Taking the camera for a spin, a few quirks quickly became apparent: the top dial, which is also used an an on/off switch, sticks out a little bit too much, and when using the camera in a tight belt pouch the camera sometimes turns on when taking the camera out of the pouch (not a big deal) or even putting it in (more annoying). The viewfinder is somewhat imprecise at the long end. Holding the camera in landscape mode against the naked eye didn't exhibit any problem, but in portrait mode when wearing glasses framing with the viewfinder was problematic. I guess that I could get used to it, but on a first spin is was a small disappointment. Not a big deal, though, since the rear LCD is bright enough to use as a viewfinder, with its pleasantly high refresh rate. Unfortunately it takes 6 button presses to turn that feature on and off. Those are minor quirks, though, and they don't really get in the way of taking good pictures. After a dozen shots I had learned to work around them and didn't think about them any more.
The available angles of view might seem limited (only a 2x zoom with no wide angles and no long foval lengths to speak of), but in reality it turned out to be a very versatile range. The wide end is wide enough to capture a natural-feeling view, the long end allows to frame head-and shoulder portraits without having to get too close, so that the resulting look is flattering.
For a while when shooting, I felt an urge to control the shooting aperture, and the CX7220 doesn't have any such control. The EXIF information tells the whole story: there is no aperture stop in the lens, it is always used wide open, only the shutter speed is used to control the exposure. This surprised me at first, but it quickly became apparent that it was a good idea: the lens is pretty slow to start with (f/3.8-f/5), and with the pixel size on the sensor (2.8 microns) there would be no point stopping down beyond f/5.6 because of diffraction. With the tiny sensor the depth of field is already massive, it is never a limiting factor. I am somewhat puzzled at the difference between the auto, portrait and lanscape modes, since the aperture is the same, and I guess that the only difference has to do with the distances at which the camera expects to focus. I wish that the camera had a histogram view or at least an indication for overexposure, but in reality I found that overexposed pictures looked overexposed when reviewed on the LCD, and exposure compensation did a perfect job.
Finally, the moment of truth: the image quality. This is where I had a big surprise: the pictures look good. Really good. Exposure is almost always perfect, focus has no problem. Chromatic aberrations are very well controlled, there is barely a hint of magenta-green aberrations (less than a pixel), and only a small trace of blue fringing in UV-rich areas. Distortion is well controlled. Colors are vivid but natural, in-camera sharpening is set to just the right amount. I did a test print, straight out of the camera to my HP 7960 with no post-processing whatsoever, and the resulting 4x6 was excellent. My only complaint with the image quality is that the JPEG compression is quite aggressive, and at high magnifications it becomes quite visible. That is certainly not a problem when printing a 4x6 (272 dpi), but bigger enlargements can suffer (there's only 153 dpi for an 8x10 print, less if you crop). It's ironic that 6 years ago Kodak had the same problem in their DC260 and added a super-fine mode in the DC265 with a less aggressive JPEG compression, and yet that in 2005 they still haven't figured out that it is a serious issue. Certainly I am not used to seeing JPEG artifacts in unprocessed pictures straight out of the camera at the highest quality setting.
As a conclusion, the CX7220 is a jewel of a camera (especially for less than $70 that it currently sells for). For an extremely low price, it takes pictures worth printing and hanging on a wall, something that I couldn't say of my expensive DC265 a few years ago. Small-sensor digital cameras have made a lot of progress. If you want a camera that is small and light enough to go anywhere, won't cost much to replace if it gets damaged, and takes great pictures, that's the one. I started out highly skeptical of the image quality, thinking that such a camera would only be good for e-mail snapshots, and I ended up playing with a very capable imager. This is the kind of toy that any self-respecting geek must have. And if you have an old digital camera and aren't happy with the image quality, maybe you should consider an upgrade. I am certainly planning to keep such a camera with me for all the opportunities where hauling around my high-end equipment isn't appropriate.
- "Kodak review, Page 1/2"
- "Kodak review, Page 2/2"
