Sure, it's got that funky flip-out display, in-camera panorama stitching, HD video recording and a host of other fancy features for its $500 pricepoint, but does Sony's new
Cyber-shot DSC-HX1 give DSLRs a run for their money? Digital Photography Review doesn't seem to think so. The camera has a lot in common with Canon's similarly-positioned
SX1 IS, and even bests it in some departments with that 10 fps continuos shooting mode, but the actual image quality just isn't in the same ballpark as a barely more expensive DSLR, and DP Review figures that if you don't need the 20x zoom or other more gimmicky features, most folks would probably be better served by saving their pennies for the real deal.
posted Apr 23rd 2009 4:38AM
If you are interested in this its because the 20x zoom and video features are important to you.
DP Review is owned by Amazon, which competes with Sony in one important area. Don't expect honest reviews of Sony products.
yeah... quality of DPReview's reviews dropped noticeably. They are still very very informative and insightful, but often have lots of discrepancies.
You need to see who DP Review is. It is is a Canon shop. They hate Canon competitor Sony. Sony never gets fairly treated here. They don't even mention that that Canon, same as Casio, is using Sony CMOS.
no, you need to look at the actual review before barking on here.
And for the fact that it uses memory stick only, it is enough for me to disregard this camera completely! Would have bought the SX1, or even better, the SX10 and pocket the cash.
What a load of paranoia shit.... Are you serial?
? I can't speak for the Sony review but they seem to review Nikon products well so it seems unlikely that they are biased towards Canon.
Canon does use Sony CCD sensors for many of their compact cameras, but they definitely don't use Sony CMOS sensors for their DSLRs. I'm not sure if they use any Sony CMOS for compacts like their SX1 IS (probably not since this has a different pixel count) or their camcorders.
I don't think that Sony gets treated differently at DP Review or Canon gets preferred treatment. Look at their review for the Canon SX1 IS, the direct competitor model to the Sony HX1. While the Canon got a "Recommended (Just)" rating, the Sony got a regular "Recommended" which puts it above the Canon. Both cameras got criticized for poor high ISO performance with too much NR, but the Canon "performs worse than the other two cameras at anything above base ISO", where the other cameras were the HX1 and Panasonic FZ28.
And if they are a "Canon shop", why not hate Nikon, Panasonic, Pentax, Olympus, and Fujifilm also? BTW, all those companies, including Sony and Canon, have received "Highly Recommended" ratings for various cameras.
I call bullshit. DP review is one of the biggest reasons I bought a Panasonic over a Canon, or any other brand. Every review I've read has been brutally honest.
DPreview has panned a couple of my fave cams, but they are consistent and fair. If they have any bias at all, it's that they've become truly fed up and bored with digital compact cameras over the years and are almost exclusively interested in dSLRs now.
That the Sony review got published at all means that they thought it had some merit. Remember every review at the site is at least "above average".
This is probably the last huzzah for superzooms. With dSLRs so cheap and so small now, this isn't much to recommend them anymore. Once again, DPreview is fair.
They give it almost 8/10, which is more than I'd give to ANY compact camera. They all have shitty image quality. And Sony's digicams are just uninspiring, which would be fine if the pictures didn't look so overprocessed, oversharpened, and overall bad, just like every other digital compact on the market. Claiming dpreview is biased against Sony is ridiculous.
...Particularly since they give you samples, it's not like you have to take their word for it.
"[T]he actual image quality just isn't in the same ballpark as a barely more expensive DSLR"
Hands up all those who are surprised. Anyone? No, you don't need to put your hand up to go to the bathroom...
I expected them to say that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess figure that out.
But this camera and the Canon SX1 IS is targeted at a different customer. There is a bit of overlap, but most people looking to spend this much aren't necessarily putting image quality (especially high ISO quality where DSLR dominate) at the top of their checklist. For some people the 20x zoom is more important, or the 1080p HD video recording, or the compact, lighter weight design. And name one DSLR in this price range that can do either 4fps or 10fps continuous shooting.
I got to play with a pre-production model and it surprised me. The image quality was good for a point and shoot and the sweep panoramic feature was pretty slick (although gimmicky like all panoramic features). The camera response was pretty good, although the slow startup and shutdown was expected from a camera with such a long lens. And the lack of a RAW mode was a little disappointing (but seriously, RAW from a compact? How many customers would even know what to do with a RAW file?).
Now personally, I'd get a HD camcorder if I wanted 1080p video and I'd spend a bit more to get a mid-line DSLR like the Sony A300 (if I wanted live view) or a Rebel XS (if live view wasn't important). But that 20x zoom and the 1080p video can come in handy. The only killer for me is that these superzooms are too big to be pocketable and not that much smaller enough in relation to a DSLR w/lens (in other words, if I was going to carry around a non-pocketable camera I rather go whole hog and carry a DSLR). But I do see a market for this type of camera.
