Reading mode: Light Dark

hx100v: new test and one request for SONY

Go to last post
D

deja utilise

Member
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
FR
Hi,

I'm new on this post but I read normally since few weeks, please be tolerant with me.

For beginning, here's a "professional" review of Sony dsc hx100v: http://www.photoreview.com.au/Sony/reviews/advanced/sony-cybershot-dschx100v.aspx .

For the second point, I give my point of view on a single thing, and I believe I'm not alone in this case:

It's very, very disappointed that SONY ( engineers, designers or marketing and business men ) doesn't allow consumer to choose the jpeg compression level! It's certainly the main drawback, and so far, of this camera.

I 'm owner of the old Sony dsc h1 ( near ten years ago ), and I'm happy with it but limited at present, on the other hand we have the possibilty to choose two level of compression, i.e. normal or fine.

Today with others comptetitors in superzoom most of manufacturers include several jpeg compression levels, and sometime Raw mode, then how SONY is capable to forget such feature in his wonderful P&S?

Hardware is very good, why software is restristed? For example, it's like a Ferrari car with 400HP engine but limited at 80 miles/hour or 6000tr/min!!!

My request that I claim like nearly a prayer : Please SONY CORP. let users to decide if they want uncompressed picture and heavy file or fast shots and light file.

thanks, sorry for my language from froggy country.
 
deja utilise said:
Hi,

I'm new on this post but I read normally since few weeks, please be tolerant with me.

For beginning, here's a "professional" review of Sony dsc hx100v: http://www.photoreview.com.au/Sony/reviews/advanced/sony-cybershot-dschx100v.aspx .

For the second point, I give my point of view on a single thing, and I believe I'm not alone in this case:

It's very, very disappointed that SONY ( engineers, designers or marketing and business men ) doesn't allow consumer to choose the jpeg compression level! It's certainly the main drawback, and so far, of this camera.

I 'm owner of the old Sony dsc h1 ( near ten years ago ), and I'm happy with it but limited at present, on the other hand we have the possibilty to choose two level of compression, i.e. normal or fine.

Today with others comptetitors in superzoom most of manufacturers include several jpeg compression levels, and sometime Raw mode, then how SONY is capable to forget such feature in his wonderful P&S?

Hardware is very good, why software is restristed? For example, it's like a Ferrari car with 400HP engine but limited at 80 miles/hour or 6000tr/min!!!

My request that I claim like nearly a prayer : Please SONY CORP. let users to decide if they want uncompressed picture and heavy file or fast shots and light file.

thanks, sorry for my language from froggy country.
Click to expand...
Bienvenue à STF. I had the same opinion about the non-adjustable encoding rate as you do, until recently. However, it seems that Sony has improved the efficiency of their CoDec so much, that even with only half as many bits, it still produces good pictures. I can see no artifacts from overcompression on my HX100V, that weren't present in photos from Sony cameras that had quality levels you could choose. I'd still prefer to be able to use a higher bit-rate, but I just don't see the loss of quality that I expected from the new cameras.
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos

 
I'm agree with you, compression is good for big detail, but I saw in some pictures on dpreview that sometimes when details are thin then we have a fog in this part of shot, please see this post, especially grass:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&message=38591591&q=ASR45&qf=m

I was furtively owner of Finepix HS10, all inconveniences put away, there's 3 levels of compression and Raw mode, and in last one the IQ is greater ( translation: resolution ).

I convince myself if SONY, in the next update of firmware, would include possibility to set a lower rate compression or, let us dream, a Raw mode, we will touch the perfection ( at present time of course ), yes I know each camera for each use or user, and a DSLR make some things that a P&S doesn't, I have got Nikon D80 too.

Cordialy, an amateur. Like I read in a past post here, "it isn't the camera that do the photographer" or "it's better to have a P&S with you that no camera at all".
 
As Stephen said there's really no difference.

They probably should have included the option just to keep some people happy because it would have been easy for them to leave the option available in the software. However, it will not make a noticeable difference.

If enough people point it out to them though we might get lucky with a firmware update.

--
Sam

'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... albeit probably in colour the second time around.'
 
