Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony HX9V Going Back - It Royally Sucks

Go to last post
R

ryan2007

Forum Pro
Messages
12,001
Solutions
10
Reaction score
2,126
Location
None, IE
Ok, I am so disappointed now with Sony as far as the way I work. All I wanted was a big zoom compact. Great!

Here are the issues and well the deal breaker with the HX9V. You can not set file compression as it is automatic. You should be able to set the best JPEG file which is one function. The megapixel is separate. So I want 16 MP and the least amount of file compression or best JPEG.

I called Sony and B&H where I got the camera. I am not at all upset at B&H, just disappointed in the camera. Yes, they have tons of cameras but for me this is not a small issue. As I was finishing up with Sony on the phone they wanted me to register the camera. I said, no need I am returning the camera today.

I also understand the Nikon S9100 works the same way as this Sony model.

I'll figure it out, but for those that may have been shooting for years it seems this is the new way of things in this class of camera. Too bad...
 
I'm not saying it's not a big issue for you because obviously it is... but to say it royally sucks sounds pretty harsh.

How was the camera otherwise? Was picture quality good/bad? How did some of the other features work out for you? Did you try videos/panorama or any other features you might want to comment about?
 
A feature that you wanted, that the camera literature never said it had, makes you not want the camera!

I'm shocked!

You are probably the only person who removed a camera from consideration because it did not have a specific feature.

end sarcasm

Seriously, before one should purchase a product, camera or othewise, they should at least read the information describing its features and capabilities. If a desired feature isn't there, don't buy the item.

I would think it is a little embarassing to admit that you didn't know what you were doing.

Note: This is not to say that someone might not return a product that doesn't satisfy them. But to complain, for example that an HX9V doesn't have a 30x zoom, simply wouldn't make sense, either.

When someone has a problem with a computer and it turns out to be the operator, it is know as "operator error".

Perhaps what has happened here could best be described as "purchaser error".
 
Went to make 8x10 prints and was not happy. Photoshop makes the file size automatically 72 dpi, way compressed and that is email resolution
 
Nope, your wrong. Controlling file compression is or should be standard. I have a Panasonic LX-5 among others and you can set both. My criteria was a p&s with more zoom is all.

This is like buying a new car that only makes right turns. Oops did not read the manual.....

It has been standard even if the camera does not shoot RAW you have a few JPEG compression options. My older Canon G7 had it, my current Panasonic GF-1 and LX-5, have it as far as a p&s or Micro Four Thirds go.

This HX9V is supposed to be a higher end p&s for Sony when in fact its just a consumer p&s. I assume most are not printing their own photos and going to where ever to email or make 4x6 prints. You loose enough information as it is and now it is worse with no control.

Even with a video camera you can set compression.

I did not even complain that you have to charge the battery inside the camera or buy a separate charger, what is with that, not efficient if you don't want to buy an external charger so you can keep shooting. I bought the external charger and that goes back too.

Do you even know the difference between a f-stop and a bus stop

End Sarcasm
JohnWho said:
A feature that you wanted, that the camera literature never said it had, makes you not want the camera!

I'm shocked!

You are probably the only person who removed a camera from consideration because it did not have a specific feature.

end sarcasm

Seriously, before one should purchase a product, camera or othewise, they should at least read the information describing its features and capabilities. If a desired feature isn't there, don't buy the item.

I would think it is a little embarassing to admit that you didn't know what you were doing.

Note: This is not to say that someone might not return a product that doesn't satisfy them. But to complain, for example that an HX9V doesn't have a 30x zoom, simply wouldn't make sense, either.

When someone has a problem with a computer and it turns out to be the operator, it is know as "operator error".

Perhaps what has happened here could best be described as "purchaser error".
Click to expand...
 
ryan2007 said:
You can not set file compression as it is automatic.
Click to expand...
This also caught my attention when I was first considering the HX100V, so I did a little arithmetic. My previous camera was a 5MP Canon G5, which has three JPEG quality settings ... Superfine, Fine, and Normal. The Canon User Manual indicates an average 5MP image file size of 2503KB at the Superfine setting and 1395KB at the Fine setting. This equates to 501KB per megapixel at Superfine and 279KB per megapixel at Fine.

Both the HX100V and the HX9V User Guides indicate a 2GB memory card capacity of 335 16MP images. This would equate to an average image file size of 5970KB, or 373KB per megapixel, approximately halfway between the Canon's Fine and Superfine. I ultimately decided that the JPEG quality of the HX100V is sufficient for my purposes.

http://esupport.sony.com/docs/dvimag/DSCHX9V_guide/eng/contents/13/03/01/01.html
 
ryan2007 said:
Went to make 8x10 prints and was not happy. Photoshop makes the file size automatically 72 dpi, way compressed and that is email resolution
Click to expand...
The DPI indicated in Photoshop has nothing to do with either compression or the resolution of the output. What matters is the image size in pixels. The resolution indicated in Photoshop is just the flip side of the Width and Height, which is 64 inches x 48 inches for a 4608 x 3456 image at 72 dpi. This means that a 64" x 48" print would be 72dpi. The real output resolution of a 16MP image in an 8x10 size is 447dpi regardless of what Photoshop shows it as.

