Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sony 828 samples.....

Reply
Thread Tools

Sony 828 samples.....

 
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2003
I doubt that noise will decrease as the ISO increases. I guess now we know
why it's taken so long to get to market.

"Marc Libom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3fe053da$0$262$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > The noise in the blue channel was pretty obvious... I was surprised to

see
> it
> > was that bad at ISO 64.

>
> I am waiting for the first ISO400 or ISO800 shot to see, how noise level

is
> there...
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Martin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2003
"bmoag" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<7J_Db.41011$(E-Mail Removed) .com>...
> Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions about
> noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
> nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.


Yes, the conclusions almost certainly bear no resemblence to reality,
but the thread is certainly not pointless. Most posts to threads are
made in the spirit of social interaction at a distance. We human
animals almost universally have a need to interact socially with
others of like mind. The precision of our discussions are not
important in fulfilling that need. I do grant you that we should
always keep in mind that many of the posts are for fulfilling this
need and not for sharing carefully researched information.

This is,however, a legitimate use of newsgroup threads. It may not be
up to your (or my) standard of precision, but we have no right to
demand human beings not act like human beings in fulfilling their very
real social needs
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2003
There are full-size samples posted, which show much more than down-sized
samples. And, samples from two different sources of production camera show
the same noise.

"bmoag" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:7J_Db.41011$(E-Mail Removed). com...
> Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions about
> noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
> nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2003
We've all seen the ful-size samples, so why do the conclusions bear no
resemblance to reality? My conclusions are based on the full-size posted
samples from two sites, which forms my basis for reality. Please explain why
you believe conclusions based on samples from production units do not
represent reality.

"Martin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> "bmoag" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

news:<7J_Db.41011$(E-Mail Removed) .com>...
> > Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions

about
> > noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
> > nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.

>
> Yes, the conclusions almost certainly bear no resemblence to reality,
> but the thread is certainly not pointless. Most posts to threads are
> made in the spirit of social interaction at a distance. We human
> animals almost universally have a need to interact socially with
> others of like mind. The precision of our discussions are not
> important in fulfilling that need. I do grant you that we should
> always keep in mind that many of the posts are for fulfilling this
> need and not for sharing carefully researched information.
>
> This is,however, a legitimate use of newsgroup threads. It may not be
> up to your (or my) standard of precision, but we have no right to
> demand human beings not act like human beings in fulfilling their very
> real social needs



 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry Lynch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-18-2003
In article <MPG.1a4a5f386041dd59989731@news-
server.jam.rr.com>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> So I suppose when these things start getting into the hands of the Sony
> faithful and they start posting similar pictures with the same problems,
> those conclusions will be pointless as well?
>
> Amazing -- just like we have been saying here all along, the F828 is a
> turd. Based on those samples, I would much rather have an F717. But I'm
> sure the Sony zealots will never admit anything...
>


I've been using the 717 since July (about 4000 photos)
and I love that camera.

However, these first few pictures from the 828 dont show
me any reason to buy it.

I'll have to wait and see hoe it works when I get the
chance to try one. The pictures posted so far are NOT
encouraging.

--
Larry Lynch
Lasting Imagery
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Marc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-18-2003

"Manfred von Richthofen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:brpea8$qjd$(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/so.../gallery.shtml
>
>


"Blue skies....nothin' but blue skies....nothin' but blue skies, from now
on...."


Well, since I was waiting to buy one of the 828's, that's a bit
disappointing.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Marc Libom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-18-2003
> Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions about
> noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
> nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.


Why pointless? One of the most interesting questions of the last weeks for
the interested groups was: "what digital" should I buy. The EOS 300d as
affordable digital SLR with great image quality, the Minolta A1 with unique
AntiShake and one of the best feature sets or should I wait for the Sony
F828".

Now the F828 is available. That no one, but the professionals (they will
never buy a Sony), really needs a 8 MP resolution was clear. But the
combination of the fast Carl Zeiss lens with the new 4 colour sensor,
promised to deliver a great image quality, which the F828 had needed to
burst away the Rebel and the A1.

I have seen about 20 production model sample pics and all have been not
really sharp (more expected from lens and AF), of poor color (more expected
from new 4 color CCD) and the most pics - even the one without difficult
light contrasts - had the CA problem and showed heavy blooming.

So I cannot see a reason to buy an F828. If you want to have great image
quality even without post-processing or need to use exchangable lenses - buy
the EOS 300d. If you can accept some noise and want a prosumer camera with
good 28-200 manual zoom, ingenious AntiShake and a huge feature set (like
professional SLR) and almost unlimited configuration possibilities, buy an
A1.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Marc Libom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-18-2003
> And yet more mindless unjustifiable defense from The Sony Brigade.

