Phil's Sony 828 Review Is Up In Dpreview Site

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by gilbert grape, Jan 10, 2004.

  1. gilbert grape, Jan 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. gilbert grape

    PhotoMan Guest

    PhotoMan, Jan 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. gilbert grape

    B.o.w.s.e.r Guest

    His tests simply bear out what we've all seen in the pics that have been
    posted over the last month: nice feature set, too much noise. The comparison
    between the 828 and the Canon 300D really illustrates the advantage of the
    larger sensor. I don't think it's a bad camera, but I'd rather have the 717,
    and the cleaner images it produces. I was also surprised at the amount of
    distortion, but given the range of the zoom, I suppose it's not too bad.

    Glad I didn't wait for it.

    "gilbert grape" <> wrote in message
    news:Qj_Lb.1850$...
    > For those waiting for the Sony 828 review, here is the link:
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    B.o.w.s.e.r, Jan 11, 2004
    #3
  4. On 2004-01-11, PhotoMan <> wrote:
    >
    > "gilbert grape" <> wrote in message
    > news:Qj_Lb.1850$...
    >> For those waiting for the Sony 828 review, here is the link:
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/

    >
    > I'm waiting for the DSC-F939 ;-)


    You want even more noise then ? :)
     
    Povl H. Pedersen, Jan 11, 2004
    #4
  5. gilbert grape

    gr Guest

    "B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote
    > His tests simply bear out what we've all seen in the pics that have been
    > posted over the last month: nice feature set, too much noise. The

    comparison
    > between the 828 and the Canon 300D really illustrates the advantage of the
    > larger sensor.


    Phil's noise tests are worthless. He doesn't take into consideration how
    much default sharpening is used by each camera, which is one of the major
    contributors to the noise. Canon uses less sharpening; images look blurry
    but smooth. If you turn down the sharpening levels in comparison cameras,
    you'd get a lower noise profile too. For some reason, Phil seems completely
    ignorant to this fact.

    That said, if you did a test with equal amounts of sharpening, contrast, and
    saturation, the 300D would probably be better than the 828. That's no
    surprise, considering the 828 has more pixels (thus will show more noise on
    a per-pixel level, which again is the wrong way to do a camera-to-camera
    comparison for noise) and a smaller sensor.
     
    gr, Jan 11, 2004
    #5
  6. gilbert grape

    B.o.w.s.e.r Guest

    I agree that there are many variables, but the difference in noise levels in
    these two cameras is huge. The Sony is a noisy camera, especially when
    compared to a larger sensor camera under almost any conditions. Phil's noise
    tests are certainly not worthless.

    Maybe you should conduct your own tests, post them, and prove him wrong. You
    can show all of us how a small sensor camera with 8M sensors packed into
    that small space can equal the performance of a larger sensor camera. If you
    have an 828, post some samples. I have a 300D, I'll post some, and we can
    peroform our own comparison.

    Remember, his noise tests are not based on a detailed image, but a flat
    background. He then separates the image into color spaces and examines the
    noise in each color. Detail and sharpening have almost nothing to do with
    his examination of noise.

    "gr" <> wrote in message
    news:btrk07$agoal$-berlin.de...
    > "B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote
    > > His tests simply bear out what we've all seen in the pics that have been
    > > posted over the last month: nice feature set, too much noise. The

    > comparison
    > > between the 828 and the Canon 300D really illustrates the advantage of

    the
    > > larger sensor.

    >
    > Phil's noise tests are worthless. He doesn't take into consideration how
    > much default sharpening is used by each camera, which is one of the major
    > contributors to the noise. Canon uses less sharpening; images look blurry
    > but smooth. If you turn down the sharpening levels in comparison cameras,
    > you'd get a lower noise profile too. For some reason, Phil seems

    completely
    > ignorant to this fact.
    >
    > That said, if you did a test with equal amounts of sharpening, contrast,

    and
    > saturation, the 300D would probably be better than the 828. That's no
    > surprise, considering the 828 has more pixels (thus will show more noise

    on
    > a per-pixel level, which again is the wrong way to do a camera-to-camera
    > comparison for noise) and a smaller sensor.
    >
    >
     
    B.o.w.s.e.r, Jan 11, 2004
    #6
  7. gilbert grape

    PhotoMan Guest

    "Povl H. Pedersen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2004-01-11, PhotoMan <> wrote:
    > >
    > > "gilbert grape" <> wrote in message
    > > news:Qj_Lb.1850$...
    > >> For those waiting for the Sony 828 review, here is the link:
    > >>
    > >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/

    > >
    > > I'm waiting for the DSC-F939 ;-)

    >
    > You want even more noise then ? :)



    Hey - I happen to like loud cameras!
     