"if you don't need the 20x zoom or other more gimmicky features"
That's the whole point of this camera and other super zooms. You can't get a DSLR with a paired lens in the same zoom range for the same price...
Gimmicky features. What is so gimmicky about 20x optical zoom and 10fps shooting? I'm pretty sure that Sony SLR for a few dollars more can't offer that!
I'm never quite sure about these superzooms, seems like a half baked idea. Back in the day I bought a Canon S1 IS as 1) it went in a fully-buttoned waterproof box and 2) it had a decent zoom at the time which was important for going out on a RIB with it when chasing dinghies, but looking back it was an awful camera - I think these days with Low-range DSLRs being so small, you'd struggle to justify one of these.
For most folks the whole "DSLR picture quality is better" thing is more of a mental construct and something they keep telling themselves to justify a more expensive toy. I know lots of folks that got themselves the Nikon D60/70 or the equivalent Canon and always tool around with half a photo lab hanging around their neck while going on a hike or whatever. Then I see the pictures they take and what they end up using them for (mostly posting on some website) and am quite happy with the lighter weight and better zoom of my Panasonic Lumix. There's true photographic dedication, and then there's prancing around with a status symbol dangling around one's neck.
DSLRs take better pictures.. it has to do with the bigger sensors and lens sir
And I'm saying the better picture doesn't make a bit of difference for a lot of people. It's all about what you end up doing with the picture, sir.
If one of the two good features is the HD video recording, then this sony does not even catch up its late.
To remind that the Canon X1 does full hd at 1920*1080. with macro 0cm.
Funny, I grew up with a darkroom in my basement and a photography-obsessed father. When he went digital, he came to the same conclusion: Lumix FZ-30. I ask him if he ever finds it lacking and the answer is always no. The portability and durability of his high-end P&S means he takes it more places and gets more amazing shots. And this is a guy who owns at least 40 different cameras of various formats.
Damn comment system! This is supposed to be a reply to Patsy!
Exactly, it's a pragmatic choice. And even our FZ28K feels sometimes a bit bulky and over-sized on hikes and such, but it's a decent compromise because that zoom really comes in handy for nature shots. No compact will give you an 18X or even close to that zoom, and the very wide low end comes in extremely handy, too.
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/videos/reviews/311647/pma-2009-sony-cyber-shot-hx1-preview.html
I was lucky enough to pick up on this during PMA. Friggin awesome video preview.
I find it hilarious when sites like dpreview say "here's nickel, get yourself a real camera". dSLRs are small money sinks. Yeah, you say you can get a body for $800, totally true. Now if you want to cover a range of focal lengths, start forking over more money. Want that indoor performance everyone talks about? You're gonna need a fixed-length lens too.
All in, you're talking about at least $1300, even if you buy a cheap body. And then you have a lot of gunk to carry around, and STILL lose features like facial recognition, smile shutter and stuff like that (some dSLRs offer these, but they require going into a preview mode that makes other features work less well).
I appreciate this camera doesn't give the image quality of a dSLR. I actually had a pretty sizable conversation with a friend about the Canon SX1 last week where we came to the conclusion that if you are buying the SX1 (or HX1) to get better image quality, you're not really getting it.
But are people really buying cameras for image quality? By far, I find people's prized photos are mostly prized because of what (and often who) is in it, not because it has razor sharp focus and you can't see purple fringing even at 1:1 pixels.
I personally don't think I would buy this camera (or the SX1), but I still think it makes a lot of sense for people who want to get in for a fixed price and really need the super zoom functions. If you don't need that stuff, there's a good chance you should be buying an even cheaper camera (go down market) instead of upmarket.
In short, Phil (Askey), when you get your cameras and lenses for free and your main function is toting them around a 1 block area in the City of London taking pictures of anchors and posting them so people can look at them at 1:1 pixel ratio, I'm sure nothing else seems to make any sense except a dSLR. But not everyone is in the same position.
While I agree about the expense of DSLRs and lens-swapping, sensors need to seriously stop getting so tiny. 1/2.4" ? That's a cameraphone sensor!
I was not sure about what camera to buy as i am a novice, hence why this camera caught my eye. It has everything I need in one box. A lot of reviews you see are by people who are really into photography in a big way, hence probably owning SLR's with hundreds of lens stacked up in their house. So if your the sort of person that thinks your phone camera serves well then just use that, or if you want a bit more options and dont mind spending £400 on a bridge camera then do it, follow your instincts, I did, and I absolutely love it, especially the zoom, HD movie and panarama sweep functions.
On the other hand if your obsessed with the perfect picture using SLR's then go down that road...........Simple