This is from 1/2.3 sensor.
Mar 23, 2013 19:45:35 #
0627ramram32
Loc: Orange County, CA, USA
I got my Sony DSC-HX300 yesterday, and I must say it's a marvelous little mechanism. One of the knowledgeable posters here put me in a worried state because the sensor in this camera is so small (same as Canon SX-50 or many high end video camcorders) and until I can print a 17x22 Wednesday I'll still be sweating it.
Still and all, this is a promising start, I think. Good rich color and gradation; VGood apparent sharpness (inherant, or helped in-camera?). Shot was taken about 3 PM my time (Pacific) and (obviously? backlit. Camera handled the resulting contrast beautifully, with good detail throughout. (Didn't use any scene settings, just set knob at 'Intelligent Auto.) Here's the kicker: I was 22 feet from the flower with a slight but noticeable breeze; lens set to 1200mm (equivalent; actually 200) Stabilization on; and HAND HELD!
Still and all, this is a promising start, I think. Good rich color and gradation; VGood apparent sharpness (inherant, or helped in-camera?). Shot was taken about 3 PM my time (Pacific) and (obviously? backlit. Camera handled the resulting contrast beautifully, with good detail throughout. (Didn't use any scene settings, just set knob at 'Intelligent Auto.) Here's the kicker: I was 22 feet from the flower with a slight but noticeable breeze; lens set to 1200mm (equivalent; actually 200) Stabilization on; and HAND HELD!
File size: 3.71
Mar 23, 2013 19:47:53 #
0627ramram32
Loc: Orange County, CA, USA
OOOPS! This photo is nowhere near as sharp as it shows on my monitor, or I wouldn't have posted it. Is that something I did wrong?
Mar 23, 2013 20:21:06 #
Mar 23, 2013 23:11:34 #
0627ramram32 wrote:
OOOPS! This photo is nowhere near as sharp as it shows on my monitor, or I wouldn't have posted it. Is that something I did wrong?
The board resizes all pics to 800x600 or something like that so sometimes detail and stuff can get lost in the process. Looks great from my iPhone btw.
Mar 24, 2013 00:50:12 #
Mar 24, 2013 04:10:44 #
Very nice machine. When you post a photo to the UHH server it is re-sized...like a large thumb nail...so some things will look different...that's why checking the store original lets us view the actual photo...very nice shot btw.
Mar 24, 2013 12:57:20 #
Mar 24, 2013 13:44:11 #
0627ramram32
Loc: Orange County, CA, USA
Thanks, Bret. And Architect, I think it's the camera that's got a heck of an optical stabilizer. That system was co-invented by Canon and Sony and just keeps getting better. It would be interesting to see if the SX-50 is as good.
Mar 24, 2013 16:00:22 #
0627ramram32 wrote:
OOOPS! This photo is nowhere near as sharp as it shows on my monitor, or I wouldn't have posted it. Is that something I did wrong?
It is a lovely photo with really nice saturation and color. I like the backlighting. It does look a bit soft on my monitor but it is very pleasing to the eye.
Mar 24, 2013 19:17:42 #
0627ramram32
Loc: Orange County, CA, USA
Thanks! I'm going to opst a couple more today. I'm really enjoying the camera; I've never had a lens that 'long' (it's that 'long' only because of the dinky sensor -- 6x crop factor) but it produces really nice images. May print a 13x on my Canon Pixma and see how it holds up.
Mar 24, 2013 20:47:38 #
With some discipline such as shooting at the lowest ISO setting, using a tripod when appropriate, and getting a perfect exposure, preferably in RAW, Compact cameras such as this can produce some excellent results in quite large prints. And comparable to what a DSLR can do. It is just not as easy to get the best results with a small sensor. But the lens puts this type of camera at a big advantage in many situations.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.