Dpreview Compact Travel Zoom Comparison

[snapshot09]

+1 cause you still have me laughing at that one.

Thanks for adding some humor to the situation.

Sony should be given 'the best watercolor mode (NR) camera'

Because of NR print sizes are reduced from large (as expected by advertised MP count) to medium (just like if it were an ancient 10 MP camera).

DPreview has never liked cameras with overly aggressive NR and yucky low ISO quality.
So, no cigar, as expected.

--
Feel free to visit my photo sites:
http://tom.st , http://www.foto.tom.st

 

[Jinwons]

To each his/her own. But I would rather have watercolor mode camera taking sharp pictures at practical size than slightly less watercolor camera taking blurry pictures at any size due to poor image stabilization, auto-focus. Just look at image stabilization tests of DPreview, HX9V is almost three times better than S9100 at that.

Thanks for adding some humor to the situation.

Sony should be given 'the best watercolor mode (NR) camera'

Because of NR print sizes are reduced from large (as expected by advertised MP count) to medium (just like if it were an ancient 10 MP camera).

DPreview has never liked cameras with overly aggressive NR and yucky low ISO quality.
So, no cigar, as expected.

--
Feel free to visit my photo sites:
http://tom.st , http://www.foto.tom.st

 

[RayGuselli]

Hi guys

Once again I must thank you both for your comments and thoughts....I guess Nikon users will recommend Nikon, Canon will go for Canon etc...

However, I am going to give the camera a good try tomorrow (so busy at moment) and hopefully at weekend.

I suspect that for the image sizes I am most likely to print from it, it will be fine and in any case, it is really intended for my wife as she has a casio with only a 3X zoom....but which takes cracking little images....(exilim 750)...it always got a good write up.

However, so many times she has tried to get a shot of our daughter who has been a little too far away...the Sony resolves that issue.

The bonus is that she can get good video as well....

So, to be fair, must do as people have suggested and give it a fair try....

Just to say, once again, you people have been absolutely super....a pleasure to learn from.....

Very best wishes

Ray

 

[snapshot09]

Exactly, but as dale thorn replied to you over in the Nikon forum when you commented "Weak image stabilization and difficult low contrast focusing at long telephoto on S9100":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=38949716

" I can take anyone out for a walk in average daylight with the S9100 and show them how to take shots at full 450 mm zoom, and get sharp images at least 3/4 of the time. And the results I get simply cannot be matched by any of the other cameras.

Now think about this before you answer: Most people including myself are not using a tripod with the 9100, nor are we shooting for National Geographic. And at 450 mm maximum zoom, we are not concerned a great deal about crisp sharp corners, because those 450mm shots are not composed like a tripod shot where plenty of time is available to get a perfect framing. We shoot the best we can of those distant objects, then fix them in simple post processing, i.e. rotate, crop etc. And since you have undoubtedly seen my website images, you know what I mean. "

Also, I am confused if you personally find the HX9V or S9100 to be better image quality. In a previous Nikon thread, you commented that "But video/panorama goes to HX9V and photo quality probably goes to S9100. "

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=38837027

I am not taking one side of the S9100 or HX9V, but dale thorn owns the S9100 so I believe his view on the S9100 before I throw out my own personal opinion nor would I put more weight on to someone else who does not own it.

I believe an Expert Review like dpreview, which is not biased towards one make or the other, offers a neutral point of view (only second to someone who actually owns it) where they highlighted:

Exposure and Focus Accuracy
1. SX230 and S9100 (tie)
2. HX9V

Image Quality
1. SX230 and S9100 (tie)
2. HX9V

Low Light/High ISO Performance
1. SX230
2. S9100
3. HX9V

Optics
1. SX230 and S9100 (tie)
2. HX9V

To each his/her own. But I would rather have watercolor mode camera taking sharp pictures at practical size than slightly less watercolor camera taking blurry pictures at any size due to poor image stabilization, auto-focus. Just look at image stabilization tests of DPreview, HX9V is almost three times better than S9100 at that.

Thanks for adding some humor to the situation.

Sony should be given 'the best watercolor mode (NR) camera'

Because of NR print sizes are reduced from large (as expected by advertised MP count) to medium (just like if it were an ancient 10 MP camera).

