I too have a NX5U and can assure you that my HX30 produces a cleaner sharp image than the NX5. The HX50 should be even better. The HX30 is not as versatile as the NX5 but is a much better point and shoot camera and I can get it in my pocket !!! I am expecting the Canon XA20/25 to greatly outperform the NX5U which is why I mentioned it. If you are looking for something different to the NX5U one of the large sensor models may be the option but not for a big zoom unless you want to carry around a very big lens.

Ron Evans

I think what Ron is getting at is that it's rather hard to get one "perfect" camera - there are places where a smaller "real" video camera with deep DoF is the better tool. A CX/PJ7xx series camera is still fairly compact, Panasonic and Canon have similarly capable small cams. Other times you may want a more "cinematic" look, where a larger sensor is desirable.

Pocketability is a rather handy feature, as it means you'll be more likely to have the camera WITH you rather than sitting back with your luggage or at home or whatever - even if the image quality is a bit less, you've got the capture, not "the one that got away".

There are physics of lenses and sensor size that you simply can't overcome, but of course the tech still gets better, and "pocket" size P&S cameras are getting better - IMO they aren't going to give you the image quality of a dedicated video camera OR a bigger SLR/SLT, but they may be quite acceptable for most people's expectations.

And here's the other thing Ron is hinting at - a "pro" camera that's 3-5 years "old" is probably NOT going to be as good as "this years models" (perhaps including P&S and cell phones!) in many respects - sometimes the improvements are small and incremental year over year, but if you have several years between release dates, there should be noticeable differences! Engineers don't sit around...

Sony usually has very predictable patterns of camera releases, typically "reusing" a sensor through most of the years "lines" - but there can be minor differences in performance because of the overall design, or how a particular cameras firmware was "tweaked".

I'm interested to see how the HX300 performs, as I've always liked the top of the HX series handling wise, the smaller HX's didn't "hit" me, and I unfortunately see the flaws that come with a small sensor. The RX100 is the first time the stills quality caught my attention, and the fact it's "pocketable" is a plus.

The RX100, HX300, and the HX50 all use a "new" Sony NP-BX1 battery, so far the battery life seems to be quite good with OEM batteries, there are 3rd party batteries available, but Sony often tweaks the cameras to prevent thier use, I'd stay with known genuine ones...

I too have a NX5U and can assure you that my HX30 produces a cleaner sharp image than the NX5. The HX50 should be even better. It seems incredible to listen different answers. This is a reply on another forum:
"The dynamic of a reflex is definitely a plus by the bigger size of the sensor but the sharpness, aliasing and effect moire are worse, it is due to the
decimation (it produces above all reduction in sharpness). A cheap consumer camcorder wins surely. I'm using both".
Can I ask you a question please?
If you will rec a video by Sony HX50 or RX100, will you get a good image quality viewing it by a 48" flat TV?
I thank you.

On a normal consumer 48" TV you may see very little difference in noise level or sharpness. Both have the same apparent resolution but the RX100 pixels will be 4 times as big which should give a noticeable difference in low light performance. Depth of field will be much less on the RX100 because of the sensor size so if you need that performance it would be the choice. If you need everything in focus from just in front of the lens to infinity most of the time then the smaller sensor size of the HX50 would be the choice.

There is a reason people have more than one camera. What do you want this camera to do as you cannot get a camera that does everything well. I have a GoPro to clip to my helmet when skiing, HX30V in my pocket to take shots when I stop skiing, CX700 or NX30 for family events left in full auto with face detection ON, NX5U plus the other small Sony's for shooting events all on tripods. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. As far as technology improving with time it is the NX5U that is now showing its age compared to the CX700 and the NX30. The NX5U is not as sharp and a lot noisier than the new small Sony's including the HX30. In good light when I can set the NX5U at -3 db gain it produces a lovely image with nice colour depth compared to the others. It has all the controls I desire. Unfortunately it is very critical to focus when the light goes down and I have gain at 6db from this point on down the small Sony's are far better in almost all respects. When the NX5U has to go to 9db or 12 db the picture becomes muddy and full of noise but the small Sony's give a lovely picture even with over 20db of gain and practically see in the dark. Is this picture a wonderful professional broadcast image... NO but it is perfectly acceptable and certainly better than the NX5U. Until I got the NX30 the NX5U had the advantage of LPCM audio rather than Dolby. I still like the NX5U as my main camera for events as I have control. However I often fall back to the image from one of the small Sony's in editing that produces a cleaner sharp image at that particular point.

Ron Evans

Ron Evans,
your post is very interesting but what I like to know is another thing too because I don't understand fine:
if I make some shots in full sunlight and in wide angle with Sony HX50, RX100 and with NX5U, which of then make better image quality? As photo cameras suffer of decimation, that is above all reduction in sharpness, can the image quality of NX5U be better than photo cameras in full sunlight?
It is a question that I like to know its answer.

Ron Evans,
your post is very interesting but what I like to know is another thing too because I don't understand fine:
if I make some shots in full sunlight and in wide angle with Sony HX50, RX100 and with NX5U, which of then make better image quality? As photo cameras suffer of decimation, that is above all reduction in sharpness, can the image quality of NX5U be better than photo cameras in full sunlight?
It is a question that I like to know its answer.

The answers to your questions are in the videos. Here are three all done in sunlight from a pocket, compact camera (Panasonic ZS30/TZ40) shooting at 108060p. You can *download* all three (the originals from the camera) and view them on anything you like and compare to what you can see from other cameras. That is the answer, not what someone claims he or she saw or thinks they know in theory:

Panasonic ZS30(TZ40) HD Video: Bryant Park in Motion on Vimeo

Panasonic ZS30 (TZ40) HD Video: UCLA Botanical Garden, Sights and Sounds on Vimeo

Panasonic ZS30/TZ40 Test Video: Piano Playing Outdoors in Two NYC Squares on Vimeo

Unsharp? Filled with artifacts? Too noisy?

Ron Evans,
your post is very interesting but what I like to know is another thing too because I don't understand fine:
if I make some shots in full sunlight and in wide angle with Sony HX50, RX100 and with NX5U, which of then make better image quality? As photo cameras suffer of decimation, that is above all reduction in sharpness, can the image quality of NX5U be better than photo cameras in full sunlight?
It is a question that I like to know its answer.

I do not have a HX50 or RX100 but Mark has given you the opportunity to download the raw files for the videos from his ZS30( TZ40) which should be similar to either my HX30 or the newer HX50. All have higher resolution than the NX5U but the advantage the NX5U has is that picture profiles can be altered to take full advantage of the situation like changing knee or gamma curves for the situation. If the NX5U camera person does not take advantage of picture profiles then almost any of the newer cameras will outperform the NX5U in default mode including lots of the time these small point and shoot cameras. Moire is the issue you have heard about caused by high resolution cameras when shooting fine lines in the image. Happens to even very expensive pro video cameras and happens no less in my NX5U then any of the other cameras I have like the NX30 or HX30V.

