HX30V: Disappointing Image Quality

Started Jul 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
crashpc Veteran Member • Posts: 6,037
Re: HX30V: Disappointing Image Quality

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

danny006 wrote:

As good as the RX100 is, as bad is the HX20/HX30. I have heard similar stories about pixelation. Sony has to seriously look into it.

The HX20 and HX30 deliver excellent image quality for a small sensor pocket size superzoom, and have been rated comparable or superior to all the other similar superzooms from other manufacturers.

If you continue to magnify the image up until the point where you are looking at a small number of pixels, either by pixel peeping on a computer screen or cropping 98% of the image away (as the original poster did), you will then come to the totally incorrect conclusion that the remaining / resulting image is "disappointing" or "pixellated" or some other entirely specious and incorrect opinion.

The noise reduction of the HX20/30 is aggresive, but only under extreme situations. I and others have posted extremely good photos from this camera, and comparisons to my NEX 7 Zeiss and a77 Sony alpha with a Zeiss lens that I have also published in this forum make it extremely obvious that Sony has done an excellent job with designing this camera.

If you want an excellent low light and low noise camera, then why in the world would you you even consider a 25-500mm pocket superzoom with a tiny sensor?

Get real.........


"The HX20 and HX30 deliver excellent..." Well, not excellent as others does. Does it not change the meaning of that excellent word? We continue to magnify only to the point we don´t like IQ of the photo, otherwise we would not use it (delete like bad one). TZ30 is capable of croping nearly one more stop(50% of resolution) over HX20V to maintain acceptable IQ (until you see some serious smudging) if you shoot something that needs detail. This will lead to the bigger object in macro mode , and maybe tele zoom also. And be sure, that point and shooters and macro people will have to do some crop, because it is impossible to make good exposition for obvious reasons...

As others mentioned, there is no problem with the lens. It seems to be excellent in the right meaning of that word. We could even live with not so good sensor, but if that problem is multiplied by bad noise processing, there you are - so many complaining people. These are real, and these are users, not only posters.

What else to say? The same as Nokia and now Sony arrogant and self important companies that they think their cutromers are stupid monkeys unable to see the value and quality? Look at Nokia, they are down now. If you don´t see that, I can show you...

What is marketing thinking of? Changing those customeers for another, more stupid customers? I don´t see the point, when we have cheap technology to apply. There is some strong brake, avoiding good products and happy people. Who does this? Does he realize, that it cannot work for ages?

Ok enaugh, I cannot do anything with this, but donĀ“t ever think about that you can make us happier by calming us down with some honey words. This worked at age five, not now

P.S.: No flame, just fun talk about technology and marketing issues.

Few minutes later:

LSHorwitz1 - it looks like we really could live with that sensor, but the smudging is really too much. We need better control of noise reduction in that camera.
Why does he do it?

 crashpc's gear list:crashpc's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS M10 Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
MOD Marti58
MOD Marti58
MOD Marti58
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow