Re: Is the 8 mp Sony DSC-F828 about the Best Digital Camera out now?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by BUNTOVNIK, Aug 19, 2003.

  1. BUNTOVNIK

    BUNTOVNIK Guest

    "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:fde0b.10926$...
    > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscf828/
    >
    > This looks to be one very impressive camera.
    >
    > A Compact Flash slot? Way cool.
    >
    > I wish the 7x Optical zoom had image stabilization so that you
    > could do hand-held zoom shots beyond 4x or 5x zoom without
    > blurring, etc. Still, with a tripod, it would be awesome.
    >
    > Wish it had a remote control for those tripod long exposure
    > shots, wish it had AA rechargeables instead of proprietary, but
    > all in all, the ability to print full 8"x10" shots with 300 dpi
    > of detail is very cool.
    >
    > What do you all think about it?
    >
    > Yeah, $1300 is a lot, and I'm happy with my $800 Olympus C5050,
    > but man, what a camera this one looks to be...


    I think it'd be better if we'd all just hold our breath til the first photos
    taken with this camera come out. The RGBE system sure sounds promising, but
    until I acutally see how the photos look like there's not much point in
    discussing other elements of new Sony.



    --
    ----------------------
    online photo portfolio
    www.stojcic.com
     
    BUNTOVNIK, Aug 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Good point. Still, this is the first SONY I've been jazzed
    about. That Compact Flash slot helps a lot in terms of appeal.

    > I think it'd be better if we'd all just hold our breath til
    > the first photos taken with this camera come out. The RGBE
    > system sure sounds promising, but until I acutally see how the
    > photos look like there's not much point in discussing other
    > elements of new Sony.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. BUNTOVNIK

    Paul Heslop Guest

    BUNTOVNIK wrote:
    >
    > "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    > news:fde0b.10926$...
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscf828/
    > >
    > > This looks to be one very impressive camera.
    > >
    > > A Compact Flash slot? Way cool.
    > >
    > > I wish the 7x Optical zoom had image stabilization so that you
    > > could do hand-held zoom shots beyond 4x or 5x zoom without
    > > blurring, etc. Still, with a tripod, it would be awesome.
    > >
    > > Wish it had a remote control for those tripod long exposure
    > > shots, wish it had AA rechargeables instead of proprietary, but
    > > all in all, the ability to print full 8"x10" shots with 300 dpi
    > > of detail is very cool.
    > >
    > > What do you all think about it?
    > >
    > > Yeah, $1300 is a lot, and I'm happy with my $800 Olympus C5050,
    > > but man, what a camera this one looks to be...

    >
    > I think it'd be better if we'd all just hold our breath til the first photos
    > taken with this camera come out. The RGBE system sure sounds promising, but
    > until I acutally see how the photos look like there's not much point in
    > discussing other elements of new Sony.
    >
    > --
    > ----------------------
    > online photo portfolio
    > www.stojcic.com


    Except how pretty it looks :O)
    --
    Paul. (Woman man or modern monkey)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Not what it seems...
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Aug 19, 2003
    #3
  4. BUNTOVNIK

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Aug 19, 2003
    #4
  5. BUNTOVNIK

    reg-john Guest

    reg-john, Aug 20, 2003
    #5
  6. BUNTOVNIK

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <m1C0b.13648$>,
    says...
    > Apparenty, in the world he lives in, it is... :)
    >
    > For the many of the rest of us on the Planet Earth, Compact Flash
    > does indeed make a difference.


    But it's more important not to lose your images. If you lost hundreds of
    images because the CF card went bad, you'll regret not having spent an
    extra $50 for a more stable memory card.

    I'm going to use the 512MB CF I bought mainly for RAWs and I'll be very
    careful not to fill it with more than 50 images, so that in case of a
    failure I won't lose too much.

    I've also loaded my notebook with several image recovery utilities, just
    in case.

    That damned Transcend 512MB CF failed two times in the first few days I
    used it. With Smartmedia I never had to worry about losing images.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 20, 2003
    #6
  7. BUNTOVNIK

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <m1C0b.13648$>,
    says...
    > Apparenty, in the world he lives in, it is... :)
    >
    > For the many of the rest of us on the Planet Earth, Compact Flash
    > does indeed make a difference.


    See here for a compatibility list of CF cards:
    http://www.pbase.com/image/16955830

    You'll note that a number of CF card brands create problems with the
    Olympuy 5050.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 20, 2003
    #7
  8. > But it's more important not to lose your images. If you lost
    > hundreds of images because the CF card went bad, you'll regret
    > not having spent an extra $50 for a more stable memory card.


    Why would you think CF cards are unstable?

