After comparison on the functions and also made reference on the test result from web site, I finally decided to buy Sony¡¦s DSC-V1 in lieu of Contax¡¦s TVSD which save me about US$170. But there is no carrying case included which cost additional $US25 for a Sony case. You could see the web page {
} for full review for both models. Test result from web site gives Sony ¡§excellent¡¨ image quality but only ¡§good¡¨ image quality for Contax. It may be the factors of smaller aperture, CCD type, noise reduction ability and exposure control, etc that deteriorate Contax¡¦s final image quality.
My additional reasons to give up Contax are as follows: -
I use Contax C/Y prime lenses for travel purpose. I also have a TVSIII. Optical quality for a TVSIII zoom is not comparable to C/Y prime lenses. At 8x12 enlargement, the difference is substantial. I would expect that TVSD would be more or less at the grade of TVSIII. My required enlargement for digital picture is 4R to 5R and I would avoid 8x12. For a compact zoom lens selection, the minor difference (if exists) between the optical quality from TVSD vs Sony DSC-V1 because of the lack of T* coating is tolerable if this could save me about US$170.
At 2594 x 1944 pixel (Sony) or 2560 x 1920 (Contax), when converting to 24x 36mm film scale, it would mean about 70 pixel per mm. The equivalent theoretical maximum resolution is limited to about 35 line per mm. You can¡¦t expect magic result from either brand.
Aperture value is quite an important factor for me for low lighting and indoor shooting without flash where Sony could have f3.2 at 2X, f3.5 at 3X and f4 at 4X which is about 1 stop faster than TVSD. It means that you could have an equivalent gain from ISO200 to ISO100 in indoor condition to reduce picture noise.
My Aria uses Metz 32 Z-2. Sony could use external flash which could accept my Metz 32 Z-2 on its non-TTL tele-computer apertures mode for distance group photos at f4 or f8 at ISO100.
Additional advantages from Sony include 2:3 frame format select which is convenience for me for photo processing, full manual control, higher LCD pixels, TIFF format storage, exclusive hologram AF in dark, 640x480 mega movie ability.
My additional reasons to give up Contax are as follows: -
I use Contax C/Y prime lenses for travel purpose. I also have a TVSIII. Optical quality for a TVSIII zoom is not comparable to C/Y prime lenses. At 8x12 enlargement, the difference is substantial. I would expect that TVSD would be more or less at the grade of TVSIII. My required enlargement for digital picture is 4R to 5R and I would avoid 8x12. For a compact zoom lens selection, the minor difference (if exists) between the optical quality from TVSD vs Sony DSC-V1 because of the lack of T* coating is tolerable if this could save me about US$170.
At 2594 x 1944 pixel (Sony) or 2560 x 1920 (Contax), when converting to 24x 36mm film scale, it would mean about 70 pixel per mm. The equivalent theoretical maximum resolution is limited to about 35 line per mm. You can¡¦t expect magic result from either brand.
Aperture value is quite an important factor for me for low lighting and indoor shooting without flash where Sony could have f3.2 at 2X, f3.5 at 3X and f4 at 4X which is about 1 stop faster than TVSD. It means that you could have an equivalent gain from ISO200 to ISO100 in indoor condition to reduce picture noise.
My Aria uses Metz 32 Z-2. Sony could use external flash which could accept my Metz 32 Z-2 on its non-TTL tele-computer apertures mode for distance group photos at f4 or f8 at ISO100.
Additional advantages from Sony include 2:3 frame format select which is convenience for me for photo processing, full manual control, higher LCD pixels, TIFF format storage, exclusive hologram AF in dark, 640x480 mega movie ability.
