DSC-W300 - ISO 1600 & 3200 samples

summerfunk · Jun 24, 2008

By the way, I already posted another ISO3200 shot which contains faces. They may not be kids, but you wanted to see people..

IMHO you need photos free of echos. There's no point having delicate skin tones at ISO3200 if an echo is visible.

Of course now people will probably claim I faked this also... phew...

--
N i k o n D 4 0 x + 1 8 - 2 0 0 m m V R + 3 0 m m F 1 . 4
S o n y 7 0 7 & T 9 & W 3 0 0

summerfunk · Jun 24, 2008

I will repost the reply about lighting:

"For your information, it is a shop in the basement with no windows. If the lights were off it wouldnt be bright enough to walk around and they wouldnt sell much. The photos were taken at the same of day on two different days, with the same lights.

"Only one monitor on the Sony is showing a light reflection. The Sony and Fuji were shot at slightly different angles (as explained). You can also see that there are lights on in the Fuji - they are visible in the pic at the top right."

--
N i k o n D 4 0 x + 1 8 - 2 0 0 m m V R + 3 0 m m F 1 . 4
S o n y 7 0 7 & T 9 & W 3 0 0

ajay0612 · Jun 24, 2008

Yes. I don't know how you managed to mess this one up so badly (maybe it was severely underexposed and later on brightened up using software.). Especially the other photo of counter girls is much better and acceptable at ISO3200.

summerfunk said:
Quite frankly, it would be difficult to fake a photo as bad as the
one the Fuji took. I wouldnt have believed it myself if it wasnt real.

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

azumimm · Jun 26, 2008

summerfunk said:
(I notice that you dont even use a 100fd
or W300 - the two cameras in question here.)

First you assume.. second it doesn't matter!

summerfunk said:
For your information, it is a shop in the basement with no windows.
If the lights were off it wouldnt be bright enough to walk around and
they wouldnt sell much.

I'm talking about neon lights at the ceiling. You can easily turn off some of them. Therefore less light in the basement.

summerfunk said:
Only one monitor on the Sony is showing a light reflection. The Sony
and Fuji were shot at slightly different angles (as explained).

The angle is almost the same therefore there has to be a reflection! If not then some neon lights were off.

Is it possible that you are an employee of Sony? I don't know but I don't get rid of this feeling.

--
Fuji F40

jimr · Jun 26, 2008

can change what is seen in a reflection. Conspiracy theories...a bit much.

summerfunk · Jun 26, 2008

azumimm said:
First you assume.. second it doesn't matter!

Not assumption - searching through past posts.

You dont own a 100fd or W300 either - and I bet you have never even touched them.

azumimm said:
I'm talking about neon lights at the ceiling. You can easily turn off
some of them. Therefore less light in the basement.

Yeah, because if I go into a shop and say "Hey, can I switch off your ceiling lights so that I can take a fake photo to annoy Fuji owners on dpreview" they would say YES.

Not to mention that I would screw up my own comparison of cameras before buying them. Think about it logically, if I was comparing cameras before buying, would I ask them to switch off lights for one camera and not the other? Why would I skew my results, leading me to choose and inferior camera?

Whatever way you look at it, your "lights" theories are complete twoddle. To be honest, given that your thought process is so immature, I'm surprised you even know how to use a digital camera. Crayons would be a better tool for you.

azumimm said:
Is it possible that you are an employee of Sony? I don't know but I
don't get rid of this feeling.

Can I suggest medication?

Certainly if I was an employee of Sony, I wouldnt own a D40x. Crickey, the 30mm F1.4 Sigma alone lens cost MORE than the W300 - never mind the 18-200 VR.

If you had any idea what the Nikon DSLR kit below cost, you would never claim I was a Sony employee. Search on Amazon for the Nikon 18-200 VR lens - and after checking the price, come back and tell me I am a Sony employee.

Your problem is that you have not used either camera. You think that reviews are reality, and because you have an F40, you cannot accept that a non Fuji camera may be better.

Oh, and for what it's worth, my first digital camera was a Fuji, so I am in no way a Fuji hater. I just think it's about time that people woke up to the fact that other cameras do better than Fuji in high ISO in REAL LIFE situations.

Peace. And enjoy your Fuji & echos.

--
N i k o n D 4 0 x + 1 8 - 2 0 0 m m V R + 3 0 m m F 1 . 4
S o n y 7 0 7 & T 9 & W 3 0 0

summerfunk · Jun 26, 2008

Thank you! Glad someone is thinking about things sensibly!