    > I'm going to use the 512MB CF I bought mainly for RAWs and
    > I'll be very careful not to fill it with more than 50 images,
    > so that in case of a failure I won't lose too much.


    My Olympus C5050 supports 2 memory slots concurrently. One for
    Compact Flash compatible media and the other for Smart Media and
    xD.

    I copy files from the CF right over to the spare media in my
    other slot with a couple of menu selections.

    > I've also loaded my notebook with several image recovery
    > utilities, just in case.


    Always a good idea.

    > That damned Transcend 512MB CF failed two times in the first
    > few days I used it. With Smartmedia I never had to worry about
    > losing images.


    Simply because you have had bad experiences withone particular CF
    card should not lead you to believe that CF technology is
    inferior.

    I followed the instructions, did a full format of the CF media
    while it was inside my camera, using the cameras own format
    command.

    I have not yet lost any files due to errors on any of the media I
    have, including Smart Media, xD and CF.

    Perhaps investing in another card from another manufacturer and
    giving it some detailed testing would provide a different end
    result?
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 20, 2003
    #8
  9. > See here for a compatibility list of CF cards:
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/16955830
    >
    > You'll note that a number of CF card brands create problems
    > with the Olympuy 5050.


    Could you perhaps provide the review/site where this graphic was
    presented? It would be nice to see it in its proper context.

    Thanks
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 20, 2003
    #9
  10. Not exactly a renowned authority.

    Odd that you condemn CF after one bad experience even though
    there are a huge number of CF users out there who don't have any
    problems whatsoever.

    Seems a bit presumptuous to me.

    > In article <_zG0b.20315$>,
    > says...
    >>> See here for a compatibility list of CF cards:
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/image/16955830
    >>>
    >>> You'll note that a number of CF card brands create problems
    >>> with the Olympuy 5050.

    >>
    >> Could you perhaps provide the review/site where this graphic
    >> was presented? It would be nice to see it in its proper
    >> context.

    >
    > Was created by a guy in the dpreview forums. I guess he took a
    > poll.
    >
    > Anyway, do a search in the Olympus forum of the dpreview
    > forums. You'll be surprised to see how many CF horror stories
    > you'll find.
    >
    > Sometimes it's an advantage when the memory card is "passive":
    > at least it doesn't have a controller with its own firmware
    > which might conflict with the computer of the digital camera.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 20, 2003
    #10
  11. BUNTOVNIK

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <_AR0b.17384$>,
    says...
    > Not exactly a renowned authority.


    You mean all those users who reported problems with their CF cards were lying ?

    > Odd that you condemn CF after one bad experience even though
    > there are a huge number of CF users out there who don't have any
    > problems whatsoever.


    Can you explain why the Transcend 512MB and other CF cards create
    compatibility problems with the 5050 ?

    > Seems a bit presumptuous to me.


    You simply attack my credibility without bringing in any new point.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 21, 2003
    #11
  12. >> Not exactly a renowned authority.
    >
    > You mean all those users who reported problems with their CF
    > cards were lying ?


    Not at all - but I would rather see information based on reviews
    by established, reputable sites who have defined and consistent
    testing procedures. :)

    After all, forgetting to properly format a CF card with the
    cameras own format routine could be the culprit.

    > You simply attack my credibility without bringing in any new
    > point.


    First, I did not attack YOUR credibility. Simply pointing out
    that you might not be correct with your absolutist statements
    regarding the stability (or in your assertion, constant
    instability) of Compact Flash.

    Millions of people using it successfully might give you some
    indication that it works well after all. Your own unwillingness
    to admit you might just be wrong is your own undoing in regards
    to credibility. :)
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 21, 2003
    #12
  13. BUNTOVNIK

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <DRW0b.17916$>,
    says...

    > First, I did not attack YOUR credibility. Simply pointing out
    > that you might not be correct with your absolutist statements
    > regarding the stability (or in your assertion, constant
    > instability) of Compact Flash.


    Not all brands of CF cards cause problems, but there are enough brands
    of CF which do and that's reason enough to be worried. How do you know
    if a specific brand of CF card with a specific firmware will be ok with
    your camera ?

    Before buying the Transcend I enquired if it was compatible with the
    5050. Somebody said he was using it without problems. It turned out that
    the Transcend works fine with the Olympus 5050 with firmware v78, but
    not with the 5050 with firmware v77 - the one I have.
    Later it also turned out that Transcend made a firmware update in its CF
    cards, so that Transcend CF cards with a firmware version beyond
    something cause fewer problems.

    By the way, while I write this somebody else has just reported a problem
    with a Transcend card.

