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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 5, 2005, 4:56 PM   #21
blr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 339
Default

What TNT is saying makes sense to me, too bad I didn't try it while I had the w1.Just didn't think that turning sharpness down would disable the harsh noise reduction applied by the camera. Good tip TNT.

Kski, I'm not sure that Canon, Nikon or any other major camera manufacturer with long tradition in making cameras have any reason whatsoever to be jealous of Sony. They all make equally good or better cameras and what's more important for us consumers, for less money. What concerns w1, I maintain that the camera has at least two seriousflaws related to image quality, too much noise reduction and bad low light AF. Where I live the w1 is more expensive than almost any other 5 MP pocket camera. Add to this the overpriced MS pro and the whole deal doesn't seem too hot. About the fact that everybody uses Sony CCD chips, it tells me absolutely nothing about the quality of their cameras, I don't see any connection. Sony is not only a consumer electronics manufacturer but also one of the biggest component manufacturers. Believe it or not, there are components made by Sony (or branded as such) in most of your home electronics regardless of brand. Sony in turn sources components from other companies. The lens of your w1 is branded as Carl-Zeiss and the NiMH cells that powered it, although branded as Sony, are made by Sanyo. Composition aside, the image you posted is properly exposed and has a good saturation but the level of detail is not better than what most 5 MP compacts woud produce. Edge contrast is quite high which gives an illusion of sharpness, but true detail is only average.
blr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2005, 1:24 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 182
Default

We're not talking about refridgerators, or ovens, we're talking cameras. And the fact that Sony is the technology behind the image sensor which make up the quality along with the lens, shows that Sony knows what it's doing with digital cameras and my Sonys definitely show it!

And obviously you can't even see just how good the pic is that kski posted because it's reduced greatly to only 250k. With that said, it still is very sharp, well saturated, and well contrasted.

Very Nice!
kski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2005, 10:17 AM   #23
blr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 339
Default

kski wrote:
Quote:
We're not talking about refridgerators, or ovens, we're talking cameras.
You are correct. That's why Sony still has to learn a thing or two about cameras from manufacturers like Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Minolta who have been making cameras and optics for half a century. Mass producing CCD chips does not mean that Sony has invented the technology behind digital imaging. Sony Semiconductors simply had the financial resources (cash) to boost production, thus bringing the prices down and killing most of the competition on the small sensor market. It doesn't really matter much. There aren't that many ways you can make a CCD sensor. There are some variations in dark current and linearity but there are other factors that are much more important for the quality of the final image. Optics is one of them, as you say, and that's why sony turned to Zeiss to design the lensesfor their more expensive models. IMO the cooperation between Carl-Zeiss and Sony is not good for Carl-Zeiss. The fact that we are talking sharpness and detail here (not for the first time) in a camera that has a Zeiss branded lens says it all. Not that the lens is to blame, but with the final result being less than remarkable means that the Carl-Zeiss name suffers. Think about that Ziess makes optics for Hasselblad- no complain about sharpness and resolution there.

If you like your w1 that's absolutely fine, enjoy it, it's a well made camera and could have been a big winner if it wasn't for some bad image processing software and missleading AF in low light (also software related). IMO this is where Sony lacks expertise.

Our discussion was about settings that could minimize these negative effects. TNT offered an interesting approach thatcould work fine. If I still had the camera I would have been the first to try it.
blr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2005, 11:11 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 117
Default

blr wrote:
Quote:
the NiMH cells that powered it, although branded as Sony, are made by Sanyo.
Very interesting... how did you find this out?

