to the sony, but picture seems sharper).
Conclusion: the fuji 30 seems the best compromise. But this is
perhaps entirely subjective.

Click to expand...

--
Best Wishes, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
Thanks for your time.