Bobb42 Loc: Ohio

I have been doing some comparison between the picture quality of these 2 cameras. I really like all the features of the Canon but the sharpness of the Sony is so much better. I have tried several lenses on the Canon but can't get the sharpness, no matter what mode or setting I use. The Sony in auto mode just blows away the Canon. I'm not sure what the answer might be.
Now if the Sony would do RAW....
Any suggestions for me?

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

That's like comparing apples & oranges, the Sony is a bridge camera and the Canon is a DSLR. The simple solution is...if you don't like to change lens, get the Sony.

Bobb42 Loc: Ohio

I realize the difference between the cameras. I don't mind changing lenses, (been doing that for over 50 years). The Sony belongs to my wife. Just disappointed with the big difference in sharpness between the 2 cameras. Why should the bridge camera be so much sharper?

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

You didn't say what lenses you were using on your Rebel Series camera. I have seen the Sony H400 Bridge camera on display at the Target Store last year, at a closeout sale. I can't remember if it had a Zeiss lens, as at least one of them have today, such as the current Sony RX10iii, which has incredible image quality for a Bridge Camera. And cost about $1500.

Bobb42 Loc: Ohio

I have tried several of my lenses on the T3i, from the 50mm, 18-55, 24-80, 24-105 and 55-250. Most are Canon lenses with a Tamron in the mix. The Sony has a Zeiss lens. I bought the camera used.
I have tried many settings on the Canon but mostly unsatisfied with them. The T3i is 18mp and the Sony is 20mp, but that shouldn't make that much difference.
I don't have GAS, yet. I have too much invested in the Canon equipment.

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

Well I can attest to the sharpness of the Sony having the HX300, the HX400 predecessor. Be careful now, the model number must contain an "X" to get the Zeiss lens that makes this camera shine. Here's a link to my efforts, and I didn't really need RAW, just pay attention to the light, use the EVF and set up the camera based on how the scene looks.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/james-frazier/albums/72157651636186746
It's an amazing camera, but when the RX10M3 came out...well I retired the HX300.

Bobb42 Loc: Ohio

I am impressed with your album and how sharp everything is. Fantastic job.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

You know, a lot of people make that kind of comparison; I've even done it. What surprises me is the number of times the orange turns out to taste like a better apple than the apple.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

For me, it's the final result that counts. If the Sony give you a better result, use that. Raw isn't everything; it's just raw, or ARW in Sony lingo. There are dozens of Sony cameras that shoot raw. Take your pick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_supporting_a_raw_format#Sony

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Beautiful shots! You like the RX10M3 better?

"The Sony RX-10 Mk III is so good, so competent and so much fun to use that it's addicting. Once I picked it up, I couldn't stop shooting with it for months; there isn't anything it doesn't seem to do well, all without ever having to change a lens."
-- Ken Rockwell

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

Yes Jerry...the sensor is slightly larger (actual measurement is 5/8" diagonally). Same sensor size used in the RX100 series. I was thrilled with images in very dark settings because the colors were much better. The small sensor on the HX300 couldn't figure out the correct colors such as a black sky at night. Instead the sky was more like very dark purple with lots of noise. I have lots less noise with the RX10. I shoot a lot of live music performances and the RX10M3 performed beautifully. Black backgrounds came out Black. I'm expecting the M4 to be an upgrade to both phase and contrast detection for superb lighting fast Auto focus. So I'll be trading in the Mark 3 version for the 4 when that happens.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Another big plus for the Sony is that being a bridge/prosumer camera is the there are no Compromises. That means that the lens, computer, body, everything is designed to work as one unit at its optimal best. Vs any interchangeable lens camera. The Sony , like other bridge cameras is sealed one unit. You will NEVER have to clean the sensor. Plus they are light and compact compared to any DSLR with the equivelant lenses. My bridge camera has a wide angle lens to 50x zoom that would cost me $$$$$ for DSLR. Happy Shooting

PGHphoto Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I had used a T3i extensively prior to getting my 5d II and did not see any issues with picture quality. Have you tried looking at the default sharpness in the menu system ? I would also try manual focus for a test shot and see if it is the focusing mechanism rather than the sensor.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'm glad the price is as high as it is is, so I'm not tempted.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, they are two very different cameras. The 2011 T3i is an 18MP DSLR utilizing interchangeable lenses (and able to use any of nearly 90 lenses Canon makes in EF and EF-S mount), with a comparatively large APS-C size CMOS sensor. The 2014 Sony DSC-H400 is a 20MP bridge camera with a non-interchangeable (63X!), with a tiny 1/2.3" CCD sensor (which is how it achieves such an extreme range zoom).