Sorry, but I'm not completely in accord with you, on the subject of compression when
you wrote there's no visible difference.
Let me give you some numbers:
Sony dsc h1 with 5Mpix and fine jpeg = file between 1,5 and 3 Mo
Fujifilm HS10 with 10Mpix and fine jpeg = file between 6 and 8 Mo
Fujifilm HS10 with 10Mpix and Raw mode = file 15,1 Mo each
Nikon D80 with 10Mpix and fine jpeg = file between 3 and 5 Mo
Sony dsc h100v 16Mpix fixe jpeg = file between 2,5 and 6 Mo

If I compare cameras that make good issues, at my eyes, with sony h1 and D80 there's a link, i.e. double pixels then double file size, after when I take sony h1 and sony hx100v I expect to find triple pixels then triple size for the same quality, but not, the size is near a ten megapix. such D80. And I see you tell me what I don't use HS10, simply because it's bad for me even with heavy files, certainly that's his lens in cause.

Although hx100v IQ is well in rapport with others competitors, BUT we could expected better, just revise or propose other quality compression, I'm sure it's not difficult to rectify this, by update firmware.

I invite each user to write at Sony to claim to correct this single level of picture compression ( low level of course! ).
 
Good luck complaining. Sony won't listen. Went through the same thing when the H9 came out. Calls were made, images sent to Sony Tech Support showing the water color effect, ect.. Nothing ever came of it. They're still doing things the same way.
jfk
 
jfk said:
Good luck complaining. Sony won't listen. Went through the same thing when the H9 came out. Calls were made, images sent to Sony Tech Support showing the water color effect, ect.. Nothing ever came of it. They're still doing things the same way.
jfk
Click to expand...
It was loud about it all over the world. I wonder how many returned this faulty camera.I did. And what ? Nothing has happened. Sony Co. must have a lot of money.....

--
Ernet
My gallery: http://picasaweb.google.com/Ernett
DSC-HX100V +8 GB MS Pro Duo Mark2.
My son's DSC-H5 +4 GB MS Pro Duo + Hoya UV on
 
That's too bad that Sony doesn't respond more to consumer input via firmware updates.

I also have, for now anyway, the Kodak Z990 which debuted about a month before the HX100V and they just put out a firmware update to address problems reported from consumers like us!!

Sony probably won't issue any FW updates unless there is a problem with their original design of the camera. They won't just update the FW to change or add a feature.
 
Stephen McDonald said:
deja utilise said:
Hi,

I'm new on this post but I read normally since few weeks, please be tolerant with me.

For beginning, here's a "professional" review of Sony dsc hx100v: http://www.photoreview.com.au/Sony/reviews/advanced/sony-cybershot-dschx100v.aspx .

For the second point, I give my point of view on a single thing, and I believe I'm not alone in this case:

It's very, very disappointed that SONY ( engineers, designers or marketing and business men ) doesn't allow consumer to choose the jpeg compression level! It's certainly the main drawback, and so far, of this camera.

I 'm owner of the old Sony dsc h1 ( near ten years ago ), and I'm happy with it but limited at present, on the other hand we have the possibilty to choose two level of compression, i.e. normal or fine.

Today with others comptetitors in superzoom most of manufacturers include several jpeg compression levels, and sometime Raw mode, then how SONY is capable to forget such feature in his wonderful P&S?

Hardware is very good, why software is restristed? For example, it's like a Ferrari car with 400HP engine but limited at 80 miles/hour or 6000tr/min!!!

My request that I claim like nearly a prayer : Please SONY CORP. let users to decide if they want uncompressed picture and heavy file or fast shots and light file.

thanks, sorry for my language from froggy country.
Click to expand...
Bienvenue à STF. I had the same opinion about the non-adjustable encoding rate as you do, until recently. However, it seems that Sony has improved the efficiency of their CoDec so much, that even with only half as many bits, it still produces good pictures. I can see no artifacts from overcompression on my HX100V, that weren't present in photos from Sony cameras that had quality levels you could choose. I'd still prefer to be able to use a higher bit-rate, but I just don't see the loss of quality that I expected from the new cameras.
Click to expand...
we never will know what difference it could make as there is no option, i mean if we could change the compression level then we could say if it makes any difference not now.

--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/
 
Not exactly sure what you are trying to tell me here. Just looking at the compressed sizes of the files doesn't tell us anything about the quality of those pixels or what compression has done or not done to them. You also seem to be comparing D80 sensor pixels to point & shoot cameras with tiny sensors...there is no correlation.

All I am saying is that there would be very (VERY) little difference in quality between the settings. I still think they should have added the feature so we at least felt like we were getting something better than we really were but they didn't do it. I just think we shouldn't get to hung up about it. The camera seems to be producing excellent images for that tiny sensor and I think a lot of that has to do with the excellent lens. I don't think Sony will do a firmware update to include the option because they are probably afraid that when they do we will start pixel peeping and realize there never was a difference. Then we will just blame the tiny sensor for those low contrast blotchy areas.

