|
did you all read the Sony W300 comments
 |
I'm guessing most of you have read the recent post in Luminous Landscape: Two New Shirt Pocket Cameras – Samsung NV24-HD and Sony W300 reviewed. It was a bit of a surprise to me, cams like the DSC-W300 aren't generally in our discussions on here much. I wonder how it compares to the standard list of culprits? Their comparison was to something that is generally known to be mediocre (NV24) so it's hard to judge. Has anyone played with it?
Michael
Posted at 1:06PM, 12 June 2008 PST
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Hi Mchael, thanks for pointing this out. I hadn't seen it before, nor have I had the chance to try the Sony. I think the Sonys, like the Nikons, are often not discussed since they lack RAW. Nonetheless, the W300 looks to be capable of some serious results. I'd guess that with such a small pixel pitch it would have a tendency to blow highlights, but with some clever underexposure/tone curves, who knows?
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Amin
The pixel pitch is really not so different from the G9 for example, it is also a 1/1.7 size sensor, just a few more pixels. The no RAW is one thing and I would guess it doesn't have as many options. But its probably about as good as we're going to get for something to slide in a back pocket.
Heres a question to muse over, given that nobody is going to make a 6-8MP camera with the largish sensor (1/1.7 or 2/3) anymore, are we better off with with 12mp at 1/1.7 or 8mp at 1/2.5? I think most of use would, out of hand, refuse anything with such a small sensor, but is it really that different?
Michael
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I think that unless one needs a smaller (1/2.5") sensor due to design constraints (such as a megazoom lens or ultracompact form), one will always get better image quality with the larger (1/1.8-2/3") sensor. As for how much worse off we'd be with the 8MP 1/2.5MP sensor, you're probably right that it isn't all that much. Still, I'd say that the difference is noticeable.
I agree that the W300 pixel pitch isn't far off from that of the G9, but it's another bit further along that path. The lower noise and cleverer tone curves of today's sensors go a long way towards addressing the shortcomings of the slow trend toward smaller pixels, but I sure would like to see that same technology applied to some larger pixeled compacts.
Regards,
Amin
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
A larger sensor will give you the ability to have a shorter depth of field, which is a very useful attribute.
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Check out this thread on the W300 over at Open Photography forums. One of the moderators of the forum, Tim Ashely, who is a very good photographer, posted a side-by-side (unscientific) image comparison between the W300, DP1 & GX100. Very interesting.
No RAW, no manual controls though. OTOH, it's very compact and actually does fit easily in a shirt or pants pocket - unlike the other cameras mentioned.
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Wow. Thanks for that link Switters. That's something else. The DP1 looks lousy and the M8 and Sony are almost on par. Granted, it's not a scientific test and it is only one shot, but considering it's RAW vs. JPG, it's impressive nonetheless. Especially if you don't want to monkey with too much post. If the JPGs look this good, I could live without the RAW. I shot the W300 last weekend indoors and it's SMALL! Buttons were easy to use and things were pretty easy to find. Downsides for me though are the 35mm wide end, the proprietary/expensive Memory Sticks (blech!) and lack of aperture priority.
On a related note, I did manage to stuff the G9 in my pocket, even as it was attached to the security cable. Bit of a bulge, but not too bad, actually! Depends how sleek you like your pantalons!
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Underneath,
Yes, the lack of Av mode and the 35mm on the wide end is a huge discouragement for me. I could live without RAW if the JPG output is a s good as it seems. And I would miss the step zoom of the GX100 - it's a little mentioned feature that actually means a lot to me.
OTOH, sometimes having fewer choices stimulates creativity for me. I still enjoy taking the plastic Holga out and shooting with it every now and then. There are absolutely no controls to mess with so I'm free to just make pictures.
As you point out, the W300 is very small - and that means there's no deterrent to having a camera with me at all times.
The good news about all of this is that it seems fairly certain that with the way things are now going, we're likely to have a "serious compact" that does what we all want it to within the next couple of years - if not sooner.
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Wake up !!!!
How can you compare a final JPEG (with the Sony touch) with a RAW capture ????