No doubt, Sony can do great tv, vcr or walk-man and certainly they can
produce great high tech products too, like the ccd sensors, most cameras are
using.

But what Sony CANNOT do is, to speak the photographer's language. This is
okay for digital pocket cameras, but not in the segment of an EOS300d or A1.
With Canon or Minolta cameras, you will find decades of experience in
photoprapher. Many of the features have been invented in relation to the
customer's (photographer's) response.

With a Sony you have a piece of high-tech in your hands, great high-tech -
good products. But with products from the traditional manufacturers like
Canon or Minolta, you maybe doesn't have the most bragging technics (most
pixels, most color ccd, most ...), but a photographic tool where the
photographer become one with and forget the technical issues.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Rick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-18-2003
"Marc Libom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:3fe17a25$0$262$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > And yet more mindless unjustifiable defense from The Sony Brigade.

>
> No doubt, Sony can do great tv, vcr or walk-man and certainly they can
> produce great high tech products too, like the ccd sensors, most cameras are
> using.
>
> But what Sony CANNOT do is, to speak the photographer's language. This is
> okay for digital pocket cameras, but not in the segment of an EOS300d or A1.
> With Canon or Minolta cameras, you will find decades of experience in
> photoprapher. Many of the features have been invented in relation to the
> customer's (photographer's) response.
>
> With a Sony you have a piece of high-tech in your hands, great high-tech -
> good products. But with products from the traditional manufacturers like
> Canon or Minolta, you maybe doesn't have the most bragging technics (most
> pixels, most color ccd, most ...), but a photographic tool where the
> photographer become one with and forget the technical issues.


The fact that Sony doesn't produce a line of dSLRs probably
has a lot to do with it. But I was most disappointed by the
F828 -- you'd think after, what is it now, three years?, they
would have finally addressed these issues. But no, at least
from the sample images posted so far, it's the same nonsense
all over again: terribly oversaturated reds (as bad as the F707
and worse than the F717), horribly monochromatic and
lifeless color response (note the sand/beach sample image),
and now we can add excessive noise to the list of problems.
The F828 turned out to be what many people suspected it
would be all along.

Rick


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Oddie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-18-2003
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:45:32 +0100, "Marc Libom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Now the F828 is available. That no one, but the professionals (they will
>never buy a Sony), really needs a 8 MP resolution was clear.


Why don't they need it?

There was an interesting thread on the dpreview forum where someone who owns an
828 (going by the name of Stan) posted many sample pictures.

One shot was of a squirrell and when someone looked at the exif data the lens
focal length equivalent came out as 300mm.

"Stan" had left the digital zoom switched on and the Sony has a rather
different way of doing digital zoom that is superior to a simple crop.

Now with low mega pixel cameras their way of doing digital zoom is still not
going to give you great images, but with an 8mp camera with 1.5x digital zoom
you still have a few mega pixels in your image.

Think about it. What "Stan" was effectively using was the equivalent of a
300mm F2.8 lens to produce an image of very good quality.

Now that is really getting into the territory of why bother with
interchangeable lens SLR's even more than you are with your Minolta A1.

That said he also posted other shots which were less impressive showing CA
which I was surprised to see.

I did not study the shots for noise performance because just as with the D7/A1
line from Minolta I think it is an over emphasised "fault" you don't see in
everyday prints. Minolta users can't really slag off the 828 for noise
performance unless it is an order of magnitude worse than what Minolta
produces.

The CA was there though so that could be an issue and a deal breaker. There is
no doubt the A1 lens has a good reputation here but I would like to see
side-by-side comparisions as one shot from Stan was a nightmare of brightly lit
shiny metalwork staircases and so on inside a building which is hardly a
"normal" image unless you are into taking photos of brightly lit shiny metal
staircases.

The only other things I have managed to pick up about the camera from reading
what there is on the web and looking at the full size samples posted is that
it appears to be a very fast camera to operate (as fast as a dSLR? - we will
have to wait for those sites that publish timings to find out) and that the
images show a great deal of detail.

Jury still out but there are some suspicions it will have some faults that
means it does not turn the 5mp opposition into dinosours overnight.

Dave

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
G.SHDSL 828-to-828 Lars L. Christensen Cisco 2 12-17-2004 03:40 PM
Sony 828 and Sony Flash 32X?... joe.harman Digital Photography 1 01-04-2004 01:38 AM
Sony 828 vs. Canon 10D Tremolo169 Digital Photography 31 09-14-2003 02:53 PM
Sony 828 will sell well VS 300D Hugo Drax Digital Photography 11 09-10-2003 02:35 AM
Re: sony 828, minolta a1, fuji 7000 Godfrey Digital Photography 1 08-25-2003 04:38 PM



Advertisments