The physical dimensions of the Canon camera's sensor are 14.9 x 22.3 millimeters, or an area of 332 square millimeters. Canon crowds 18 million pixel sites into that area.

But the Sony's sensor measures 4.55 x 6.77 millimeters and has an area of 28.5 square millimeters! And Sony crowds 20 million pixel sites into that tiny sensor. That means the Sony sensor is about 10 or 12X more crowded than the Canon's!

Smaller and more tightly packed pixels are less capable gathering light and more prone to "cross talk" that causes image noise. CCD sensors also are more prone to noise than CMOS due to heat, because they require more electrical power. Nearly all DSLRs today and an ever increasing number of bigger medium format digital and smaller digital point n shoot cameras... have switched over to CMOS sensors for their much better high ISO capability. Many or most camera phones also use CMOS, though it's primarily because of the lower power requirements versus CCD.

CCD sensors are being phased out pretty rapidly now, by manufacturers of all types of cameras... I'm a little surprised to see Sony using one in a camera introduced only three years ago. But it's probably one of the reasons that they can offer the camera at such a low price. Canon was one of the pioneers and chief proponents of CMOS, has been making their own since around 2000. Sony makes sensors for many camera makers, not just their own, but started abandoning CCD and switching to CMOS around 2006 or 2007. Kodak didn't switch, stuck with CCD, and is nearly out of the camera image sensor business now!

Sensor size and type suggest the Sony will not be able to make particularly usable images much above ISO 400.... maybe even ISO 200. OTOH, I've used Canon with the same sensor as the T3i as high as ISO 3200 and even occasionally 6400. So, in a nutshell, I wouldn't expect to make very usable low light images with the Sony!

There also are reviews of the DSC-H400 that say it's electronic viewfinder really sucks. Not that the T3i's optical viewfinder is the best among DSLRs, but it's a far cry better and optical viewfinders are generally a lot better than electronic, any time you're trying to photograph any moving subject. I would imagine the DSC-400 is pretty frustrating if trying to photograph sports or active wildlife with it.

The differences you see in "image sharpness" are probably down to post-processing... Especially if you are shooting JPEGs with the Sony and RAW files with the T3i. RAW files have no sharpening applied in-camera... they must be sharpened by you in post-processing. Even if shooting JPEGs, which are essentially processed to a large degree in-camera, if the T3i's sharpness settings are fairly low that may be the difference you're seeing.

Image sharpening is best done as one of the final steps, particularly after an image has been through any noise reduction process and been re-sized for whatever final use is intended. Proper sharpening of an image for low resolution digital display, such as on an Internet website or as an email attachment, is quite different from proper sharpening of an image to make a 13x19" print from it. When done improperly for any given use, sharpening can cause "artifacts" to appear in images and/or increase the appearance of noise.

Probably the difference you are seeing is just that the Sony happens to be be "hitting a sweet spot" for display at your particular computer monitor resolution, at the ISO settings and such that you're using. Also, you mention that it's not able to do RAW, so it's JPEG files are undoubtedly already sharpened (might be adjustable... or it might not). The T3i images may not be sharpened at all, if they are RAW files. But even if they are JPEGs and have had some sharpening applied already, they might not be sharpened at a level ideal for how you're viewing them.

It's also the difference between a highly automated "snapshooter" oriented, point 'n' shoot camera... versus a more "photographer" oriented DSLR that puts the user more in control of things, able to make much better images under a wider range of conditions, but requiring more effort on the part of the user.