Roundup: Compact Digital Cameras : Sony DSC-W300
38. Sony DSC-W300
White Balanacing
Our tests often include an analysis of how cameras handle white balancing, but what is it exactly?
In photography, colors vary according to the light source, and the same people or objects look different under natural light and when lit artificially inside. White balancing involves configuring a camera to avoid particular dominating colors, creating an image that it is too warm or too cold.
Most digital camera users leave the Automatic mode on, letting the camera adjust itself based on its own readings. Above, you can see that two cameras from the same manufacturer produce different results under the same conditions. One tends towards red, the other seems more accurate, although a little blue perhaps.
To compensate for these variations, digital cameras include a number of settings for white balance, allowing you to choose your lighting conditions. Typical configurations include daylight, cloud cover, fluorescent light and manual settings for those who know a little bit more.
Handling
The DSC-W300 is wrapped in a scratch-resistant titanium case, which is the only thing that marks it out from its predecessors, whose sober design and solid frame it inherits. The whole thing is a little heavy for a compact, but reassuringly so--this is definitely not a flimsy camera.
On the back, a 2.7-inch LCD screen packs in 230,000 pixels, but if that's not good enough for looking at your photos, there's a Full HD output for viewing them elsewhere. One thing that could be improved is the layout of the various controls with the buttons themselves very hard to reach unless you have tiny fingers. The interface they control is confusing too, and it takes a few days of using the camera to get used to the logic of having some functions controlled by the Home screen and others on the Menu.
In good light, the AutoFocus works quickly (0.75 seconds), but is a lot slower in darker conditions.
Image Quality
Packing 13.6 million pixels onto a sensor was always going to result in excellent quality photos. To make things better, Sony has worked at making the photos even sharper. Comparing this W300 to the earlier W130, it's clear that the new camera is much better at handling colors, which are now much more accurate. The white balancing gives neutral colors without any particular shade dominating, but the result is a little cold. The Carl Zeiss lens, which only features a 3x zoom, still doesn't offer a wide-angle feature, which is a shame, and if the center of each image is nice and sharp, the edges are often a little less clear.
In general, distortion is well handled, although we still spotted a few instances of chromatic aberration and rather noticeable purple fringing in areas with particularly high contrast. The real strength of this camera, though, is its ability to manage noise, even on very high speed exposures. Images are impeccably sharp all the way up to 400 ISO, and only show a very slight blurriness at higher speeds.
Despite the increasingly visible graininess, all of the details remain visible. This graininess shows up when you look at the image on screen, but was very hard to spot when made prints on A4--which offered stunning quality that stood up well to a comparison with the Fujifilm F100fd, our reference in this field up to now.
The macro mode is acceptable with focusing at 5-cm, but elsewhere, the competition manage to get this down to 1-cm. Pairing the ClearRAW noise reduction system with optic stabilization gives good results, even when the camera is held in the hand.
As for video, the results are nothing special given the inability to zoom, but 30 fps is still perfectly acceptable. Nevertheless, we remain disappointed to see that it was impossible to shoot video in Full HD. Despite the inclusion of an HD output, the sticker on the camera that proudly declares 'Full HD 1920 x 1080 pixels' only applies to still photos... which is about the least you'd expect with over 13 Megapixels.
| Sony DSC-W300 | |
|---|---|
| Pluses | Minuses |
|
|






































should have classified the cameras to at least price and/or final rating. i got discouraged to read.
should have classified the cameras to at least price and/or final rating. i got discouraged to read.
When you say classified, what do you mean? Do you mean the pages should go in order of price, or in order of rating? Such as the cheap ones at the beginning and the expensive ones at the end OR the best cameras at the top and the worst cameras at the bottom?
i meant group them by chosen price ranges/brackets or any feature you think is relevant since comparison between cameras is just difficult with the present format wherein it is only possible to compare models of a certain brand.
It would have been nice if all the cameras were given scores (yes I know this is very subjective, but so are all the comments and pro/con sections). Idealy they would be given su scores as well (i.e. a still picture score, a video score, a asthetics score, a usablity score, maybe some others) and then the cameras could be sorted by those scores with links, maybey a short blurb at each camera in the sorted list. Another thing that would be very usefull to myself and I assume other readers is a features table that allows us to compare all the cameras.