447 x 447 = 199809 pixels per square inch x 80 square inches = 16MP
 
ryan2007 said:
Nope, your wrong. Controlling file compression is or should be standard.
Click to expand...
That may be your opinion, and I may even agree with it, but it does not make it a fact. Controlling file compression is not standard on all dP&S cameras and should not be expected.
ryan2007 said:
I have a Panasonic LX-5 among others and you can set both. My criteria was a p&s with more zoom is all.
Click to expand...
Still no reason to not read the information and literature on your prospective purchase. If you didn't see anything describing the feature you wanted then it is not reasonable to expect it to be there.
ryan2007 said:
This is like buying a new car that only makes right turns. Oops did not read the manual.....
Click to expand...
Now you are being silly. Just admit you made an assumption and you were wrong.
ryan2007 said:
It has been standard even if the camera does not shoot RAW you have a few JPEG compression options. My older Canon G7 had it, my current Panasonic GF-1 and LX-5, have it as far as a p&s or Micro Four Thirds go.
Click to expand...
Can you show where it has been standard on Sony dP&S cameras?
ryan2007 said:
This HX9V is supposed to be a higher end p&s for Sony when in fact its just a consumer p&s. I assume most are not printing their own photos and going to where ever to email or make 4x6 prints. You loose enough information as it is and now it is worse with no control.

Even with a video camera you can set compression.

I did not even complain that you have to charge the battery inside the camera or buy a separate charger, what is with that, not efficient if you don't want to buy an external charger so you can keep shooting. I bought the external charger and that goes back too.
Click to expand...
Seems you've made a lot of assumptions. Or at least, the first 30% of "assumption", anyway.
:)
ryan2007 said:
Do you even know the difference between a f-stop and a bus stop

End Sarcasm
Click to expand...
Yes - but I'm not going to make the assumption that you do.

I'm done with this thread.

You made a mistake but it is someone else's fault.

All too many people in this country (USA) seem to prescribe to that philosophy. Very unfortunate, in my opinion.
 
You are right. It is more than sufficient. I think some people get too hung up on non-existent issues. I think the OP is going to miss out on an excellent camera with good IQ...as proven by so many here on the forum so far.

I work with images all day, every day in my job and the difference in compression is going to make NO difference in this case. If you were comparing very highly compressed images to uncompressed images then there is definitely a difference...but not between two companies definition of Fine, SuperFine or whatever. I know I will never be able to convince some people of that but so be it.

Maybe someone can take the time to post identical JPEG images from different cameras at different compression ratios and we can study them at pixel level to see the differences. Or maybe not...that would be a waste of time :-)

--
Sam

'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... albeit probably in colour the second time around.'
 
What does that even mean?
The DPI is completely meaningless... what do the pixel dimensions indicate?

You can change the DPI on any image you open in Photoshop but if you keep the pixel dimensions the same the image doesn't somehow change... you still can't 'email' a 64" x 36" image to someone just because it indicates 72 dpi.

It's unfortunate that there are not more options when it really wouldn't have cost them any more to add them but the reality is it wouldn't make any difference. Hasn't Canon done away with some of their compression options in the past couple of years on the G series as well?

Now...I have to get back to my new Kia car that only makes right turns...it takes me forever to get home. :-)

--
Sam

'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... albeit probably in colour the second time around.'
 
SamTruax said:
What does that even mean?
The DPI is completely meaningless... what do the pixel dimensions indicate?

You can change the DPI on any image you open in Photoshop but if you keep the pixel dimensions the same the image doesn't somehow change... you still can't 'email' a 64" x 36" image to someone just because it indicates 72 dpi.

It's unfortunate that there are not more options when it really wouldn't have cost them any more to add them but the reality is it wouldn't make any difference. Hasn't Canon done away with some of their compression options in the past couple of years on the G series as well?

Now...I have to get back to my new Kia car that only makes right turns...it takes me forever to get home. :-)

--
Sam

'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... albeit probably in colour the second time around.'
Click to expand...
--
Bill



Link for Recent Trip Out West
http://www.pbase.com/bill_b/west
 
I am curious...

What is the picture that when printed in a 8x10 format - looked soo bad that the camera had to be sent back? Please post it.

Now that you spent the money...took some shots...printed at 8x10 and returned...
What is the dream camera that you are now willing to buy?

I always love the "I hate this camera" threads....but never a follow-up with..."I am buying this one because it is soo much better".

