Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Sony

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 27, 2009, 6:16 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Wirraway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 421
Default

Sarah I agree with the other posters and don't blame you for returning the WX1, I still don't believe this camera will be Sony's flagship compact camera and expect an updated W300 with all the bells and whistles, remember the W300 uses a larger sensor and is CCD not CMOS as in the WX1.

Camera:Sony DSC-W300
Attached Images
 
Wirraway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2009, 1:06 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Hi there, wirraway-

Yes, I agree, in its current form, the WX-1 model is not yet ready for that flagship position. So, let's be hopeful that Sony does create a replacement for the W-300.

Your attached photo is great and it certainly points out the current deficiencies of the new WX-1 model.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2009, 2:21 PM   #43
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13
Default

I must say I followed this thread with great interest but also with great disappointment. I'm really worried about the user feedback found here, and I don't see how I can re-conciliate it with the glowing reviews that camera received elsewhere (Just google "wx1 sony review").

Can anyone shed some light?
cigaro78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2009, 4:27 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Well, cigaro-

It comes down to performance in the field. I purchased and returned the camera due to very soft focus. Performance-wise the camera is excellent. The image quality was, at least for me, the BIG problem.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2009, 1:03 AM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6
Default

i will be receiving the wx1 on friday - and will compare it with my panasonic ZS3

i am particurally interested in low light pics/low light HD video and sound

the panssonic zs3/zs1 in my opinion are just downright bad in low light. with or without flash.

the video is great, but again, not good in low light - and the sound is clear - but quiet, and i think thats because of the mics being on top, rather than in front

we will see which is better for video/audio and low light pics without flash - my main concern for a pocket hd video digital camera.

i will post my results here!
kickace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2009, 7:37 AM   #46
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 31
Default

I finally got to hold one of these puppies in my hand. I admit to being in the smaller is better club and I really want to like Sony but I was very disappointed with the feel.

At least for me, I think it's just too small for my hands + had a hard time with even the power button. Didn't spend any more time with it than that.

Picked it up, not good and moved on. Your mileage may vary.
Joe Sellers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2009, 9:09 AM   #47
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

You are very correct, Joe-

Many folks are very surprised indeed with how small the Sony WX-1 camera really is. I have smaller hands and even felt the smallness to be a problem. That is why I cautioned early on in this thread, to be sure to use the wrist strap.

Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2009, 3:06 PM   #48
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13
Default

Ah, I see what you mean now. Some review site posted some sample pix NOT taken in a lab and gosh - so glad I didn't buy it. It's incredibly noisy, considering the price point. I'm no pro, but I can compare it with a samsung NV3 and a 3 year old exilim, and the difference is striking.

On the other hand, low light performance seems stellar, especially using that twilight mode. And the 7200p video is the best I could find for a device that size (even though the constant refocus seems to be an issue).
cigaro78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2009, 6:25 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

cigaro-

As I mentioned previously, I was disappointed in the image quality, and I decided that at that price, I did not want to fool around with the WX-1, so I returned it to the seller.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2009, 2:02 PM   #50
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1
Default

Well here is one happy WX1 customer. I don't really get all the negative feedback. I'm absolutely in love with this camera. Yea, when you zoom way into the pixels, there is some funny business going on, there is no question about that, but how often do you really need to zoom in that close? The photos look fine at normal zoom. Perhaps a bit soft, but so what? What is killer about this camera is the ability to take a lot of super cool low light photos that you simply could not take with any other pocket sized camera, bar none. it also has the HD video, the panoramic mode, the ability to take bracketed and burst shots. A number of other cool features. All in an incredibly small size. Its smaller than any cell phone I've ever owned.

I dunno, this camera is pretty darn cool. Of course the image is not going to compare to an SLR. No duh. It has a tiny sensor. The reason for all the beautiful low light photos is in fact precisely because of the CMOS instead of CCD. So another camera with CCD might take sharper pics in full daylight...ok.....

I've heard that the key to getting outdoor daylight pics is to bump down the EV a bit. Honestly, I think a lot of people have to figure out hwo to play around with all the settings on this camera to really make it shine.

But I do agree, when you zoom all the way into an image, there is some funny business in the image, particularly if it was shot in a low light situation. But at least hte low light situation was taken without a flash, which is golden if you ask me.
Dewdman42 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:27 PM.