Sony 828 first impressions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by bmoag, Dec 31, 2003.

  1. bmoag

    bmoag Guest

    Most of what I have read about this camera, especially on this group, is
    completely baseless. I was half ready to send the camera back to Sony before
    I got it. I think the size of the sensor's pixel count is causing pixel envy
    among the susceptible.

    This is an astounding camera. It is not the best all purpose all everything
    camera. Neither is any Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Minolta. I own a lot of
    those. But the quality of the 828 images has to be seen directly, all
    22.8mbs, to be appreciated.

    Noise and color fidelity are non-issues in the real world and no different
    than any high end digital camera that I have seen, used or read about. In
    actual use the color fidelity and detail of the 828 images is jaw-dropping.
    I have some very colorful birds and holding them next to a calibrated
    monitor showing their picture made by the 828 is a revelation. The images
    hold even small feather details when magnified several fold.

    The form factor, fixed lens vs dSLR is a matter of user preference and is
    not an issue for the intended use of this camera.

    The most valid criticism of the sensor size has to do with the small focal
    length lenses that are mandated. With the longest focal length actually 50mm
    a diaphragm of 2.8 may not allow very selective focus, but Photoshop can
    cure that. The other issue is the limit of f8 at the other end because of
    potential diffraction problems with these short focal length lenses--so far
    the weather has not cooperated to provide bright enough sunlight to
    challenge this limit.

    I think they will have to pry this camera out of my cold, dead hands . . .
     
    bmoag, Dec 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:CiuIb.3668$...

    > Noise and color fidelity are non-issues in the real world and no different
    > than any high end digital camera that I have seen,


    Prosumer, perhaps, though the samples look a bit noisey even fir the better
    end of that market. It has enough pixels to down size it to 5MP though, in
    which case it will probably look better than most prosumer 5's. Prosumer
    and pro are still worlds apart, which makes the big Sony very hard to
    justify on price, or convenience.

    > The most valid criticism of the sensor size has to do with the small

    focal
    > length lenses that are mandated. With the longest focal length actually

    50mm
    > a diaphragm of 2.8 may not allow very selective focus,


    That's not a focal length issue, its a physically small sensor size issue.
    Roughly multiply the aperture by 4 to get the 35mm equivalent FOV (i.e. f8 =
    about f32)

    > I think they will have to pry this camera out of my cold, dead hands . . .


    It's a very good, decently built prosumer camera, though it should have been
    a bigger improvement over the F717. I think its price-point is very much a
    left over from the days 10.3MP DSLRs cost $1800 instead of $6-700 street,
    even traditionally poor value Canon has a 6MP DSLR in the $800 range now
    (granted, its build quality is well below the Sony).
     
    George Preddy, Dec 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. bmoag

    Harvey Guest

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:CiuIb.3668$...
    > Most of what I have read about this camera, especially on this group, is
    > completely baseless. I was half ready to send the camera back to Sony

    before
    > I got it.


    Steve, for one, was very high on this camera. See
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f828_pg5.html
     
    Harvey, Dec 31, 2003
    #3
  4. bmoag

    joe.harman Guest

    ........Snipped
    > I think they will have to pry this camera out of my cold, dead hands . . .
    >

    If I can't take my 828 with me I ain't goin cos I just love it!
    Joe.
     
    joe.harman, Dec 31, 2003
    #4
  5. bmoag

    Mick Ruthven Guest

    Do you shoot in RAW mode? One review said you had to wait 13 seconds between
    shots using RAW. Is that correct?

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:CiuIb.3668$...
    > Most of what I have read about this camera, especially on this group, is
    > completely baseless. I was half ready to send the camera back to Sony

    before
    > I got it. I think the size of the sensor's pixel count is causing pixel

    envy
    > among the susceptible.
     