DPreview has never liked cameras with overly aggressive NR and yucky low ISO quality.
So, no cigar, as expected.

--
Feel free to visit my photo sites:
http://tom.st , http://www.foto.tom.st

 

[Jinwons]

Of course I commented so. But that was before seeing imaging-resource review on both. It seems clear that S9100 images are softer than HX9V at wide and telephto end. But S9100 lens seems a little better in the middle of zoom range though. So now I think it's pretty much even between two cams in terms of IQ.

It's good that Dale can manage to get good 450mm shot with his S9100. I wonder if that would be so to others as well? He's right in that most people don't expect very sharp result at telephoto end. But what matters more is relative quality between cams. Even in DPreview tests, HX9V does pretty well at telephoto end with good image stabilization, which means chance of getting blurry shots by average users is lower than S9100.

 

[Jinwons]

I read through their review again and it's clear to me that they had bias toward Nikon in final raiting. Even in their own testing of each camera, they found HX9V has better lens sharpness across zoom range and exposure metering accuracy than others while S9100 suffers overexposure/focus issues sometimes. High ISO noise reduction is about even between two.

But they skipped to test HX9V's very important feature HHT mode and superior+ auto, which simply puts others to shame when it comes to low light stationary photos. And like I mentioned before, HX9V is simply best in IS performance. So the only advanrtages in S9100 over HX9V is longer zoom lens and slightly faster AF. Their major complain on HX9V was sluggish UI only though it's non-issue with fast memory card. Even if I give that one as con of HX9V, it's about even between two and they could have easily selected HX9V as co-winner in my view.

 

[Patman888]

I probably would have chosen the HX9V over the SX230HS if I didn't already have it's two bigger brothers in the household, the HX100V and the Sony A55.

The camera really is pimp and the performance is great. One of the negatives I didn't expect being a big HX5V fan was the size of the HX9V. It might be just me but it looks much bigger than the HX9. Looking at it from the top it looks almost Canon G series fat. Other than how square and boxy it looks, the thing is just as sexy as it's older brothers.

 

[JohnWho]

I read through their review again and it's clear to me that they had bias toward Nikon in final raiting. ... it's about even between two and they could have easily selected HX9V as co-winner in my view.

Especially when the overall score for both the Nikon and Sony is exactly the same - 75%.

 

[perry rhodan]

Low Light/High ISO Performance
1. SX230
2. S9100
3. HX9V

Sorry this is plain wrong! Look again in the conclusions. All of a sudden C* and S* are now best of the bunch. They corrected their first mistake. In the beginning they did not value the sony in this part. Now it is there. But still no corrections overall. Oh well, ... step by step I guess.

BTW the speed... with the right card it's a whole different ball game. Anyone with the first bit of clear mind knows this! And the IS of the sony is light years better then the competition. So the samples here a quite fishy. Tested 4 of the cams extensively myself. But hey I'm just an occasional observer Not related to sony at all, and only 2 of my 7 cams are from sony. But the imagers are most likely all from sony

perry

 

[Jinwons]

+1. Nice catch. I pointed out that flaw too, but he doesn't seem to get it or simply ignores it.

Low Light/High ISO Performance
1. SX230
2. S9100
3. HX9V

Sorry this is plain wrong! Look again in the conclusions. All of a sudden C* and S* are now best of the bunch. They corrected their first mistake. In the beginning they did not value the sony in this part. Now it is there. But still no corrections overall. Oh well, ... step by step I guess.

BTW the speed... with the right card it's a whole different ball game. Anyone with the first bit of clear mind knows this! And the IS of the sony is light years better then the competition. So the samples here a quite fishy. Tested 4 of the cams extensively myself. But hey I'm just an occasional observer Not related to sony at all, and only 2 of my 7 cams are from sony. But the imagers are most likely all from sony

perry

 

[JohnWho]

The only one of these cameras that I have is the Sony HX9V, so I can only "review" the review based on my knowledge and use of the HX9V. I'm sure that this has been reflected in my previous comments in this thread.