--
N i k o n D 4 0 x + 1 8 - 2 0 0 m m V R + 3 0 m m F 1 . 4
S o n y 7 0 7 & T 9 & W 3 0 0

Photofreak7 · Jun 26, 2008

jimr said:
can change what is seen in a reflection. Conspiracy theories...a bit
much.

Come on jimr you have to admit when looking closely and pondering this last comparison that it is a bit 'fishy' - the exposures aren't even close and yes the lighting seems lacking in the Fuji shot - and it does look like some lights are not on (?) It just looks like more than 'the camera's handled the scene differently' to me. To be honest even if the W300 did do well in lower light and have good high ISO IQ (which it may) I still don't see enough other things about the camera to get excited over - now if it had a decent WA and HD video then maybe but 13.6MP's and 3x ain't doing it for me... Matt

kage · Jun 26, 2008

Perhaps it is time to just accept that there are people that think that some Sony cameras are superior to some cameras from other companies (ex: traditional camera companies).

I was in Costco the other day and a girl was "advising" her mother on which camera to buy.

"Don't get the Sony, they are the worst... get the Canon, they are the best".

No rationale, other than what she had "heard"... which apparently made her an expert.

All I could think was, wow... you really have no idea what you are talking about.

It kind of reminds me of the W200 controversy. There was much criticism about the W200 when it came out (noise reduction and 12 megapixels on a smallish sensor type of complaints), and if I had simply listened to those opinions I would never have given the W200 a chance (and hadn't until an opportunity came up for me to purchase one at a substantial discount). But looking at images that people have been taking with the camera, and indeed the results I and my wife have been able to achieve, I've come to really appreciate the camera to the point where we are tending to leave the F828 and even my beloved V's at home in favor of our W200's. In fact given my experience with the little gem, I probably would have been happy paying full price for it.

To think that I had been considering shifting camps.

In my eyes, the W300 clearly is the better choice in the given scenario. Regardless of what lights may or may not be on, the fact of the matter is that one image has a pretty noticeable image defect ("echo") that would be pretty difficult to get rid of post-process, and the other doesn't. That pretty much ends the debate right there.

If you are happy with your Fuji, awesome. Great for you, it's good to find things that make you happy in life. Why spoil that by taking this sort of a debate to the n'th degree. The reality is that there are many that will disagree with you (and upon fairly good grounds in this case). Enjoy what you have, and leave others to enjoy what they have.

K

Photofreak7 · Jun 26, 2008

Fact Fact Facts ... The Fuji's (and Canon's for that matter) have done muuuuch better in the DPreview's review's than the Sony's have lately especially in the IQ category - so I guess they (Simon, Richard, Lars, etc..,) just don't know what they are talking about either - right?! BTW they compare them correctly/under the same lighting -but- out of fairness I understand the OP could not do a formal test in like conditions so I will respect his/her efforts even though they don't really prove much IMO... Matt

kage said:
Perhaps it is time to just accept that there are people that think
that some Sony cameras are superior to some cameras from other
companies (ex: traditional camera companies).

I was in Costco the other day and a girl was "advising" her mother on
which camera to buy.

"Don't get the Sony, they are the worst... get the Canon, they are
the best".

No rationale, other than what she had "heard"... which apparently
made her an expert.

All I could think was, wow... you really have no idea what you are
talking about.

It kind of reminds me of the W200 controversy. There was much
criticism about the W200 when it came out (noise reduction and 12
megapixels on a smallish sensor type of complaints), and if I had
simply listened to those opinions I would never have given the W200 a
chance (and hadn't until an opportunity came up for me to purchase
one at a substantial discount). But looking at images that people
have been taking with the camera, and indeed the results I and my
wife have been able to achieve, I've come to really appreciate the
camera to the point where we are tending to leave the F828 and even
my beloved V's at home in favor of our W200's. In fact given my
experience with the little gem, I probably would have been happy
paying full price for it.

To think that I had been considering shifting camps.

In my eyes, the W300 clearly is the better choice in the given
scenario. Regardless of what lights may or may not be on, the fact
of the matter is that one image has a pretty noticeable image defect
("echo") that would be pretty difficult to get rid of post-process,
and the other doesn't. That pretty much ends the debate right there.

If you are happy with your Fuji, awesome. Great for you, it's good
to find things that make you happy in life. Why spoil that by taking
this sort of a debate to the n'th degree. The reality is that there
are many that will disagree with you (and upon fairly good grounds in
this case). Enjoy what you have, and leave others to enjoy what they
have.

K

kage · Jun 26, 2008

"Fact Fact Facts ... The Fuji's (and Canon's for that matter) have done muuuuch better in the DPreview's review's than the Sony's have lately"

That's a bit of hyperbole if you consider that DPReview is not the end all be all. There are plenty of other (equally competent) sources for review that have reviewed Sony cameras favorably (and in fact in many cases the issue is more about price than image quality).