I think that if you say this camera stinks follow it up with what is better.
 
Ryan, the lack of user-choice in Sony J-PEG compression modes has been with us for four years now, beginning with the H7 and H9. The prototypes of those models demonstrated at tradeshows included the Standard or Fine quality options, but it was removed before the production models came out. Sony seems obsessed with allowing the highest numbers of photos to be stored on memory cards and have instigated higher compression to achieve that.

Sony has heeded none of our requests to change this. Considering the huge capacity of memory cards and harddrives nowadays, it makes no sense. But, if you want a Sony fixed-lens camera, this is the way they all come.

To be fair, I will say that they have improved their compression systems and even with just 2 or 3 bits-per-pixel, the photos seem to be acceptable. Don't base your evaluation of a camera's capability on these numbers, but on how its photos actually look.

After seeing the results from many HX9V and HX100V users, I'm willing to set my previous attitude about higher compression rates aside and re-evaluate my own expectations about them. I was also very skeptical about the cramming of 16.8 Megapixels into these tiny sensors, but confronted with the very good photos they produce, have changed my thinking about that, as well.
ryan2007 said:
Ok, I am so disappointed now with Sony as far as the way I work. All I wanted was a big zoom compact. Great!

Here are the issues and well the deal breaker with the HX9V. You can not set file compression as it is automatic. You should be able to set the best JPEG file which is one function. The megapixel is separate. So I want 16 MP and the least amount of file compression or best JPEG.

I called Sony and B&H where I got the camera. I am not at all upset at B&H, just disappointed in the camera. Yes, they have tons of cameras but for me this is not a small issue. As I was finishing up with Sony on the phone they wanted me to register the camera. I said, no need I am returning the camera today.

I also understand the Nikon S9100 works the same way as this Sony model.

I'll figure it out, but for those that may have been shooting for years it seems this is the new way of things in this class of camera. Too bad...
Click to expand...
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos



http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627
 
ryan2007 said:
Ok, I am so disappointed now with Sony as far as the way I work. All I wanted was a big zoom compact. Great!
Click to expand...
So you got one, be happy
ryan2007 said:
Here are the issues and well the deal breaker with the HX9V. You can not set file compression as it is automatic.
Click to expand...
Who cares? Why in earth would you do such a thing?
ryan2007 said:
You should be able to set the best JPEG file which is one function. The megapixel is separate. So I want 16 MP and the least amount of file compression or best JPEG.
Click to expand...
But that is exactly what you got. If you fail to understand, the camera is company set to give always best jpeg with the least amount of compression for every resolution. No control in this case means that you can't go below best jpeg like in some other camera but I still don't get who would need that.
ryan2007 said:
I'll figure it out, but for those that may have been shooting for years it seems this is the new way of things in this class of camera. Too bad...
Click to expand...
I've been shooting for years and this doesn't bother me at all. In all the cameras I had before, I never changed the compression setting and left it always on best. So as a matter of fact, I'm happy they did it and so should you be.

So my advise to you is to go out, improve your knowledge about digital photography because from what i can see, you really need it and start taking nice pictures.

Cheers
Moti
--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.facebook.com/pixpix.photos
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)
 
Stephen, I could not have said it any better!!!!

But no matter what, it's a camera and it takes pictures and you do something with those pictures and when you look at the end result, that is all that matters.

I have boxes of old photographs, many taken from film cameras that were not professional grade and despite the horrible quality, somehow, the whole family looks more at the subject than anything else.

Seven years ago, I was at the Houston Zoo and I had my fancy camera and I saw several low-income families taking pictures at the zoo with their phone (and this was when quality of pictures from cell phones were not all that good). I shook my head thinking "Gosh, can't they even afford a simple camera to take better pictures with!". This really bothered me, and after a lot of thinking, I came to the conclusion that it is not the quality of the pictures that mattered to these people, it's the fact that they were able to record the moment even if on a 1.2mp cell phone camera! Not everyone has to be a photographer! Not everyone has to get a perfect picture!

And now, even I venture outdoors every so often and leave my NEX and other cameras home and use my smartphone to take pictures or video.

I do understand what the OP is referring to, though, and when you spend good money on a camera you expect the best... but we are talking about a 16mp camea with 16x optical zoom in a moderately slim body that you can put in a holster on your belt and easily slip through most concerts and stadiums without getting ogled by the security for having pro gear or long zoom lens cameras. It all boils down to the quality of the image in the end and I think the HX9v delivers for the most part. Sadly, he stated the 8 x 10 produced 72dpi but he didn't say how the 8 x 10 "looked" in his hands. I would love for him to post the picture he was trying to print out. I bet he's getting really good pictures out of that camera, he just doesn't know it!