Of Course the JPEG looks much better, everything has been done to make it look beautiful (WB, NR, sharpening etc).
It is like to compare a stone-block and a sculpture....
We are talking about differents workflows.
When you raw-shooting, you are not done, this is where all (the fun) begin !
30MB Vs 8MB, does it rings a bell ?
You lost a lot of information with a jpeg output if we compare with a raw shot, this is a final print versus a Negative !
Of course, it looks better at first glance, but this is a Sony output, not your output...
Seriously,
Stan.
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Not exactly true, Stan. If you read the thread, Tim Ashley says he did basic processing and sharpening of the RAW file to approximate what happens in camera to the JPG. Tim is an extremely capable photographer, and while this wasn't a perfectly scientific test, I believe Tim did everything possible to make the results equivalent.
There's nothing wrong with comparing a processed RAW file to a JPG between two cameras when one doesn't have RAW mode. That's a "real-world" comparison. Tim pointed out that a processed RAW file from the GX100 is generally considered to be higher quality than a GX100 JPG straight out of camera. That's why he used the RAW file to compare with the W300.
Michael Reichman at Luminous Landscape was equally impressed with the IQ of this camera.
For me, the limitation isn't IQ - it's the 35mm on the wide and and the lack of manual controls (no Av or Tv mode).
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"There's nothing wrong with comparing a processed RAW file to a JPG between two cameras when one doesn't have RAW mode. That's a "real-world" comparison."
No. It looks like you can compare, but you can not. Both are pictures, but usage is different.
both a truck and a Formula1 got 4 wheels, you can compare the size, the weight, the color... but this is not consistent to say "this truck is better than this Ferrari".
Ok, it is not so obvious with photography, but a jpeg remains a 8bits/channel and you don't have the latitude that gives a 12bits per channel file.
There no miracle, the information you lose can not be recovered.
This is just a question of purpose.
I don't want the gear that give me a perfect shot. Of course i'd prefer to get a large sensor in my GRDII to get the IQ of the Sigma DP1, but no way, I just don't care about this Sony. Let me play with my noisy RAW files !!!!! :-)
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
To each his own. You're entitled to your preferences, but the fact remains that the JPGs coming out of the W300 look very good when compared to "theoretically" higher quality RAW files from competing cameras.
I'm not saying they're better, or that I even want the W300 (I don't). Just saying...
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
s w i t t e r s edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
1. " "theoretically" higher quality RAW files from competing cameras."
RAW files are not supposed to be beautiful because they are "negatives" so they don't have to be compared to jpg "end-files".
Compare a RAW (or JPEG) from one camera with RAW (or JPEG) from others.
2. Ok. Admitting you get your raw, you make some input-sharpening, white balance, noise reduction, output-sharpening, export to jpeg. And now what ? You have one common picture that can be compared to another one, and whatever the result, it is a nonsense.
This bench is false from the beginning because you lowered the raw-capable cameras to the level of a jpeg only camera and make a comparison on the jpeg field which is a poor area.
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Stachou,
I think it's best to compare one camera's best to the other camera's best. The only thing you can get from the W300 is JPEG. Using the in-camera JPEG from the M8, GRD, or DP1 does a disservice to those cameras. The majority of people who use those cameras express disappointment in the in-camera JPEG engines. Thus, Tim actually did his best to put a good quality processed RAW from those cameras against the W300 file. If he had used the in-camera JPEGs, the W300 would have come out further ahead. While I therefore totally agree with Tim's general approach (RAW vs JPEG), though it would have been even better if he had shared the RAW files for download. The particular method he chose for DP1 (using the SPP 2x output size) creates jaggies, and an alternate method of enlargement would have given much nicer results for that camera.
Regards,
Amin
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Hi Amin,
let me first congratulate you for this group, the one I prefer.
Sorry, but I have to stand on my position, jpeg shooting is just a joke !
This is a scientific fact, and you (not you Amin, you in a general way !) cannot pretend to be serious if you use this kind of benchmark to make a choice for a camera.
