So, zbzbzb re: Sony F828

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gavin Cato, Dec 20, 2003.

  1. Gavin Cato

    Gavin Cato Guest

    Remember a fortnight ago we were arguing about the F828.

    I said it was logical that 8mpixels on a tiny sensor was not going to outdo
    a DSLR, and you kept jumping up and down saying "it's possible!! it is!! it
    hasn't been released yet!!!".

    Well now the shots from the camers are leaking out and what do we see?
    Noise...even at ISO64 let alone higher ISO's. The camera must be attrocious
    at 800 ISO.

    Now, be careful not to suffocate with your head in the sandpit.

    Gav
    Gavin Cato, Dec 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gavin Cato

    zbzbzb Guest

    >Remember a fortnight ago we were arguing about the F828.
    >
    >I said it was logical that 8mpixels on a tiny sensor was not going to outdo
    >a DSLR, and you kept jumping up and down saying "it's possible!! it is!! it
    >hasn't been released yet!!!".
    >



    Yeah, and if it delivered would you be posting right now?


    >Well now the shots from the camers are leaking out and what do we see?
    >Noise...even at ISO64 let alone higher ISO's. The camera must be attrocious
    >at 800 ISO.
    >
    >Now, be careful not to suffocate with your head in the sandpit.
    >
    >Gav



    No sand pits here. Remember, I said there was no way anyone, outside of Sony
    themselves, that could know for sure how well it would perform until it was
    released. I took no position good or bad, unlike you. Somehow you think that
    waiting for the actual evidence to present itself before making conclusions is
    not sound reasoning. Most reasonable people would disagree with you.
    zbzbzb, Dec 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gavin Cato

    H Guest

    H, Dec 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Gavin Cato

    Trevor S Guest

    bzbzb (zbzbzb) wrote in
    news::

    <snip>

    > Somehow you think that waiting for the actual evidence to present
    > itself before making conclusions is not sound reasoning. Most
    > reasonable people would disagree with you.


    mmmm by that reasoning you would need to jump of a cliff to see if it
    actually hurt you...

    With enough knowledge and expereince with something, it's reasonably easy
    to draw logical conclusion prior to the expereince IMO.

    Of course, Usenet seems predisposed to people calling themselves experts,
    but sorting the wheat from the chaff is the challenge !

    I can't comment on this particular instance though, as I don;t have enough
    expereince in the field :)

    I am sure the 828 will be a roaring success, SONY does a wondeful job of
    marketing.... The shots I have seen are full of noise though.

    --
    Trevor S


    "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
    -Albert Einstein
    Trevor S, Dec 20, 2003
    #4
  5. Gavin Cato

    bmoag Guest

    This kind of nonsense about seeing noise in a web posted image should be
    ingored by anyone reading it.
    Scroll down this newsgroup to find entries dismissing every high end digital
    camera out there over some minor or imagined deficit. They all have deficits
    as does every machine of every kind ever made, especially when used for a
    purpose for which it was never intended, even wheels and levers.
    The biggest laugh is over this as yet unknown Sony: why does a camera with a
    larger megapixel count threaten guys who will be left with cameras with a
    smaller pixel count? What besides money do they have invested in their gear?
    bmoag, Dec 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Gavin Cato

    zbzbzb Guest

    >> Somehow you think that waiting for the actual evidence to present
    >> itself before making conclusions is not sound reasoning. Most
    >> reasonable people would disagree with you.

    >
    >mmmm by that reasoning you would need to jump of a cliff to see if it
    >actually hurt you...



    Knowing the consequences of jumping off a cliff is ridiculously obvious and
    totally something different from making conclusions over whether a complicated
    product will or will not perform as expected prior to its release. Even a child
    could reason that out.


    >With enough knowledge and expereince with something, it's reasonably easy
    >to draw logical conclusion prior to the expereince IMO.
    >


    Yep, and I would say very few to possibly no one here has that knowledge. The
    person who originated this post is neither an engineer nor scientist in the
    field. Also, that kind of reasoning has been turned on its shoulders over and
    over and over again as scientists and inventors continue to do what is normally
    considered impossible. I could understand one saying, with the proper
    knowledge, that something is not likely with current technology or knowledge
    but to conclude that something is impossible is ridiculous for science,
    engineering, and knowledge is constantly advancing.