    > Your own unwillingness
    > to admit you might just be wrong is your own undoing in regards
    > to credibility. :)


    Yet another personal attack. You keep on making personal attacks without
    adding any new points or new information to the discussion.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 21, 2003
    #13
  14. BUNTOVNIK

    DHB Guest

    A few months ago CPU magazine ran a small but informative article about
    CF cards. They spoke with representatives of some of the CF manufactures
    about why some of the cheaper cards seen to do much better than some of the
    more expensive & better known brands.

    The article opened my eyes as to why speed & price alone should not be
    the strongest reasons to choose 1 CF card over another. The point was that
    there is hands shaking between the CF device & the firmware controller
    within the CF card which tells the device when the card is ready for a write
    command. What some companies have done is have the card always answer yes
    to that question even if it's not quite ready because in most cases the
    device won't actually send the data before the card becomes ready. This
    saves time & can allow a card to record data faster without problems in most
    cases.

    However if your device (i.e.. camera) has a very fast processor, it
    might write to the card before it actually is ready which will cause
    compatibility problems. If I can find that magazine I will inform you of
    the month so that you & others may look it up at a library so you can get
    the full story rather than my recall of it.

    As for me, I like Lexar 12x or faster cards because they have a lifetime
    warrantee & a great data recovery program called "Image Rescue" which only
    works with their cards but the program does much more than what the mane
    implies. It has a "Card Test" & "Secure Erase" feature that I like since I
    use CF cards for other data storage not just pictures. Also before I
    settled in on Lexar cards I did buy Viking CF cards as they were much
    cheaper at the time & I have been very pleased with them as well but now
    that Lexar's prices are very competitive, I will stay with them.


    Hope this information in found to be helpful.

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <DRW0b.17916$>,
    > says...
    >
    > > First, I did not attack YOUR credibility. Simply pointing out
    > > that you might not be correct with your absolutist statements
    > > regarding the stability (or in your assertion, constant
    > > instability) of Compact Flash.

    >
    > Not all brands of CF cards cause problems, but there are enough brands
    > of CF which do and that's reason enough to be worried. How do you know
    > if a specific brand of CF card with a specific firmware will be ok with
    > your camera ?
    >
    > Before buying the Transcend I enquired if it was compatible with the
    > 5050. Somebody said he was using it without problems. It turned out that
    > the Transcend works fine with the Olympus 5050 with firmware v78, but
    > not with the 5050 with firmware v77 - the one I have.
    > Later it also turned out that Transcend made a firmware update in its CF
    > cards, so that Transcend CF cards with a firmware version beyond
    > something cause fewer problems.
    >
    > By the way, while I write this somebody else has just reported a problem
    > with a Transcend card.
    >
    > > Your own unwillingness
    > > to admit you might just be wrong is your own undoing in regards
    > > to credibility. :)

    >
    > Yet another personal attack. You keep on making personal attacks without
    > adding any new points or new information to the discussion.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    > Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    > Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
     
    DHB, Aug 21, 2003
    #14
  15. BUNTOVNIK

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Aug 21, 2003
    #15
  16. BUNTOVNIK

    DHB Guest

    No, as I understand it "Sandisk" invented the CF format & thus it's
    specifications. Also as I understand it they all have to have this built-in
    controller which is different from the "Lexar USB enabled" feature. In a
    very similar way that an ATA hard drive signals when it's ready to write
    (i.e. head in the correct place) CF cards do basically the same hand
    shaking.

    However the CF cards have no moving parts but it still must address free
    areas on the card before it can perform a write operation & some card
    manufactures have reasoned that the card is faster than the camera's ability
    to transfer the data after a write request. This practice seems to work
    fine in older cameras & most consumer grade cameras but that's all changing
    as the camera processors are getting faster & larger image RAM buffers are
    also becoming more common.

    Wish I could explain this all better but other concerns have moved me
    further away from the latest in the electronic field than I was in the past.
    Not to mention that unless your working in that field, it's hard to keep up
    with the speed of changes lately.

    But I do my best with the time & the amount of working gray matter I
    have!

    Again, I hope this was helpful.

    DHB


    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks, very interesting. So basically if the memory card is passive,
    > i.e. has no internal controller, these handshake problems can't arise
    > and overall there are fewer incompatibilities.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    > Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    > Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
     
    DHB, Aug 21, 2003
    #16
    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. Gerard McGovern
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    969
    Todd Walker
    Aug 29, 2003
  2. Michael Meissner
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    356
    Bernhard Mayer
    Aug 20, 2003
  3. Petzl
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    457
    Paul D. Sullivan
    Aug 23, 2003
  4. -Gene-

    Sony DSC F828 vs. DSC F848

    -Gene-, Oct 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,283
    Bob Niland
    Oct 28, 2003
  5. luke

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

    luke, Dec 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    655
Loading...

Share This Page