Superb, what else can you say about this new Sony miracle?...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Marc, Jan 2, 2004.

  1. Marc

    Marc Guest

    http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9
     
    Marc, Jan 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Marc

    Mark Herring Guest

    On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 05:37:05 -0000, "Marc" <>
    wrote:

    >http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9
    >

    UMMMMMMM----That's not a very good picture. Underexposed and some
    really strange looking noise.

    Are we talking the new Sony 8MP here?? Surely there are better
    examples.
    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
     
    Mark Herring, Jan 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Marc

    Michael Guest

    How about noise.

    "Marc" <> wrote in message
    news:Yr7Jb.15083$...
    >

    http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9
    >
    >
     
    Michael, Jan 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Marc

    Mark M Guest

    "Marc" <> wrote in message
    news:Yr7Jb.15083$...
    >

    http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9

    Noted, and kill-filed.

    We don't need any more George Preddy types here.
     
    Mark M, Jan 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Marc

    TrueBlue Guest

    "Marc" <> wrote in message
    news:Yr7Jb.15083$...
    >

    http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9
    >
    >


    My VGA mobile phone camera has less noise than that.

    -Adam
     
    TrueBlue, Jan 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Marc

    Alan D-W Guest

    "Marc" <> wrote in message
    news:Yr7Jb.15083$...
    >

    http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosur
    e=.ee96ff9
    >
    >


    This is some sort of joke right? I don't believe I've ever seen such a bad
    digital photograph. Strike that. Such a dark collection of randomly
    coloured noise.
     
    Alan D-W, Jan 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Marc

    Rosario Guest

    ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Only 400 ISO !!!!!!!!

    Filename : Dsc00391.jpg
    JFIF_APP1 : Exif
    Main Information
    ImageDescription :
    Make : SONY
    Model : DSC-F828
    DateTime : 2003:01:13 06:20:39
    Sub Information
    ExposureTime : 1/640Sec
    FNumber : F3,2
    ExposureProgram : Manual
    ISOSpeedRatings : 400
    ExifVersion : 0220
    DateTimeOriginal : 2003:01:13 06:20:39
    DateTimeDigitized : 2003:01:13 06:20:39
    CompressedBitsPerPixel : 8/1 (bit/pixel)
    ExposureBiasValue : EV0,0
    MaxApertureValue : F2,0
    MeteringMode : Division
    LightSource : Flash
    Flash : Fired
    FocalLength : 7,10(mm)
    ExifImageWidth : 3264
    ExifImageHeight : 2448
    ExposureMode : Manual
    WhiteBalance : Manual
    SceneCaptureType : Standard
    Contrast : Normal
    Saturation : Normal
    Sharpness : Hard
    Vendor Original Information


    ???????????????????
     
    Rosario, Jan 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Marc

    Shadowfax Guest

    "Mark M" <> wrote in
    news:9D9Jb.215717$J77.149107@fed1read07:

    >
    > "Marc" <> wrote in message
    > news:Yr7Jb.15083$...
    >>

    > http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727
    > !enclosure=.ee96ff9
    >
    > Noted, and kill-filed.
    >
    > We don't need any more George Preddy types here.


    Did you bother to look at the photo? He was being sarcastic, to say
    the least.

    --
    Scott
     
    Shadowfax, Jan 2, 2004
    #8
  9. Marc

    Mark B. Guest

    "Marc" <> wrote in message
    news:Yr7Jb.15083$...
    >

    http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9
    >
    >


    Maybe you were being sarcastic?
     
    Mark B., Jan 2, 2004
    #9
  10. Marc

    Andrew Guest

    Marc <> wrote:
    > http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9


    Is that a Manet or a Monet?

    Andrew
     
    Andrew, Jan 2, 2004
    #10
  11. Marc

    John Morgan Guest

    "Marc" <> wrote in message
    news:Yr7Jb.15083$...
    >

    http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosur
    e=.ee96ff9
    >
    >

    If this is multiple guess,

    A) Noise
    B) Dark
    C) 5 yard lights

    I'd go with

    D) All of the above
     
    John Morgan, Jan 2, 2004
    #11
  12. Marc

    Marc Guest

    "Mark B." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Marc" <> wrote in message
    > news:Yr7Jb.15083$...
    > >

    >

    http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Maybe you were being sarcastic?



    well yes, I was - but I'm also a bit worried.

