why so little written on the Sony 828?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mango, Jan 21, 2004.

  1. Mango

    Mango Guest

    I would have thought by now that this newsgroup would be flooded with the
    latest 8 meg camera from Sony.

    Is it that bad?

    Mango


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/2004
     
    Mango, Jan 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mango

    Rick Guest

    "Mango" <> wrote in message news:bukjp7$j7d24$-berlin.de...
    > I would have thought by now that this newsgroup would be flooded with the
    > latest 8 meg camera from Sony.
    >
    > Is it that bad?


    No not really. It's pretty much what everyone was expecting...
    Noisy, lifeless, low contrast images (a la F717), with a few added
    surprises like horrid chromatic aberration/purple fringing and major
    color shifts to cyan on some saturated greens..

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jan 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mango

    CBM Guest

    It sucks
    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:bukll7$ikf87$-berlin.de...
    > "Mango" <> wrote in message

    news:bukjp7$j7d24$-berlin.de...
    > > I would have thought by now that this newsgroup would be flooded with

    the
    > > latest 8 meg camera from Sony.
    > >
    > > Is it that bad?

    >
    > No not really. It's pretty much what everyone was expecting...
    > Noisy, lifeless, low contrast images (a la F717), with a few added
    > surprises like horrid chromatic aberration/purple fringing and major
    > color shifts to cyan on some saturated greens..
    >
    > Rick
    >
    >
     
    CBM, Jan 21, 2004
    #3
  4. Mango

    John Eppley Guest

    The F828 reviews has certainly caused some confusion. I have read every
    possible review of the camera, downloaded most of the samples from every
    possible source and carefully examined each and every photo. Then I examined
    some (many) of my slides and prints from the 1950's to 1998. Many of the
    complaints of this group and the mentioned reviews are evident in some of my
    ancient film. So what ??

    I purchased the F828 two days ago, and I am still "playing" with the camera.
    Does it have some faults?, probably. Does it have "grain" at the higher ISO
    numbers? Yes, but at the 4X6 print size, it really doesn't matter. Again so
    what!!!. Every camera I have owned in 50 years has some faults. So do I.
    Unfortunately, some of the members of this group are completely without
    fault. God bless them. Photographic perfection at such an early age must be
    an awesome burden to manage. Instant perfection is admirable.

    Anyway, I am enjoying the camera very much. It is even better than I
    expected and is extremely versatile for it size and delivers a commendable
    product. And you know what.....I probably would be just as happy with
    several other cameras, Minolta, Canon, Nikon etc.

    My point is this.......enjoy whatever camera fits your needs. Someone will
    gladly tell you why you made a stupid mistake.

    John
     
    John Eppley, Jan 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Mango

    Paul H. Guest

    "John Eppley" <> wrote in message
    news:ErlPb.36492$...
    > The F828 reviews has certainly caused some confusion. I have read every
    > possible review of the camera, downloaded most of the samples from every
    > possible source and carefully examined each and every photo. Then I

    examined
    > some (many) of my slides and prints from the 1950's to 1998. Many of the
    > complaints of this group and the mentioned reviews are evident in some of

    my
    > ancient film. So what ??
    >
    > I purchased the F828 two days ago, and I am still "playing" with the

    camera.
    > Does it have some faults?, probably. Does it have "grain" at the higher

    ISO
    > numbers? Yes, but at the 4X6 print size, it really doesn't matter. Again

    so
    > what!!!. Every camera I have owned in 50 years has some faults. So do I.
    > Unfortunately, some of the members of this group are completely without
    > fault. God bless them. Photographic perfection at such an early age must

    be
    > an awesome burden to manage. Instant perfection is admirable.
    >
    > Anyway, I am enjoying the camera very much. It is even better than I
    > expected and is extremely versatile for it size and delivers a commendable
    > product. And you know what.....I probably would be just as happy with
    > several other cameras, Minolta, Canon, Nikon etc.
    >
    > My point is this.......enjoy whatever camera fits your needs. Someone will
    > gladly tell you why you made a stupid mistake.


    Virtues or faults of the 828 aside, why would you buy an 8MP camera to print
    4x6's?
     