    >I am sure the 828 will be a roaring success, SONY does a wondeful job of
    >marketing.... The shots I have seen are full of noise though.
    >
    >--
    >Trevor S


    And I agree, but I agree based on evidence whereas he, and others, *concluded*
    based on guesses and current technology. As I asked him, would he have even
    bothered to repsond if the results so far had proven to be outstanding? Of
    course not, for he would have been wrong. I, on the other hand, am neither
    since I only took the position of wait and see. I find it bizarre that he is
    actually gloating under the circumstances. Oh well.
    zbzbzb, Dec 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Gavin Cato

    zbzbzb Guest

    >The biggest laugh is over this as yet unknown Sony: why does a camera with a
    >larger megapixel count threaten guys who will be left with cameras with a
    >smaller pixel count? What besides money do they have invested in their gear?


    Their egos.
    zbzbzb, Dec 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Gavin Cato

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <20031220161926.14218.00001629@mb-
    m28.news.cs.com>, bzbzb says...
    > >The biggest laugh is over this as yet unknown Sony: why does a camera with a
    > >larger megapixel count threaten guys who will be left with cameras with a
    > >smaller pixel count? What besides money do they have invested in their gear?

    >
    > Their egos.
    >
    >
    >


    Nahhhh! Not on my part anyhow.(the ego I mean). I was
    hoping for something TERRIFIC from Sony with the 828,
    and I'm not seeing it, so far.

    It DOES seem to be a little noisier than the 717, and if
    that turns out to be true I'll be disapointed, as I was
    looking forward to an excuse to buy the 828.

    I'm real happy with my 717 (and my Mavicam cdr500, and
    my Fuji S5000). I might have let one of them go (on E-
    bay or in the classified adds in the paper) and ordered
    the 828 by now, but the 828 seems a step to the SIDE
    instead of a leap ahead. For now, what I cant get from
    digital, I'll get from film, and MAYBE get a 828 later
    or just keep waiting and get a DSLR even LATER.

    I like what I see in the COLOR in the 828 samples (the
    new 4 color idea seems to work) but I'm not too crazy
    about the noise level. I cant say for sure that the
    noise is WORSE than the 717, 'cause the pictures I have
    were taken 1000 miles away from me and I cant duplicate
    them here at home.

    I have one CDR of sample pix from my brother-in-law in
    Texas, shot Wednesday afternoon and dropped off by Fed-
    Ex last night. Sorry, cant post 'em, they arent mine to
    post.

    GOOD color, noisy skies, not BAD noisy, but noticable
    noise on the crt at 100%. NOT distressing to him, as it
    a giant LEAP ahead of what he had. (a 3.2mp Toshiba PDR
    3300).

    One thing I know for sure about the pictures is they
    have had no post processing at all.. Thats what he sent
    them too me for.

    Im NOT sure how he got his so soon, but Im sure the fact
    that he commutes to Japan once or twice a month for work
    factors into it.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry Lynch, Dec 20, 2003
    #8
  9. Gavin Cato

    Trevor S Guest

    bzbzb (zbzbzb) wrote in
    news::

    <snip>

    > Knowing the consequences of jumping off a cliff is ridiculously
    > obvious and totally something different from making conclusions over
    > whether a complicated product will or will not perform as expected
    > prior to its release. Even a child could reason that out.


    The physics involved in the calculation from jumping of a cliff are quite
    complex, yet the result is intrincially easy to understand. That you
    believe something to be "complicated" does not mean it is "complicated"
    for everyone.

    <snip>

    > Yep, and I would say very few to possibly no one here has that
    > knowledge.


    That's presumptive.

    > The person who originated this post is neither an engineer
    > nor scientist in the field.


    Actually I was not really interested in the specifics of the OP but more
    interested in the concept of not understaning something after 1. being
    exposed to similar concepts in the past 2. have a high interest and high
    general knowledge of the subjext and 3. a modicum of intelligence, I
    would argue these three in combination WOULD allow you to draw realistic
    conclusions.

    As to the abilty of the OP to draw those conclusions I have no idea, if
    he did make those assertions though and if time has proved the OP correct
    then 1. they must have been lucky or 2. he must have some ability to
    understand the concept. What do you prescribe it to ?