However, here's another item that DPReview should review:

In the "Auto Focus" section:

"All of the cameras in this test utilize AF systems that function by contrast detection. The effectiveness and speed of AF varies from camera to camera, but not by much. In terms of AF speed and responsiveness, the best performance of the cameras in this group comes courtesy of the Nikon S9100, which just beats the Pentax Optio RZ10 by a whisker. Close behind are the Panasonic ZS10 and Sony HX9, and the Canon SX230 and Samsung WB210 bring up the rear, with AF acquisition times of around 1 second (compared to approximately 0.4 seconds from the Nikon and Pentax, and roughly 0.5 seconds from the Panasonic and Sony)."

I wonder if that is accurate, since one of the primary new features of the HX9V is its "Hi-speed Linear Focus" and in my experience the camera focuses easily in less than .5 of a second, maybe closer to the instantly to .2 of a second that Digital Versus reported (in normal daylight).

In this what I would consider very important area the Canon is in the "bottom of the class", but I'm wondering if that is correct either. I also wonder if Nikon S9100 owners, as well as the users of some of the other cameras in this "comparison/review" aren't finding similar inconsistencies or mistakes?

I'm now wondering if DPReview didn't rush this comparison/review out. Their attention to detail is bothersome, at least to me.

What say you?

 

[snapshot09]

Thanks for the clarification!

Low Light/High ISO Performance
1. SX230
2. S9100
3. HX9V

Sorry this is plain wrong! Look again in the conclusions. All of a sudden C* and S* are now best of the bunch. They corrected their first mistake. In the beginning they did not value the sony in this part. Now it is there. But still no corrections overall. Oh well, ... step by step I guess.

BTW the speed... with the right card it's a whole different ball game. Anyone with the first bit of clear mind knows this! And the IS of the sony is light years better then the competition. So the samples here a quite fishy. Tested 4 of the cams extensively myself. But hey I'm just an occasional observer Not related to sony at all, and only 2 of my 7 cams are from sony. But the imagers are most likely all from sony

perry

 

[Patman888]

Doesn't really matter how accurate their reviews are when playback review carries that much weight in operational speed. Opinions were going to run the review regardless. They even said so themselves at the beginning of the review.

Also it is Sony's job to provide them with a memory stick over an SD card if they wanted accurate speed measures.

 

[JohnWho]

Also it is Sony's job to provide them with a memory stick over an SD card if they wanted accurate speed measures.

Do they get the camera's from the manufacturers for testing or do they buy them to insure that they get a sample from the marketplace?

 

[khoss]

I would lean to a camera that has as little processing as possible built in. Your strength is the effects that you give to an image. There are varying tastes but none can deny your skills or the interest they add. Unfortunately, this type of camera usually does quite a bit of processing and it's difficult to add more. The shots you used to wow us with on the Panny forum were from a camera that didn't do a heck of a lot of processing. Because of this I might lean away from the Sony that is famous for a rather heavy hand in internal processing and towards the Canon and Nikon (ouch - I never thought I'd recommend a Nikon P&S!). I think they'd give you more working room.
Regards,
Kurt
--
For some random samples:
http://www.pbase.com/khoss/
http://www.pbase.com/susanshaw
http://www.susanandkurt.blogspot.com
http://www.slshaw.info

 

[RayGuselli]

I would lean to a camera that has as little processing as possible built in. Your strength is the effects that you give to an image. There are varying tastes but none can deny your skills or the interest they add. Unfortunately, this type of camera usually does quite a bit of processing and it's difficult to add more. The shots you used to wow us with on the Panny forum were from a camera that didn't do a heck of a lot of processing. Because of this I might lean away from the Sony that is famous for a rather heavy hand in internal processing and towards the Canon and Nikon (ouch - I never thought I'd recommend a Nikon P&S!). I think they'd give you more working room.
Regards,
Kurt
--
For some random samples:
http://www.pbase.com/khoss/
http://www.pbase.com/susanshaw
http://www.susanandkurt.blogspot.com
http://www.slshaw.info

Dear Kurt

Thanks you for such kind words regarding my processing......much appreciated and encouraging...

Today I took some shots at home, indoors and outdoors at 100ISO...

I blew up on screen, but did not overly pixel peep and was very disappointed in what I can only describe as what appeared to be a pained effect on the pictures.

Detail blurred into each other.......I really want to like this camera but feel my Panasonic FZ38 offers less smearing etc...

