Sony 828 samples.....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Manfred von Richthofen, Dec 17, 2003.

    1. Advertising

  1. Manfred von Richthofen

    Marc Libom Guest

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

    I have expected more of the combination Zeiss less, 8M and 4 colour sensor.
    For ISO 64 there pics are noisy (maybe normal with 8 MP on the small sensor)
    and I can see many many chromatic abberations, and I don't like violet light
    in digital images, where there was none in real life :) And the sharpness
    seems not very good on these pictures but this ain't necessarily has to be
    the cameras fault.
     
    Marc Libom, Dec 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  2. I agree Marc. High noise levels AND softness spells bad news IMHO - means
    they couldn't keep the noise under control in the frimware and will restrict
    your post processing options. and you get to "lug around" 8MP files. It
    doen't matter that much to me though - I already bought my 300D.





    "Marc Libom" <> wrote in message
    news:3fe04b98$0$270$...
    > > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/gallery.shtml

    >
    > I have expected more of the combination Zeiss less, 8M and 4 colour

    sensor.
    > For ISO 64 there pics are noisy (maybe normal with 8 MP on the small

    sensor)
    > and I can see many many chromatic abberations, and I don't like violet

    light
    > in digital images, where there was none in real life :) And the sharpness
    > seems not very good on these pictures but this ain't necessarily has to be
    > the cameras fault.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Manfred von Richthofen, Dec 17, 2003
    #3
  3. Manfred von Richthofen

    Bowser Guest

    Bowser, Dec 17, 2003
    #4
  4. Manfred von Richthofen

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Bowser wrote:

    > Noise and lack of sharpness at ISO 64? Not good...
    >


    The noise in the blue channel was pretty obvious... I was surprised to see it
    was that bad at ISO 64.
     
    Jim Townsend, Dec 17, 2003
    #5
  5. Manfred von Richthofen

    Marc Libom Guest

    > The noise in the blue channel was pretty obvious... I was surprised to see
    it
    > was that bad at ISO 64.


    I am waiting for the first ISO400 or ISO800 shot to see, how noise level is
    there...
     
    Marc Libom, Dec 17, 2003
    #6
  6. Manfred von Richthofen

    bmoag Guest

    Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions about
    noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
    nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.
     
    bmoag, Dec 17, 2003
    #7
  7. Manfred von Richthofen

    Rick Guest

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message news:7J_Db.41011$...
    > Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions about
    > noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
    > nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.


    And yet more mindless unjustifiable defense from The Sony Brigade.

    I have Sony's marketing campaign theme:

    "F828. Like the F717, only much worse."

    Rick
     
    Rick, Dec 17, 2003
    #8
  8. Manfred von Richthofen

    Rick Guest

    "Marc Libom" <> wrote in message news:3fe04b98$0$270$...
    > > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/gallery.shtml

    >
    > I have expected more of the combination Zeiss less, 8M and 4 colour sensor.
    > For ISO 64 there pics are noisy (maybe normal with 8 MP on the small sensor)
    > and I can see many many chromatic abberations, and I don't like violet light
    > in digital images, where there was none in real life :) And the sharpness
    > seems not very good on these pictures but this ain't necessarily has to be
    > the cameras fault.


    Argh. Still horrid color response. Blue sand strikes again!

    Rick
     
    Rick, Dec 17, 2003
    #9
  9. Manfred von Richthofen

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <7J_Db.41011$>,
    says...
    > Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions about
    > noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
    > nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.


    So I suppose when these things start getting into the hands of the Sony
    faithful and they start posting similar pictures with the same problems,
    those conclusions will be pointless as well?

    Amazing -- just like we have been saying here all along, the F828 is a
    turd. Based on those samples, I would much rather have an F717. But I'm
    sure the Sony zealots will never admit anything...

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    Canon 10D
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    http://www.twphotography.net
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Dec 17, 2003
    #10
  10. Manfred von Richthofen

    Bowser Guest

    I doubt that noise will decrease as the ISO increases. I guess now we know
    why it's taken so long to get to market.

    "Marc Libom" <> wrote in message
    news:3fe053da$0$262$...
    > > The noise in the blue channel was pretty obvious... I was surprised to

    see
    > it
    > > was that bad at ISO 64.

    >
    > I am waiting for the first ISO400 or ISO800 shot to see, how noise level

    is
    > there...
    >
    >
     
    Bowser, Dec 17, 2003
    #11
  11. Manfred von Richthofen

    Martin Guest

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message news:<7J_Db.41011$>...
    > Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions about
    > noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
    > nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.


    Yes, the conclusions almost certainly bear no resemblence to reality,
    but the thread is certainly not pointless. Most posts to threads are
    made in the spirit of social interaction at a distance. We human
    animals almost universally have a need to interact socially with
    others of like mind. The precision of our discussions are not
    important in fulfilling that need. I do grant you that we should
    always keep in mind that many of the posts are for fulfilling this
    need and not for sharing carefully researched information.