    > Also, that kind of reasoning has been
    > turned on its shoulders over and over and over again as scientists and
    > inventors continue to do what is normally considered impossible.


    Up to a point, yes, but this comes back to have a genuine understanding
    and knowledge of the subject in hand. A mere "patents" clerk turned the
    physics world upside down, prescribing close minded scientists and
    engineers with all encompasing knowledge has proved foolish in the past
    and no doubt will again in the future.

    > I
    > could understand one saying, with the proper knowledge, that something
    > is not likely with current technology or knowledge but to conclude
    > that something is impossible is ridiculous for science, engineering,
    > and knowledge is constantly advancing.


    That's a fair statement.

    <snip>
    > And I agree, but I agree based on evidence whereas he, and others,
    > *concluded* based on guesses and current technology.


    To some extent that is pedantic or semantics. So where you more concered
    with the finality provided by the OPs original statement then any inhert
    truth it might contain ?

    > As I asked him,
    > would he have even bothered to repsond if the results so far had
    > proven to be outstanding? Of course not, for he would have been wrong.
    > I, on the other hand, am neither since I only took the position of
    > wait and see. I find it bizarre that he is actually gloating under
    > the circumstances. Oh well.


    Sorry, I may have mislead you, I have no real interest in the OPs
    gloating per se, it's virtually irrelevant to what I was asking.

    --
    Trevor S


    "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
    -Albert Einstein
    Trevor S, Dec 20, 2003
    #9
  10. Gavin Cato

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Gavin Cato wrote:

    > Remember a fortnight ago we were arguing about the F828.
    >
    > I said it was logical that 8mpixels on a tiny sensor was not going to
    > outdo a DSLR, and you kept jumping up and down saying "it's
    > possible!! it is!! it hasn't been released yet!!!".
    >
    > Well now the shots from the camers are leaking out and what do we see?
    > Noise...even at ISO64 let alone higher ISO's. The camera must be
    > attrocious at 800 ISO.
    >
    > Now, be careful not to suffocate with your head in the sandpit.


    Gavin,

    you're giving the guy way too much credit...
    He will NEVER admit he was wrong.
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 21, 2003
    #10
  11. Gavin Cato

    zbzbzb Guest

    >
    >> Knowing the consequences of jumping off a cliff is ridiculously
    >> obvious and totally something different from making conclusions over
    >> whether a complicated product will or will not perform as expected
    >> prior to its release. Even a child could reason that out.

    >
    >The physics involved in the calculation from jumping of a cliff are quite
    >complex, yet the result is intrincially easy to understand.



    You are now playing a game of semantics to try and blur the obvious. To jump
    off a cliff and know the conclusion of such an event is elementary despite your
    "physics" reference.


    > That you
    >believe something to be "complicated" does not mean it is "complicated"
    >for everyone.



    So then you support making a *conclusion* about how well a product is going to
    perform before it has even been released?

    So what are your qualifications in designing imaging sensors, if any? If you do
    have some, or many, then is it not safe to assume that others could have more
    than you? Enough maybe to come up with new designs and products?


    >> Yep, and I would say very few to possibly no one here has that
    >> knowledge.

    >
    >That's presumptive.


    Is it any more presumptuous than concluding that a product will not be able to
    perform prior to its release? Not even close. I think it is very safe to
    conclude this is not a group of imaging sensor engineers and scientists but
    instead one much more frequented by the digital photo hobbyist. I have read
    only recently of a person mentioning that they have done work on imaging
    sensors but beyond that I haven't seen much talk about anyone designing or
    engineering imaging sensors in this group. It is obvious that this isn't the
    forum for that kind of expertise on a large or meaningful scale.


    >
    >Actually I was not really interested in the specifics of the OP but more
    >interested in the concept of not understaning something after 1. being
    >exposed to similar concepts in the past 2. have a high interest and high
    >general knowledge of the subjext and 3. a modicum of intelligence, I
    >would argue these three in combination WOULD allow you to draw realistic
    >conclusions.



    "Conclusions" based on "general knowledge," "being exposed to similar
    concepts," "and a modicum of intelligience" are foolhardy. Sounds more to me
    like the kind of thinking prior to the Renaissance. No offense.