    Paul H., Jan 21, 2004
    #5
  6. Mango

    philipp Guest

    I think that you could have gotten by with a 2mp for 4x6 prints & saved
    a lot of $$$$$$

    John Eppley wrote:

    > The F828 reviews has certainly caused some confusion. I have read every
    > possible review of the camera, downloaded most of the samples from every
    > possible source and carefully examined each and every photo. Then I examined
    > some (many) of my slides and prints from the 1950's to 1998. Many of the
    > complaints of this group and the mentioned reviews are evident in some of my
    > ancient film. So what ??
    >
    > I purchased the F828 two days ago, and I am still "playing" with the camera.
    > Does it have some faults?, probably. Does it have "grain" at the higher ISO
    > numbers? Yes, but at the 4X6 print size, it really doesn't matter. Again so
    > what!!!. Every camera I have owned in 50 years has some faults. So do I.
    > Unfortunately, some of the members of this group are completely without
    > fault. God bless them. Photographic perfection at such an early age must be
    > an awesome burden to manage. Instant perfection is admirable.
    >
    > Anyway, I am enjoying the camera very much. It is even better than I
    > expected and is extremely versatile for it size and delivers a commendable
    > product. And you know what.....I probably would be just as happy with
    > several other cameras, Minolta, Canon, Nikon etc.
    >
    > My point is this.......enjoy whatever camera fits your needs. Someone will
    > gladly tell you why you made a stupid mistake.
    >
    > John
    >
    >
    >
     
    philipp, Jan 21, 2004
    #6
  7. > Virtues or faults of the 828 aside, why would you buy an 8MP camera to
    print
    > 4x6's?


    Cropping, for a start.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 21, 2004
    #7
  8. Mango

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    "Paul H." <> wrote in message
    news:GSmPb.21317$...
    >
    > "John Eppley" <> wrote in message
    > news:ErlPb.36492$...
    > > The F828 reviews has certainly caused some confusion. I have read every
    > > possible review of the camera, downloaded most of the samples from every
    > > possible source and carefully examined each and every photo. Then I

    > examined
    > > some (many) of my slides and prints from the 1950's to 1998. Many of the
    > > complaints of this group and the mentioned reviews are evident in some

    of
    > my
    > > ancient film. So what ??
    > >
    > > I purchased the F828 two days ago, and I am still "playing" with the

    > camera.
    > > Does it have some faults?, probably. Does it have "grain" at the higher

    > ISO
    > > numbers? Yes, but at the 4X6 print size, it really doesn't matter. Again

    > so
    > > what!!!. Every camera I have owned in 50 years has some faults. So do I.
    > > Unfortunately, some of the members of this group are completely without
    > > fault. God bless them. Photographic perfection at such an early age must

    > be
    > > an awesome burden to manage. Instant perfection is admirable.
    > >
    > > Anyway, I am enjoying the camera very much. It is even better than I
    > > expected and is extremely versatile for it size and delivers a

    commendable
    > > product. And you know what.....I probably would be just as happy with
    > > several other cameras, Minolta, Canon, Nikon etc.
    > >
    > > My point is this.......enjoy whatever camera fits your needs. Someone

    will
    > > gladly tell you why you made a stupid mistake.

    >
    > Virtues or faults of the 828 aside, why would you buy an 8MP camera to

    print
    > 4x6's?


    Why do people buy cars that can go 130 MPH to drive their kids to school?

    Or buy huge SUVs that never get off the streets of NYC?
     
    Dan Sullivan, Jan 21, 2004
    #8
  9. Mango

    John Eppley Guest

    Why a Mpixel camera rather than a smaller less expensive camera.?? The
    answer is as simple as my cabinet making experiences. I stock 8' boards or
    longer when available. Why??....so I can make 18', 2' or 3' or 4' or even 8
    foot pieces when required. The philosophical similarity between the two
    crafts is identical. Almost every 8' board has some defects. So, the
    craftsman either eliminates and discards the defect in the board or
    minimizes the defect in a cosmetic manner. You simply do not throw out the
    baby with the bath water. I have tried for 50 years to make 8 foot pieces
    out of smaller stock. No luck.

    The point I was trying to make is quite simple. My F828 in the 8mp mode
    results in a printing size of APPROXIMATELY 30 x 40 inches . Even if the
    resulting photo is quite grainy (noisy), when reduced to the "real world
    sizes", the noise is practically invisible. Example 4 x 6.

    John
     
    John Eppley, Jan 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Mango

    Rick Guest

    "John Eppley" <> wrote in message news:JxzPb.64574$...
    > Why a Mpixel camera rather than a smaller less expensive camera.?? The
    > answer is as simple as my cabinet making experiences. I stock 8' boards or
    > longer when available. Why??....so I can make 18', 2' or 3' or 4' or even 8
    > foot pieces when required. The philosophical similarity between the two
    > crafts is identical. Almost every 8' board has some defects. So, the
    > craftsman either eliminates and discards the defect in the board or
    > minimizes the defect in a cosmetic manner. You simply do not throw out the
    > baby with the bath water. I have tried for 50 years to make 8 foot pieces
    > out of smaller stock. No luck.
    >
    > The point I was trying to make is quite simple. My F828 in the 8mp mode
    > results in a printing size of APPROXIMATELY 30 x 40 inches . Even if the
    > resulting photo is quite grainy (noisy), when reduced to the "real world
    > sizes", the noise is practically invisible. Example 4 x 6.