    I've got an 828 on order, UK delivery later this month.

    To be honest, I feel like a ping-pong ball - batted from one opinion to
    another.

    Phil's Digicams liked it - but, as someone said in another forum, Phil is a
    bit like Will Rogers, who said that he had 'yet to find a man he didn't
    like', Phil appears yet to find a camera that he doesn't like...

    'Luminous Landscape' was more objective - and they also seemed to like it
    despite acknowledging the flaws. They said that noise was only a problem in
    huge enlargements, and that it wasn't an issue in everyday shots.

    However, these people are professional photographers - and could probably
    squeeze a good image out of a rough wooden box with a pin-hole in it. I, on
    the other hand, am an amateur amongst amateurs, and I fear that my efforts
    will resemble the posted link!

    Considering that most of the settings seemed to be 'auto', it seemed an
    appallingly bad photo to me.

    I really don't know what to do for the best.
     
    Marc, Jan 2, 2004
    #12
  13. Marc

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <bt41fq$5s0$>,
    says...
    > Is that a Manet or a Monet?
    >
    > Andrew
    >


    This may well be a photo that couldn't be taken by
    conventional means (difficult or impossible to do with
    film) but it sure is a bad example to use for the
    capabilities of the camera without any explaination.
    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Jan 2, 2004
    #13
  14. Marc

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <98gJb.15182$526.101235@newsfep4-
    glfd.server.ntli.net>, says...
    >
    > well yes, I was - but I'm also a bit worried.
    >
    > I've got an 828 on order, UK delivery later this month.
    >
    > To be honest, I feel like a ping-pong ball - batted from one opinion to
    > another.
    >
    > Phil's Digicams liked it - but, as someone said in another forum, Phil is a
    > bit like Will Rogers, who said that he had 'yet to find a man he didn't
    > like', Phil appears yet to find a camera that he doesn't like...
    >
    > 'Luminous Landscape' was more objective - and they also seemed to like it
    > despite acknowledging the flaws. They said that noise was only a problem in
    > huge enlargements, and that it wasn't an issue in everyday shots.
    >
    > However, these people are professional photographers - and could probably
    > squeeze a good image out of a rough wooden box with a pin-hole in it. I, on
    > the other hand, am an amateur amongst amateurs, and I fear that my efforts
    > will resemble the posted link!
    >
    > Considering that most of the settings seemed to be 'auto', it seemed an
    > appallingly bad photo to me.
    >
    > I really don't know what to do for the best.
    >
    >


    Wait 'till you get the camera....

    I had the same problem when I got my 717... before I had
    the chance to use it, everybody was showing BAD PICTURES
    and slammin' the hell out of the 717. It turned ot to be
    the best camera investment I ever made. I just didn't
    need the things the 717 doesnt do well. (High ISO for
    instance)

    If I didn't own a 717 and the 5mp Sony Mavicam I'de be
    ordering (or would have already ordered) the 828.

    If it is ANY improvement over the 717 (and I think the
    7x zoom and RAW mode take care of that) then its one
    helluva P&S camera. (even if it is a little pricey) I
    just dont think its priced right as move UPWARD from the
    717 for me. I consider the 828 to be more of a LATERAL
    move from the 717, for my purposes, which for the most
    part involve shooting indoor/outdoor with good light at
    ISO 100.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Jan 2, 2004
    #14
  15. Marc

    HRosita Guest

    Hi,

    I looked at the picture and truly am disappointed. The noise does seem to be
    excessive. I got less noise with a Fuji A303 3.2 MP camera.
    http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?userid={C1F95048-0B12-43
    4A-85F3-1593430BC9E1}&AlbumId={55192743-4565-4008-8207-DD03FD85D894}&Group
    Id={A5D4FA71-E1EC-44B4-862F-98AF46696C17}&vs=m&ndx=2
    One thing I might suggest is that there could be a firmware upgrade on the
    horizon that would decrease noise levels. It happened with my Minolta D7. Now I
    will not buy a "first model" of any camera.
    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Jan 2, 2004
    #15
  16. Marc

    Frank H Guest

    On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:07:38 +0000 (UTC), Andrew <>
    wrote:

    >Marc <> wrote:
    >> http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9

    >
    >Is that a Manet or a Monet?