    >As to the abilty of the OP to draw those conclusions I have no idea, if
    >he did make those assertions though and if time has proved the OP correct
    >then 1. they must have been lucky or 2. he must have some ability to
    >understand the concept. What do you prescribe it to ?
    >


    I prescribe it to chance or likelihood. At the time he displayed no knowledge
    beyond the "general knowledge" you mention. Anyone could have made that guess
    and had a 50% chance of choosing correctly. At best it was based on current
    technology and what he may believed to have been the *likely* result. . The
    thing is he made a conclusion, not a likelihood determination.


    >> Also, that kind of reasoning has been
    >> turned on its shoulders over and over and over again as scientists and
    >> inventors continue to do what is normally considered impossible.

    >
    >Up to a point, yes, but this comes back to have a genuine understanding
    >and knowledge of the subject in hand.



    The point is it happens all the time. For every new technological advance there
    have been countless naysayers from the general public and more amazingly from
    the scientific community that says it can't be done. History eventually and
    almost always proves them wrong.


    >> I
    >> could understand one saying, with the proper knowledge, that something
    >> is not likely with current technology or knowledge but to conclude
    >> that something is impossible is ridiculous for science, engineering,
    >> and knowledge is constantly advancing.

    >
    >That's a fair statement.



    And that was and is my whole point with the original poster , and you. You are
    really overcomplicating the whole subject.


    >> And I agree, but I agree based on evidence whereas he, and others,
    >> *concluded* based on guesses and current technology.

    >
    >To some extent that is pedantic or semantics.



    In no way at all.


    >So where you more concered
    >with the finality provided by the OPs original statement then any inhert
    >truth it might contain ?
    >


    How can there be truth in a statement that makes conclusions about something
    that at the time did not even exist, at least not to the general public.? The
    "finality" that you mention was the point at the time. If the original subject
    was about tendencies of current technology then maybe I would be interested in
    "inherent truth," except it wasn't. A swan may be black but that doesn't mean
    all swans are.

    Likelihoods and conclusions are two different things. Remember what you said
    above, "That's a fair statement."

    >
    >Sorry, I may have mislead you,



    How did you mislead me?


    > I have no real interest in the OPs
    >gloating per se, it's virtually irrelevant to what I was asking.
    >
    >--
    >Trevor S


    I think you are greatly overanalyzing this subject.
    zbzbzb, Dec 21, 2003
    #11
  12. Gavin Cato

    zbzbzb Guest

    >> Now, be careful not to suffocate with your head in the sandpit.
    >
    >Gavin,
    >
    >you're giving the guy way too much credit...
    >He will NEVER admit he was wrong.


    No even around Christmas time you can force yourself to be nice to people? Sad.
    zbzbzb, Dec 21, 2003
    #12
  13. "Gavin Cato" <> wrote:

    > Remember a fortnight ago we were arguing about the F828.
    >
    > I said it was logical that 8mpixels on a tiny sensor was not going to

    outdo
    > a DSLR, and you kept jumping up and down saying "it's possible!! it is!!

    it
    > hasn't been released yet!!!".
    >
    > Well now the shots from the camers are leaking out and what do we see?
    > Noise...even at ISO64 let alone higher ISO's. The camera must be

    attrocious
    > at 800 ISO.


    There's no such thing as a consumer camera that's not attrocious at ISO 400,
    and the F828 is no exception.

    But the point of the 828 is to make 300 dpi 8x10 prints. And at ISO 64, the
    F828 is perfectly adequate to that task.

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

    Looks good to me at 8x11.

    This one: http://www.a-digital-eye.com/F828Disney2/DSC02630.JPG

    Is worlds better than

    This one: http://www.a-digital-eye.com/F828Disney2/IMG_2862.JPG

    And guess what: the second one, the one with the completely blown red
    channel, is the Canon Rebel.

    For the (admittedly limited) cases where it's appropriate, I'd say that the
    F828 is better than the Rebel.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 21, 2003
    #13
  14. Gavin Cato

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    zbzbzb wrote:

    > No even around Christmas time you can force yourself to
    > be nice to people? Sad.


    Hmm, let me see...

    You slander me, you insult me, you want me out of my country
    just because I have a non-Anglo name and I happen to think
    differently, you joke with another right-wing nut like you about
    *killing* me and I should be nice to you?