At the end of the day it is about real world, long term results (not just about short term, purpose driven - ie: for review - results) and the results that I have seen from most cameras of a certain level from end users have shown strengths and weaknesses in all camps (without any having such a clear advantage in everyday use as to really warrant such gross generalizations as company X is the best, company Y is the worst don't even consider them).

And speaking of "Fact Fact Facts ..." (heh heh I get a funny image in my head of a kid sticking his fingers in his ears and shutting his eyes tight as he yells those words), the fact of the matter is that one image has echo, the other does not. Slight deviations in lighting conditions are not going to make a difference in such artiacting. Considering how difficult it would be to remove that kind of artifacting, that is the greater sin in this case. Though I do notice that people opposed to the opinion that the W300 is performing better in this situation keep skirting that issue (if not out and out ignoring it). I do realize that it's an inconvenient factor for those making the argument for the Fuji... but since it seems that we want to speak about facts... I'd love to hear the rationalization for the acceptance of echo versus non-echo.

"so I guess they (Simon, Richard, Lars, etc..,) just don't know what they are talking about either - right?!"

Seems people in this forum certainly have a love of placing words in other people's mouths. Whatever turns you on I suppose.

K

summerfunk · Jun 26, 2008

Facts facts facts..

1. DPReview has not reviewed the 100fd or the W300

2. The photos shown are REAL and show that the 100fd has echo DEFECTS.

3. The FUJI forum als shows that the 100fd has pink band defects.

4. None of the Fui supporters complaining here own the 100fd, nor have they used the W300

Enough facts for you?

--
N i k o n D 4 0 x + 1 8 - 2 0 0 m m V R + 3 0 m m F 1 . 4
S o n y 7 0 7 & T 9 & W 3 0 0

Photofreak7 · Jun 26, 2008

kage said:
"Fact Fact Facts ... The Fuji's (and Canon's for that matter) have
done muuuuch better in the DPreview's review's than the Sony's have
lately"

That's a bit of hyperbole if you consider that DPReview is not the
end all be all. There are plenty of other (equally competent)
sources for review that have reviewed Sony cameras favorably (and in
fact in many cases the issue is more about price than image quality).

Yes but that/this is a reputable review site and they do test fairly and do know what they are doing! - do they not? You say "in many cases it's more about price than IQ?" - what a crock of cr*p! - who would buy even the cheapest camera knowing the IQ stinks - only someone who doesn't care about IQ?!

kage said:
At the end of the day it is about real world, long term results (not
just about short term, purpose driven - ie: for review - results)
and the results that I have seen from most cameras of a certain level
from end users have shown strengths and weaknesses in all camps
(without any having such a clear advantage in everyday use as to
really warrant such gross generalizations as company X is the best,
company Y is the worst don't even consider them).

I do agree with you here that the real world is what counts -but- before buying a camera the review site here at DPreview does give good, accurate reviews.

kage said:
And speaking of "Fact Fact Facts ..." (heh heh I get a funny image in
my head of a kid sticking his fingers in his ears and shutting his
eyes tight as he yells those words), the fact of the matter is that
one image has echo, the other does not. Slight deviations in
lighting conditions are not going to make a difference in such
artiacting. Considering how difficult it would be to remove that
kind of artifacting, that is the greater sin in this case. Though I
do notice that people opposed to the opinion that the W300 is
performing better in this situation keep skirting that issue (if not
out and out ignoring it). I do realize that it's an inconvenient
factor for those making the argument for the Fuji... but since it
seems that we want to speak about facts... I'd love to hear the
rationalization for the acceptance of echo versus non-echo.

Actually a child with his fingers in his ears could also be because he doesn't want to hear the facts! And yes lighting has a huge effect on IQ - even the slightest variations can. I'm not loyal to any company and I really hope that Sony does come up to or even pull ahead of the others in high ISO IQ because it will cause the others to do better which is what Fuji did IMO.

kage said:
"so I guess they (Simon, Richard, Lars, etc..,) just don't know what
they are talking about either - right?!"

Seems people in this forum certainly have a love of placing words in
other people's mouths. Whatever turns you on I suppose.

OK fair enough (even though I never said you said that) -but- the question then becomes: Are you saying you agree or disagree with their findings about recent Sony's (which to be honest have not reviewed well lately)?

kage said:
K

jimr · Jun 26, 2008

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/shirt-pocket.shtml

Photofreak7 · Jun 26, 2008

summerfunk said:
Facts facts facts..