    Mick Ruthven, Dec 31, 2003
    #5
  6. bmoag

    Rick Guest

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message news:CiuIb.3668$...
    > Most of what I have read about this camera, especially on this group, is
    > completely baseless. I was half ready to send the camera back to Sony before
    > I got it. I think the size of the sensor's pixel count is causing pixel envy
    > among the susceptible.
    >
    > This is an astounding camera. It is not the best all purpose all everything
    > camera. Neither is any Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Minolta. I own a lot of
    > those. But the quality of the 828 images has to be seen directly, all
    > 22.8mbs, to be appreciated.
    >
    > Noise and color fidelity are non-issues in the real world and no different
    > than any high end digital camera that I have seen, used or read about. In
    > actual use the color fidelity and detail of the 828 images is jaw-dropping.


    Anyone thinking of believing this garbage is directed to:
    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/index.shtml

    Look e.g. at the nighttime skyline images. Absoutely no detail
    on the building lights, and truly horrible chromatic aberration,
    even at ISO 100.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Dec 31, 2003
    #6
  7. "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:CiuIb.3668$...
    > Most of what I have read about this camera, especially on this group, is
    > completely baseless. I was half ready to send the camera back to Sony

    before
    > I got it. I think the size of the sensor's pixel count is causing pixel

    envy
    > among the susceptible.
    >
    > This is an astounding camera. It is not the best all purpose all

    everything
    > camera. Neither is any Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Minolta. I own a lot of
    > those. But the quality of the 828 images has to be seen directly, all
    > 22.8mbs, to be appreciated.
    >
    > Noise and color fidelity are non-issues in the real world and no different
    > than any high end digital camera that I have seen, used or read about. In
    > actual use the color fidelity and detail of the 828 images is

    jaw-dropping.
    > I have some very colorful birds and holding them next to a calibrated
    > monitor showing their picture made by the 828 is a revelation. The images
    > hold even small feather details when magnified several fold.
    >
    > The form factor, fixed lens vs dSLR is a matter of user preference and is
    > not an issue for the intended use of this camera.
    >
    > The most valid criticism of the sensor size has to do with the small

    focal
    > length lenses that are mandated. With the longest focal length actually

    50mm
    > a diaphragm of 2.8 may not allow very selective focus, but Photoshop can
    > cure that. The other issue is the limit of f8 at the other end because of
    > potential diffraction problems with these short focal length lenses--so

    far
    > the weather has not cooperated to provide bright enough sunlight to
    > challenge this limit.
    >
    > I think they will have to pry this camera out of my cold, dead hands . . .
    >
    >


    Come back when you shot available light pictures ISO 400 indoors.
     
    Mike Harrison, Dec 31, 2003
    #7
  8. "Harvey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    > news:CiuIb.3668$...
    > > Most of what I have read about this camera, especially on this group, is
    > > completely baseless. I was half ready to send the camera back to Sony

    > before
    > > I got it.

    >
    > Steve, for one, was very high on this camera. See
    > http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f828_pg5.html
    >
    >


    Notice everything is shot ISO 64, I want to see some pictures taken at ISO
    400 with this camera and lets see how it looks.
     
    Mike Harrison, Dec 31, 2003
    #8

  9. > It's a very good, decently built prosumer camera, though it should have

    been
    > a bigger improvement over the F717. I think its price-point is very much

    a
    > left over from the days 10.3MP DSLRs cost $1800 instead of $6-700 street,
    > even traditionally poor value Canon has a 6MP DSLR in the $800 range now
    > (granted, its build quality is well below the Sony).
    >
    >


    I agree 999 is a lot for a P&S camera compared to 999 getting you a DSLR
    with a better sensor and expansion capability. If it sold for 599 I could
    see its value.
     
    Mike Harrison, Dec 31, 2003
    #9
  10. bmoag

    Phil Guest

    bmoag wrote:

    > Most of what I have read about this camera, especially on this group, is
    > completely baseless.


    On many topics :-(


    > This is an astounding camera.


    Egad -- a message from someone liking a camera: Refreshing!

    > It is not the best all purpose all everything
    > camera. Neither is any Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Minolta.


    No camera is perfect for everything. I reckon many have and use
    several, from pocket size to dSLR.

    Phil
     
    Phil, Dec 31, 2003
    #10
  11. "Mike Harrison" <> wrote in message
    news:bsv0e4$1mnhc$-berlin.de...

