My HX400V opinion after a weekend of ownership (compared to a Canon SX40HS)

[Kawika Nui]

Steve,

Thanks for all your info and images. From them it is evident that this camera is capable of excellent images; otherwise I never would have gotten this far in the discussion.

But for me the issue is burst depth. I do a lot of action shooting (mainly surfers at long range) and it's essential to get the whole wave. If you quit (or have to quit due to small buffer), you can easily miss the critical moments while the camera is writing to card.

According to the post I responded to, the buffer depth is 12 images. For me, this simply isn't enough (I recently did an animated surf project that used 72 consecutive frames from a single ride, 5fps; there isn't one of those frames that could be removed without degrading the project).

Right now I'm using an FZ150 and a GH3 (100-300mm). Both have good buffer; the FZ150 only holds about 25 frames, which the GH3 in JPEG mode is about 100 or more. Plenty for my uses.

It's always been a frustration to me that makers of otherwise excellent cameras routinely neglect either burst speed or burst depth, or both. Canon comes to mind (until the G16). Casio loves high speed, but miserable depth--often only enough for about one second or so of action.

I will probably add an FZ1000 to my quiver--the 4K video not only gives the chance to shoot 8mp frames at 30fps with no effective limit, also in that mode the effective zoom is increased due to on-sensor crop. I also may add a TCON and shoot normal burst. The burst at full res is only about 50 shots but in many cases that can do the job. If not, back to 4K or the GH3.

Best...

This is a screen shot of a frame from a normal 1080 video. With 4K video pulled right from the camera as an 8mp JPEG, it would have been very nice.

Surfer with pelican flying cover. Screenshot from 1080p/60, GH3 with 100-300mm.

 

[WaltKnapp]

This model is much more complex than those of its series that came earlier. If the increased amount of settings and their combinations is not learned, you couldn't expect good results. Superzoom cameras with small sensors do not provide a good source for cropped images. Why would anyone want to use a full-size image from such a camera? I see less processing artifacts on it, than any of its predecessors. By comparing it to the past mistake they called the H9, the commenter demonstrates little knowledge about more recent Sony cameras.

I agree the artifacts from the jpeg compression routine are less than before, but they are still the most dominant damage to the image. It sure would be good if there were a option for minimum jpeg compression. Fine is better, but still is too compressed. Sure it would be a bigger file, and storage time in the camera would take a big hit out of burst speed, but for those of us wanting best individual still images that would be really a improvement. As is I continue to use Topaz dejpeg on each shot as the first PP step, which helps.

I am finding some places where they rule out things like exposure comp where I used it in the earlier cameras to good advantage. Or it's hidden behind arcane steps. This forces shooting with full manual or such when the talents of the full auto modes would actually give better and quicker results.

I've been taking photos since I was a small boy and this is the best performer I've ever had. Those who know me are aware that I come down hard on flawed cameras. But the only important criticism I have of this one, is the long learning-curve to understand and use its capabilities to the fullest. The criticisms of those who have not gone through this process successfully, carry no weight with me.

It's a camera you really need to be a photographer to start with.

 

[Greynerd]

Probably their marketing people are figuring out the Pixel Count number that will attract the majority of buyers and they compromise with the engineers who do the best they can with it within reason. I am not being cynical or ironic here as this is probably the reality in the market and Sony need to sell the cameras rather than please the high resolution IQ purists who are probably in the minority of their customer base.

What this all adds up to me is that the image quality of the two cameras is very close for like size images. I think Sony is playing a zero sum game with a 20MP pint size sensor. I think they might have come out ahead using a 16MP sensor of similar quality.

 

[Stephen McDonald]

Probably their marketing people are figuring out the Pixel Count number that will attract the majority of buyers and they compromise with the engineers who do the best they can with it within reason. I am not being cynical or ironic here as this is probably the reality in the market and Sony need to sell the cameras rather than please the high resolution IQ purists who are probably in the minority of their customer base.

What this all adds up to me is that the image quality of the two cameras is very close for like size images. I think Sony is playing a zero sum game with a 20MP pint size sensor. I think they might have come out ahead using a 16MP sensor of similar quality.

This is the grim reality for all who would want the best performance and who know the difference when they see it. All the companies do this, but Sony is the worst. It's the ingenious designers, engineers and us on one side and the marketing #&@%<!! on the other.

 

[Kawika Nui]

Probably their marketing people are figuring out the Pixel Count number that will attract the majority of buyers and they compromise with the engineers who do the best they can with it within reason. I am not being cynical or ironic here as this is probably the reality in the market and Sony need to sell the cameras rather than please the high resolution IQ purists who are probably in the minority of their customer base.

What this all adds up to me is that the image quality of the two cameras is very close for like size images. I think Sony is playing a zero sum game with a 20MP pint size sensor. I think they might have come out ahead using a 16MP sensor of similar quality.

This is the grim reality for all who would want the best performance and who know the difference when they see it. All the companies do this, but Sony is the worst. It's the ingenious designers, engineers and us on one side and the marketing #&@%<!! on the other.

--

Sad but true. This blog post is relevant:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-good-enough-problem.html

We're in an era where just-sort-of-OK, or good-enough-for-my-very-limited-uses is "good enough." When I was building spec houses it was also a constant problem when dealing with subs and tradesmen. Corner not square? Wall not exactly vertical? Door not hung quite right? Hey, it's good enough; most people won't notice or won't care. And they won't. People who only view images on a small screen really don't know--or care--how they look in a larger format, or cropped.

Steve McDonald
http://www.ipernity.com/home/305883
My Flickr Album
My Vimeo Video Album
My Places on Google Earth and Slam Code Directory on OneDrive:
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0