Sony DSC-M1: Good Video, Disappointing Pictures
by Stephen Caston on June 20, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
The Timing Tests
* NOTE: For all of our time tests, the camera is reset to its factory default settings and set to record using the highest resolution and quality setting. It is set to record in Auto mode. We also disabled all sounds. A 512 MB Memory Stick Pro Duo card was used.Before reading our results, please refer to our Testing Procedures page.
Startup Time
The startup time is recorded from the moment that the power button is pushed to the moment that the shutter sounds. The camera is set to record in Auto mode.| Startup time (seconds) | |
| Sony DSC-M1 | 1.76 |
| Pentax Optio X | 3.37 |
| Canon PowerShot S60 | 3.98 |
Startup time is not a problem at all for this camera. Compared to other compact 5 megapixel cameras that we have tested, its 1.76 sec. startup time is incredible. This has a lot to do with the internal lens system (also seen on the popular T1 camera). Since the camera uses folded optics, there is no need for a telescoping lens to protrude from the camera body. In fact, the 5 megapixel DSC-F88 has the same type of lens system and takes nearly the same amount of time to startup (1.73 sec.).
Auto-Focus and Shutter Lag
To record shutter lag, we perform two tests with the lens at its widest angle setting. For the first test, we pre-focus the lens and measure the amount of time that it takes the camera to take a picture after the shutter button is pressed. The second test measures the time that it takes for the camera to take a picture after we press the shutter button without pre-focusing. Each test is performed 3 times and the results are averaged. For more information regarding our testing procedures, please refer to our Testing Procedures page.| With Pre-focus (seconds) | Without Pre-focus (seconds) | |
| Sony DSC-M1 | 0.01 | 0.24 |
| Pentax Optio X | 0.09 | 0.92 |
| Canon PowerShot S60 | 0.08 | 0.69 |
As we've come to expect from Sony's digicams, shutter lag and auto-focus are very fast. When the camera is pre-focused, the shutter lag is so fast that it is less than a hundredth of a second. When we included focusing in the test, the M1 took only 0.24 sec. to focus and take a picture after pressing the shutter button. This is even faster than the DSC-L1, which we thought was incredible at 0.31 sec. The M1 is now the fastest compact digicam that we have ever tested in terms of focus and shutter lag.
Write Times
We recorded 5 different write times with a SanDisk 512 MB Memory Stick Pro Duo:Single Shot - The time that it takes for a single picture to be written completely to the flash card (the time that the "activity light" is on).
Shot To Shot (STS) - The time until the second shot can be taken after the first (shutter to shutter).
Shot To Shot w/Flash - The time that it takes the camera to take two pictures with the flash, starting from the moment that the first flash is fired to the moment that the second is fired.
Shot To Shot w/Buffer Full - The time between the last shot of a burst that fills the buffer to the moment that the shutter sounds again.
Clear Buffer - The time that it takes the camera to clear the buffer after a full burst of pictures is taken.
We performed each test three times and averaged the results. Below are the resolution, quality setting, and average file size used for the tests.
| Resolution (pixels) | Quality setting | Avg. file size (MB) | |
| Sony DSC-M1 | 2592x1944 | Fine | 2.22 |
| Pentax Optio X | 2560x1920 | Best | 2.51 |
| Canon PowerShot S60 | 2592x1944 | SuperFine | 2.05 |
| Single Shot | Shot to Shot | Shot to Shot w/Flash | Shot to Shot w/Buffer Full | Clear Buffer | |
| Sony DSC-M1 | 1.06 | 1.11 | 6.93 | N/A | 5.26 |
| Pentax Optio X | N/A | 4.39 | 5.96 | N/A | N/A |
| Canon PowerShot S60 | 2.73 | 1.87 | 5.54 | 3.67 | N/A |
The M1 has a very respectable shot-to-shot time at 1.11 sec. without the flash. However, when the flash is used, the M1 slows to nearly 7 seconds between shots. The M1 is so fast at flushing images out of its buffer that the buffer will never fill up when shooting in the normal recording mode. In other words, the camera can take a picture every 1.11 sec. until the memory card fills up. With the M1 in "Speed Burst" mode, it can take up to 4 frames at 4.17 fps. The camera then takes 5.26 sec. to clear those 4 images out to the buffer before more images can be taken. Unfortunately, the M1 is unable to take pictures while files are being written to the flash card - you must wait until all 4 are written. Overall, the M1 has very impressive write/cycle times compared to similar cameras that we have reviewed. However, this camera is definitely not the fastest if you plan on using the flash very often.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
View All Comments
Gatak - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
#14, #11:My mistake. I read up on the NTSC standards. Originally they wanted 60Hz to avoid interference from the 60Hz power lines and also to use as syncronization for some camcorders. But they later choose 59.94Hz. The old b&w TV was 60FPS though.
Still, 59.94 or 29.97Hz seem strange to me. Converting a 24FPS FILM source would work just nice to 30 or 60FPS. (24x1,25=30, 48x1,25=60). The whole concept of using telecine is horrid to me:
1) reduce speed from 24fps to 23.976fps
2) split frames into fields
3) insert one new field every 4 fields.
