I have been looking for a new P&S for a while and compared the Sony hx5v v. Canon sx210is v. Panasonic zs3 (as a prelude to the zs7). The most important consideration was image quality - followed closely by convenience, a well defined menu system, lens quality, fit and finish and pocketability. The Sony and Panny both had a gps function which was not important to me.
The panny zs3 had poor low light performance and no manual controls. Several bona fide review sites stated that the IQ for the zs7 was inferior to the zs3 so I quickly made a decision that the zs7 was not in contention.
For a comparison between the Sony and Canon I spent lunchtime on a couple of days walking around town - taking only photos with the Sony on the trip out...and with the Canon on the walk back to my office. With the same drill in the evening to compare low light performance. I accumulated several hundred photos. When taking the photos I would use whatever mode or camera setting was appropriate at the time. Specifically, I did not set the cameras on Auto and just shoot in that mode. I also took a fair amount of video. A couple of days later I loaded all photos and video onto my computer and began viewing and this is where the Sony fell down. The images were very soft. At a small size they looked fine - in fact they looked very good. However, with any magnification, the in-camera noise removal processing was evident and very heavy handed. Other review sites stated this, but I had to see it for myself, and even at ISO 125 (the lowest Sony allows) the images were soft. At pixel peeping levels it was very bad. Details were lost and it all looked like plastic. And if the details aren't there, no amount of work in PS or LR will bring them back to life. The evidence of noise at magnification was low, but I'd rather have native noise and remove it with Neat Image than be stuck with an over processed image. Also, there is no manual mode at all...all auto function. There is no iris for f-stop control, so to limit light Sony has chosen to use a neutral density filter and you get only 2 f-stops. Therefore, you get one depth of field for all images. That is almost anti-camera to me.
Sony claims their CMOS sensor is superior to a CCD sensor. That is apparent in the ability to shoot full resolution images for 10 fps bursts, as well as the hand held twilight and anti blur modes. But, to my eye, I don't see any low light benefit of the CMOS over the CCD and image quality did not compare well, though I don't think that had much to do with the sensor as much as Sony's noise algorithm.
The white balance is inconsistent indoors. You can get a custom WB by shooting a white object, but the native AWB will leave you disappointed. Outdoors the colors are warm - no problem there. And it is easy to use anti blur mode to get a quick snapshot anytime and have a good result.
I did not give the video an adequate review since the stills were so disappointing. However, the microphones are situated in the exact wrong location. It is difficult to keep from covering one or both of them as you are filming. It is a very poor design. The flash is weak and poorly located - it is easy to block with your fingers. The light from the flash falls visibly off-centered in the image.
The panny zs3 had poor low light performance and no manual controls. Several bona fide review sites stated that the IQ for the zs7 was inferior to the zs3 so I quickly made a decision that the zs7 was not in contention.
For a comparison between the Sony and Canon I spent lunchtime on a couple of days walking around town - taking only photos with the Sony on the trip out...and with the Canon on the walk back to my office. With the same drill in the evening to compare low light performance. I accumulated several hundred photos. When taking the photos I would use whatever mode or camera setting was appropriate at the time. Specifically, I did not set the cameras on Auto and just shoot in that mode. I also took a fair amount of video. A couple of days later I loaded all photos and video onto my computer and began viewing and this is where the Sony fell down. The images were very soft. At a small size they looked fine - in fact they looked very good. However, with any magnification, the in-camera noise removal processing was evident and very heavy handed. Other review sites stated this, but I had to see it for myself, and even at ISO 125 (the lowest Sony allows) the images were soft. At pixel peeping levels it was very bad. Details were lost and it all looked like plastic. And if the details aren't there, no amount of work in PS or LR will bring them back to life. The evidence of noise at magnification was low, but I'd rather have native noise and remove it with Neat Image than be stuck with an over processed image. Also, there is no manual mode at all...all auto function. There is no iris for f-stop control, so to limit light Sony has chosen to use a neutral density filter and you get only 2 f-stops. Therefore, you get one depth of field for all images. That is almost anti-camera to me.
Sony claims their CMOS sensor is superior to a CCD sensor. That is apparent in the ability to shoot full resolution images for 10 fps bursts, as well as the hand held twilight and anti blur modes. But, to my eye, I don't see any low light benefit of the CMOS over the CCD and image quality did not compare well, though I don't think that had much to do with the sensor as much as Sony's noise algorithm.
The white balance is inconsistent indoors. You can get a custom WB by shooting a white object, but the native AWB will leave you disappointed. Outdoors the colors are warm - no problem there. And it is easy to use anti blur mode to get a quick snapshot anytime and have a good result.
I did not give the video an adequate review since the stills were so disappointing. However, the microphones are situated in the exact wrong location. It is difficult to keep from covering one or both of them as you are filming. It is a very poor design. The flash is weak and poorly located - it is easy to block with your fingers. The light from the flash falls visibly off-centered in the image.
EW3124-58L, EW9930-56Y, BV1060-15E, EW8140-54E, EW1272-01E, AT0550-11X, BW0200-09A, BM6010-55A, EW1680-55D, EW1272-01P, EN0012-54G, EW3180-57A, EP5830-56D, BJ2105-51E, EW8722-59D, AU1054-54G, EH3850-53A, EW1530-58D, BM8432-53P, EG2680-53D, EK4900-50E, BM8454-93A, EW0174-56P, EW1250-54G, AU1043-00E, AT0810-55X, EW9010-54A, EW9134-51E
No comments:
Post a Comment