    PhotoMan, Jan 11, 2004
    #7
  8. gilbert grape

    Rich Bail Guest

    I got a chance to shoot some test images (11 X 14 equivalent) and was quite
    surprised and pleased. Excellent color and sharpness, and no visible noise
    at ISO 64, 100 or 200. At 400 there was slight noise, but I would still call
    the image very good. At 800 however it was awful. I also took several at 7.1
    MM (28 MM equivalent) and saw very slight barrel distortion. Unlike the test
    it looks excellent to me. My only problem with the camera was too much CA.
    Shooting in a large store, all the ceiling lights were haloed in purple
    fringes. This may have had something to do with the type of light as well,
    but it did look off color. This was only visible where absolute white glare
    met contrast.

    Even so it is an excellent camera at 10X zoom, great images below ISO 800
    and many unique features.



    "B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote in message
    news:CA4Mb.20189$8H.53134@attbi_s03...
    > His tests simply bear out what we've all seen in the pics that have been
    > posted over the last month: nice feature set, too much noise. The

    comparison
    > between the 828 and the Canon 300D really illustrates the advantage of the
    > larger sensor. I don't think it's a bad camera, but I'd rather have the

    717,
    > and the cleaner images it produces. I was also surprised at the amount of
    > distortion, but given the range of the zoom, I suppose it's not too bad.
    >
    > Glad I didn't wait for it.
    >
    > "gilbert grape" <> wrote in message
    > news:Qj_Lb.1850$...
    > > For those waiting for the Sony 828 review, here is the link:
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Rich Bail, Jan 11, 2004
    #8
  9. gilbert grape

    gr Guest

    "B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote
    >
    > Maybe you should conduct your own tests, post them, and prove him wrong.

    You
    > can show all of us how a small sensor camera with 8M sensors packed into
    > that small space can equal the performance of a larger sensor camera. If

    you
    > have an 828, post some samples. I have a 300D, I'll post some, and we can
    > peroform our own comparison.


    If you actually read was I posted, you have seen that I already agree that
    the 300D is likely less noisy than the 828, even if you shrink the 828's
    image size down to the same size as the 300D's. So, we agree.

    However, that still doesn't validate Phil's tests. They are worthless,
    because he doesn't make any attempt to control the sharpness, contrast, and
    saturation variables. (As well as the image size, but that's a different
    nit.)

    > Remember, his noise tests are not based on a detailed image, but a flat
    > background. He then separates the image into color spaces and examines the
    > noise in each color. Detail and sharpening have almost nothing to do with
    > his examination of noise.


    LOL. Okay, then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, nor
    do you have any idea how sharpening algorithms work.
     
    gr, Jan 11, 2004
    #9
  10. gilbert grape

    B.o.w.s.e.r Guest

    You said that the 300D "would probably be less noisy than the 828." I'll go
    one step further: it much less noisy than the Sony, without qualification or
    reservation, and regardless of your opinions of Phil's tests.

    "gr" <> wrote in message
    news:btsfgi$akev4$-berlin.de...
    > "B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote
    > >
    > > Maybe you should conduct your own tests, post them, and prove him wrong.

    > You
    > > can show all of us how a small sensor camera with 8M sensors packed into
    > > that small space can equal the performance of a larger sensor camera. If

    > you
    > > have an 828, post some samples. I have a 300D, I'll post some, and we

    can
    > > peroform our own comparison.

    >
    > If you actually read was I posted, you have seen that I already agree that
    > the 300D is likely less noisy than the 828, even if you shrink the 828's
    > image size down to the same size as the 300D's. So, we agree.
    >
    > However, that still doesn't validate Phil's tests. They are worthless,
    > because he doesn't make any attempt to control the sharpness, contrast,

    and
    > saturation variables. (As well as the image size, but that's a different
    > nit.)
    >
    > > Remember, his noise tests are not based on a detailed image, but a flat
    > > background. He then separates the image into color spaces and examines

    the
    > > noise in each color. Detail and sharpening have almost nothing to do

    with
    > > his examination of noise.