I suspect it will be returned tomorrow and in all likelihood I will come home with the Nikon or Canon....

I will let you know.

Very best wishes
Ray

 

[pixel_colorado]

Hey Ray:

Good posts!

I'm curious as to what you want to do with the photos you are taking with the Sony? Are you printing them large or smaller 4x6 / 5x7 or just for the web?

I ask because I am looking into getting the Sony but at the end of the day they are either going to be printed at 4x6 or on Facebook to share with family.

I'm not sure of the noise reduction/smearing applies to my application.

Thanks!

Mitch

 

[RayGuselli]

Hey Ray:

Good posts!

I'm curious as to what you want to do with the photos you are taking with the Sony? Are you printing them large or smaller 4x6 / 5x7 or just for the web?

I ask because I am looking into getting the Sony but at the end of the day they are either going to be printed at 4x6 or on Facebook to share with family.

I'm not sure of the noise reduction/smearing applies to my application.

Thanks!

Mitch

Hi Mitch

May I first of all thank everyone in this forum for their help, time and patience in dealing with this issue which could have so easily been discarded as a comparison for trolling only.....For me, this has been tremendous and I am truly grateful for the help.

My sadness is that, having today shot some images with the Sony, which I state again, I so want to like, I felt that compared even to my Pansonic FZ38 and even more so against DSLR's I use, I was not sure I could live with the smearing/painted look.

As for the size of image I have even considered the view that, if I want something to enlarge etc, I will use a DSLR....BUT.....it will be inevitable that the Sony will grab an image, perhaps of my daughter that I will want to enlarge; when that happens and I try to enlarge it, instead of looking at the picture, I will be pixel peeping. It is wrong to do so, but having seen the problem, I am now looking for that instead of looking at the image.

I can guarantee that the bulk will be 4X6 buit I do sometimes go larger.

I also tend to do a lot of post processing (actually enjoy that than photography) and inevitably, if, as I often do, I am going to do some extensive processing then, as quoted above, I may have problems.

For me it seems something with less noise reduction and in camera processing would suit better.

What I find annoying is that probably, had I NOT read DPR's reviews, I may just have stuck with the Sony whereas I have now become dissatisfied because I feel it is not going to deliver what I want.

My big dilemma is that if I change and come home with a Nikon or Sny, might that be the same as the trend is to pack so much into the small sensors.

I still have an old Casio Exilim 750 which was 7MP....it takes GREAT shots - it really does....but the zoom is so limited it is pointless by today's standards.

I wonder where all this quest for more pixels is taking us....perhaps not in the right dorection.

I am still fretting about the thought of asking to change this camera when I read reports etc....but...having used it and seen the smearing at low ISO I am not sure I could live with it.

What I don't want to do is change it and regret the decision and have to take the replacement Nikon/Canon back and ask for the Sony again!....especially as the nearest branch where I bought the camera from is 90 minutes drive away!!!!

I hope you can reach a decision...at the moment I am leaning to the Nikon S9100.......but no doubt someone will point me to bad images from that camera or deficiencies with its performance....

Best wishes

Ray

 

[Patman888]

haha The power of the media and societal acceptance at it's strongest here.

 

[JohnWho]

haha The power of the media and societal acceptance at it's strongest here.

Yeah, that's why in an earlier post in this thread I said:

"Do not let anyone convince you that something that they think is important must be important to you."

I submit that if one reads the dpreview "comparison/review" carefully, they will not buy any one of the cameras in the report - they all have flaws that can arguably deem each of them as "unsatisfactory".

I would recommend that prospective buyers look at multiple reviews from a variety of "pro" reviewing sources. You will notice that certain camera models "rise to the top". Then make your choice among those cameras, determining for yourself which "pros and cons" are important to you.

There are some folks who will not buy a camera unless it gives RAW images, others who absolutely must have a viewfinder and a screen, and others who would not touch a camera with a "pop up" flash, etc.

Just because some aspect isn't acceptable to someone else doesn't mean you may not mind it.

Not one major "pro" review I've seen has rejected the HX9V because the image quality is not satisfactory for a dP&S, and they've all rated the HX9V either "best" or "near best" overall.

Just some food for thought.