Mini-Review-The Sony V-3
Posted on: Mon, 06/16/2008 - 5:09am
Online
Mini-Review-The Sony V-3
The Sony V-3 still continues to be my choice for a back up do-it-all P/S rangefinder. With decent ISO performance, 7.2megapixels, Raw and Tiff support, optical viewfinder, night-shot infrared shooting, movie mode, excellent metal body construction, 2.5" lcd, and a rather sharp Carl Zeiss Sonnar lens, it is still difficult to beat with todays point and shoot offerings. That says something with all the advances that have been made and this camera being introduced in late 2004.
My only real gripe about the Sony V-3 is the fact that the range of focal length is rather boring (not wide enough and not enough telephoto), the lens protrudes and retracts rather slow (real slow), and the interface can be a bit frustrating at times unless you use the camera frequently. On image quality, the small (but by todays standards decent sized for a compact) image sensor lacks enough dynamic range to really please me overall (hence it's back up status), but raw and Tiff files can take a decent amount of post processing.
One reason I keep coming back to it is because of the raw support and the ability to be able to pull out as much detail out of this little thing as possible. In a pinch, I can do prints to 13x19 and get excellent sharp results. Performance wise, it keeps up rather well even to todays standards. I find it hard to beat in image quality to any current compact and will gladly stand behind it against just about any compact. The only other compact I believe can "hang" with it is the Canon S-70 overall. In fact, I'd give a slight edge to the Canon overall as an active hikers lightweight do-it-all camera in terms of build features and image quality (the latter being very close imo).
If I had my way, I'd do a re-design of the V-3 and change very little about it. Here is my list of changes I would make on the V-3 to satisfy my needs (and probably others as well).
1. Slim down the body and grip just a tad (a slightly flatter taller camera would be more attractive)
2. Keep the 2.5" lcd and add a permanent poly-carb cover, and increase the resolution to 230K current standards.
3. Speed up the lens mechanics, and increase the focal range to 28-180mm (35mm EQ.) from 34-128mm.
4. Increase the optical viewfinder coverage to at least 90% with a bigger window, and a small eyecup.
5. 8mp sensor capable to 1600 ISO.
6. Image stabilized sensor
7. Real A700 style DRO+ (applied to Tiff files, or an Extra Fine Jpeg offering)
That would satisfy my minimum requirements and I would buy one like that tomorrow if it were available.
What I still like is the layout of the V3, and its almost fully successful rangefinder styling. The zoom toggle is a bit flat and small but that would be ok if the lens were quicker to zoom in and out. The media switch on the back is nice to have as well as the lcd lights next to the viewfinder for various optical status reminders. The top rotating mode adjustment dial is made too well, it feels like cut-by-a-diamond perfect, all metal and precise clicks. Just a wonderful ornament on this camera.
The on-board flash build seems a bit off with the slightly out of alignment in the cradle appearance, and that doesn't seem inline with the rest of the cameras build. Good thing however is the fact that it never failed to work correctly, for that I forgive this little annoyance.
Really it is a fully featured camera, with a hot shoe, fully manual features, excellent auto features, a laser grid Hologram auto focus assist lamp that is unrivaled in its ability to take sharp focused shots in complete darkness (that for some reason completely disappeared in the lineup until the H-50 came out recently.)
The V3 really is only limited with its excellent feature set to some quirky decisions in certain modes to do only certain things. Like the fact that Night Shot can only be used in Auto or Program mode, and you cannot use the zoom lever in Movie mode, etc. Little things that can be worked out in the firmware.
But all those things aside, I love this camera, still. I have easily earned 10x the original price in image sales from it (and I even sometimes tell clients that I used a point and shoot to get the shot they picked out, which normally surprises them with a subsequent "no way!" reaction).
One of the more frustrating trends I see on the market is a lack of do it all compacts coming to the forefront. Ricoh is the closest I can find of a current make that really has the balls to make an excellent compact. Canon has tried the G9 and done pretty well, but Nikon is failing miserably with the P5100 against it. Too many megapixels and not enough focus on real features we need seems to be a marketing ploy and has nothing to do with the photographers desires in a product. Luckily I am noticing a trend from manufacturers to slow down the MP race, and lets hope for all of our sake it slides towards total image quality rather than minature pixels crammed together that cannot gather enough light. 8mp should be the max and good enough to do excellent large prints in the right hands.
Rant aside, I'd like to see a successor to the V3. In some form or another. The fact that this camera still sells for about 80% of its original retail price new on Ebay and other vendors 4 years later, is either a testament to its design or a red flag to manufacturers from consumers stating "go back to the way you used to do it!".
Carl
__________________
-AlphaMountWorld Chef
"Everyone please stay out of the kitchen, mad chef at work"
The V3 is what I used before getting the A100, and I jump back to it on occasion, mostly for traveling lighter. I can take the V3 on a short plane trip without thinking about it. In a pinch, I can stuff it into a (large) pocket. It's just more convenient sometimes. And, the picture quality is pretty good.
Having said that, I consistently get better shots with the A100. For one thing, the SSS helps particularly with low-light situations. If you think the A100 is noisy, try looking at ISO 400 or 800 on the V3! ISO 400 on the V3 is probably worse than 800 on the A100. That's part of the compromise of a smaller sensor. (But yet it's a bit bigger than many cameras these days, so it still has an edge.)