    >
    > LOL. Okay, then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, nor
    > do you have any idea how sharpening algorithms work.
    >
    >
     
    B.o.w.s.e.r, Jan 12, 2004
    #10
  11. gilbert grape

    gr Guest

    "B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote
    > You said that the 300D "would probably be less noisy than the 828." I'll

    go
    > one step further: it much less noisy than the Sony, without qualification

    or
    > reservation, and regardless of your opinions of Phil's tests.


    Your science teacher must be very proud.
     
    gr, Jan 12, 2004
    #11
  12. gilbert grape

    Rick Guest

    "B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote in message news:e1mMb.29271$xy6.74529@attbi_s02...
    > You said that the 300D "would probably be less noisy than the 828." I'll go
    > one step further: it much less noisy than the Sony, without qualification or
    > reservation, and regardless of your opinions of Phil's tests.


    Considering Sony doesn't put upgradeable firmwares in their
    cameras, the 828's flaws (such as the _major_ color shift on
    some greens and the horrid fringing problems) are set in stone.
    Permanently.

    It's natural selection hard at work. Those who deserve an 828
    will buy one.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jan 12, 2004
    #12
  13. I had really hoped this 828 would be the best in its class. I'm
    bummed that it does not have the type of image quality I had
    hoped for. I am glad I did get the C5050 from Oly instead of
    waiting, though it is limited to 3x optical and 5mp.

    > "B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote in message
    > news:e1mMb.29271$xy6.74529@attbi_s02...
    >> You said that the 300D "would probably be less noisy than the
    >> 828." I'll go
    >> one step further: it much less noisy than the Sony, without
    >> qualification or reservation, and regardless of your opinions
    >> of Phil's tests.

    >
    > Considering Sony doesn't put upgradeable firmwares in their
    > cameras, the 828's flaws (such as the _major_ color shift on
    > some greens and the horrid fringing problems) are set in stone.
    > Permanently.
    >
    > It's natural selection hard at work. Those who deserve an 828
    > will buy one.
    >
    > Rick
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Jan 12, 2004
    #13
  14. gilbert grape

    Rick Guest

    "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message news:gYqMb.9759$...
    > I had really hoped this 828 would be the best in its class. I'm
    > bummed that it does not have the type of image quality I had
    > hoped for. I am glad I did get the C5050 from Oly instead of
    > waiting, though it is limited to 3x optical and 5mp.


    Probably the best thing about the 828 is that it will cause further
    price breaks on the 717. The 717's own image quality problems
    (low contrast, washed out colors etc) are far more easily fixed in
    post processing than the 828's.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jan 12, 2004
    #14
  15. gilbert grape

    B.o.w.s.e.r Guest

    As are your parents for allowing you to live in their basement.

    "gr" <> wrote in message
    news:btssup$at4ed$-berlin.de...
    > "B.o.w.s.e.r" <> wrote
    > > You said that the 300D "would probably be less noisy than the 828." I'll

    > go
    > > one step further: it much less noisy than the Sony, without

    qualification
    > or
    > > reservation, and regardless of your opinions of Phil's tests.

    >
    > Your science teacher must be very proud.
    >
    >
     
    B.o.w.s.e.r, Jan 12, 2004
    #15
  16. gilbert grape

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <bttfb0$b7uhv$-berlin.de>,
    says...
    > Probably the best thing about the 828 is that it will cause further
    > price breaks on the 717. The 717's own image quality problems
    > (low contrast, washed out colors etc) are far more easily fixed in
    > post processing than the 828's.
    >
    > Rick
    >
    >


    It might be that I got a very LATE production run on my
    717, but the low contrast, washed out colors dont show
    up in it! If anything I (usually) have to reduce
    saturation (and shoot at lower contrast setting) to make
    my prints satisfactory.