--
Sam

'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... albeit probably in colour the second time around.'
 
OK
An example will shown you better than words, shots below come from this link:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&message=38572548&q=hx100v&qf=m









If you look center of panel, you see stripes, and with crop you'll see difference between two pictures, one from DMC FZ38 ( P&S small sensor) and an other one from hx100v, stripes from Pana. are clear and entire, contrary to Sony ( exif information available in originals ), this isn't due to move, because the rest of image is clear! But not alone distinction, if you drop your eye on size of file, you will discover a difference too (the double for the same scene, furthermore FZ38 is 9Mpix ).

This time, you can't refuse my argument, cause sensor are same size and camera same type, just Pana proposes several levels of jpeg compression, so there's a correlation between file size and quality of details, although not every time, as I said in above message ( HS10 for example ).

My remark affect particularly thin objects, and actually for biggest details there is no aprreciable difference.
 
Well if this is the entire argument then you seriously need to just use a DSLR...or a Pentax 645D. We are talking about a minuscule difference between those two panels and the Panny shot is slightly better exposed. If the Sony is managing to match the IQ with a file that is half the size then I think it proves my argument pretty clearly.

Like I said previously they really should have provided at least the option of lower compression but it isn't making a difference. If I am concerned about the level of detail you are showing in your sample images then I am not going to use a $500 small sensor super zoom.

You are also making the assumption that the difference in those details is entirely due to the compression ratio...not the sensors ability to handle low contrast details, noise reduction, the difference in exposure...
I am sure we can agree to disagree on this in the end :-)

--
Sam

'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... albeit probably in colour the second time around.'
 
I totally agree with you, it's a shame that we cannot choose jpeg quality, and most, that there's no RAW shooting option. Hope Sony will adress it on future firmware upgrades-
 
Yes, I heard well, I understand what you wrote, and I enjoy dialogue, then thanks.

But I have not finished.

Your arguments are defensible, so I propose to compare a camera with itself, in my possession and I know it very well, sony dsc h1, which have two levels of setting.

If I look picture at 41% on my 15" screen 1200x800 pix. ( entire shot ) both normal and fine compression, actually there's no difference noticeable, but, perhaps I am demanding, when images are 100% ( a part of shot appears only ) this time I note a variation of sharpness. I don't want "to cut hair by four", but it's possible and easy for SONY to improve this feature, only software implicated, and so to satisfy certain users.

I repeat again sony dsc hx100V is one of best super zoom P&S never made, and I use my DSLR indeed when I need something very special.

I don't understand why with old model I can choose, and today I can less, or the evolution produce much feature generally, just to glance at rivalry, If you want it's a question of principle too, that's why I hound.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&message=38619783&q=just+my+opinion&qf=m
 
When the Sony DSC-H7 and H9 models were introduced at a trade show in January, 2007, the pre-production models and the specification sheets included a choice between Standard and Fine J-PEG encoding quality. But, when the production models came out in April of that year, the encoding choice had been removed and only an auto-encoding level was provided.

So it wasn't a matter of Sony not wanting to have to develop software to allow Fine mode to be chosen, because it already existed. They made the decision to cancel it during that period of time. And it has remained this way for all succeeding models of their fixed-lens cameras since then. We have an ongoing situation where these cameras get smarter and smarter, but yet are being dumbed-down at the same time.

The majority of camera buyers know little about advanced photographic techniques and don't have much interest in learning them. They don't visit discussion forums or often talk about the subject with their friends. Many of them never make menu adjustments and some don't even know that their cameras have such features. It is these buyers who determine the characteristics of what the manufacturers develop. A similar situation exists regarding the segment of voters that swings elections and decides which politicians take office.
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos

 
I am interesting in exchange of views of each writer!

For Marti58:

I saw your shots, but I really can't give my opinion on these, simply like I wrote before, difference become visible when picture is at 100% in original full size. here, images have 1263x666 pix². But today I make one experience with my sony dsc h1, with standard and fine setting, and great surprise for me, pictures with standard setting give lightly more sharpness at 100% than fine setting for exactly same scene? ( furthermore size file is near half ) Do two compressions maybe build with two differente ways? That was clear in my mind at begining, but now it's trouble.

For Stephen:

I understand your writing and your analogy, but in this case, why all those features and settings like the low line DSLR? And rivalry don't follow this trend!
 
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