Disservice to Sony? (dcresource's "examples" of Sony DSC-F282)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ThomasH, Dec 17, 2003.

  1. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    I just saw on dpreview.com that 2 galleries with examples made with
    a long awaited 8Mpix Sony DSC-F828 were finally presented. One of
    them in on dcresource.com:

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/gallery.shtml

    Whoever was doing the shooting, he or she did a disservice to Sony!
    One especially nasty example:

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545-pp.JPG

    or this:

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02558-pp.JPG

    They should rather take these images away and replace by something
    more believable.

    Thomas
    ThomasH, Dec 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ThomasH

    H Guest

    ThomasH wrote:
    > I just saw on dpreview.com that 2 galleries with examples made with
    > a long awaited 8Mpix Sony DSC-F828 were finally presented. One of
    > them in on dcresource.com:
    >
    > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/gallery.shtml
    >
    > Whoever was doing the shooting, he or she did a disservice to Sony!
    > One especially nasty example:
    >
    > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545-pp.JPG


    The real life example is at
    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545.JPG

    >
    > or this:
    >
    > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02558-pp.JPG


    This is a downsampled version again the real is:
    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545.JPG

    >
    > They should rather take these images away and replace by something
    > more believable.
    >
    > Thomas


    There are some noise in the sky in the first one, but nothing that not
    NI can not fix :)

    But what is your problem with the bridge pix? The detail is staggering IMO.
    H, Dec 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    H wrote:
    >
    > ThomasH wrote:
    > > I just saw on dpreview.com that 2 galleries with examples made with
    > > a long awaited 8Mpix Sony DSC-F828 were finally presented. One of
    > > them in on dcresource.com:
    > >
    > > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/gallery.shtml
    > >
    > > Whoever was doing the shooting, he or she did a disservice to Sony!
    > > One especially nasty example:
    > >
    > > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545-pp.JPG

    >
    > The real life example is at
    > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545.JPG


    Yeah, I see than: http://www.dcresource.com/images/dcrp2000/auction_ripoff_message.gif

    I can see only these *-pp.JPG's, which are, as you say, down sampled,
    but precisely the quality of this process is unworthy such a site.
    Look at these moiré patterns all over the place.

    >
    > >
    > > or this:
    > >
    > > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02558-pp.JPG

    >
    > This is a downsampled version again the real is:
    > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545.JPG
    >
    > >
    > > They should rather take these images away and replace by something
    > > more believable.
    > >
    > > Thomas

    >
    > There are some noise in the sky in the first one, but nothing that not
    > NI can not fix :)
    >
    > But what is your problem with the bridge pix? The detail is staggering IMO.


    Indeed: The detail is ok:
    http://www.dcresource.com/images/dcrp2000/auction_ripoff_message.gif
    I am being sarcastic. I see only the small images, no access here to
    these "non donwsampled" binaries, sorry.

    Thomas
    ThomasH, Dec 17, 2003
    #3
  4. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    ThomasH wrote:
    >
    > H wrote:
    > >
    > > ThomasH wrote:


    I got it! Direct link does not work, you must follow it on their web page itself.

    > > > or this:
    > > >
    > > > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02558-pp.JPG

    > >
    > > This is a downsampled version again the real is:
    > > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545.JPG
    > >
    > > >
    > > > They should rather take these images away and replace by something
    > > > more believable.
    > > >
    > > > Thomas

    > >
    > > There are some noise in the sky in the first one, but nothing that not
    > > NI can not fix :)
    > >
    > > But what is your problem with the bridge pix? The detail is staggering IMO.


    You are kidding me! Look at the shadow detail of the pylon:
    Its a nasty noisy mush of reddish and bluish pixels!!!
    Its a bright daylight, this is really very noisy. It this
    sensor really than bad?

    Thomas
    ThomasH, Dec 17, 2003
    #4
  5. ThomasH

    H Guest

    ThomasH wrote:
    > You are kidding me! Look at the shadow detail of the pylon:
    > Its a nasty noisy mush of reddish and bluish pixels!!!
    > Its a bright daylight, this is really very noisy. It this
    > sensor really than bad?
    >
    > Thomas


    Hmmm, i look for the detail and you look for the noise. And
    you *are* right there are noise in this image! But a little
    dab of NeatImage cleaned that up very well.

    Still compared to the same image taken with the Fuji s7000
    and the Minolta A1, i really belive that the Sony 828 is the
    winner.
    IMO that is.
    H, Dec 17, 2003
    #5
  6. ThomasH

    Bowser Guest

    NI works to a point, but you can't beat low-noise images from the camera.
    Clearly, this camera has noise problems, even at low (ISO 64) speeds.

