AW: Schönes Teil: Sony DSC-H50
Upps, das waren jetzt aber unqualifizierte Kommentare.
Oh, wie nett
hättest ja auch etwas mehr beitragen können als nur ein Link, gelle?
Hier mal die Daten der H9 zum Vergleich
http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3489
Das mit den Rauschsettings ist sicher willkommen, ebenso 1/4000s und das neue Design.
Ich bin gespannt ob die Schwächen der H9 ausgeräumt wurden
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyh7/page14.asp
New user interface not conducive to quick operation, convoluted and often confusing
Images quite soft and not that clean
Excessive noise reduction robs images of fine texture at anything over ISO 100
Occasional strong NR ('watercolor effect') artefacts at ISO 80 and ISO 100
No JPEG quality options (and default setting too highly compressed)
Some focus hunting and errors at long end of the zoom (especially in low light and at short subject distances)
Easy to accidentally change settings with your thumb, especially when shooting 'single handed'
74mm filter size restricts you to Sony's own limited range of filters
New lens a lot slower (F4.5) at the long end than its predecessor (F3.7)
Image stabilization doesn't seem quite as effective as competition !!!
(and camera doesn't choose a fast enough shutter speed)
Poor artificial light Auto White Balance
Small viewfinder - and no eyecup so glare a problem in bright light
Screen difficult to see in bright daylight, and very low resolution
Fairly prevalent chromatic aberration
Strong purple fringing, particularly at wide end of zoom
HIgher than average distortion
Corner softness at wide end of zoom
Movies are a little over-compressed
No RAW mode
Sports mode chooses small aperture over high shutter speed, and is therefore pointless unless used in really, really bright light
'Full' HDTV output only 1080i, not digital output (HDMI)
Too many options (predictive focus, face detection, ISO) not available in all modes
Battery life not fantastic when using the LCD and continuous mode IS
Lacks the robust build quality of some of its competitors
Ansonsten ist das hier von AAK informativ:
We'll have to wait and see what the DSC-H50 offers in terms of image quality and improvements. Specs, obviously, don't tell the entire story.
But it appears that Sony has listened to H9 users in some very important areas:
1) It looks like Sports Mode might actually be usable on the H50, if, as promised, it relies on higher shutter speeds, as it always should have.
2) I -love- the user-selectable noise-reduction levels. That means that you can apply less NR and use the more powerful desktop tools like Noiseware Pro, Neat Image and Noise Ninja to control the noise yourself. It all depends on how noisy the chip is, to begin with (it =does= have a million more pixels than the H9 and the effect of the additional pixels will certainly not be beneficial to the small-sensor noise situation). You may end up with more noise to deal with at lower ISOs, but at least you'll have compete control over how that noise is reduced. No one will be able to complain that the NR is overly-agressive. Just turn it down. Personally, it's a great leap forward for a sub-$500 digicam to offer user-definable noise reduction levels. Very cool.
Of course, I have a horse in this race. I called for exactly this feature in my review of the H9.
3) Compression quality. There is no information on whether compression quality is user-adjustable on the H50, but there are indications that the .jpgs from the H50 are likely to have considerably less compression. Note that the fps (frames per second) are noticeably reduced from 2.2 in the H9 to 1.6 in the H50. That is more than might be explained by the additional pixels, so I won't be surprised to see the final .jpgs from the DSC-H50 considerably larger and with less compression. This is a major change in the philosophy of the H9/H50. I always thought that Sony made too many compromises to support the high frame rate.
4) The new ED lens element to reduce chromatic aberration is another very good idea. Anything that diminishes CA is good.
To those who are complaining that the lens is not wider, please keep in mind that the H-Series was designed specifically to be a telephoto camera, much as the R1 was designed to be a wide-to-midrange camera.
I will buy an H50. I can't wait to get my hands on it to see how well it corrects some of the deficiencies of the H9. But, based on what Sony is highlighting as its improvements in the H50, at least it seems that they listened to many of our complaints with the H9.
The proof is in the pudding, of course, and everything will hinge on the quality of the pictures the shipping camera produces.
--
I'm disappointed about the lens diameter - while the H9 users will be able to use accessories they've already bought, all of the H1, H2, H5, 717, and 828 users are again stuck with a different size, and again the non-standard size prevents use of aftermarket filters and extension lenses without adapters. Oh well - it was to be expected that they'd work from the H9.
I can only hope the build quality is up again...it has slipped and was noticeable - the H1 was a very solid, heavy, well-built machine...the H2/H5 were cheaper and lighter and more plastic, but still seemed to have a solid, well-built feel in hand. The H9 got a little smaller still, lighter still, and even more plastic - and didn't seem to have as solid a build as previous models. They seem to claim an improvement in coatings and feel here - and it does look a little bigger - so that may help ergonomics and build.
The H50 still has the same mediocre M-PEG1, standard-definition video system. When you see Kodak offering an M-PEG4 720p HD-video feature on its two latest ultrazoom cameras, this is a great disapointment for me. The "HDTV" connector for showing still pictures on an HD television set, is still an optional accessory and quite expensive, at $40., for what it is. All you're really getting is a proprietary interface plug and component video cords. If a $5. generic plug could be used, with ordinary RCA cords (which would do nicely for the video), about $35. could be saved.
I really like the increased size and weight, to 19 oz., without a battery. Since I use either a shoulder-mount or a steadying rod for almost all my pictures, that weigh 3 lbs. each, a little extra weight would be unnoticeable. This extra weight likely means it has a more solid body and control features.
It appears that the lens on the H50 is the same size and has the same magnification power, as those on the H7 and H9, regardless of any improvements in the glass elements. In the specifications, they list the focal-length as being 31 to 465mm in the 35mm equivalent. However, if it is the same power of lens, the larger size of the CCD would reduce the equivalent focal-length by a factor of .91, while the use of only a 9.1-MP sector of the 10.3-MP total pixels, would increase the focal-length equivalent by a factor of 1.13. By calculating these two factors together, I get a figure of 1.028 representing an overall increase in focal-length. I could be misinterpreting all this, but if I'm correct, the top focal-length equivalent would effectively be 478mm and the bottom end would be 31.85mm. This would be a bit better for those who want maximum reach and a little worse for those who want a wider angle.
If Smart Zoom on the H50 goes up to 27X in the 3-MP mode (another calculated guess), this would be 860mm. With a 2.2X telextender, this would be an equivalent of 1,892mm, almost as good as the 1,900mm I get with a Canon S5 IS at the 2-MP size in its expanded optical zoom mode. Too bad the H50 doesn't have a 2-MP mode.
The is the kind of speculation I do on a cold Winter evening, when I have limited information, nothing better to do and want to conjure up something that looks like an improvement.
!
.