    Try apologizing first, but then again arrogant a**holes like you
    are just not capable of that. Sorry I'm not a hypocrite like you.
    And BTW, I'm not even christian (there you go, another reason
    for you to hate me.)

    Pathetic.
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 21, 2003
    #14
  15. Gavin Cato

    zbzbzb Guest

    >Hmm, let me see...
    >
    >You slander me,



    Never have. I accused you of never saying a positive thing about your own
    country. I think you more than anything have a real hate for America. It is my
    opinion and I am entitled to it. If that is true then you should go somewhere
    where you will be happy. Why tortue yourself and your fellow Americans? I even
    challenged you to share some things about America that you actually liked. You
    are after all an admitted cynic.


    >you insult me,



    Never insulted you or anyone in this group.


    you want me out of my country
    >just because I have a non-Anglo name



    Could care less about your name and its origins.


    and I happen to think
    >differently,



    Nothing wrong with thinking differently. There is something wrong in accusing
    others of being fascists and right wingers because they think differently.


    you joke with another right-wing nut like you about
    >*killing* me and I should be nice to you?



    Never joked about killing you. I used some dark humor about ways to exterminate
    people that fit into your description of my being a fascist. Apparently I also
    gave you what you wanted to hear since you took those jokes seriously.


    >
    >Try apologizing first,



    For what?


    > but then again arrogant a**holes like you
    >are just not capable of that.



    There you go again calling others names. Ever notice I never once called you a
    name?


    > Sorry I'm not a hypocrite like you.
    >And BTW, I'm not even christian (there you go, another reason
    >for you to hate me.)



    Why would I care what your religion is and why would you think I hate you?


    >
    >Pathetic.


    Sad.
    zbzbzb, Dec 21, 2003
    #15
  16. Gavin Cato

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Larry Lynch wrote:
    [...]
    > Im NOT sure how he got his so soon, but Im sure the fact
    > that he commutes to Japan once or twice a month for work
    > factors into it.


    Maybe this is old news, but a few hours ago I was in Fry's
    electronics in Palo Alto California, and they were displaying
    (and apparently selling) the Sony F828. Obviously there was
    some delay, but getting to stores a little before Christmas is
    much better than a little after.


    --
    --Bryan
    Bryan Olson, Dec 21, 2003
    #16
  17. Gavin Cato

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    zbzbzb wrote:

    > Never have. I accused you of never saying a positive thing about your
    > own country.


    Well, since it's FALSE, you are slandering me.

    > I think you more than anything have a real hate for
    > America. It is my opinion and I am entitled to it.


    You have absolutely no proof of what you're claiming.

    > If that is true then you should go somewhere where you will be
    > happy. Why tortue yourself and your fellow Americans?


    It's not true, you're just a racist and you hate me because I was
    born in another country. I know you live in the boonies, but I
    can assure you that where I live people are a lot more like me
    than you. Very few racist rednecks in LA...

    > I even challenged you to share some things about America
    > that you actually liked.


    I took your challenge and proved you a LIAR and a slanderer.
    I like a lot about America. Basically everything except racist
    rednecks like you.

    > You are after all an admitted cynic.


    You are after all an admitted racist.

    > you want me out of my country
    >> just because I have a non-Anglo name

    >
    >
    > Could care less about your name and its origins.


    Yeah right...

    > and I happen to think
    >> differently,

    >
    >
    > Nothing wrong with thinking differently.


    Sure, as long as whoever thinks differently leaves "your" country...
    Hitler would be proud of you.

    > There is something wrong in accusing others of being fascists
    > and right wingers because they think differently.


    But I'm accusing you of being a fascist BECAUSE you want me
    out of my country. That's what fascists have always said. But
    of course I can't expect someone like you to actually know
    history...

    > you joke with another right-wing nut like you about
    >> *killing* me and I should be nice to you?

    >
    >
    > Never joked about killing you. I used some dark humor about
    > ways to exterminate people that fit into your description


    So, you are admitting you joked about killing me.
    Maybe giving some time you will start admitting
    to yourself you are sick and you should seek
    professional help. The hatred is consuming you.

    > Apparently I also gave you what you wanted to hear since you
    > took those jokes seriously.


    I always take people who are mentally disturbed like you VERY
    seriously. You have also claimed to be armed and that the idea
    of killing a "liberal" gives you joy. You should be institutionalized.