    "H" <> wrote in message news:x55Eb.3701$7U1.30108@amstwist00...
    > ThomasH wrote:
    > > You are kidding me! Look at the shadow detail of the pylon:
    > > Its a nasty noisy mush of reddish and bluish pixels!!!
    > > Its a bright daylight, this is really very noisy. It this
    > > sensor really than bad?
    > >
    > > Thomas

    >
    > Hmmm, i look for the detail and you look for the noise. And
    > you *are* right there are noise in this image! But a little
    > dab of NeatImage cleaned that up very well.
    >
    > Still compared to the same image taken with the Fuji s7000
    > and the Minolta A1, i really belive that the Sony 828 is the
    > winner.
    > IMO that is.
    Bowser, Dec 17, 2003
    #6
  7. ThomasH

    jriegle Guest

    8mp crammed on a tiny chip. I'm not surprised there will be some noise
    visible. Some chromatic aberration is noticeable as well as lower contrast.
    Can't wait for the gadget geeks to buy 'em and boast here how it is better
    than the 6mp SLRs.
    John

    "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ThomasH wrote:
    > >
    > > H wrote:
    > > >
    > > > ThomasH wrote:

    >
    > I got it! Direct link does not work, you must follow it on their web page

    itself.
    >
    > > > > or this:
    > > > >
    > > > >

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02558-pp.JPG
    > > >
    > > > This is a downsampled version again the real is:
    > > > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545.JPG
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > They should rather take these images away and replace by something
    > > > > more believable.
    > > > >
    > > > > Thomas
    > > >
    > > > There are some noise in the sky in the first one, but nothing that not
    > > > NI can not fix :)
    > > >
    > > > But what is your problem with the bridge pix? The detail is staggering

    IMO.
    >
    > You are kidding me! Look at the shadow detail of the pylon:
    > Its a nasty noisy mush of reddish and bluish pixels!!!
    > Its a bright daylight, this is really very noisy. It this
    > sensor really than bad?
    >
    > Thomas
    jriegle, Dec 17, 2003
    #7
  8. ThomasH

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <Wy5Eb.209077$Ec1.7559948@bgtnsc05-
    news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, says...
    > 8mp crammed on a tiny chip. I'm not surprised there will be some noise
    > visible. Some chromatic aberration is noticeable as well as lower contrast.
    > Can't wait for the gadget geeks to buy 'em and boast here how it is better
    > than the 6mp SLRs.
    > John
    >


    Oh they've already been boasting and no one even has one yet. I can't
    believe anyone would pay $1000 for the 828 when you can get the 300D
    with a lens for the same price. But hey, to each his own (or there's a
    sucker born every minute, take your pick.)

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    Canon 10D
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    http://www.twphotography.net
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker, Dec 18, 2003
    #8
  9. ThomasH

    gr Guest

    "Todd Walker" <> wrote
    >
    > Oh they've already been boasting and no one even has one yet. I can't
    > believe anyone would pay $1000 for the 828 when you can get the 300D
    > with a lens for the same price. But hey, to each his own (or there's a
    > sucker born every minute, take your pick.)


    Ah yes, the Canon fanboys are bashing it already, and it's barely released.

    So, can your 10D do histogram preview? Does it have a rotating LCD preview
    screen for macro shooting? Can it do movies? Does it have a removable IR
    blocking filter for superb infrared capability?

    I really wish the dSLR folks would realize that not everybody wants a
    crippled digital camera, just so they can boast it's an SLR. The SLR was
    great for film, but it's a broken concept for digital IMO. Take all the
    disadvantages of film, and force it on to digital... what's the point?

    If I wanted a bulky camera, I'd rather have a big sensor on a digicam format
    than an SLR format.
    gr, Dec 18, 2003
    #9
  10. ThomasH

    Leonard Guest

    jriegle wrote:
    > 8mp crammed on a tiny chip. I'm not surprised there will be some noise
    > visible. Some chromatic aberration is noticeable as well as lower contrast.


    The pixel pitch is not significantly smaller than the 5mp on 1/1.8
    sensors which seem to be everywhere. So the noise performance while
    it is never going to look good against an SLR or even the 717 should
    be on a par with the DSC-P10 - if not then Sony have dropped the ball
    somewhat.

    - Len
    Leonard, Dec 18, 2003
    #10
  11. ThomasH

    Wayne J Guest

    "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    >
    > Oh they've already been boasting and no one even has one yet. I can't
    > believe anyone would pay $1000 for the 828 when you can get the 300D
    > with a lens for the same price. But hey, to each his own (or there's a
    > sucker born every minute, take your pick.)
    >


    I don't think that camera is as bad as you are thinking. Those samples look
    pretty good to me considering that I would need a monitor screen 45" wide to
    view the whole picture at once. If you blew up your 10D pictures to the same
    size would they look that much better?