    I thouhgt it was more like Pollocks
     
    Frank H, Jan 2, 2004
    #16
  17. Marc

    Ron Ginter Guest

    On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:30:29 -0000, "Marc" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Mark B." <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "Marc" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Yr7Jb.15083$...
    >> >

    >>

    >http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9


    >However, these people are professional photographers - and could probably
    >squeeze a good image out of a rough wooden box with a pin-hole in it. I, on
    >the other hand, am an amateur amongst amateurs, and I fear that my efforts
    >will resemble the posted link!


    Looking at the exif data, we see manual exposure, shutter at 1/640 and
    aperture of f3.2 with ISO 400, AND "flash fired". This all makes me
    suspect that either the photographer was very inept, or was trying to make
    the camera look bad. I just noticed the sharpness was set to "hard", which
    probably was done to accentuate the noise, leading me to believe the second
    possibility.

    ....Ron
     
    Ron Ginter, Jan 2, 2004
    #17
  18. > Looking at the exif data, we see manual exposure, shutter at 1/640 and
    > aperture of f3.2 with ISO 400, AND "flash fired". This all makes me
    > suspect that either the photographer was very inept, or was trying to

    make
    > the camera look bad. I just noticed the sharpness was set to "hard",

    which
    > probably was done to accentuate the noise, leading me to believe the

    second
    > possibility.
    >
    > ...Ron


    Agreed

    Someone is taking the Michael, as we say!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 2, 2004
    #18
  19. Marc

    Ron Hunter Guest

    HRosita wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I looked at the picture and truly am disappointed. The noise does seem to be
    > excessive. I got less noise with a Fuji A303 3.2 MP camera.
    > http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?userid={C1F95048-0B12-43
    > 4A-85F3-1593430BC9E1}&AlbumId={55192743-4565-4008-8207-DD03FD85D894}&Group
    > Id={A5D4FA71-E1EC-44B4-862F-98AF46696C17}&vs=m&ndx=2
    > One thing I might suggest is that there could be a firmware upgrade on the
    > horizon that would decrease noise levels. It happened with my Minolta D7. Now I
    > will not buy a "first model" of any camera.
    > Rosita
    >
    >

    A few things to note. First very short exposure for a flash picture.
    Second, why manual setting for exposure? What was the distance from the
    camera? Why are so many of the settings manual? Looks like a picture
    INTENDED to be bad. And what about the date?
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 2, 2004
    #19
  20. Marc

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Ron Ginter wrote:

    > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:30:29 -0000, "Marc" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Mark B." <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>>"Marc" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:Yr7Jb.15083$...
    >>>

    >>http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?4651.12@.ee94123/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9

    >
    >
    >>However, these people are professional photographers - and could probably
    >>squeeze a good image out of a rough wooden box with a pin-hole in it. I, on
    >>the other hand, am an amateur amongst amateurs, and I fear that my efforts
    >>will resemble the posted link!

    >
    >
    > Looking at the exif data, we see manual exposure, shutter at 1/640 and
    > aperture of f3.2 with ISO 400, AND "flash fired". This all makes me
    > suspect that either the photographer was very inept, or was trying to make
    > the camera look bad. I just noticed the sharpness was set to "hard", which
    > probably was done to accentuate the noise, leading me to believe the second
    > possibility.
    >
    > ...Ron


    I came to the same conclusion.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 2, 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. Anon

    You say SIM, I say SEM

    Anon, Mar 17, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    540
    Randal T. Rioux
    Mar 18, 2006
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    302
    Paul Heslop
    Sep 9, 2006
  3. S.
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    295
    Chris Hills
    Oct 22, 2006
  4. richard
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    533
    chuckcar
    Aug 1, 2010
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    605
    Gordon
    Oct 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page