    This is,however, a legitimate use of newsgroup threads. It may not be
    up to your (or my) standard of precision, but we have no right to
    demand human beings not act like human beings in fulfilling their very
    real social needs
     
    Martin, Dec 17, 2003
    #12
  12. Manfred von Richthofen

    Bowser Guest

    There are full-size samples posted, which show much more than down-sized
    samples. And, samples from two different sources of production camera show
    the same noise.

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:7J_Db.41011$...
    > Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions about
    > noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
    > nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.
    >
    >
     
    Bowser, Dec 17, 2003
    #13
  13. Manfred von Richthofen

    Bowser Guest

    We've all seen the ful-size samples, so why do the conclusions bear no
    resemblance to reality? My conclusions are based on the full-size posted
    samples from two sites, which forms my basis for reality. Please explain why
    you believe conclusions based on samples from production units do not
    represent reality.

    "Martin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "bmoag" <> wrote in message

    news:<7J_Db.41011$>...
    > > Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions

    about
    > > noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
    > > nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.

    >
    > Yes, the conclusions almost certainly bear no resemblence to reality,
    > but the thread is certainly not pointless. Most posts to threads are
    > made in the spirit of social interaction at a distance. We human
    > animals almost universally have a need to interact socially with
    > others of like mind. The precision of our discussions are not
    > important in fulfilling that need. I do grant you that we should
    > always keep in mind that many of the posts are for fulfilling this
    > need and not for sharing carefully researched information.
    >
    > This is,however, a legitimate use of newsgroup threads. It may not be
    > up to your (or my) standard of precision, but we have no right to
    > demand human beings not act like human beings in fulfilling their very
    > real social needs
     
    Bowser, Dec 17, 2003
    #14
  14. Manfred von Richthofen

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <MPG.1a4a5f386041dd59989731@news-
    server.jam.rr.com>, says...
    > So I suppose when these things start getting into the hands of the Sony
    > faithful and they start posting similar pictures with the same problems,
    > those conclusions will be pointless as well?
    >
    > Amazing -- just like we have been saying here all along, the F828 is a
    > turd. Based on those samples, I would much rather have an F717. But I'm
    > sure the Sony zealots will never admit anything...
    >


    I've been using the 717 since July (about 4000 photos)
    and I love that camera.

    However, these first few pictures from the 828 dont show
    me any reason to buy it.

    I'll have to wait and see hoe it works when I get the
    chance to try one. The pictures posted so far are NOT
    encouraging.

    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Dec 18, 2003
    #15
  15. Manfred von Richthofen

    Marc Guest

    Marc, Dec 18, 2003
    #16
  16. Manfred von Richthofen

    Marc Libom Guest

    > Another pointless thread on this newsgroup: a cascade of conclusions about
    > noise based on one person's interpretation of a web-based photo based on
    > nothing but what he/her thinks he sees on a monitor.


    Why pointless? One of the most interesting questions of the last weeks for
    the interested groups was: "what digital" should I buy. The EOS 300d as
    affordable digital SLR with great image quality, the Minolta A1 with unique
    AntiShake and one of the best feature sets or should I wait for the Sony
    F828".

    Now the F828 is available. That no one, but the professionals (they will
    never buy a Sony), really needs a 8 MP resolution was clear. But the
    combination of the fast Carl Zeiss lens with the new 4 colour sensor,
    promised to deliver a great image quality, which the F828 had needed to
    burst away the Rebel and the A1.

    I have seen about 20 production model sample pics and all have been not
    really sharp (more expected from lens and AF), of poor color (more expected
    from new 4 color CCD) and the most pics - even the one without difficult
    light contrasts - had the CA problem and showed heavy blooming.

    So I cannot see a reason to buy an F828. If you want to have great image
    quality even without post-processing or need to use exchangable lenses - buy
    the EOS 300d. If you can accept some noise and want a prosumer camera with
    good 28-200 manual zoom, ingenious AntiShake and a huge feature set (like
    professional SLR) and almost unlimited configuration possibilities, buy an
    A1.
     
    Marc Libom, Dec 18, 2003
    #17
  17. Manfred von Richthofen

    Marc Libom Guest

    > And yet more mindless unjustifiable defense from The Sony Brigade.

    No doubt, Sony can do great tv, vcr or walk-man and certainly they can
    produce great high tech products too, like the ccd sensors, most cameras are
    using.

    But what Sony CANNOT do is, to speak the photographer's language. This is
    okay for digital pocket cameras, but not in the segment of an EOS300d or A1.
    With Canon or Minolta cameras, you will find decades of experience in
    photoprapher. Many of the features have been invented in relation to the
    customer's (photographer's) response.