4 playback with jerkiness!!!
Why not keep the 60Hz and at least remove step 1 in this list?
At least with PAL you would only have the first step, although they use 4,17% speedup instead. Some say it is worse, but I think it renders motion a lot better. Not to mention the almost 20% better resolution of PAL.
Locut0s - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
My original quip about "multi-use" products could probably use a little clearing up. I am not against the idea of a product that integrates more than one feature. And in fact there are examples of products that I own that do just that and that I am happy with, like the printer/scanner/copier here. However my experience is that more often than not features are tacked onto products not to add another good feature but to add another line to the "features" list for marketing. I too would be happy with a video camera that takes sub par but still very good stills. But more often than not you end up with a video camera that not only takes sub par stills but they are blury and the feature seems like an afterthought, barely integrated with the rest of the features and cumbersome to work with in the software.PrinceGaz - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
I'm cool with devices that do more than one function, but they must do every function well else in my opinion it is a non-function. So for instance the nGage which combined a baadly designed game console, with a cumbersome mobile phone, and a poor PDA, failed on every count and deservedly was a total flop as basically it was a device that did nothing well.A decent camera that takes substandard video-clips is fine by me, as it is still a camera and that is what I want from it. Similarly a camcorder with substandard still-image shooting (like the DSC-M1 reviewed) is still a camcorder and tbh I wouldn't really expect it to rival the still-image picture quality of a dedicated high mega-pixel camera. Oh sure it would be great if it did, but that's not of any real concern. It may have been best to review the DSC-M1 from the point of view of it being a camcorder, with higher resolution still image shots as just an extra feature. It certainly looks like a camcorder.
As for batteries, like I said I prefer AA's but as others have mentioned, they are larger because you generally need two to four to power most gadgets. I see NiMH AA capacities of 2400mAh are now readly available so thy continue to rise. Another reason to favour AA cells- as battery technology improves, you can get longer life cells cheaply. Certainly beats paying £30/$50 for some proprietary battery that is only available from the product manufacturer.
SDA - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
Like johnmcl7, I prefer AAs. Definitely bigger, but they offer better battery life, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to replace dead NiMH AAs than dead proprietary Li-Ion batteries. Remember, Li-Ion batteries have a hard three-year limit on useful lifetime even if they're not used at all.. kind of sucks if they haven't been made in a while.I don't really care how many things a device does so long as it's reasonably good at all or most of them. Problem is, that doesn't hold true for a LOT of gear. Not that it doesn't for this, of course.
GoatMonkey - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
It's pretty narrow to think that you should need a separate device for everything. Why should you? You can share common storage and batteries easy enough. You can share a common LCD screen and most of the control buttons. You can share a common CPU between the devices. Maybe if they would start to see these devices as small scale computers instead of just a camera, just a video recorder, just a phone, just an mp3 player, just a PDA, just a GPS...I don't see a reason that you can't have a device that is a common platform for each of these things where you could just attach the physical pieces that you want or need. There is no reason that the physical devices even need to be attached to the central platform if you're using Bluetooth, or whatever its successor is, Bluetooth 2 maybe?
I imagine an mp3 player that plays to a wireless bluetooth headset. Maybe that wireless headset could actually contain a processor a camera lense. I hate to say it, but I think people are going to be walking around looking like Borgs in about 3-5 years.
Johnmcl7 - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
#9 - That attitude is just a bit daft, why limit devices to one function when they are capable of more than that? The expectation with combination devices is that they must be able to replace all the separate devices of which they attempt to offer the functionality of. I don't see it that way, I don't think my digital camera offers anything like the quality and functionality of a proper video camera, however I don't expect it to either - I'm glad to get some video capability, which is acceptable for me without having to carry another device with me.On the subject of batteries, I prefer AA batteries where possible, although on small cameras they can increase the size quite a bit. I went from the proprietary li-ion battery on the Fuji 4900z to 4xAA batteries in the S7000, it significantly increases the size and weight of the camera but it lasts far, far longer plus it's great being able to use any batteries, when I run out of power and really need some batteries I can just pop into a shop and grab some. Have to say, I'm very impressed with the battery in the Canon Ixus 500, it is a propietary battery but unlike other compact cameras I've used, the batterylife is surpsisingly good, I thought I would have to charge it up often but I only have to charge it occasionally, it's great that's always ready when I need it.
John
xt8088 - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
#10, that's the standard frame rate for NTSC TV stanard(North American, Japan, Taiwan and etc use it).xt8088 - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
Though, the Li-ion battery is smaller and lighter, that's more important for smaller P&S cameras.xt8088 - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
#8: I agree. I was trying to say something like that. Proprietary Li-ion battery is way too expensive. But the calculation of capacity is more just mAH. You need to multiply the Votage to get correct capacity. 3.6V 680mAh 3.6V 680mAh almost the same as 1 NiMH AA 2000mAH@1.2V. Anyway, 2 or more such AA batteries have much more battery life than the proprietary one.stephencaston - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
Gatak, yes this is the original video straight from the camera. I agree on your FPS concept...I would hope that advanced features like that are available in future MPEG4 cameras.