Quote:
Edge contrast is quite high which gives an illusion of sharpness, but true detail is only average.
how can you tell with that rather small (and overly compressed) pic?

blr wrote:
Quote:
IMO the cooperation between Carl-Zeiss and Sony is not good for Carl-Zeiss. The fact that we are talking sharpness and detail here (not for the first time) in a camera that has a Zeiss branded lens says it all. Not that the lens is to blame, but with the final result being less than remarkable means that the Carl-Zeiss name suffers.
Think about that Ziess makes optics for Hasselblad- no complain about sharpness and resolution there.
Hmmm you kinda have a point there, specially with the T series cameras (but I guess that's more due to CCD size and weak flash, rather than the CZ lens itself). Even with the W1/P100, the fault, as you said, has more to do with the excessive NR and the inaccurate low-light AF again rather than the CZ lens. However, the 717 and 828 certainly give CZ a good name imo. Think of other camera brands like Panasonic who use Leica lenses eg FX7. Leica make very good lenses (think binocaulars and what not). However, this camera falls under tha sub-par image quality of practically every ultra compact camera in the market (think Casio Z55 which uses the Pentax lens, Pentax Optio S series, Canon SD200/300). This proves we can't associate a lens with bad image quality imo. It all comes down to a lot of factors.
CVonV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2005, 12:56 PM   #25
blr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 339
Default

To CVonV

The sony cells are absolutely identical to Sanyo 2100 cells. Look at the negative (flat) electrode and you'll see a small engraving reading "HR" found on Sanyo cells. The shape of the positive electrode and safety vents configuration is also identical. The cells are made in Japan. I'm not sure about this, but I think only Sanyo have their plants left in Japan. The other major Japanease manufacturer, Panasonic is producing their cells outside Japan.Duscharge characteristics of Sony and Sanyo cells are identical according to my measurements.Not only Sony sources cells from Sanyo. I have or have had cells branded as Kodak, Energizer, Olympus and Varta all of whichwere identical to the respective Sanyo cells.

If you go to http://www.imaging-resource.com/ACCS/BATTS/BATTS.HTMand read the excellent battery article of Dave Etchells onNiMH cells you will see how these brands perform.Look for instance how close the 1700 mAh cells branded as Sanyo, Energizer, Kodakand Olympus perform. I have all of them and my measurements support these of Dave. About a year ago I e-mailed Sanyo asking them about this branding issue. They replayed with something like "we cannotdisclose such information" but they didn't deny it either. Some day i should take some images of these cells and post it in the battery forum.

This is a good thing because IMO Sanyo makes the best NiMH cells. I've used them for years and never had a bad cell or one failing.

About the image, I looked as good as i could, you are correct, not much could be seen but I also relied on my own experience with the w1. If you remember I posted here some months ago some tests showing the w1 resolution. Increasing the in-camera sharpness increases edge contrast but not the detail count.

About the lenses, it's absolutely true that it's not CZ fault, but think how many users realize this. For the majority of users coming from the film world soft pictures=bad lens, while in fact the reason is in the software. Howsharp exactly is this Vario-Tessar lens we may never know, not until Sony reworks their post processing software. What could be said about the lens is that it has a very low amount of purple fringing. This was one of the things I enjoyed while I had the w1
blr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2005, 9:05 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 117
Default

blr wrote:
Quote:
This is a good thing because IMO Sanyo makes the best NiMH cells. I've used them for years and never had a bad cell or one failing.
Thanks for that detailed confirmation mate. And yes from what I've read/heard/been told Sanyo indeed make the best NiMH cells. Makes me less surprised that the W1 lasts so long with the supplied Sony 2100mAh's

Quote:
If you remember I posted here some months ago some tests showing the w1 resolution. Increasing the in-camera sharpness increases edge contrast but not the detail count.
Sorry I do not remember, I've only been here since October. Which thread was that if I may ask?

Quote:
How sharp exactly is this Vario-Tessar lens we may never know, not until Sony reworks their post processing software.
Yeah I agree, but before the P100/W1 I think the previous generation Sony cameras didn't have the same problems.

At least the CZ lens definitely brings an improvement from Sony's own lens. I have a P72 and the image quality is quite pathetic imo - lots of noise. But now, it seems like Sony have revamped their own lens and produce much better pics than their previous generation - judging by the P73 sample pics I've seen anyway. I can safely say that they are much better than the P72's images.
CVonV 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 4:15 PM.