Camera Labs

Hi everyone, in case you hadn't noticed, we've just posted a new review of the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W200 compact - with 12.1 Megapixels!!

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_ ... _DSC_W200/

Gordon

i want to ask a question .. is this the first 12 megapixel in the world .. i mean as a compact ?

There's also the Panasonic FX100 which I've mentioned in the W200 verdict here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_ ... dict.shtml

Nikon has recently announced some 12 mpixel non-DSLRs too... See:

http://www.cameralabs.com/cameras/Nikon ... acts.shtml

Gordon

thnx .. but i was asking is this the first non-DSLR that has a 12 MP ??

Well Sony announced theirs first - February as oppose to Panasonic in May.

I'm not sure it's that important unless you're writing the intro to a product review though! Are you working on something you'd like to share with us Mohamed?!

well .. as iam waiting for the fz18 ,, iam just collecting some information about D.Cameras ..just to improve my knowldge in this world .. nothing important ..

Hello, I would like to share a link with you guys: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/revie ... /7036.html nevermind if you don't read japanese, just use the sample (full resolution) images provided there (they all have their exif data) to compare the quality of the sensors.

From what I saw, the W200 has not only the best resolution mesured so far in a compact, but also the best low light permformance. To me, it's actually looking better that the fantastic fuji finepix f31fd at high ISO settings, and Sony's has almost twice the megapixels. To be fair, the W200 seems to be a bit less sharpened and has more noticeable chroma noise than fuji's, but it's not that hard to notice than what's actually going on is that the f31 doesn't do much luminance noise reduction but instead does a lot on the chroma side (meaning seudo film-looking grainy and desaturated images). Still, the amount of usable information is clearly higher on the W200, it was just managed in another way (better or worst is a matter of taste, I personaly like the fact that it doesn't destroy much color information). So, this could mean that the DSC-W200 has the best sensor ever attached to a compact camera. Think about it, 12M is one thing: we were all expecting for it to come, but usable 800 ISO is a remarkabe achievement very seldom seen.

If what I'm saying it's true, that it is the best sensor seen on a compact, I must disagree with it not getting a recommendation. The optics and features might be average (or somehow below, like the screen), and the price is high, but the possibilities of low light combined with very high resolution on user's photos is certanly a fantastic novelty, isn't it? And that image stabilization could acutally mean a couple of extra stops, so...

So, here's an open question: Has Sony's DSC-W200 the best sensor on a digital compact? I think i made my opinion clear, but what does everyone else think? Can it be said out loud by a reviewer?, that something is the best seen so far?

By the way, I would sooooo love a dedicated article on finding the best low light performance, just scale up the 6mp models and it's easily seen that some of the outperform 8-12mp modes on that aspect. And I do think that low light capabilities are of the most importance for average users like myself (use your own experience: unless you live in a photo studio, taking a picture of a simple family dinner means 800 ISO).


By the way. Lame lame lame finepix f50fd.

_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miso_99

It can certainly resolve a lot of detail under ideal conditions, but judge for yourself if you think the noise is acceptable - our results are here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_ ... oise.shtml

and our sample images here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_ ... ages.shtml

Gordon

Hello there. I did read your review, which I think is great overall, but the thing that made write my previous comment is that there's no mentioning at all in your review to the fact that the W200 not only outperforms the Panasonic Lumix FX30 at high ISO's, but probably it outperforms anything we've ever seen in a compact camera. It's probably not your style to do comments such as that (they tend to lose their relevance as technology moves forward), and you'd rather say something like: "the images are there, judge by youself". But, of course, it's also likeable that it's just not true, that there's a camera out there that can do just as well (or better) than the W200 at high ISO settings. The thing is: it's just a juicy piece of information some of us would like to have, is it the best compact camera for low light shooting? Is it better than the f30/f31fd (which I think must be one of the best)? What is it?

Well, some decisions you have to make for yourself! I can present my results and own opinion, but at the end of the day it's up to you. Take a look at these two pages:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Fujif ... e4ca.shtml

and

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_ ... oise.shtml

Would you say the W200 was much better than the F30 or vice versa? I'd say they look quite similer, although obviously if the images were reproduced at the same size, the artefacts on the Sony would be smaller because of its higher resolution.

As for the Panasonic, I did say on that page that the W200 results looked better! "The big drop in quality for the Sony W200 occurs at the jump to 800 ISO when noise levels significantly increase. From there on, it's the usual downward spiral in quality, but still worth mentioning the results are consistently preferable here to the Panasonic. This is doubly impressive considering the Sony's higher resolution, although to be fair it does also feature a slightly larger sensor. Also remember the W200's artefacts seen below will appear slightly smaller than the FX30's if images from both are printed the same size."

You sound like a big fan of the Sony though - are you going to buy it?

Hello again.

To talk more about the same, let me say, about noise: they look quite similar (F30 and W200). But the resolution on the W200 I think gives it the edge. As you said, the artefacts look smaller, and this is easy to verify: do a bicubic, or even simpler, scaling of images took with one or the other and it should be clear that the W200 does have more information on it (of course, I would like to see someone take a serious approach on the subject); this is a strange subject now, isn't it? talking about whether a 12mp camera can get a hold of more information than a 6mp? at high ISO's, it's just amazing that the subject is relevant (see it by yourself: compare 800 ISO from f30/f31 to 800 ISO from almost anything above 8mp).

And let me also say that I'm sorry if it looked (from previous, or from this comment) as if I was saying you made a big omission on the review. You didn't, but the thing is I am thinking about buying it and I now long for a more specific (oriented towards low light performance) review and a comparisson with everything that's out there (which I must say is quite a lot), instead of your perfectly reasonable and in depth research on the camera. It's better than the Panasonic at high ISO's, you made that clear (and it was never my intention to say you didn't). But I was hoping to get the answer to one of the dumbest question asked to reviewers without actually asking: "Is it better than anything else?". Which I think I did anyway. My bad.

So... I don't know. It looks good to me. Maybe I'll wait for the price to drop a little (do prices do that anyway?).


And, to not let go on the subject, a last comment: I think the W200 performs better with mid to high frequency noise, but it looks (from some samples I've seen around the net) that its very low frequency noise at large exposures is much much worst than Fuji's.