    Wayne
    Wayne J, Dec 18, 2003
    #11
  12. ThomasH

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <THfEb.42128$5F2.16201@news-
    binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, says...
    > jriegle wrote:
    > > 8mp crammed on a tiny chip. I'm not surprised there will be some noise
    > > visible. Some chromatic aberration is noticeable as well as lower contrast.

    >
    > The pixel pitch is not significantly smaller than the 5mp on 1/1.8
    > sensors which seem to be everywhere. So the noise performance while
    > it is never going to look good against an SLR or even the 717 should
    > be on a par with the DSC-P10 - if not then Sony have dropped the ball
    > somewhat.
    >
    > - Len
    >
    >


    The newest CD-Mavica (the 500, 5mp) seems to use the
    same sensor as the 717, but it (so far in testing) gets
    LESS noise in most pictures than the 717.

    They must have up-graded something in the process. Too
    bad it doesn't have a card slot, 'cause Im expecting the
    cdrw drive to die early.

    (It was bought for a special project, and paid for
    itself in 1 weekend, in case anyone is wondering WHY I
    would buy THAT camera).

    I had a contract to take several hundred photos, deliver
    them "on the spot" with no chance that I was taking home
    any copies! (and no chance to claim any rights on the
    photos!!!)

    The Mavicam seemed perfect for the job. Shoot, Finalize
    disk, hand over disc(s) take the money and the camera,
    and go home. It is far easier (on the profit margin) to
    hand over 10 or 20 cdr disks (at 10 for 10 dollars, or
    less) than it is to hand over 10 or 20 memory chips of
    any type. When I asked about using FILM (which would
    have been easiest for me) I was told that they couldn't
    be done on film, no reason given. (but I digress)

    I was anxious to try the 828, but seeing what (so far)
    is posted, I'm not thrilled to the point I would pay
    what they are asking for the 828, The pictures seem
    "Bigger" but not "Better". (sniff,,, it has a CF slot
    too,,,,)

    Were it to go "on sale" for the same price I paid for
    the 717 I might be interested, but for now I'm saving my
    pennies. (I got the 717 "on sale" for $500 and change, I
    forget the exact ammount. Brand new, in the box, NOT A
    REFURB!(at Sears, of all places)).
    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry Lynch, Dec 18, 2003
    #12
  13. ThomasH

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <brs8pl$6sk1g$-berlin.de>,
    says...
    >
    > Ah yes, the Canon fanboys are bashing it already, and it's barely released.
    >
    > So, can your 10D do histogram preview? Does it have a rotating LCD preview
    > screen for macro shooting? Can it do movies? Does it have a removable IR
    > blocking filter for superb infrared capability?


    Histogram preview is unnecessary -- I know that the camera will nail the
    exposure every time. Rotating screen? Nope but I am able to look through
    the viewfinder and see exactly what the lens sees. Movies? It is a STILL
    camera. As a professional photographer I don't really have much need to
    take movies of my clients. Infrared? Again, not a lot of call for
    infrared portraits.

    > I really wish the dSLR folks would realize that not everybody wants a
    > crippled digital camera, just so they can boast it's an SLR. The SLR was
    > great for film, but it's a broken concept for digital IMO. Take all the
    > disadvantages of film, and force it on to digital... what's the point?


    What disadvantages? Being able to look through the lens for framing?
    Being able to swap lenses based on your current needs? Zero shutter lag?
    What disadvantages are you talking about?

    > If I wanted a bulky camera, I'd rather have a big sensor on a digicam format
    > than an SLR format.


    That's certainly your prerogative but I would bet that if you used a
    digital SLR for a week you would never go back to a P&S digital.

    I realize that not everyone needs an SLR and that's fine. But to suggest
    that P&S digitals are superior to SLRs and that those of us who own SLRs
    only do so as a sort of dick measuring contest to say "Mine is bigger
    than yours" is ludicrous. Just because your needs are different than
    mine doesn't mean that my choices are wrong. They are right for me, not
    for you.

    Open your mind a little.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    Canon 10D
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    http://www.twphotography.net
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker, Dec 18, 2003
    #13
  14. ThomasH

    Dave Oddie Guest

    On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:43:27 GMT, Todd Walker <> wrote:

    >Open your mind a little.


    I think your "sucker born every minute" comment suggests yours is equally
    closed.

    It was you who said they could not understand anyone going for an 828. Hardly
    open minded on your part to the advantages some will perceive to that type of
    camera.

    Dave
    Dave Oddie, Dec 18, 2003
    #14
  15. ThomasH

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:43:27 GMT, Todd Walker <> wrote:
    >
    > >Open your mind a little.