    > I agree 999 is a lot for a P&S camera compared to 999 getting you a DSLR
    > with a better sensor and expansion capability. If it sold for 599 I

    could
    > see its value.


    But DSLR and P&S are two different product types, and people who want one
    might not think the other was an acceptable substitute. That argument
    works both ways. So you are not comparing like with like.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 31, 2003
    #11
  12. bmoag

    joe.harman Guest

    "Mick Ruthven" <> wrote in message
    news:G2DIb.4009$...
    > Do you shoot in RAW mode? One review said you had to wait 13 seconds

    between
    > shots using RAW. Is that correct?
    >

    yes, I have used RAW and it does take about 10-13 seconds to write the file
    (about 16.5meg!) to the card and it also writes a (about 3.5 jpeg) at the
    same time.
    The RAW converter is primitive and I hope Sony will a third party developer
    to work on this or bring out better software.
    I wud like a dedicated flash but Sony is too expensive so looking for
    another type.
    Joe
     
    joe.harman, Dec 31, 2003
    #12
  13. bmoag

    joe.harman Guest

    "Mike Harrison" <> wrote in message
    news:bsv06j$1g6mn$-berlin.de...
    > >

    > Come back when you shot available light pictures ISO 400 indoors.
    >
    >

    I have used ISO 400 indoors and and,of course, can see some noise which I
    can remove with Noise Ninja, so I'm still happy because it suits me but I
    accept that it will not please everybody.
    Joe
     
    joe.harman, Dec 31, 2003
    #13
  14. bmoag

    Phil Guest

    Mike Harrison wrote:
    got it.
    >>
    >>Steve, for one, was very high on this camera. See
    >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f828_pg5.html
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Notice everything is shot ISO 64, I want to see some pictures taken at ISO
    > 400 with this camera and lets see how it looks.
    >
    >


    There is a review somewhere with such samples. Much noiser than the
    Canon 10D/300D -- but to be expected with a much smaller sensor.

    Phil
     
    Phil, Dec 31, 2003
    #14
  15. bmoag

    Seymore Guest

    Check this review...
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml

    However, it was compaired with a 10D.

    Seymore...
    Owner of an S85... and luvin' it!


    "Mike Harrison" <> wrote in message news:bsv0as$1p60k$-berlin.de...
    >
    > "Harvey" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    > > news:CiuIb.3668$...
    > > > Most of what I have read about this camera, especially on this group, is
    > > > completely baseless. I was half ready to send the camera back to Sony

    > > before
    > > > I got it.

    > >
    > > Steve, for one, was very high on this camera. See
    > > http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f828_pg5.html
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Notice everything is shot ISO 64, I want to see some pictures taken at ISO
    > 400 with this camera and lets see how it looks.
    >
    >
     
    Seymore, Jan 1, 2004
    #15
  16. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote in
    message news:DcEIb.2920$...
    > "Mike Harrison" <> wrote in message
    > news:bsv0e4$1mnhc$-berlin.de...
    >
    > > I agree 999 is a lot for a P&S camera compared to 999 getting you a DSLR
    > > with a better sensor and expansion capability. If it sold for 599 I

    > could
    > > see its value.

    >
    > But DSLR and P&S are two different product types, and people who want one
    > might not think the other was an acceptable substitute. That argument
    > works both ways. So you are not comparing like with like.


    Traditionally the big difference is size, the 828 sacrifices most of that.
    Movies are a difference too, and the 828 does ok for its price, but Fuji VGA
    is a lot better than Sony.

    A DSLR is also a whole lot simpler and faster to operate than a P&S,
    contrary to popular belief.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 1, 2004
    #16
  17. bmoag

    Jim Holland Guest

    Good Morning!


    > Mick Ruthven wrote:


    > Do you shoot in RAW mode? One review said you had
    > to wait 13 seconds between shots using RAW.
    > Is that correct?