    >> Sorry I'm not a hypocrite like you.
    >> And BTW, I'm not even christian (there you go, another reason
    >> for you to hate me.)

    >
    >
    > Why would I care what your religion is


    Because you are a right-wing racist nut?

    > and why would you think I hate you?


    You want me out of my country. That's plenty of hatred...
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 21, 2003
    #17
  18. Gavin Cato

    Nils Rostedt Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote
    >
    > There's no such thing as a consumer camera that's not attrocious at ISO

    400,
    > and the F828 is no exception.
    >
    > But the point of the 828 is to make 300 dpi 8x10 prints. And at ISO 64,

    the
    > F828 is perfectly adequate to that task.
    >
    > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545.JPG
    >
    > Looks good to me at 8x11.
    >
    > This one: http://www.a-digital-eye.com/F828Disney2/DSC02630.JPG
    >
    > Is worlds better than
    >
    > This one: http://www.a-digital-eye.com/F828Disney2/IMG_2862.JPG
    >
    > And guess what: the second one, the one with the completely blown red
    > channel, is the Canon Rebel.
    >
    > For the (admittedly limited) cases where it's appropriate, I'd say that

    the
    > F828 is better than the Rebel.
    >


    Comparison would be easier if the Rebel shot had been properly focused. And
    maybe the Canon's known tendency to slightly overexpose affects also this
    snapshot.

    To me, the convenience of being able to shoot at ISO 400 as the default
    without noise concerns, is a huge decision factor. But YMMV, to each his
    favorite.
    Nils Rostedt, Dec 21, 2003
    #18
  19. Gavin Cato

    Kenny Guest

    "Bryan Olson" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Maybe this is old news, but a few hours ago I was in Fry's
    > electronics in Palo Alto California, and they were displaying
    > (and apparently selling) the Sony F828. Obviously there was
    > some delay, but getting to stores a little before Christmas is
    > much better than a little after.
    >


    That means people will be able to take them back before New Year.

    I had a F717, nice camera, where did Sony go wrong with the 828? No
    wonder they wouldn't allow reviews BEFORE it was sold. Ughh, horrible CA
    and PF plus stair stepping and noise. This may kill Sony's reputation
    for all but the absolute die-hards.

    Kenny
    Kenny, Dec 21, 2003
    #19
  20. "Nils Rostedt" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote
    > >
    > > There's no such thing as a consumer camera that's not attrocious at ISO
    > > 400, and the F828 is no exception.
    > >
    > > But the point of the 828 is to make 300 dpi 8x10 prints. And at ISO 64,
    > > the F828 is perfectly adequate to that task.
    > >
    > > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/DSC02545.JPG
    > >
    > > Looks good to me at 8x11.


    http://www.a-digital-eye.com/F828Disney2/IMG_2862.JPG

    Concerning the Rebel disaster:

    > Comparison would be easier if the Rebel shot had been properly focused.


    The extra DOF in the consumer camera helps that particular shot.

    > And
    > maybe the Canon's known tendency to slightly overexpose affects also this
    > snapshot.


    The degree of blowout in the red channel in that shot is phenomenal: there
    are vast expanses of pure 255. It's more than "slight" overexposure. But
    bringing down the exposure enough to bring those areas all under 250 might
    bring the other channels down too far, I'd think.

    That was taken with parameter 1, which cranks saturation and contrast; it
    seems the 300D desperastely needs to be used with sensible settings for the
    image being shot. Maybe the "I just want a simple P&S camera" types have a
    point...

    > To me, the convenience of being able to shoot at ISO 400 as the default
    > without noise concerns, is a huge decision factor. But YMMV, to each his
    > favorite.


    Agreed, completely. But I do think that the F828 _may_ have a meaningful
    niche as a camera that puts better detail on 8x11 prints than the 300D does.
    (Maybe. Pending careful tests by the reviewers.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 21, 2003
    #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. BUNTOVNIK
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    575
  2. Gerard McGovern
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    909
    Todd Walker
    Aug 29, 2003
  3. Michael Meissner
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    313
    Bernhard Mayer
    Aug 20, 2003
  4. Petzl
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    421
    Paul D. Sullivan
    Aug 23, 2003
  5. Rick

    Sony F828

    Rick, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    547
    Godfrey DiGiorgi
    Sep 2, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page