    >
    > I think your "sucker born every minute" comment suggests yours is equally
    > closed.
    >
    > It was you who said they could not understand anyone going for an 828. Hardly
    > open minded on your part to the advantages some will perceive to that type of
    > camera.
    >
    > Dave
    >


    You are absolutely right Dave. Thanks for pointing that out for me. Yes
    for some the 828 will make sense.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    Canon 10D
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    http://www.twphotography.net
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker, Dec 18, 2003
    #15
  16. ThomasH

    Rick Guest

    "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message news:...
    > (I got the 717 "on sale" for $500 and change, I
    > forget the exact ammount. Brand new, in the box, NOT A
    > REFURB!(at Sears, of all places)).


    IMO, at that price it's worth the post processing time required
    to get great (or at least good) images out of it. I feel sorry for
    those who plonked down $1000 or more though.

    Rick
    Rick, Dec 19, 2003
    #16
  17. ThomasH

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <brtiao$7gvej$-berlin.de>,
    says...
    > "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message news:...
    > > (I got the 717 "on sale" for $500 and change, I
    > > forget the exact ammount. Brand new, in the box, NOT A
    > > REFURB!(at Sears, of all places)).

    >
    > IMO, at that price it's worth the post processing time required
    > to get great (or at least good) images out of it. I feel sorry for
    > those who plonked down $1000 or more though.
    >
    > Rick
    >
    >
    >


    I also feel sorry for those who paid full (or near full)
    retail for the 717.


    I had seen (and tested) the 717 in the fall of 2002, and
    I really liked it then.

    I did NOT like the price. It wasnt a matter of "I cant
    afford it" it was a matter of "Im not that stupid!"

    When I first saw the 717 it was priced at $799 (US), I
    dont think I ever saw it selling higher than that (Sony
    Suggested retail was $1000, IIRC).

    I was walking through the local Sears on a totally
    different errand whan I saw it on display as a SPECIAL
    at $500 this past spring. At that price point it was an
    "impulse buy" for me, and I havent regretted it, for
    that price it is a fine "Point & Shoot" camera.

    The 828, I thought, was supposed to truly move Sony
    solidly into the "Pro-sumer" arena, but if the images so
    far are any indication, it is a step backward, giving
    more pixels but MORE noise.

    The only other Sony camera I own is the MVC CD500, which
    was bought for a special project, so I dont think I can
    be considered a Sony Zealot, just a Sony owner,
    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry Lynch, Dec 19, 2003
    #17
  18. ThomasH

    JK Guest

    First of all, I can't get a 300D with an f2-2.8 18-125 mm lens for under $1000.
    The 300D is also not good for shooting from the hip(Why doesn't Canon
    make a camera that takes the EF and EF-S lenses but isn't an slr, and
    has a quiet electronic shutter, no mirror to move, an even more compact body
    that rotates(or a display that rotates, and a preview in the display as well
    as an electronic viewfinder)? While many photography enthusiasts like the
    idea of an slr, many others would like to avoid the noisy mechanical shutter
    and moving mirror and have a digital preview and a body or display that
    rotates for taking photos from the hip.


    Todd Walker wrote:

    > In article <Wy5Eb.209077$Ec1.7559948@bgtnsc05-
    > news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, says...
    > > 8mp crammed on a tiny chip. I'm not surprised there will be some noise
    > > visible. Some chromatic aberration is noticeable as well as lower contrast.
    > > Can't wait for the gadget geeks to buy 'em and boast here how it is better
    > > than the 6mp SLRs.
    > > John
    > >

    >
    > Oh they've already been boasting and no one even has one yet. I can't
    > believe anyone would pay $1000 for the 828 when you can get the 300D
    > with a lens for the same price. But hey, to each his own (or there's a
    > sucker born every minute, take your pick.)
    >
    > --
    > __________________________________
    > Todd Walker
    > Canon 10D
    > http://www.toddwalker.net
    > http://www.twphotography.net
    > __________________________________
    JK, Dec 20, 2003
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frorger Hoerllerruer

    Disservice to All

    Frorger Hoerllerruer, Jul 7, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    631
    catwalker63
    Jul 8, 2004
  2. luke

    Sony DSC P10 (or the DSC P5, DSC P9 or DSC P12)

    luke, Dec 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    577
  3. rawebadvert3

    COVER LETTERS RESUME EXAMPLES AND CV EXAMPLES AVAILABLE

    rawebadvert3, May 25, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    896
    rawebadvert3
    May 25, 2007
  4. rawebadvert3
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,055
    rawebadvert3
    Aug 21, 2007
  5. rawebadvert3
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,297
    rawebadvert3
    Mar 23, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page