    That was Steve's site -- simultaneously saves JPEG with
    RAW. Here is quote of paragraph from Steve:

    """Another improvement over the F717, and a first for Sony, is
    the provision of RAW image mode. A RAW image file is the digital
    equivalent of a film negative. When it is processed by the
    included Sony Image Data Converter software, changes that you
    make to White Balance, Tones, Sharpness, brightness, contrast,
    saturation and hue are saved as processing instructions and do
    not affect the original RAW image file. You can later modify
    those settings without degrading the quality of the original
    image. The Image Data Converter software (Windows only at this
    time, Sony promises a Mac OS version in Feb 2004) can convert and
    save RAW images as JPEG or TIFF files so that they can be
    processed by other applications, sent to a lab for printing, or
    simply shared with friends and family. Be warned, however, that
    the F828's RAW image files are very large, nearly 17 megabytes to
    be exact, so you'll need plenty of CF or Memory Stick capacity if
    you intend to exploit this feature. Also, when using RAW mode,
    continuous Burst and Bracket shooting modes can not be used. It
    takes the F828 about 13 seconds to process a raw image and a
    standard quality JPG image is also saved."""

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f828_pg5.html



    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

    Jim

    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
     
    Jim Holland, Jan 1, 2004
    #17
  18. bmoag

    Aardvark Guest


    > yes, I have used RAW and it does take about 10-13 seconds to

    write the file
    > (about 16.5meg!) to the card and it also writes a (about 3.5

    jpeg) at the
    > same time.
    > The RAW converter is primitive and I hope Sony will a third

    party developer
    > to work on this or bring out better software.


    The fact that Sony has encrypted the RAW data makes it pretty
    hard for anyone to write software for Sony's RAW unless they pay
    Sony some kind of licensing fee, which won't be cheap. That
    alone will put off all but the biggest developers.
     
    Aardvark, Jan 1, 2004
    #18
  19. bmoag

    Ron Hunter Guest

    George Preddy wrote:

    > "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote in
    > message news:DcEIb.2920$...
    >
    >>"Mike Harrison" <> wrote in message
    >>news:bsv0e4$1mnhc$-berlin.de...
    >>
    >>
    >>>I agree 999 is a lot for a P&S camera compared to 999 getting you a DSLR
    >>>with a better sensor and expansion capability. If it sold for 599 I

    >>
    >>could
    >>
    >>>see its value.

    >>
    >>But DSLR and P&S are two different product types, and people who want one
    >>might not think the other was an acceptable substitute. That argument
    >>works both ways. So you are not comparing like with like.

    >
    >
    > Traditionally the big difference is size, the 828 sacrifices most of that.
    > Movies are a difference too, and the 828 does ok for its price, but Fuji VGA
    > is a lot better than Sony.
    >
    > A DSLR is also a whole lot simpler and faster to operate than a P&S,
    > contrary to popular belief.
    >
    >

    Faster, maybe. Simpler, not!
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 1, 2004
    #19
  20. "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > George Preddy wrote:


    > >>But DSLR and P&S are two different product types, and people who want

    one
    > >>might not think the other was an acceptable substitute. That argument
    > >>works both ways. So you are not comparing like with like.

    > >
    > >
    > > Traditionally the big difference is size, the 828 sacrifices most of

    that.
    > > Movies are a difference too, and the 828 does ok for its price, but Fuji

    VGA
    > > is a lot better than Sony.
    > >
    > > A DSLR is also a whole lot simpler and faster to operate than a P&S,
    > > contrary to popular belief.
    > >

    > Faster, maybe. Simpler, not!


    How so? Program mode is program mode, push the button. Manual modes are
    much easier with DSLRs.
     
    George Preddy, Jan 1, 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. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    639
    Silverstrand
    Sep 30, 2005
  2. Lars L. Christensen

    G.SHDSL 828-to-828

    Lars L. Christensen, Dec 16, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,361
    Igor MamuziƦ
    Dec 17, 2004
  3. Gordon
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    452
    Old Gringo
    Dec 20, 2004
  4. Bill

    Opinions....(was Sony 828 First Impressions)

    Bill, Jan 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    492
  5. joe.harman

    Sony 828 and Sony Flash 32X?...

    joe.harman, Jan 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    420
    Seymore
    Jan 4, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page