If your comparisons are to the NX5U then you are comparing technology of several years ago. The core of the NX5U was the last models of HDV tape cameras Sony made and the NX5U was the first AVCHD version move away from tape. I would not be surprised to find the basic NX5U technology was 7 or 8 years old which then is no surprise that this years $500 cameras are more than a match on picture quality.

I think you have to decide if you want a camera to put in your pocket that works really well ( there are lots of choices from Sony, Panasonic and Canon ) or lots of control, like picture profiles etc of a much larger camera like the NX5U ( more modern versions would be the JVC 600 series, Panasonic AC160/130 or the Canon XF series ) Intermediate video cameras like the NX30/PJ650 or 680 from Sony, the XA10./G20 from Canon etc will be smaller than the big cameras and have some of the prosumer features of the larger cameras. In this I think the new Canon XA20/25 or the HF-G30 Canons are worth a look.

Ron Evans

In good lighting, you'll be hard pressed to see any major differences, that's been true for a while now. You MAY see DoF differences from larger sensors (keeping in mind we are talking 3x1/3" IIRC with the NX5, approx 1/4" in the HX50/300, and approx 1" in the RX100...), but this is somewhat dependent on what f stop you're shooting at of course.

I think your "source" was referring to the naturally more shallow DoF of a APS-C sized sensor of your typical SLR/SLT, and the well known issues with aliasing and moire that go with the territory. It's all well discussed in other forum areas here. SOMETIMES you want the shallow DoF, and I don't mind shooting with an Alpha series "full size" SLT camera at all, the pictures are stunning to my eye, and the video is plenty sharp on the A65/A77. Will there be some "issues"? Yes, with ANY camera there are limitations... know how to use the tools for what they do best. Lugging a big hammer everywhere does get old though, unless you're being paid for the higher image quality!


I've fiddled with shooting "dual mode" P&S cams for a while, and generally haven't felt they were quite as good as a dedicated video camera - they were designed for stills... conversely, the still functions of the average video camera leave me unimpressed - emergency use only, IMO, but...

Some of the most recent crop of P&S cameras are starting to keep up quite well with far more expensive "video cameras" - I've been intercutting stuff from a TX100 (retired model, sometimes available for very cheap, so I should say "several" TX100's!!) with a 7 series handycam - when used within its strengths, 1080/60P video it produces looks just fine. The aforementioned Alphas also will intercut, and add a bit of that cinematic vibe.

The RX100 is in all honesty a beast I'm still learning to tame - it's SO user tweakable, I'm catching myself experimenting with all the things it potentially can do - and I do like the still image quality quite a lot, something I'm not so sure about with the small sensor compacts... Video quality seems closer to a big SLT, and I'm still fiddling with what it can do - practically everything can be adjusted, for better or worse!



I thought I'd pass along a "first impression" (literally just opened the box) on the HX300 - I tried to get the objectionable smeary still image issues that I saw with the 200 and the 100 to a lesser degree - so far the images look pretty solid, I'm more impressed with the 20Mp sensor than with the 18Mp. Finally having a threaded lens so I can put a polarizer or ND on the beast is a huge plus. The 300 is a bit big (comparing to prior HX's), but the 50x zoom (plus clear zoom and/or digital on top of it!) is quite good, stabilization looks to be greatly improved. So far I'm impressed, and at least not finding things to "not like". Bodes well for the HX50, and that smaller package certainly offers some advantages!

I see Ron and I were reading each other's minds again...

Lets try to do some narrowing down....are stills and still quality of importance? How much of your shooting will involve really BAD low light conditions (where you can use a small LED light to augment)? Realistically, how much manual control do you feel you want/need, or can you run with auto if the auto functions are pretty good (the EV adjusting dial on the HX's might be all you'll ever really "need")? How portable do you want/need the total kit to be? How important is ambient audio? What sort of lens range do you anticipate wanting/needing?

Honestly, it's VERY possible to have a tiny but usable "kit" nowadays, with quality that is not going to be seen as "bad" or even marginal in most shooting situations. And you don't have to spend too much to do it! I think it bears mentioning that this is one of those times when the percentage gains in image quality vs. the additional cost expended might be rather shocking!

And FWIW, you could probably have an RX100 and an HX, with the "common" batteries and cables so they can share support kit, still end up with a small camera bag, and have a little versatility at your fingertips... all for less than a high end Handycam or comparable.

..(keeping in mind we are talking 3x1/3" IIRC with the NX5, approx 1/4" in the HX50/300, and approx 1" in the RX100...), ..

Dave is underselling the HX300 and HX50 a little the imager is 1/2.3" or just a little smaller than 1/2" so is about 1/4 the area of the RX100. Larger than the 1/2.88 in the camcorder range that also have less pixels hence slightly better low light performance of the true camcorders that do not have to target high resolution stills as well as video. So with the same number of pixels the RX100 pixels are 4 times bigger than the HX300 or HX50 so low light performance will of courses be a lot better. The Panasonic ZS30 has the same 1/2.3" size imager with 19MP. So all these newer model have similar specs for the same target market price points. Comes down to the company you like and the feel in your hand or a particular feature that is appealing.

Ron Evans

The answers to your questions are in the videos. Here are three all done in sunlight from a pocket, compact camera (Panasonic ZS30/TZ40) shooting at 108060p. You can *download* all three (the originals from the camera) and view them on anything you like and compare to what you can see from other cameras. That is the answer, not what someone claims he or she saw or thinks they know in theory:
Unsharp? Filled with artifacts? Too noisy?I have viewed those clips attentively by a flat Sony 48". All they look fine. I have noticed the camera works better with cloudy weather, when there is sun the image is weak and the face of the persons are overexpose.
But in general I like those clips, they are sharp, full of details and with good colours. You cannot expect more from a $400-$500 camera.
I thank you.

I have viewed those clips attentively by a flat Sony 48". All they look fine. I have noticed the camera works better with cloudy weather, when there is sun the image is weak and the face of the persons are overexpose.
But in general I like those clips, they are sharp, full of details and with good colours. You cannot expect more from a $400-$500 camera.
I thank you.


Just like the little camcorders these small cameras use a general exposure mode most of the time but can be persuaded to expose differently. If face detection is on and identifies a face it will focus and expose for that face ( focus , exposure and WB for the face) so can compensate a little for the overexposure at times. They have various shooting modes that can be selected or left in iAuto mode to let the camera decide. I think the Panasonic is much like the Sony in that it will lock on to up to 8 faces and manage focus and exposure to maximize the picture. The closer the camera to the people the better the control of course. It will of course not bring down the exposure to cause too much effect on the rest of the image. That is the value of a large camera like the NX5U where the knee can be changed in picture profiles to roll off the highlights, great for a set up shot but useless for point and shoot where the little cameras easily perform better.

In still mode the cameras even have a mode to emulate the shallow depth of field of a DSLR !!! The more I use the little cameras and camcorders the more of a fan I become. Still have the NX5U for the main camera for multicam shoots though where it does have an advantage.

Ron Evans

I always get mixed up by those stupid fractional sensor sizes! The long and short of it is, we're mostly speaking of "small sensor" cameras...

Along the lines of what Ron is saying is that the HX50 and the HX300 (as well as earlier 100 &200) have an EV adjusting wheel right by your thumb - hit it (on the 300), give it a spin and you can dial in the exposure adjustment on the fly - it's often all you'll need, as most long time shooters know the Sony "auto" can tend to overexpose a bit. I used that dial to shoot some shots of the full moon last night, -1.7 to 2.0 worked nicely! It's not "full manual", but can do the trick oftentimes to dial in a more useful exposure, and it works in movie mode while recording!

As Ron also notes, there are some "fun" picture modes in the consumer cameras, including a DoF emulation, and I've been playing with the "illustration" mode... There's a lot to like about some of the current lot of cameras, if you like takng pictures or video and are creative - you don't need a "big camera" to get usable quality. I find that a nice "small" kit tends to be easier to take along, so you end up with more shooting opportunities

I'm quivering with excitement for the Sony HX50. :) When will it ship or will it be possible to buy it?

Beginning for June in North America not sure for Italy. It should be on the Sony site now.

Ron Evans

I have just viewed some shots by Sony HX200. They are wonderful for high definition and chromatism but when I have seen the car run or people walking with faster steps (when they quicken one's pace) I see a irregular movement, it is not fluid movement, it seems a trigger-action. Why I see this problem? Yet the Sony HX200 works with 1080p50/60. What is the problem? I have viewed those shots with fat Sony 48".
Thanks

How did you view this video? Are you sure you actually got the source video at 50/60P.

Ron Evans

I view my videos by WD Western Digital TV at 1080p 50Hz. Could be the video was shot at 60p and if I view it at 50p I get problems?

Where did you get the file ? What do the properties say ?

Ron Evans

This is the video I have downloaded and viewed on my TV. It was shot in 1080p.
I have downloaded other video with less fast movements (guys with fast walking) but I get the same problem.
Sony Cyber-Shot HX200V Camera - Sample Video Outdoors - YouTube

Some devices have a bit of trouble with 60p - it's a larger bitstream, and it's possible that it could be causing some stutter. At least that'd be my first guess. Does it always show stutter at the same spots, or is it somewhat random? And if you pause, does it smooth for a bit, then start to stutter?

I saw a little bit of stutter here on my computer on playback, but I've got a lot of things running... 60p has had me contemplating a system upgrade for a while too, but most times it plays back fine.

Keep in mind that the HX300 is using a completely new sensor vs. the HX200. So far, the new sensor is getting decent results, I've got to do some pixel peeping on larger screens, but it does look like Sony got this one pretty well tweaked.

It is somewhat random.

I have viewed many shots with care of many cameras around the same price and now I can tell you the best image quality is of Sony HX200.
I have downloaded some shots from my PC and then I have checked them by WD Western Digital TV on my TV. I have checked shots of Sony HX200, Sony HX300, Lumix FZ150, Sony SLT-A57 and Sony RX100.
Sony HX200 is very far better of all others and cheaper. Colours are very good, also high definition. In my opinion it is the best camera for that price.
Pity it is impossible to plug on it an external light for video because there isn't any hot-shoe.

The downloaded videos that you compared were all shot under the same lighting? Otherwise your conclusions might be misleading
A crappy camera will shoot beautiful video under good lighting whereas an otherwise superior camera will shoot crappy looking video under poor lighting.

Yeah, all shot in identical conditions... not likely. All shot by the same operator... that alone can account for a LOT of variation... All processed in post the same way... doubtful. SOOOOO many "variables" left unaccounted for!!

I've seen bad clips (or worse yet "tests/reviews") from cameras that I know quite well... that embarrass the camera AND the person posting their "sample"... you can't believe everything you see, read or download from the internet...

Just as a "fer instance" - I shot some samples of the full/nearly full moon on two consecutive nights - the first night there was a fair amount of dust/moisture in the air... definitely noticeable in the results!! That's under otherwise "identical" conditions, the first set had a bit of softness the second set did not, even though the first was shot on monopod, the second handheld... Both are better than the best I could get with the 100/200, less noise, and less CA... I'm happy. Also less "jpeg overspray" for want of a better desription of something I saw in many HX200 shots, both my own and posted samples.



I've only had the HX300 for a couple days, but I'd give it a qualified "thumbs up" so far, and it's the ONLY camera I have with 1200mm optics (+ more in clear zoom).

I still need to shoot more test video, but I can say that the stills are signifcantly better to my eye in the 300 than in the prior two cameras. ALL of them are weak in poor light (small sensor, you can only expect so much), but the 300 seems to hold together a little better to higher ISO's, and doesn't exhibit problems in "good light" or flash shots that caused me to give up on the earlier versions. I've pulled up a few similar samples, and I'd take the 300 over the 100 and 200. I'm sure in the ranges the Alpha APS-C camera lenses match, the Alphas would "win".

From the limited testing I've done with video, I'd also say it has at least a stop, if not more, of better sensitivity in lower light (when compared to the TX100, which is a bit better than any of the other Sony P&S cameras in low light for reasons I've never figured out!)... The HX300 is the best I've seen from any of the small sensor Sony P&S cameras - it won't touch the top end CX/PJ type video camera, but it's actually pretty good.

If you want to add a light, it's easy enough to get a straight or folding flash bracket that will mount a small dimmable LED light when desired, I usually have that setup with me If I anticipate needing the added light. It won't make a small sensor match a bigger one, but it can be an equalizer.

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of video samples of the HX100 and 200 that I can match conditions, or the RX100 either - these tend to be "grab and go", shoot whatever is interesting cameras, so matching conditions is sort of hard! BUT, the HX300 has already earned a spot alongside the RX100, barring unforseen "gotchas". I got use out of the RX100 and 200 when I had them as well, for what they did well!

If the upcoming HX50 is as well tweaked and with good optics, it could be a nice package.

I'm sorry but I have to contradict you.
Now I explain you better: I have downloaded more than 100 videoclips in 1080p of those cameras. I like to compare them in daily light only because I will shot in daily light only. I don't take interest for a big Zoom but for a medium Zoom only. I have downloaded clips tested only in town and in country (with very green background) and I have checked their image quality in wide angle lens and medium Zoom.
I have checked with care around:
40 shots of Sony HX200
4 shots of Sony HX300 (there are so few clips on Internet)
20 shots of Lumix FZ150
30 shots of Sony SLT-A57
15 shots of Sony RX100
... and some shots of some other cameras like Sony NEX 6, etc

The only camera very close to Sony HX200 was HX300 but I haven't checked their comparison because there aren't many clips of HX300 on Internet.

RESULT
1) Every videoclip of Sony HX200 was perfect. It is incredible but NO shot was imperfect with bad colours and definition. 100% of the clips were OK!
2) All the shots of Lumix FZ150 were good but not like HX300 or HX200
3) All the shots of Sony SLT-A57 were very good but not like HX200
4) All the shots of Sony RX100 were very good but not like HX200

IN MY OPINION the best camera of them is Sony HX200 because I haven't seen any bad clips. Every clip was perfect.
I will wait for Sony HX50 because I think it will be a wonderful camera but .... if the clips I will download aren't good like Sony HX200, with no doubt I will buy the HX200, even if I like more smaller cameras.
I trust my eyes than what I read on their specifications. You can believe me or not believe me but my eyes have made a lot of training on the video.
I prefer Sony HX200 over HX300 because it costs less and it has a tilt display. I have read some specifications about HX300 and there are contradictory writings. I still don't understand if HX300 has tilt display.

PS: My hought is confirmed by some reviews:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/72819-sony-cyber-shot-hx200v-superzoom-camera-review
http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/73168-sony-cyber-shot-hx300-review

4 samples... hmm, OK, that's definitive... or not. I've only had the HX300 a few days, barely enough to "play" with the camera, not seriously shoot with it. I know I found mixed "reviews", many saying they didn't think it was that much better than the 200...

Perhaps their shooting conditions and expectations were different from mine, but CA and jpeg artifacts (stills) were a bit more than I was willing to accept in the 100/200, even though I used them and got some good/great results - not "bad" cameras, but there were things that go with small sensor P&S cameras I don't like in a camera that is right on the edge of being a "full size" camera at a higher end price point.

Overall, I see significantly better STILLS from the 300 than the prior models, and the random times I've pressed the "movie" button looked OK. FWIW, I got some "bad" video results initially with the RX100 as I tried to sort out all the settings... the P&S lines don't have a lot of adjustments, the RX has quite a few!


OH, and it's relatively easy to find out that the HX300 has the same tilting display of the earlier 100/200 - it does, and I don't know fo any reason you'd think it didn't, so I have to chuckle a bit at your "contradicting" when you haven't in all the "research" been able to determine a basic mechanical specification... I know there's often conflicting info out there, so I do understand, but when you're doing "research", you've got to be able to know your sources (thus what you've been told about trusting video "samples" from multiple shooters under varying conditions...). And yes, the tilt screen is VERY handy to shoot overhead, or from lower angles... it's one feature I REALLY find useful.

I would suggest the HX100/200/300 is a more "enthusiast" oriented camera, so I'd expect someone shooting it to have better skills, which MAY accout for the better samples.

Until the HX50 is actually available, no way to know for sure how it will perform. From the specs released, it will have a 30x optical, which is interesting, as that was the same range as the HX200 "superzoom" - if the optics are good, this will be a BIG zoom for a "pocket camera".

I can say from experience with Sony, that even with the same sensors and basic electronics (meaning the cameras may share the same "specs"), you have to evaluate the specific camera, there can be significant difference.... specs aren't the whole story, as you say, and sometimes an earlier model CAN be a bit better than the the "upgrade".


You seem to be primarily concerned with the VIDEO side, and if that's the main focus, you'll probably be happy with the small sensor P&S quality, I find it quite acceptable, as do others here who use them for personal/casual use or for "B cam" footage. If stills are at all a priority, I'd lean towards the RX100, the difference is pretty stark. Then again, I can stick the RX100 in a side pocket of a small bag with an HX300 and still have a small kit that will do most things VERY well... will the HX50 cover both bases... we'll see soon enough!

My god Dave you're on fire...... WAIT you ARE on FIRE, I just switched on the news and your neck of the woods is going up in smoke. Never saw so many chopers with water buckets and bulldozers and fire trucks but they looked helpless against such a fire force. Hope it's far enough away from your house.

Home | PhotographyBLOG (http://www.photographyblog.com/) is rolling out a review of the HX300 and have previewed some of the shots and a bit of .mts which is quite nice.

For the moment it's all on the other side of the mountains, but it's a heckuva start to fire season, I'm sure we'll have our days before it's done! I"m sure they will have the big DC10 up shortly - that used to be based at the nearby decommissioned airbase, used to get some shots when it went over!

I'm actually impressed so far with the HX300, definitely need to get out a bit with it and see if there are any "gotchas" - really the "defects" in images on the 100 and 200 were not that serious, but they bugged me when comparing to other bigger cameras.

The two reviewsAdriano posted mentioned the artifacting, but so far the 300 looks to handle it better. I find it interesting that there seems to be so much focus on "too many pixels", without regard to the quality of the sensor - I was thinking earlier how many times I read "fewer pixels would have been better" - I know that there is in theory a penalty for cramming too many photosites into the same physical area, but technology moves forward, and sometimes these "internet legends" live on without taking into account the changes in tech! I can say that the sensor in the 300 is significantly better in low light than either the 16 or 18 MPixel predecessors - I actually was rather impressed with how well it does!

Dave,
I would buy a smaller camera than Sony HX50 but only if it will give me better video because I NEED the best image quality from it (smaller is better). Like in the first post I ask it, that is a small camera for good video. But I'm afraid the bigger cameras have better lens and unfortunately (for me) they can give better quality of image in the video. I have checked some shots of Sony RX100 and although the videos are good but not equally good like a Sony HX200 or HX300. Why?

Possibly a couple of factors - first off, the RX100 has extensive manual controls... meaning it's pretty easy to goof it up (experience speaking). Unlike the highly auto P&S cameras, you have a lot of things to tweak, even when in video mode. IOW, even someone who has a farily good idea what they are wanting to do needs to spend some serious time experimenting and learning the RX100 - I've found I can get what I want, but the first attempts were not so hot! That said, the stills are superb, and I'm comfortable enough to shoot casual video with it. The camera is a bit like a racehorse or supercar... it takes a little more (a lot more?) to master, BUT it also has a lot more to give - using it like a P&S would be like driving on an LA freeway at rush hour in a Ferrari... it's still a REALLY impressive P&S, but you're in first gear!

The other possible factor depending on what "image problems" you are seeing can be the fact that larger sensors behave differently than smaller ones - that same shallow Depth of Field look that is craved by large sensor users CAN work against you when you need or want a deep DoF. There can also be more issues with moire and aliasing as well as rolling shutter. You have to have better camera technique and be conscious of how you shoot - while Sony has put the time into autofocus and other auto adjusting, you still need to think more with a large sensor camera... and you should be able get better results in exchange.

There also may be some instances of pushing the camera - it is a LOT more capable in low light, but that also means a user may use it at a point where a smaller sensor cam would be basically "black", and get an image, albeit one that's got more noise and artifacting. I shot some stuff at an amusement park where everyone else with a "small" camera got NO usable results, the RX100 got a bit of usable footage... sort of!


I'll admit I prefer letting the camera do as much work as it can and getting a good result, but also having the option to manually tweak... As another "fer instance", in the HX300 review you linked, they mentioned overexposure - from experience, I know to tap the wheel on the back right under the thumb, and dial back the EV as needed to prevent that problem - again, experience with these cameras makes this a reflex, a reviewer might not know to do it instinctively, and so thinks the camera has a weak point... when it's designed to let the user quickly and easily override and nail the shot. Having used the 100 and 200, the manual override is programmed into my thunb! I noticed the HX50 also has an EV wheel on it, in a similar spot. The RX100 can also do it, but only in some modes, where the 300 always can apply and EV shift.

My general point being that you have to spend some time with any camera to learn how to get the most out of it, no matter what you pick. It's pretty hard to get a really "bad" camera nowadays, so it comes down to what you're needs are...

I don't use a superzoom often, but when I do... I'd prefer the HX300. If I want superior stills and pocketability, the RX100 might be what I grab... if I'm anticipating weather or adverse conditions, I might grab a TX20, and live with the limitations, which are many, but it won't die if it gets dunked! If I'm shooting stills and being paid, I'll drag out the Alphas, but I increasingly don't want to lug them around for "casual" use! Could I take video from any of the cameras I mention and intermix it, and would a typical viewer be able to pick out which was which?? Probably not...


I think we got well off of the Handycams, but they too have their qualities...again we're taling about a different tool. I wouldn't try to take "great" stills with one, but for many video purposes, they are designed to do the job and do it well.

Any way you approach the question, you probably don't NEED to lug a big camera around anymore to get "pretty good" video and still results, it comes down to what best meets your needs and your budget.

I'm noticing Sony HX50 is a good camera but not as great as we thought. Is it for its small sensor?
I have read cheaper cameras makes better image quality. The first reviews are coming:
Sony Cybershot DSC-HX50 Review (http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-cybershot-dsc-hx50-review-21902)
Is it convenient to spend so much money on this Sony HX50?

That same review site that reviewed the Hx50 rated the Panasonic ZS30 (TZ40) higher. I have the ZS30 and I am pleased with the video quality.

First reviews... hmmm.... some CA issues, and noise at high ISO's - both to be expected at this price, AKA "normal". Shaky handheld video looks "OK" considering... a pro with a bracket and better stabilizing skills should be able to get better results.

I didn't see the "review" as being terribly comprehensive, typical "consumer oriented review". No review of audio (often a weak point in small cameras), no discussion of menus and depth of controls, and pretty basic.

I'd like to see some side by side with the HX300 - same sensor, but different lenses. I'd sort of expect that the compact lens would suffer more issues just because of being packed into a smaller format (30x is a lot in a small pocket camera, same as last years HX200, a much larger camera!). Physics is what it is, but tech gets better... and I'd expect the HX50 to be slightly more "dialed in", being a later release.

It's a pocket camera with a 30x lens (and apparently a nifty remote control function that if it works with an Android phone would be worth it to me for that feature!). If that's what you need, consider it, I don't think there's any others with that lens range out there. If your needs or expectations are different, look at other cameras. The only "perfect" camera is the one you will take with you and capture the shots you want, not one with newer better specs that will come out next year or whatever.

same as last years HX200, a much larger camera!)
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean about Sony HX200. I have viewd some shots of Sony HX200 and I have to tell you the image quality is far better than HX50.

Right on Dave. While that review does report in some detail the photographic abilities and the general handling qualities, as they see them, it is almost useless regarding video capabilities. Here is what they reported:

‘Video - Below is a video recorded in full 1080p HD and the quality is good. The optical zoom is available during recording, an example of which can be seen on the ePHOTOzine Youtube page.’

That’s it! Essentially useless regarding video in my opinion. One could say that about most if not all point and shoot digital cameras that also shoot 1080 50p/60p these days. In any event I would expect the HX50 to be just another point and shoot small travel cam with a very decent list of features and class leading zoom capabilities, which may or may not turn your crank.

However, the HX50 has one unique feature that is of interest to me and that is the ability to add on a ridiculously expensive EVF. I purchased the HX20v and while the video this cam shoots is right up there with most of the best travel cams I found it of very limited value as in broad daylight, which is mostly where I shoot, I can’t really see the screen. No EVF. Just hopeless for me. The HX50v (at a price) solves that problem. OK, not quite so easy to pop in a pocket but just slide off the EVF and pop that in another pocket.

The other not so obvious benefit of an EVF is the improvement in image stabilization this affords. Holding a pocket cam at arm’s length in order to view the screen versus holding the cam firmly against one’s head is chalk and cheese for me when it comes to obtaining smooth video. Now, having said that smooth video may not be important to you.

Based on specifications and Sony’s history with video in small cams the feature set of the HX50v works for me. I see it (expect it to be) as a pocketable slightly improved HX200v. I take note of your input, Adriano, saying otherwise. You may well be correct however the samples I have viewed would suggest the photographs taken with the HX50v will meet my needs not unlike shots captured with the HX200v. Let me add that when it comes to still photographs (not the subject of this thread) when I want to get serious it's the NEX 5n every time. But that's another story.

And down the road apiece in yet another pocket I shall probably carry the upcoming Black Magic Pocket Cam, if and when it becomes available!

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean about Sony HX200. I have viewd some shots of Sony HX200 and I have to tell you the image quality is far better than HX50.

The HX200 has a similar 30x lens range, in a substantially physically larger "package". It's quite entirely possible that the larger lens could produce better image quality. The HX50 is a physically smaller camera, obviously to maintain "pocketability", but that potentially may mean some compromises in lens quality.

I know if "noticed" the CA in the HX100 and 200, so far the HX300 seems to be better optically. That's where some side by side testing would be enlightening - how good is the lens in the HX50... usually Sony improves over time...

There are also differences of course in the sensor, and all the samples I've shot so far with the HX300 indicate to my eye that the newer sensor performs better than the one in the HX200. Higher ISOs still fall apart less than gracefully, but lower ones hold up better than the 200 did. Video in low light looks better by a stop or maybe even two. That by itself is actually rather impressive. It's not as capable as a CX/PJ series Handycam, but IS noticeably brighter and cleaner than ANY previous Cybershot I've owned, to the point where I'd chance it in "low light" if I needed the insane zoom.

I still really haven't had the chance to get the HX300 out and do some video comparison shooting, so I really don't want to comment rashly, but I expect it to be pretty good.


Adriano, I realize you want to pull up online samples that may or may not be good representations of what the camera(s) can or can't do under varying conditions... and come to a conclusion... but ultimately you are going to have to put hands on, put a camera through the "tests" that mean the most to YOU, and see if it's a good fit.

While the viewfinder in the HX300 isn't "great", it's included in the price, and the camera isn't THAT big, just not "pocketable" - I can still stick it AND the RX100 in the smallest camera bag I've got and never know I'm carrying it. Would the HX50 "cover" both bases? I might pick one up and see if I spot a used one at the right price, and I can think of some uses for that remote capability!


This thread started with the question of whether a "compact camera" could record "like" a good video camcorder - you've seen that there are a number of options that might meet that request, at least in many respects. It really comes down to budget, and what fits for you... There won't be a "perfect" camera, and in a couple years, we'll probably be debating the qualities of UHD/4K options anyway!

I don't take an interest about superzoom and I think a normal zoom is more than adequate. .... but if I have to be sincere, I like above all the hot shoe of Sony HX50. I would wait for some other more complete reviews and if the it score will be similar to other cameras I will buy another one and cheaper camera. I'm thinking about Sony HX20 too. It is a good small camera with good tests. I'd like to remain inwardly Sony brand because I have so many Memory sticks Duo I already use with my videocamera..... but if Lumix G6 will be really a very good camera and if it comes up to expectations I will think on it too. ;)
Dear friends: some days ago I had considered Sony HX200 because there are no other cameras so cheap and with so great tests. What I don't like on it is the lack of hot shoe.
In June I have to buy a new camera and I like to remain between Sony HX50 and Sony HX200 size and price.
In that time I hope I will produce some more clear ideas. ;)

Keep in mind that all recent Sony cams can use both MS Duo and SD cards... I have a mix of the two types.

It's always "fun" trying to decide which features are the ones most important, sometimes you think "gee, if I designed cameras, it would have THESE features..." But since we don't get to design... we have to find what fits "us" best!

I know I've bought cameras that everyone else raves about and hated them (OK, maybe not hate, but strongly disliked enough to pass them along to someone who WOULD appreciate them...). Other times I read comments about a camera and wonder if they had the same one I did?!

It comes down to use and expectations - I might WANT a sports car, but NEED a van, and maybe end up in a "crossover" trying to find a happy medium, to use an analogy...



Unlike cars, you probably can have a couple cameras for different situations... and still not bust the budget...

The RX100 is a unique little beast, and for a "pocket rocket" it does things other cameras don't, and is FUN to shoot with! Would I add a VF and a longer lens? Probably... and it wouldn't fit in a pocket anymore!

I use a couple TX series cameras for what they do well, and I'll admit a certain fondness for the top of the HX series - I'm used to the way a SLR sits in the hand and the 100/200/300 have that "vibe", without being too big or heavy, plus that superzoom can be FUN... The HX50 feature set is rather interesting, and it carries on a tradition of the midrange compact HX cameras that have been well received - I tried the HX9, didn't "click" for me, don't know exactly why, but it just didn't, I know others loved it, and the successor models (HX20/30).


You pay a price in image quality in ANY small sensor camera, that's just the physics of the matter. There are design compromises in physically small devices. BUT there are offsetting advantages... and in the end it looks like all but the higher end "enthusiast" models may disappear in the very near future, victims of better cell phone camera imaging modules! The CELL PHONE has become the "camera you have with you" for the vast majority of the population, most of whom are not "pixel peepers", and just happy to get SOMETHING when they "point and shoot"...

FDA-EV1MK electronic viewfinder = 449 euro???? More than Sony camera?
I could never believe it.
I cannot buy it neither HX50 unfortunately. I would have bought HX50 especially because I could use the electronic viewfinder but for that price I will buy Sony HX20.
On this comparative reviews HX20 come out not worse than HX50 almost better .... even if I'm not an expert guy.
Sony Cybershot DSC HX50 vs. Sony Cybershot DSC HX20V - Sensor Comparison (http://www.digicamdb.com/compare/sony_cybershot-dsc-hx50-vs-sony_cybershot-dsc-hx20v/)
Same size sensor, Max. resolution 5184 x 3888 vs 4896 x 3672 are almost the same but HX20 has more dynamic range.
Now I have clearer ideas and if I had to buy a p&S I will buy HX20. ;)

I have no idea where you get the conclusion on greater dynamic range... you really need to be a bit careful reading random sites and coming to random conclusions... this is especially true if you are "not an expert" - there is a LOT of misinformation in the internet, and a lot of questionable information as well! It's very EASY to read things and get entirely incorrect "conclusions"... I think if I read "too many pixels" one more time I may scream... reminds me of "too many notes", which if you're a musician, you'll get the joke, and it is one...

We are talking about a current generation sensor vs. "last generation"... I don't have equipment other than my eyes to "test", but overall I feel the new 20.4 sensor (HX300/HX50) subjectively looks significantly better than the 18.2 (HX20/30, HX200, TX200, TX66). Low light is definitely better, and if you set the camera right, the images are better, at least in the still department from the comparison shots I have done... Having owned Sonys with the 16.2, the 18.2 and the 20.4 (the sensors are basically the same physical dimensions ot reduce the re-engineering between model years), the 18 was the "weak spot", as under many conditions I got worse results than with the 16 - so far the 20 looks to be better than both prior sensor designs, partially due to the processing.

I've seen others say it's worse, so perhaps they tested under different conditions or with different expectations, or were looking at different things than were on my radar, or they didn't set things the same way I do from years of hands on experience. I see "overexposure" as a complaint, and I think to myself - "tap wheel under thumb, adjust EV to compensate, problem solved", and am happy to have a camera so easy to dial in... I also think "DUH, learn to operate your camera", but that's another topic!



The add on VF was originally for more expensive camera(s) - RX1, a $2700 camera, and the current generation NEX series I believe. It just happens it fits the new shoe Sony is using, including on the HX50. It is possible Sony or a third party could release a less expensive VF (and other accessories for this new shoe) if there is demand... it remains to be seen how this new shoe design will fare - it replaced the old propreitary Konica Minolta shoe, which was much complained about, and I see lots of complaints about the new design (it's a popular internet passtime to criticize "proprietary" designs I think!). Of course if you don't know that the VF was originally for a very expensive camera, it seems a bit shocking... but it adds interesting options to have it "available" for such a small camera.



The HX20/30 are probably available pretty cheap as they are "last years" models, I've seen mostly positive comments about them, why not just find one cheap on close out and see how it goes? You'll save a big chunk over buying the brand new models (although the HX300 price is already softening a "bit"), and you'll have something to start working with to see if you will be happy shooting video with a pocket P&S.

It'll probably be almost as good image wise as a bigger more expensive camera from 5 years ago, to be honest... they really push the engineering on these "consumer" models trying to make them appealing against that "old" cam or the latest cell phone (which also may have a hot rod Sony sensor in it!). Remember the consumer lines are on a one year refresh cycle, and so often have the very latest "tech" and tweaks (though sometimes I've seen steps "backwards"!). They also are most likely to have new features that they hope will cause a buyer to buy... thus why guys here who might have an HX20 or another older model are looking at the 50 <wink>!

Worst case you buy last years model on closeout and decide you want this years model feature wise... now you have a "backup" camera <wink>! And the "new one" has probably dropped a bit in price <wink, wink>.

A guy made tests of two cameras: Sony HX50 ans HX20 and he is thinking like me about two cameras.
He has answered to a question of his friend asking if HX50 was better than HX20:

"only foto :( video is identical hx20v , is the same (if not worse) of HX20V, improved wide-angle, zoom improved (but at full zoom trembles) has less grain in low light but also has less sharpness.
Is a great improvement for the photos, but no video sony"

I will not buy the camera for stills but almost exclusively for video and my supposition is not too much far from truth. May be are you talking HX50 is better that HX20 about stills? Is it ok but I will not make still.

Look here:
Sony hx50v hx50 video panorama - YouTube
PANORAMA SANREMO SONY HX20V 50P ZOOM - YouTube

I have downloaded these videos and viewed them by my large TV Full HD.
Dave, I'm noticing you are thinking more about stills than videos. ;)

These cameras are of course STILLS cameras, so yes, I'm expecting them to meet a level of quality. They really should be able to take a good photo, you'd think! I can only compare similar shots with the HX100/200/300... the 300 is an improvement over prior cameras, IMO. Notice I said SIMILAR...

I also suspect based on shots taken thus far, the 20MPixel sensor wil perform better than the 18Mpixel one for video, but I really have not had the time to try to replicate any videos and A/B them... the little bit of video testing I've done shows better low light performance by a SIGNIFICANT amount - IOW, the HX300 will shoot in much lower light and still get SOMETHING other than a black screen... probably less grain/noise in similar light, and an actual image in light conditions where you'll get nothing from the earlier generation sensor.

Sharpness is a tricky proposition, and this is why I said any VALID test would compare both sensors AND lenses - packing a 30x lens into a small camera seems to me at least to be inviting optical "issues", sharpness being one of them. Shakiness (trembles) at the long end of the zoom is ALSO expected! That said, the 50X lens of the HX300 has so far been pretty good considering... meaning no glaring flaws (yet at least), and I like the idea of being able to put filters on it, I think I have a set of compatible size ones somewhere I should dig out! Of course as soon as I mount a filter, I've altered any images I take by adding another layer of glass...


NOW... about those two videos... these are an absolutely PERFECT example of how NOT to do a camera comparison "test" - different times of day (the angle of the sun can make a LOT of difference in how things look to an imager), different days by the look of it (the HX50 seems to be shot on a day with significant moisture in the air, which will ABSOLUTELY degrade any optical "test"!), the HX50 looks to be a stop or more overexposed (there's a adjustment for that, and it may well be the firmware is overexposing, Sony has that tendency).

Those are just quick, OBVIOUS things that might affect image "sharpness". I'm not saying that it isn't possible that the HX20 is "better" for video than the HX50, I'm just saying there's NO evidence from these "tests" to support that conclusion if you know anything about image capture under varying conditions...


Let me enlighten you a bit how one gets an objective, verifiable "test" - you put the two cameras side by side (literally, mounted together on ONE mount. side by side or one on top of the other), match up the framing/zoom as much as is practical, fire them up, make any exposure adjustments that might seem appropriate, and make slow deliberate moves (waving the camera around all over the place while testing does NOT gain my confidence in the skills of the camera op/"tester"...). If you want to test zoom, at least attempt to zoom the cameras together, again to maintain comparable image framing, etc. Remember of course that the leses will "ramp" the iris and change exposure... yet another variable...


Yes, I have a photgraphic background, so I know how quickly light and a scene can become TOTALLY different, within seconds or fractions thereof! It amazes me how amateur testers (and sometimes even "pro" ones) ignore or forget this simple fact, and go on to proclaim "conclusions" (which are actually OPINIONS, and we know the old saying about those).

This is where a studio "set" with conditions that are repeatable is at least SOMTHING when you want to test cameras from year to year. I know you "can" go out and try to shoot the same scenes, but at most they are SIMILAR, and therefore not a valid "test" of image quality. On top of that, sometimes scenes of a certain type will create problems for one camera and not another due to some quirk...



That said, sure, show me those two videos, and the 20 looks WAY better than the 50... on "first impression"...

Is it a valid comparison? NOPE... IMO, not even close. Is it possible the HX50 is really as "soft" as it looks in that sample (I actually wonder if the image quality was not set to the max, it looks like a lower bitrate, and at least here there was also much glitching, perhaps indicating an encoding problem)??

SOOOOOO... Perhaps... or maybe not... that's as definitive a "conclusion" as you could arrive at from those "samples"!


But I'm back to my last suggestion, go buy a closeout HX20, be happy, capture good images. Rig it up with a folding bracket to add stability when shooting, a small dimmable LED for low light if you think you'll need it,, and if audio is important you can add a small digital recorder - this would make a surprisingly effective "pocket size"(OK, small camera bag sized) "kit" that would allow you to capture good images! It's small, discrete, you'll never know you're dragging it around, but it'll be there when you want it! You can ALWAYS use a setup like this with whatever small camera you've got!

The HX20 video looks quite nice (and people I trust from this forum say it's good, that's enough real "street cred" for me). If it does what you want, has "enough" zoom for you, and works on your budget, don't bother worrying about whether another camera might be "better" in one respect or another (meaning there will ALWAYS be "better" cameras for one thing or another, and over time the tech improves...). Oh, and don't believe "everything" you see or read on the internet... <wink>.

Comparison video, done (almost) properly: Sony Hx9v and Panasonic ZS30 (TZ40) on a rainy day

Alternating clips within seconds of each other this time on a dark, rainy day. First the Hx9v, then the ZS30 (TZ40). The ZS30 clips are crisper (as is the audio), with better color, especially the greens. Almost all clips are at full (optical) telephoto. Last clip is from the ZS30. Both cameras using 108060p mode. Note: the advantage of a rainy day is that there are no quick changes in light.

Comparison Test Video 2: Sony Hx9v and Panasonic ZS30 (TZ40) on a Rainy Day on Vimeo


The Panasonic is conspicuously better than the Sony, video and audio, here. If the Hx20v or Hx50v are not much improved over the Hx9v, then, well...

You can download the original and see for yourself on your best viewing device. In this video, the original clips were not processed at all - straight from the cameras.

If you have any questions, or think there is something invalid here, let me know. I have no vested interest in the outcome, and I was surprised by the difference. Brand loyalty and internet chatter are not the ways to choose cameras.

Thanks Mark for the sample video - good example of how to get useful test results! Shots taken at roughly the same time, same day, and under the same conditions give a "close enough" result to reach some conclusions! The consistency between the A/B shots helps validate the results... I suspect the subject matter is a bit different from what Adriano plans to shoot though <wink>.

Panasonic makes nice cameras, I've seen some GH3 video samples that had a certain something that really made them pop.

There's definitely a more contrast-y and saturated look to the Panasonic in your video, which gives a viewer a better initial impression, the greens looked a little "hot" on my monitor, but "better" than the more "flat" Sony image. I'd expect most people to go for the Panny, nothing wrong with that!

Each brand tends to have their own "look", I have reasons I like the Sony "look" and technology, and since it makes it easier to match between cameras of the same brand, I stick with 'em (despite some corporate decisions that are REALLY frustrating to the end user). I wouldn't hesitate to tell someone to look at other brands, but since Adriano also has some "legacy" Sony accesories, I understand where he's coming from...


FWIW, the HX9 is the 16Mpixel sensor (roughly two model years old), the HX20 is the 18Mpixel (last years Sony models), and of course the HX50 is the new 20MPixel, so there are probably some differences... But the "Sony look" is likely still "baked in", the overexposure is a dead giveaway to any long time Sony user!

this is where I'm finding the RX100 to be a nice fit - the image quality is definitely above the "P&S" category, but it's still a "pocket" cam. A little limited in the zoom department, but otherwise worth considering if stills are a larger part of the equation.I have viewed some video shots of Sony RX100 and I have noticed they have a good high definition but I have also noticed the image has much more contrast than every other DSL or compact camera. May be it helps to make look like more definition.
In your opinion will the video quality of Sony RX100 be better than HX50? How much (reading the specs)? I mean about video only.

The RX100 has a LOT of image control options, including adjustable dynamic range... so you can have a lot of control over the shots you take, IF you want it - it also does "point & shoot" well when you want that. The amount of possible manual control along with sensor size and a decent .jpeg or RAW (if you want) make it a "photographers camera". And most of those adjustments cross over to the VIDEO mode, meaning you can really adjust your image, for better or worse! My initial video was overly contrasty, but I've found I can adjust that quite a lot - as I've said, it's not a camera I'm "confident" shooting yet, as it's got so many options. It's a bit of a surprise to have as much tweakability in such a small cam...


I can make some comments on the HX300 video now - shot with it in a "tough room" I've shot many times - school stage production, bad interior lighting conditions, variable lighting... the works for camera nightmares (which I know is entirely different from what you're thinking of shooting, but...). Since the HX50 is using the same sensor, and likely similar electronics (the lens is an unknown of course), perhaps the observations will help with some idea of sensor performance.

Overall the image looked a tiny bit softer than the PJ7xx I shot alongside it, but very low noise/grain. It kept up with a current Handycam quite well. I thought it was struggling a bit in darker areas, but then saw the same in the PJ images... not bad at all. I should have preset white balance, as some parts of the play had a projected image that really fouled that up (all the cameras picked the "bright screen" and auto adjusted WB to it, leaving the rest of the frame "orange"...).

I still need to pull the clips into Vegas, but overall, considering the difficult shooting conditions, the camera performed well. The tilt screen was handy, zoom was fairly smooth (I've noticed I tend to overshoot when using the lens ring...). I had the PJ's AE shift set to -.7EV (equivalent to a -3 setting on older Sonys), no shift on the HX, since I was thinking it was probably close to it's "low light limit" already, but I think it could have used a little - shift after looking at the clips...

I've shot this same room and conditions with the HX100 and 200, they were a lot noisier. I'll have to dig up some old clips if I can, to compare sharpness, but I think the HX300 is better, certainly not any noticeable "problems"..

Overall, I lke how this new sensor performs, and I like the way the bigger HX handles vs. a smaller camera, but it's not a "pocket camera"... I can see where that makes the HX50 "interesting"!

I forgot to grab the RX, but it would have been rough shooting from the back of the room with the lens range, and I have to work with matching the "look" to the other cameras before I shoot with it in a multicam situation!


As you can probably tell, performance in low and bad light is high on my list, I'll have to see about doing some daylight tests, but generally most cameras handle that pretty well! Unfortunately I don't have a nice scenic seaside view to inspire me!

It occurred to me that a "short answer" to your question is that the HX's will have a "baked in" video look - it is up to the hardware and firmware to determine the image quality, limited user intervention is available...

The RX on the other hand gives you extensive controls, so if you don't like the "default", you can tweak to taste (once you start finding all the things you can tweak!).

IOW, it's a little hard to say one is "better". Mark's comparison of two "baked in" looks (one Sony, one Panasonic) is easier to judge - which one do you like...

and of course you can always do some tweaking in "post"/edit...

The RX100 is a strange little beast, it's a "P&S" that gives you a lot of additional options... the HX's are more basic, but still do a good job in the hands of a good shooter. It sort of comes back around to what "fits" for you personally...

Glad to herar the HX300 stood up at the school play shooting along side the cxPJ.
I shoot school plays multicam (usually one more or less locked off on a wide shot) but the 29 min limit is a show stopper because I want to sync the footage in edit just the once.
The used rx100 came yesterday and regretably the remote I bought with the HX300 does not plug in the RX100 as there are two little blips on the microusb multi terminal which prevent the jack from sliding all the way in but otherwise a very nice little camera

Dave's distinction between cameras with a "baked-in" look versus those that have controls for the look is a good one. The Panasonic ZS30 (TZ40) and The Sony Hx50v, of the compact big-zoom cameras, pretty much have a set look. Of the small cameras with limited zoom but much more control over the video image, the RX100 and the Panasonic LX7 are in the same category. For video, from what I have seen, I think the LX7 video looks better than the RX100 video, which has more artifacts and is less sharp. But I do not have both cameras to directly compare.

@Bruce - I was actually pleasantly surprised when I downloaded the clips... look pretty good against a camera that is dedicated video and quite a bit more expensive! The 29 minute limit really isn't that big a deal - I just waited for a short break after about the 20 minute mark... got one at around 24, double punched the movie button, and carried on - yeah, one extra clip to sync, but I'm pretty fast with that as I sync on audio peaks most of the time, then double check the visual cues.

Strange about the remote - was it supposed to be compatible? I know the microUSB on the RX100 and the HX300 must be wired a bit differently than the "common" cable used for phones, but haven't seen one not fit at all, only not work when connected!

I do think the RX100 is one of those beasts you have to take some time with and master... I wasn't impressed with the video at first, but you have to remember it's a large sensor, shallower DoF, and then find things like the DRo adjustment... I've gotten better results now that I've spent some time with the camera... And the stills really are nice just on "auto", and are closer to a DSLR than to the typical "pocket compact".