Also, as with every digital camera out there, there are two components. The camera itself and the software to edit the pictures. If he would run it through picasa real quick, he may begin to change his mind! I know a guy who had a Kodak and saw my Sony pictures and was quite jealous. His pictures sucked. And they did! I opened his pictures up in Picasa, quick edits and crops and within moments I was beginning to get jealous of HIS pictures! Even he said "Wow, I didn't know my Kodak could produce such amazing pictures! Gosh, they look better than yours!" lol.
Stephen McDonald said:
Ryan, the lack of user-choice in Sony J-PEG compression modes has been with us for four years now, beginning with the H7 and H9. The prototypes of those models demonstrated at tradeshows included the Standard or Fine quality options, but it was removed before the production models came out. Sony seems obsessed with allowing the highest numbers of photos to be stored on memory cards and have instigated higher compression to achieve that.

Sony has heeded none of our requests to change this. Considering the huge capacity of memory cards and harddrives nowadays, it makes no sense. But, if you want a Sony fixed-lens camera, this is the way they all come.

To be fair, I will say that they have improved their compression systems and even with just 2 or 3 bits-per-pixel, the photos seem to be acceptable. Don't base your evaluation of a camera's capability on these numbers, but on how its photos actually look.

After seeing the results from many HX9V and HX100V users, I'm willing to set my previous attitude about higher compression rates aside and re-evaluate my own expectations about them. I was also very skeptical about the cramming of 16.8 Megapixels into these tiny sensors, but confronted with the very good photos they produce, have changed my thinking about that, as well.
ryan2007 said:
Ok, I am so disappointed now with Sony as far as the way I work. All I wanted was a big zoom compact. Great!

Here are the issues and well the deal breaker with the HX9V. You can not set file compression as it is automatic. You should be able to set the best JPEG file which is one function. The megapixel is separate. So I want 16 MP and the least amount of file compression or best JPEG.

I called Sony and B&H where I got the camera. I am not at all upset at B&H, just disappointed in the camera. Yes, they have tons of cameras but for me this is not a small issue. As I was finishing up with Sony on the phone they wanted me to register the camera. I said, no need I am returning the camera today.

I also understand the Nikon S9100 works the same way as this Sony model.

I'll figure it out, but for those that may have been shooting for years it seems this is the new way of things in this class of camera. Too bad...
Click to expand...
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos



http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627
Click to expand...
--

HX1 / HX5V User Group on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=596585274&ref=name#/group.php?gid=101987207312

Sony HX-1, HX5V, NEX3
16mm (E-Mount)
18-55mm (E-Mount)
70-300 (A-Mount)
 
Prior to last year's models, many Canon cameras had Standard/Fine/Superfine encoding choices. I especially enjoy using the Superfine mode in my Canon S5 and getting some photos with as much as a 7.3 MB file size. It's one reason I have a 16 GB memory card and 5 Terrabytes of HDD space. Now, Canon has cut out the Superfine and may be heading the same direction as Sony, toward making the encoding level automatic. One less decision to make in a simplified style of photography. Which is exactly the opposite direction I want to go. I never pass up the chance to render things more complicated.
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos



http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627
 
I just purchased an HX9 and think for what it is it does a very good job . I just love it when people buy little point and shoot cameras and want Nikon D3 performance ! It's one thing to get a defective or damaged item but to generalize it as junk or substandard is another thing . I hope you find what your looking for . I think Sony overall builds pretty good products ! Good Luck !
 
Moti said:
Moti said:
Here are the issues and well the deal breaker with the HX9V. You can not set file compression as it is automatic.
Click to expand...
Who cares? Why in earth would you do such a thing?

But that is exactly what you got. If you fail to understand, the camera is company set to give always best jpeg with the least amount of compression for every resolution. No control in this case means that you can't go below best jpeg like in some other camera but I still don't get who would need that.
Click to expand...
For a $350 camera (started at$400), I'd expect to be able to set compression level.

Judging by what you've said, I don't think you understand the issue at all.
Moti said:
I've been shooting for years and this doesn't bother me at all. In all the cameras I had before, I never changed the compression setting and left it always on best. So as a matter of fact, I'm happy they did it and so should you be.

So my advise to you is to go out, improve your knowledge about digital photography because from what i can see, you really need it and start taking nice pictures.
Click to expand...
Just because you're happy with less and are willing to settle, doesn't mean everyone else should or be happy. I mean some people are happy with watercolor-like images but some are surprisingly miffed when that's what they get.
 
I wasn't aware that selecting JPEG quality was considered to be a feature for the D3-class of cameras.
flecker said:
I just purchased an HX9 and think for what it is it does a very good job . I just love it when people buy little point and shoot cameras and want Nikon D3 performance ! It's one thing to get a defective or damaged item but to generalize it as junk or substandard is another thing . I hope you find what your looking for . I think Sony overall builds pretty good products ! Good Luck !
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top