1. DPReview has not reviewed the 100fd or the W300

Who said they had? - certainly not me! I clearly said "The Fuji's (and Canon's for that matter) have done muuuuch better in the DPreview's review's than the Sony's have lately especially in the IQ category" - I used the word "lately" - I wasn't referring to any particular camera(s) just recent Fuji's/Sony's.

summerfunk said:
2. The photos shown are REAL and show that the 100fd has echo DEFECTS.

... and are these photos taken fairly in the same lighting and with the same camera settings/camera angles? - the answer is an obvious no as the OP already admitted in the first post. So why are people so willing to 'hang their hats' on these as fact?! - no disrespect to the OP intended here.

summerfunk said:
3. The FUJI forum als shows that the 100fd has pink band defects.

I agree that's why I will never own it.

summerfunk said:
4. None of the Fui supporters complaining here own the 100fd, nor
have they used the W300

Who's complaining? - I would be the first to congradulate Sony for the W300 if a fair/accurate test or review shows it's superior to Fuji (or any other company) - I am not loyal to any company and have many times posted IQ comparisons wioth crops showing one cam's IQ advantages over another.

summerfunk said:
Enough facts for you?

Actually no! ... I really did not learn any from your response (except you like to vent) but here is the definition of fact for your further reference: "a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation." - please catch that last part: "an established standard of evaluation" - so using the actual definition these comparisons don't exactly fall into the fact category! - now there's a fact for you!

summerfunk said:
--
N i k o n D 4 0 x + 1 8 - 2 0 0 m m V R + 3 0 m m F 1 . 4
S o n y 7 0 7 & T 9 & W 3 0 0

Photofreak7 · Jun 26, 2008

jimr said:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/shirt-pocket.shtml

Yes compared to the Samsung it looks good - but that really is not a difficult feat -I mean Samsung?. I truly hope for those who are considering this cam (W300) that Sony 'has something' over the other companies. But a FAIR test against some real competitive camera's would be nice to see. BTW I have already forgotten the samples posted here... Matt

jimr · Jun 26, 2008

I was surprised at the not so great IQ from the H50 as reflected in the IR review.

As far s the F100fd....it will not be in production as of Sept. October sometime...so a replacement SHOULD be coming out soon after. I am not guessing about the end of production.

It would be nice if the W300 had A 28MM capability. That review of the W300 in the link I posted...was very very enthusiastic. If you look at the links to other cameras within the Samsung/Sony review you'll see some very well considered opinions..so I take their enthusiasm about the W300 seriously.

kage · Jun 26, 2008

Totally pointless.

Besides the fact that many of your points are very easily and effectively disputed.

I'll leave it to others that have the time (and desire) to get embroiled in that kind of a discussion.

Having become a parent recently it has put many things in perspective. This sort of thing is one of them.

Even though someone I am speaking to may be painfully mistaken (just because a site is good at reviews doesn't make them always right) or distorting a conversation to fit their needs... (like your cost/IQ comment), it's really not worth my time to change their mind (not my job either).

Much more worthwhile to go with what I (and many others) know are facts, and leave others to believe whatever they wish to believe/disbelieve as clearly that's all they are really interested in doing.

areK

jimr · Jun 26, 2008

the Samsung. He has reviewed the G9 etc....see the links within the article. His enthusiasm for the W300 goes far beyond a comparison to the Samsung...as his words clearly indicated.

Photofreak7 said:
jimr said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/shirt-pocket.shtml

Click to expand...

Yes compared to the Samsung it looks good - but that really is not a
difficult feat -I mean Samsung?. I truly hope for those who are
considering this cam (W300) that Sony 'has something' over the other
companies. But a FAIR test against some real competitive camera's
would be nice to see. BTW I have already forgotten the samples posted
here... Matt

Photofreak7 · Jun 26, 2008

jimr said:
the Samsung. He has reviewed the G9 etc....see the links within the
article. His enthusiasm for the W300 goes far beyond a comparison to
the Samsung...as his words clearly indicated.

I'm sorry I normally don't follow that site -but- I agree with you he did seem in favor of the W300's IQ. I will be watching for the DPreview's review to see how it is received here... Matt

jimr said:
Photofreak7 said:

jimr said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/shirt-pocket.shtml

Click to expand...

Yes compared to the Samsung it looks good - but that really is not a
difficult feat -I mean Samsung?. I truly hope for those who are
considering this cam (W300) that Sony 'has something' over the other
companies. But a FAIR test against some real competitive camera's
would be nice to see. BTW I have already forgotten the samples posted
here... Matt

Click to expand...

DSC-W300 - ISO 1600 & 3200 samples

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts