Sony's HX99 - high zoom, compact pocket camera

[frozentripper]

Zooms 24-720mm equivalent, not bad for something that compact and still pocketable... available Nov 8 for about $450 and said to be a cheaper alternative. The sensor is smaller than the legendary and more expensive RX-100's one-inch, but the 100 is not big on zoom... IIRC, zooms only 28-70 but image quality is said to be high. And the HX-99 has a flip-up viewfinder to help with the telephoto framing, like the 100.

Reviews on image quality should be available in several weeks, and since this one's being described as a cheaper alternative to the RX-100, quality comparisons can probably be made. The quality of the telephoto shots should be interesting.

The new RX100s go for about $1200, and might be too much for something that's probably obsolete in several years. Neither are waterproof or described as water-resistant, or built to be shock-resistant. But as a "travel camera", there may be something on that... worth a look.

http://sonyalphalab.com/new-hx99-from-sony-worlds-smallest-travel-high-zoom-camera-24-720mm/

 

[yellowcanoe]

Another Christmas Camera roll out..

Due to failure to hug a rootwad I am in the market for a new replacement for the Canon SX60 HS.. The SX70 is coming out in Nov.. Same price.. I have been very happy with the 60 . Its four years old and has had some 20000 shutter activations.. I prefer an actual in situ viewfinder.

My Pelican Case failed too which led to the camera's drowning.. It was't really wet but apparently wet enough.. I have drowned cameras before and sometimes they do revive after a vacation.

I think my Peli case was just a tad too small and when you have to stuff the strap in it takes up a lot of room and easy to catch a little bit of the strap in the o ring leading to a non seal

Will upsize the Peli case to give a good two inches all around for strap stuffing and closing clearance.

And a solemn reminder to hug the obstacles the water is pushing you toward.. not leaning away.. Water was hard pushing to the left and I was leant out over the right drawing mightily but not effectively enougn......

Rootwad won. Current River is cold.

 

[alsg]

The last thing I recovered on the Penobscot (before my tent was found) was my little Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS70 24-720mm in its Pelican case. Only one corner of the Pelican case was above water, but it was enough!

 

[Cruiser]

I have the Sony HX 90 which has a 30x zoom ... small enough to trip with and that zoom is hard to believe for the camera size. This is my second Sony .... it makes a lazy photographer look good.

Brian

 

[Pringles]

I have the Canon SX50, and have enjoyed using it to take pictures of bears and elk, etc., in Yellowstone. I enjoyed it enough that I wanted more zoom, so I got a Nikon P900, which has optical zoom to 83x. There’s a new Nikon1000 which has something like 125x zoom. I don’t know lots about photography, but my SX50 and P900 can both let me take pictures of big scary beasts without getting close, and I like that. They seem to take nice pictures, too. They wouldn’t fit in anyone’s pocket, unless you have really big pockets. They are NOT compact. You didn’t say it, but, if you care about zooming in, these cameras give you the ability, and if you know what you’re doing, they have enough buttons to let you control settings. Not trying to push these, just sharing.

 

[yellowcanoe]

Too much zoom does not work from me in a bobbing canoe.. It does work with a tripod ( that 65x zoom) but at that magnification the blur while handheld.. is noticeable.. I'll zoom to 30 x and crop. Now FT wasn't asking for advice but maybe we could make this a reference thread for anyone looking for a canoe camera.

What I do use the max zoom for is ID that campsite or is that black blob a moose? Like binoculars.

 

[frozentripper]

YC, yeah, the telephoto pix might blur in a bobbing canoe... but the image stabilization system might help with keeping details sharp. Or not if you're panning on a moving object like a bird, and the image stabilization is keying in on the moving background sharpness instead, in that case the IS needs to be turned off. Upping the ISO to increase shutter speed will help keep telephoto details sharp, but too much and image quality suffers.

Big, heavy telephoto lenses will be sharper because their massive weight and inertia will reduce shakiness in handheld wobbly exposures, while the ultra light and compact telephotos, being so light and compact for ease and convenience, will be more vulnerable to handheld shakiness. Tradeoffs, always tradeoffs... we'll see what the reviews say, maybe there's something new this time.

 

[frozentripper]

A review is in, IIRC this camera is available at retailers now.

https://www.photographyblog.com/revi...ew/conclusion/

I have not read through most of it, the overall verdict is good on the conclusions page, although the price point might be a bit too high. After a quick look at the sample pix page, I could see no evidence of blur in the telephotos taken at 720mm, maybe a result of image stabilization. Pix look nice and sharp for a small pocket camera, sample vids also look good. More reviews coming in the next few days, probably.

 

[Chip]

I read through this discussion with interest spurred by deciding to ditch my current paddling camera--a Panasonic Lumix that just doesn't take good pictures. However, my criteria includes waterproof. I swim too often to have a camera that will be damaged by water. Did I read correctly that neither the discussed Sony nor Canon are waterproof?

 

[frozentripper]

The Sony won't be waterproof, it's a travel camera and from what I've been able to gather so far, waterproofing wasn't included in the design. For the kind of rough use you're describing, you might be better off with a dedicated action camera like a GoPro or one of the cheaper knockoffs, reliably waterproof and shockproof. The downside there is the constant wide-angle look to the framing, and the rolling ball look to vids, but maybe that's the most certain way of ensuring pix in situations where ordinary cameras wouldn't make it.

Other options include the waterproof and durable smartphones available now, if you want to keep gear to a minimum. Phone, GPS, maps, notebook, e-reader and whatever else all in one device. Picture quality might be good enough, but no high zoom, and other features and capability might be lacking when compared to a dedicated camera. Prices seem to be high, maybe up to $1000. My phone takes decent enough pix as a backup camera but it feels clunky, uncomfortable, and ease of use just isn't there... I'll go with a real camera every time.

The waterproof pocket cameras have a reputation for leaking with time since the waterproof gaskets become tired and eventually water might wreck the internals (probably at the worst possible moment when there are great photos showing up). So now I'm keeping it inside a plastic bag. Since 2012, there have only been two bad splashings and only one really hard knock, so maybe with a little more care, a higher-capability travel camera might survive.

All those new features since 2012 now available with upgrades probably are worth checking out, and it's impressive how the manufacturers are able to pack so much capability and performance into something that small and compact. The main reasons I'm looking at the HX99 and the others mentioned in the reviews are the larger sensor size and the high zoom (my waterproof only has 28-140mm equivalent), along with some of the other new features mentioned above.

Panasonic Lumix cameras seemed like a good choice back in 2012 and I almost bought one but went with Olympus after reading some good reviews. Maybe you could describe what you've found the shortcomings to be, and what you want to have with something newer... lots of choice available out there and I sure haven't been able to cover all the options.

 

[yellowcanoe]

For quite a few years I used the Nikon AW100 ( currently the AW 130 I believe) Truly water proof ( I lost it in the Current RIver and it sat on the bottom for awhile before we could get to it( maybe 20 min).. But it has a recessed lens to protect it and it is hard to defog and clean.. It requires cleaning regularly with a microfiber and water. What drove me batty was drops on the lens that you could not get rid of well on the water. And its limited zoom.. Have lots of blob pix. When it was dry it took very good pictures. I did not like focusing with the screen . I prefer a viewfinder in difficult glare

I wore mine on a lanyard which was handy when getting a hold of it in four feet of water with the aid of a long stick

The ultra zoom travel cameras have moving lenses that are hard to seal at their price point.. One however took a nice bath at Juniper Run and self fixed itself after about three months.. Water inside however is never good as it leaves residue on the inside of the lens that you cannot get to.

I also demanded RAW capabilities manual shooting and a faster tele..

 

[MagicPaddler]

I have had a Panasonic Lumix 30X for several years now and I carry it in a sea to summit dry bag in my shirt pocket. They are large pockets. I have gone swimming with the camera in the dry bag in my pocket several times and so far so good. Frequently I use the camera as a monocular.
https://shop.panasonic.com/support-only/DMC-ZS40S.html

 

[Chip]

First, apologies to FT. I know this thread isn't about Panasonic cameras, but I barge on regardless.

My Lumix is a DMC-TS20. The issue I have could well be operator error, but I find too many photos just look washed out, which I think means over exposed. Like this one:

Yes it was an overcast day, but the vegetation should be a more vibrant color and nothing is very sharp. It's a point-and-shoot, which I'd hope takes most of the operator error out of it. My iPhone 6 takes much better pictures, and that isn't even a new phone, and new ones are reported to have much better cameras.

I tried using the phone for all-in-one, GPS, camera, and com device. The trouble is, it takes time for me to get the phone ready to take a picture. Pull it out of the PFD pocket, unlock it, activate the camera app, and by that time, the picture may not be there. The camera, pull it out and turn it on and it is ready to shoot a washed-out picture. At least half the time, the pictures are okay, but I had much better luck with my prior camera, an Optio 33WR, which is going back about fifteen years. The phone is in a case plus a bag, so shooting through two layers of plastic, and it still produces better results than the Lumix.

As for waterproofness, I don't use a bag. The camera just goes into a PFD pocket, and I have taken extensive swims without issue. I give it an 'A' for waterproof.

 

[yellowcanoe]

For anyone who shoots outdoor landscapes which are a high dynamic range of light ( lots of washed out sky and dark shadows) I recommend getting Lightroom. There are easy to use edits that lighten dark stuff darken light stuff and bring out color for those affected by the blahs
That said Chip your old camera certainly did not get great reviews and some photography forums show users getting disappointing results the same as you.. Time to get yourself a nice Christmas present!

 

[frozentripper]

My Lumix is a DMC-TS20. The issue I have could well be operator error, but I find too many photos just look washed out, which I think means over exposed. Like this one:

Yes it was an overcast day, but the vegetation should be a more vibrant color and nothing is very sharp.

Image sharpness in pix taken should be sharp enough for viewing on a computer monitor... I agree that the camera isn't a high-end waterproof and probably it's time for an upgrade... still, looking at the DMC-TS20 test pix on the review page below shows that sharpness is good enough for viewing on a screen... more detail in the magnified views than in the full frame. To see this, look for test photos with fine details that test the capability of the lens resolution, on the edge of the camera's capability to resolve... distant branches, brick walls, signs.... fine detail that becomes visible when magnified, but disappears when the image size is reduced back down so that the full framing appears. This should show that the camera is recording finer detail than what appears on the monitor, so this camera's sharp enough for that purpose.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camer...hotos-177.html

An example, here's a little test I did with my Olympus TG-820 with a photo that has lots of fine detail... in the first full frame view, the rectangular hunting blind in the yellow outtline is barely visible, just a dot. In the blown-up portion, the rectangular detail shows up and the structure is recognizable as a duck blind. Looking closely and magnified, there's more detail captured in the camera's image than what shows in the entire photo on the monitor. It's sharp enough.






(PS... the above photos haven't had anything done in post-production (except for adding the yellow box outline) and they're too blue from all the skylight. That needs to be reduced by warming the image up by adjusting color balance and maybe some change to brightness and contrast as well.)

You might want to test your camera for sharpness with some similarly detailed subjects, to compare to the review photos in the link and see if your photos match their quality.

The high-contrast photo you posted lacking sharpness in the leaves against the bright sky might be a result of bright light fringing around the edges of the leaves, making them look fuzzy, which can be a problem with the small point-and-shoot cameras. Try a lower contrast scene and maybe the sharp detail will be there. Or maybe more likely the camera wasn't allowed time to focus, might not be focusing quickly enough, or the focus setting might need to be changed (not familiar with Panasonic settings menu). Test to see if the camera's focussing on detail OK.

Lack of color brightness could be affected by the image processor in your camera... Olympus image processors produce contrasty, bright colors and have been criticized for being too bright (ie. not an accurate rendering of the scene). Panasonic image processor color seems to be more muted and for some may be more realistic or for others too muted, so increasing the color saturation, modifying contrast, brightness and color balance in post-production might help (Panasonic may have provided a disc for that with the camera).

Try some tests, they might show something better than what you've shown above. OTOH, also time for an upgrade if you want something better, enjoy the search, more reviews on new gear will be coming for sure.

 

[yellowcanoe]

I couldn't help myself.. I lifted Chips pic and fiddled a little in Lightroom.. On cloudy days there is often a lot of vapor in the air which cameras are good at getting even if you do not want the haze.. There is a dehaze setting in Lightroom.. Image has a lot of dead space too and could use cropping which will reduce the sky ( which doesn't add much) and also the bushes same.. but you may have wanted the whole scene so I refrained Could have used some lightening as the dehaze darkens the pic.

Still not as sharp as you probably want and I just want to throw in for all who have those waterproof cameras that the lens is recessed so that cleaning is not easy but necessary.. A tiny microfiber will help.. Dirt attracts moisture on the lens as well.. Salt air messes up lenses for me too.

 

[frozentripper]

The newer model Sony RX100s have a higher zoom range it seems... a one-inch sensor and sharp photos for great quality from a pocket camera.... over $1000.

 

[frozentripper]

There are a few more reviews out now, although nothing that tests image quality well enough. This one briefly talks about compact size and features.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra_sq03RkD0

PS.... the lens is described as having image stabilization... might be different from sensor stabilization which is the other way to reduce blur. Or maybe a mistake in the description, something to check into.