Quality-wise, I think it has the tendency to have a bit of PF. In a pinch, I have used Paint Shop Pro to effectively all but eliminate it when necessary. RAW allows for much more dynamic range. I believe it has more bits per pixel than the Alpha series! (Not sure if those bits actually have 14 bits of real information or just noise at the bottom, but still...) The camera makes great photos overall. You almost don't need a DSLR, with this camera. :-)
Unfortunately, even with Sony's add-on telephoto lens adapter, it still isn't quite enough zoom. And, as Carl mentioned, it's not terribly wide either. And in low light, it's not particularly great either! Even though its lens is f2.8, it does not perform any better than, say, an f4.0 lens on the A100. So, for indoors, the A100 with the kit lens is about a draw, but if you use an f2.8 lens (or better), the A100 becomes so much more effective indoors. So, I could find reasons to go with a DSLR.
You have to wonder if Sony saw reasons not to enhance the V3 and impact the DSLR sales.
And I love this one because it really seems to be the big question- "You have to wonder if Sony saw reasons not to enhance the V3 and impact the DSLR sales."
My question is, who has the courage to try? I say it doesn't impact sales nearly as much as they may think. Why? Because anyone with enough knowledge about cameras to want a fully featured compact are in the minority, typically. Those wanting to move up to a dslr are still learning about cameras and DSLRs no matter what will still offer much more than a compact will. So many reasons to list.
Full featured compact lovers are in the minority, I believe this. Besides, it will attract attention and if there is an impact it will only serve to make the DSLR line-up even more feature packed.
The H50 is so close to this camera, why not enable raw support on it and get the lens down to say 28-350 or so?
From early developments it looks as though the H50 is a better camera than the H7 and H9 but... :)
Dunno, maybe ill purchase the H50 and give it a go here for a full review, contemplating.
C
-AlphaMountWorld Chef
"Everyone please stay out of the kitchen, mad chef at work"
I don't think the H-series is a V-series replacement, although, it's clear that they are popular. I must admit I haven't looked into the H50 at all...
Anyway, Sigma thinks there is a niche market available, as they have developed the DP1. Its most glaring fault/omission/compromise is the lack of optical zoom, not even a short range one. They are using a full DSLR (APS-C) sized sensor, though, for DSLR quality and sensitivity. And, as mentioned, Canon is still doing it with their G-series, although for the G7, the dropped RAW, and the camera seems a bit too small, IMHO.
I think that there is still a niche market for a middle-sized P&S, rangefinder-looking, camera with a larger-than-most-P&S-cameras sensor, and a modest zoom. And without the annoying CLACK you get with the SLR cameras -- often distracting.
Having RAW for the V3, even though it is extremely slow writing to the memory card, is a huge advantage for when you want to get the best out of the camera.
One of the things I like about the V3 is that it has a pretty fast response for the shutter and other operations, such as the menu system. Most small cameras just annoy me with a lot of "lag" and delay, but the V3 is pretty snappy. I guess Sony just has better CPUs in their stuff, or maybe they pay more attention to the user experience than their competitors. Weird.
I forgot to add...
Key to everything is price. I paid less for my A100, with a kit lens, than I did for the V3. But at that time, you couldn't get even a low-end DSLR for near that price.
That could be also be a good reason why we don't see a V3 replacement today -- it would cost as much as the low-end DSLRs.
If Sigma sells DP1 in any significant numbers, I think that'll determine if there's any market at all for this sort of camera.
Thanks for the review, Carl. I read through it, googled up some specs and other reviews, saw the night shot configuration and when, "hmmmmm". Then I went to evilBay and bought one.
I really like the little beast. Sure, it's a bit slow writing to the card (and I had to go buy a new MS having misplaced the pro duo adapter I have lurking somewhere) but the only real kick I have on it is the optical viewfinder is in the wrong place. The lcd would be so much happier with a bit less intimacy with my nose.
But the little 'cam has been a hoot and I've been having a blast with a 950nm IR filter.
Going price now seems to be two bills. That brings usuable IR in well under $300 . . . which ain't bad.
Daryl
http://www.modelmayhem.com/BigHatPix
http://www.modelmayhem.com/Essential
(WARNING: Essential contains nudity)
glad to write it, albeit a small review.
Even with the new found love of the Ricoh GX200, I cannot find a reason to sell my V-3. I will always have this camera, and cannot see myself ever selling it as long as it works for me. For indoor higher ISO portraits and family videos, this camera will fill that niche a bit better than the Ricoh.
Indoors V3, outdoors Ricoh GX200. Simple as that for me, now.
Carl
-AlphaMountWorld Chef
"Everyone please stay out of the kitchen, mad chef at work"
I too often use it without flash, and that is often bad indoors. I am so used to the A100 with more light-gathering and SSS on top of that. So, seeing that it's good for indoors seems a bit odd to me at first glance.
But, the camera is what it is, and I think it's an all-around good performer for a P&S. I took it on a recent trip, and while I would have gotten better pics with the A100, I carried the V3 everywhere (which I either wouldn't have for the other, or it would have just irritated me).
While using the V3, I kept wondering, is it Good Enough for most use? Do we really need DSLRs with all of these extra lenses? Actually, I don't think I've ever sat the two next to each other and tried to make a comparison. Reviewing photos from my trip, I do think that I would have gotten better results with the A100, but printed at 4x6 or probably even 5x7, it doesn't matter.
I did more processing of some of my photos. It's funny, now that I'm used to the A100, I can pick out all of these flaws on my V3 shots!
The dynamic range isn't quite as good as the A100, I don't think. The corners sometimes seem poor, and CA is sometimes a problem (with buildings against sky). I think the A100 with the kit lens would be a good match for this camera, and probably do a better job.
I think the V3 did a great job of exposing the subject well, but this sometimes led to the sky being washed out, or clouds blown out.
SO, I guess I am firmly back into the "yes, we really do need DSLRs" camp. ;-) I'm still keeping my V3, though. When size is a factor, something has to give.