Isn't the biggest HDTV resolution 1920x1080? Which is about 2 'megapixels'?

So they are saying that their camera has at least 2 megapixels? Wow!

It's marketing spin aimed at idiots who think 1080p displays are 'high resolution'.

The same type of people who buy PS3's, for example

I’m afraid one simply cannot pass judgement on noise and detail on photos that have been downscaled (as opposed to cropped – which these are not) by a factor of over 10 to 1. The noise of the 10 pixels (use to generate the single recorded pixel) will be averaged out and reduced by a factor of 10 (although only about a third of these pixels are genuine, the rest are interpolated); hence the ISO 1600 photo is actually the equivalent of ISO500 - so it's not as good as you might think..

Even with the downscaling, what’s that horrid smudge on the left hand side of the photos?

The 'HD' refers to its ability to directly output a by 1080 line image from the camera itself (using the optional lead).

If you use the direct video out of most digital cameras it will be at standard definition NTSC or PALish. Thats a shame if you've shot a 10MP image and have a HiDef display and have to look at a scaled up VGAish image when you show your friends. Of course 2MP won't show the full potential of the source but it will look substantially better.

and does it have a Tripod adapter/fitting on the bottom?

Sure, you don't buy this sort of camera for use typically at events where a tripod would normally be used, but its sure nice to have one for low light, night pictures etc. I have a DSC T1 and its a decent enough camera, but I'm constantly frustrated by the lack of a Tripod...

my T70 has a tripod adaptor so I'd assume the T200 has too, best thing pop into a shop, ask to look and if it does buy it (hey I'm old fasioned enough to still buy products in shops)

If you're going to review a camera, at least show that you can take worthwhile pictures.

Oranges?

Overgrown garden?

Give up reviewing, take up gardening, and don't come back.

As said above in "Noise and Detail" for 1 thing downscaled images won't tell how much noise was there to start with. But my bigger grievance is that as said in the review that pics are taken at 200, 1600 and 3200 ISO, whereas, EXIF tag tells they are 80, 400 and 1600 respectively. many lenses of this day perform pretty good at 400 but saying it was 1600.... well.... this review is no good. Guess it was a Christmas gift for the author from Sony.

Ugh? I thought Sony had grown up and ditched this proprietary nonsense.

If you have a PS3, can't you take the memory stick out of the camera and place it in there? If so, do you need the HD cable?

Yes, if you've got a PS3, or a 360 for that matter, it's pretty simple to connect the camera straight to the console to view images in HD. I tend to dump them onto the PC and view them streamed over the network, personally.

The only really interesting thing about the camera in this respect is that it allows you to (relatively) easily frame a 16:9 image without shooting at 3 megapixels and then doing a manual crop. Unless you're the sort of person who has gone and bought a 1080p telly, but has no computer or console that you could hook up to it, I suppose.

AND the supposedly 3200 ISO pic was taken with a flash. The resultant pic wouldn't be a good indicator of high ISO performance. Even so, the enlarged pic doesn't look all that good...

Hmmm - I'll give this one a pass...