I prefer to buy food before it has been cooked. Maybe Sony is a good cooker, but I prefer to cook myself. You can do thousand of differents meals with eggs, not only tortillas !!
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
To be more accurate, the choice between raw-cam/non-raw cam
should be prior to the concession you made on the IQ. We talk about differentes classes of camera.
Of course If (you think) you don't really need RAW, you can make this kind of comparison to make a choice, but really, we have two classes of cameras.
The raw cameras come with a lot of possibilities in terms of manual shooting, quick configuration : they are designed and engineered by people who take photos.
This is not the case of jpeg-only camera.
But this test are interesting though.
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Ah, Stachou, I misunderstood you. I was operating from the assumption that one is going to compare these cameras and saying that this was a reasonable way to compare them. I thought you were saying that there was a better way to compare them when instead you are saying that they are not comparable. Do I have that right? If so, then fair enough. Like you, I'm not interesting in buying a compact that lacks RAW. I might make an exception for a truly outstanding case, but I've not seen that case yet.
Thanks for the kind words about the group! I think we've got a great community growing here.
Regards,
Amin
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
My english is pretty poor ;-)
Stan.
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Not at all, Stan =).
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Switters and Amin, I'm with you on this one. I felt Tim Ashley's review to be fair, honest and revealing. He laid out all the caveats up front, and admitted the test wasn't perfect. But he DID process the images and fairly prepare them for viewing as best he could. And without pixel-peeping, you couldn't tell the difference.
Everyone has their own interpretation of what the "serious" in serious compact means for them. For me, the freedom to shoot a great camera whenever I want is paramount. Similarly, if I want to spend more time shooting and less time in the digital darkroom, well-processed JPGs are a good way to do that. Flickr is loaded with great images shot JPG only. In fact, that's most of what's shot here. Granted it doesn't have the flexibility of RAW, but every shot isn't meant to be a poster, either.
When I do shoot RAW, a large percentage of my images are run through the same paces in Lightroom and Pshop for curves, luminosity, sharpening, etc. If I didn't have some default settings to lean back on, I'd spend my whole life post-processing. This is what Tim attempted to do. Incidentally, it's not his fault that Sigma put such a lousy JPG engine in their camera. Even for a RAW-focused camera, there's no excuse to not be able to deliver a decent JPG in this day and age. That's just lazy engineering.
To me, the larger point is that the image was shot outdoors with natural light. The crappiest camera in the world can take pretty decent pictures under those circumstances. The singular nature of the shot test is the most limiting factor, not the format and post processing. But who cares? It was a fun test.
While I have several 20 x 20 prints hung on my walls, the vast majority of what I shoot will be printed 4 x 6 or 5 x 7, or viewed largely on screen, where there is little difference between JPGs and RAW.
Frankly, I've also seen a lot of terrible RAW-only photographers who lean on the format as a crutch to save their poorly-executed images later in post. There are lots of Leica owners and camera purists on Flickr who would tell you that the real and serious art of photography is getting everything right in the lens and on the film when you shoot. That means no cropping, no manipulation, no funny business---period. So who is right?
For me, in the end it's all about the final image. Does it move me? Did it capture an honest or dramatic moment? Does it take me someplace special or hold me for a time? There really are no serious cameras. Just serious photographs. A great photographer drains the utmost from the tool he/she has available. To say that JPG photography, especially in the context of a compact camera forum, renders a camera "un-serious" or "a joke" is just narrow-minded and elitist.
But that's just my opinion Stan, and I thank you for sharing yours.
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Agreed - there's nothing wrong with a JPEG at all, or shooting RAW. And the difference at small sizes is indeed small. I prefer not to PP things too much anyway, and having gone through a good few different RAW processing tools in the last few weeks, came to the conclusion that 90% of the time, a JPEG is fine for me. So I would be happy to shoot in that ratio, just using RAW when I think I'll need to recover more information than the in-camera JPEG will capture. Even then, being fairly new to RAW developing, my PP skills will need to improve before I can better the JPEG every time. Progress not perfection, is the name of the game...
Cheers
JD
Posted 20 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
SeriousCompacts.com /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to SeriousCompacts.com discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