    I have found though, that the pictures are better if I
    use less than the default sharpening while shooting.
    (seems to be true of ALL the digitals I own)
    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Jan 12, 2004
    #16
  17. gilbert grape

    Rick Guest

    "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message news:...
    > In article <bttfb0$b7uhv$-berlin.de>,
    > says...
    > > Probably the best thing about the 828 is that it will cause further
    > > price breaks on the 717. The 717's own image quality problems
    > > (low contrast, washed out colors etc) are far more easily fixed in
    > > post processing than the 828's.
    > >

    >
    > It might be that I got a very LATE production run on my
    > 717, but the low contrast, washed out colors dont show
    > up in it! If anything I (usually) have to reduce
    > saturation (and shoot at lower contrast setting) to make
    > my prints satisfactory.


    Capturing color nuances is not the 717's forte. Its images
    (at least straight out of the camera) have a lifeless, almost
    monochromatic look to them. If you compare response
    charts on dpreview's website (e.g. second chart at:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc5050z/page20.asp)
    you'll see the 717's "white" is light gray compared to the
    other cameras, and its colors (especially red and yellow)
    are also terribly muted. There's not enough red in the red,
    and too much red in the blue. All of these issues can be
    fixed with varying levels of success depending on the image,
    but in certain lighting conditions (e.g. outdoor overcast) the
    717 is pretty much hopeless.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jan 12, 2004
    #17
  18. gilbert grape

    Bob Salomon Guest

    > but in certain lighting conditions (e.g. outdoor overcast) the
    > 717 is pretty much hopeless.


    Perhaps for your use. But then your views and results are not universal.
    In other words, if you do not like it. Don't buy it.

    It performs beautifully for me and 1000s if not 100,000s of users.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
     
    Bob Salomon, Jan 12, 2004
    #18
  19. gilbert grape

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <btusa3$bonh5$-berlin.de>,
    says...
    > you'll see the 717's "white" is light gray compared to the
    > other cameras, and its colors (especially red and yellow)
    > are also terribly muted. There's not enough red in the red,
    > and too much red in the blue. All of these issues can be
    > fixed with varying levels of success depending on the image,
    > but in certain lighting conditions (e.g. outdoor overcast) the
    > 717 is pretty much hopeless.
    >
    > Rick
    >



    There again, is another issue that seems to exsist in
    some 717, and not in others... The reds are what come
    through the strongest in mine,(still too much red in the
    blue though) and they are what needs muting!..

    However, I very much agree about "Outdoor-Overcast"
    days, and the poor pictures it can cause in the 717.

    If forced through circumstances to shoot in those
    conditions I usually underexpose and brighten it up in
    Photoshop.. Dont know why but that seems to work better
    than ANY setting I mess with on the camera.

    I think (and this IS purely speculation) Sony may have
    done some changes in the later runs of the 717 as it
    (the later one) doesn't perform the same as my earlier
    one (now the property of my brother).

    The Mavicam cdr 500 also exhibits this unfortunate trait
    (the overcast problem) and the "punched up" reds and
    oranges.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Jan 12, 2004
    #19
  20. gilbert grape

    Steve m... Guest

    I saw the 717 at Best Buy yesterday for $615. That's a bargain for sure.

    Steve m...

    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:bttfb0$b7uhv$-berlin.de...
    > "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message

    news:gYqMb.9759$...
    > > I had really hoped this 828 would be the best in its class. I'm
    > > bummed that it does not have the type of image quality I had
    > > hoped for. I am glad I did get the C5050 from Oly instead of
    > > waiting, though it is limited to 3x optical and 5mp.

    >
    > Probably the best thing about the 828 is that it will cause further
    > price breaks on the 717. The 717's own image quality problems
    > (low contrast, washed out colors etc) are far more easily fixed in
    > post processing than the 828's.
    >
    > Rick
    >
    >
     
    Steve m..., Jan 13, 2004
    #20
    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. Lars L. Christensen

    G.SHDSL 828-to-828

    Lars L. Christensen, Dec 16, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,375
    Igor Mamuziæ
    Dec 17, 2004
  2. Tom J.

    Phil's Olympus E1 Review

    Tom J., Nov 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    708
    Mark Johnson
    Dec 3, 2003
  3. joe.harman

    Sony 828 and Sony Flash 32X?...

    joe.harman, Jan 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    425
    Seymore
    Jan 4, 2004
  4. deryck  lant

    Nikon D200: Phil Askey's Full Review

    deryck lant, Feb 23, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    992
    David J Taylor
    Feb 25, 2006
  5. phk

    Phil Askey site?

    phk, Apr 20, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    478
Loading...

Share This Page