«

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/so.../gallery.shtml

> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/so.../gallery.shtml

I have expected more of the combination Zeiss less, 8M and 4 colour sensor.
For ISO 64 there pics are noisy (maybe normal with 8 MP on the small sensor)
and I can see many many chromatic abberations, and I don't like violet light
in digital images, where there was none in real life And the sharpness
seems not very good on these pictures but this ain't necessarily has to be
the cameras fault.

I agree Marc. High noise levels AND softness spells bad news IMHO - means
they couldn't keep the noise under control in the frimware and will restrict
your post processing options. and you get to "lug around" 8MP files. It
doen't matter that much to me though - I already bought my 300D.





"Marc Libom" <> wrote in message
news:3fe04b98$0$270$.. .
> > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/so.../gallery.shtml
>
> I have expected more of the combination Zeiss less, 8M and 4 colour
sensor.
> For ISO 64 there pics are noisy (maybe normal with 8 MP on the small
sensor)
> and I can see many many chromatic abberations, and I don't like violet
light
> in digital images, where there was none in real life And the sharpness
> seems not very good on these pictures but this ain't necessarily has to be
> the cameras fault.
>
>
>
>

Noise and lack of sharpness at ISO 64? Not good...

It may sell a lot of 300Ds.

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

Bowser wrote:

> Noise and lack of sharpness at ISO 64? Not good...
>

The noise in the blue channel was pretty obvious... I was surprised to see it
was that bad at ISO 64.

> 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...

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.

"bmoag" <> wrote in message news:7J_Db.41011$. 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.

And yet more mindless unjustifiable defense from The Sony Brigade.

I have Sony's marketing campaign theme:

"F828. Like the F717, only much worse."

Rick

"Marc Libom" <> wrote in message news:3fe04b98$0$270$.. .
> > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/so.../gallery.shtml
>
> I have expected more of the combination Zeiss less, 8M and 4 colour sensor.
> For ISO 64 there pics are noisy (maybe normal with 8 MP on the small sensor)
> and I can see many many chromatic abberations, and I don't like violet light
> in digital images, where there was none in real life And the sharpness
> seems not very good on these pictures but this ain't necessarily has to be
> the cameras fault.

Argh. Still horrid color response. Blue sand strikes again!

Rick

In article <7J_Db.41011$> ,
says...
> 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.

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...

--
__________________________________
Todd Walker
Canon 10D
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.twphotography.net
__________________________________