    With a Sony you have a piece of high-tech in your hands, great high-tech -
    good products. But with products from the traditional manufacturers like
    Canon or Minolta, you maybe doesn't have the most bragging technics (most
    pixels, most color ccd, most ...), but a photographic tool where the
    photographer become one with and forget the technical issues.
     
    Marc Libom, Dec 18, 2003
    #18
  18. Manfred von Richthofen

    Rick Guest

    "Marc Libom" <> wrote in message news:3fe17a25$0$262$...
    > > And yet more mindless unjustifiable defense from The Sony Brigade.

    >
    > No doubt, Sony can do great tv, vcr or walk-man and certainly they can
    > produce great high tech products too, like the ccd sensors, most cameras are
    > using.
    >
    > But what Sony CANNOT do is, to speak the photographer's language. This is
    > okay for digital pocket cameras, but not in the segment of an EOS300d or A1.
    > With Canon or Minolta cameras, you will find decades of experience in
    > photoprapher. Many of the features have been invented in relation to the
    > customer's (photographer's) response.
    >
    > With a Sony you have a piece of high-tech in your hands, great high-tech -
    > good products. But with products from the traditional manufacturers like
    > Canon or Minolta, you maybe doesn't have the most bragging technics (most
    > pixels, most color ccd, most ...), but a photographic tool where the
    > photographer become one with and forget the technical issues.


    The fact that Sony doesn't produce a line of dSLRs probably
    has a lot to do with it. But I was most disappointed by the
    F828 -- you'd think after, what is it now, three years?, they
    would have finally addressed these issues. But no, at least
    from the sample images posted so far, it's the same nonsense
    all over again: terribly oversaturated reds (as bad as the F707
    and worse than the F717), horribly monochromatic and
    lifeless color response (note the sand/beach sample image),
    and now we can add excessive noise to the list of problems.
    The F828 turned out to be what many people suspected it
    would be all along.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Dec 18, 2003
    #19
  19. Manfred von Richthofen

    Dave Oddie Guest

    On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:45:32 +0100, "Marc Libom" <> wrote:

    >Now the F828 is available. That no one, but the professionals (they will
    >never buy a Sony), really needs a 8 MP resolution was clear.


    Why don't they need it?

    There was an interesting thread on the dpreview forum where someone who owns an
    828 (going by the name of Stan) posted many sample pictures.

    One shot was of a squirrell and when someone looked at the exif data the lens
    focal length equivalent came out as 300mm.

    "Stan" had left the digital zoom switched on and the Sony has a rather
    different way of doing digital zoom that is superior to a simple crop.

    Now with low mega pixel cameras their way of doing digital zoom is still not
    going to give you great images, but with an 8mp camera with 1.5x digital zoom
    you still have a few mega pixels in your image.

    Think about it. What "Stan" was effectively using was the equivalent of a
    300mm F2.8 lens to produce an image of very good quality.

    Now that is really getting into the territory of why bother with
    interchangeable lens SLR's even more than you are with your Minolta A1.

    That said he also posted other shots which were less impressive showing CA
    which I was surprised to see.

    I did not study the shots for noise performance because just as with the D7/A1
    line from Minolta I think it is an over emphasised "fault" you don't see in
    everyday prints. Minolta users can't really slag off the 828 for noise
    performance unless it is an order of magnitude worse than what Minolta
    produces.

    The CA was there though so that could be an issue and a deal breaker. There is
    no doubt the A1 lens has a good reputation here but I would like to see
    side-by-side comparisions as one shot from Stan was a nightmare of brightly lit
    shiny metalwork staircases and so on inside a building which is hardly a
    "normal" image unless you are into taking photos of brightly lit shiny metal
    staircases.

    The only other things I have managed to pick up about the camera from reading
    what there is on the web and looking at the full size samples posted is that
    it appears to be a very fast camera to operate (as fast as a dSLR? - we will
    have to wait for those sites that publish timings to find out) and that the
    images show a great deal of detail.

    Jury still out but there are some suspicions it will have some faults that
    means it does not turn the 5mp opposition into dinosours overnight.

    Dave
     
    Dave Oddie, Dec 18, 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. Lars L. Christensen

    G.SHDSL 828-to-828

    Lars L. Christensen, Dec 16, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,372
    Igor Mamuziæ
    Dec 17, 2004
  2. Tommy

    Re: Sony 717 macro samples, anyone?

    Tommy, Jul 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    417
    Tommy
    Jul 27, 2003
  3. joe.harman

    Sony 828 and Sony Flash 32X?...

    joe.harman, Jan 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    423
    Seymore
    Jan 4, 2004
  4. Alexander Kurz

    SONY DSC-F828 samples (images and video) and ISO comparison

    Alexander Kurz, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    593
    Alexander Kurz
    Jan 10, 2004
  5. AWolf

    Sony DSC-T3 mini review and samples

    AWolf, Oct 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    298
    AWolf
    Oct 17, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page