Can a camcorder beat a camera at its own game?
As you know by now, I recently got a Sony HDR-SR11
The Megapixel Game
Digital camera manufacturers would have us believe that the more megapixels a camera has the better photos it will take. Even today’s dinky point and shoot digital cameras post megapixel numbers that would embarrass DSLRs from a few years ago. But I guarantee that the old DSLR will take a better photo than that new-fangled point-and-shoot camera. Optics, sensor size, and onboard processing are all a lot more important to overall image quality than megapixel count. Sure, more megapixels means bigger prints, but who among us ever makes sheets of wallpaper from our vacation photos?
Sony felt that they had to join in on this game with the HDR-SR11, and in order to insure an astounding megapixel number they actually cheat! You see, as I mentioned in my first impressions review, the camcorder has a 5.66 megapixel sensor. So how does a 5.66 MP sensor produce a 10.2 MP image? Simple, the same way you’d create a larger image in Photoshop: interpolation. The camera uses onboard processing to automatically stretch the image. Cheesy, no?
What to Compare?
Despite the fact that Sony are big-time cheaters, let’s go ahead and compare the images from the HDR-SR11 to a digital camera. I don’t think a DSLR would be a fair comparison; the still-photo feature of the camcorder is more akin to a typical point-and-shooter in terms of features. Luckily, I happen to have a decent point-and-shooter handy. It’s the Olympus Stylus 770SW
Outdoor Landscape
In these two photos there are some interesting differences. First, if you view the two full size you’ll see that the 770SW image has more detail; the individual pine needles and leaves are crisper in the second image. It’s clear the “10.2 megapixel” images are interpolated. The HDR-SR11 image has much higher contrast and warmer colors. To my eye, the 770SW colors look more accurate here; the sky in the SR11 photo looks aqua instead of blue. My pick: 770SW
On a cloudy day the difference in color and contrast is even more apparent. The HDR-SR11 seems to be tuned to produce a very warm, contrasty image at the expense of color accuracy. Again the 770SW has more detail. My pick: 770SW
Outdoor Macro
The zoom is slightly off in these two pictures, but overall they are very closely matched. The SR11 image seems slightly over-exposed and too warm compared to the 770SW image. Differences in detail are very hard to notice. My pick: 770SW
Oddly enough, this time the 770SW image is warmer than the SR11, but the SR11 colors look more accurate. The SR11 image is much sharper than the 770SW; the focus was likely slightly off on the 770SW. My pick: HDR-SR11
Indoor
Again the biggest difference is in how the cameras handle color. In this shot, the SR11 does a much better job with white balance. The colors here are very accurate to what I saw with my own eyes. The 770SW just barely edges out the SR11 in detail, but the differences are hard to spot. (Look at the edges of the large shell to see what I mean.) My pick: HDR-SR11
The 770SW’s auto white balance did such a poor job for this setting that I switched it to the “incandescent” white balance mode for this photo. The 770SW image is a lot noisier and has a slightly greenish cast. The SR11 has a slightly redish cast, but the colors seem more natural. Detail is about the same. My Pick: HDR-SR11
Conclusion
Tallying up the score, we find that I preferred the HDR-SR11 images half the time and the 770SW the other half. A tie! While this test isn’t totally conclusive, I think it’s pretty safe to say that the HDR-SR11 can fill in as a perfectly decent point and shoot camera when the opportunity presents itself. The fact that the camcorder provides some good camera-mode manual controls (exposure shift, white-balance shift, manual focus) means that the images can be tailored to one’s own photographic tastes. It’s also likely that with some tweaking of camera settings the color and exposure issues seen in the first three comparisons would go away. The only real downside seems to be the phony 10.2 MP images, which clearly aren’t are detailed as the images from the 7.1 MP camera. Overall I’m impressed with the versatility of the Sony HDR-SR11; it takes beautiful HD video and some decent still photos too!
9 Comments
Leave a comment
[...] UPDATE 3/31/08 The still image testing of the HDR-SR11 is now available here. [...]
Very interesting. I guess that you would still have to carry the 7.1 camera anyways. I am sure I will get it the HDR-SR11 the video is just so awesome. I am sure it would look great in my new 46 inch. Bravia… My main concern was the compatibility with an Imac 07 but that was perfectly clarified in your previous review.
[...] How important are still photos? As shown in my article Can a camcorder beat a camera at its own game?, the Sony Sony HDR-SR11 and HDR-SR12 can take some darned good still photos. If you want one device [...]
I bought a SR11 today and the still photos have a very disappointing quality according to my first tests. I am hoping the settings are bad. Let’s see…
What in particular was disappointing?
Pretty interesting, and the indoor shots show that camcorders have come a long way in taking stills, from “useless” to “sort of useful”. Still, they’re being compared to a 770SW, not exactly a good compact itself (and which can ironically/idiotically only take 10 second 640×480 vids). I’ll probably get a SR11, since the Canon HF10 doesn’t have a viewfinder (again, idiotic). For stills, I’ll still use my DSLR, as there’s no contest. Yes, people, if you want good pics, don’t expect a camcorder or compact to perform miracles.
Thanks for the review.
I encountered the same problem the 10.2 Megapixel quality is Just rediculues I guess Sony really degraded itself by such cheating, The cheap is of course 5.6 Mega pixel but don’t forget that the effective picture is almost 3 mega pixel because in contrast with Photo cameras such as Canon the Sensor is CMOS and not a CCD. CMOS provides lower quality in images however it uses less power thus its better for camcorders. Any way I have a Canon A700 which is 6.1 Mega pixel camera and the pictures are way way better than 10.2M SR11 pics I bought recently. I wonder is there an ultimate solution to have a camcorder which can take a good photo too? The fact that almost all handycams has a very good optical mechanisms but no company has ever tried to really use this advantage for photograpy. No ompany has ever emmbeded the cheap mechanical devices of reall still camera into a handycam. Is this a marketing policy? or scientific limitation? a Canon A700 is only round 300$ and I’m suer that all those mechanical parts and CCD wouldn’t cost more than a 100$. Why no comany tries to really & finally make such Hybrid device so that finally one device can do both things with perfection??Can any one email me about this? My email is (rkasr@yahoo.com)
[...] while back I asked the question, “Can a camcorder beat a camera at its own game?” Apparently Nikon and Canon feel that I should have asked the opposite question, as they have [...]
thnx for the stills! I read it somewhere that it’s the interpolation that gives 10 MP but elsewhere I just read that the camcorder took 10 MP – which was hard for me to believe!
I’ve a question regarding the Lux and thot of asking you abt it. I’ve seen some miniDV cams requiring minimum 2 lux and still giving grainy footage then how come this latest camera is requiring a minimum of 5 lux light?? (let’s keep the nightshot ‘greeny’ look on the side).
I wud appreciate if u can reply or point in the right direction!