    What good is 8MP of resolution when ~25% of it is lost to noise
    and chromatic aberration? E.g. in comparative reviews a 6MP
    Rebel consistently outresolves the F828.

    And BTW your 30x40" print size is a crock. Even at marginal
    inkjet resolutions (e.g. 240dpi) 8MP works out to only 10x13.5".

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jan 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Mango

    Hans Kruse Guest

    See the articles here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ where Michael
    Reichmann in his usual style describes the good and bad about the 828. He is
    at the end quite positive about it despite some glaring shortcomings.
    Hans

    "Mango" <> wrote in message
    news:bukjp7$j7d24$-berlin.de...
    > I would have thought by now that this newsgroup would be flooded with the
    > latest 8 meg camera from Sony.
    >
    > Is it that bad?
    >
    > Mango
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/2004
    >
    >
     
    Hans Kruse, Jan 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Mango

    Guest

    On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:15:07 -0600, "Mango" <>
    wrote:

    >I would have thought by now that this newsgroup would be flooded with

    the
    >latest 8 meg camera from Sony.
    >
    >Is it that bad?
    >
    >Mango
    >
    >
    >---
    >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    >Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/2004
    >


    As big a Sony fan as I am, I can not support the 828 unless some fixes
    are made.

    Why would I spend an ADDITIONAL 1000 dollars on a camera that is not
    much better if at then a F717 for about half the price?

    Yes it has 8 MP, big deal if I can't print larger pictures without
    having to heavely rework them.

    7X zoom. Yes nice, but others have more.

    And I can now use a CF card. Great, if i'd purchased another camera I
    could as well.

    Four colors. Great if the colors comes out right.

    Of all the positive comments I've read on the 828 they all sound like
    this:

    It's not as bad as people say

    No worse then some other DCs

    It works for what I use it for.

    These minor problems can be fixed with a litte photoshopping.

    What I do not read is:

    Its the best camera I;ve ever owned.

    What did I do beofre the 828?

    Unreal pictures.

    Best Digicam yet.

    Now, I'm no marketing guy, but I don't have to be to figure out that
    the F828 is a failure for Sony.

    I do hope they over come this and move on to bigger and MUCH better
    things.
    --
    Like a game of pick up stick played by fucking lunatics
     
    , Jan 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Mango

    Kenny Guest

    "Hans Kruse" <> wrote in message
    news:400ee8dc$0$170$...
    > See the articles here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ where Michael
    > Reichmann in his usual style describes the good and bad about the 828.

    He is
    > at the end quite positive about it despite some glaring shortcomings.


    This 'review' is being used as a crutch by 828 owners who are trying to
    kid themselves that there is nothing wrong with their cameras. Michael
    posted images in his original review that even the most liberal (not in
    the political sense) of observers could see had unacceptable amounts of
    CA/PF and he deliberately glossed over these problems. His reputation is
    shot and his reviews are not worth the screen space taken to display
    them.

    Sony new damn fine that there were serious issues with the 828 before it
    was shipped. They would not allow any reviews of production models
    before they were in the shops. Why, because they knew it would kill
    their Xmas sales. Now they are telling users to limit apertures they
    shoot at and use low ISO's to reduce the problems. The fault is with the
    lens and it can't be fixed with firmware, this is a hardware design
    issue. The 828 should be avoided by anyone who cares about image quality
    and potential customers should hang on until the 929 appears, and even
    then wait a few months to make sure Sony have not produced another
    lemon.



    Kenny
     
    Kenny, Jan 21, 2004
    #13
  14. Mango

    Guest

    On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:40:02 -0000, "Kenny" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Hans Kruse" <> wrote in message
    >news:400ee8dc$0$170$...
    >> See the articles here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ where

    Michael
    >> Reichmann in his usual style describes the good and bad about the

    828.
    >He is
    >> at the end quite positive about it despite some glaring

    shortcomings.
    >
    >This 'review' is being used as a crutch by 828 owners who are trying

    to
    >kid themselves that there is nothing wrong with their cameras.

    Michael
    >posted images in his original review that even the most liberal (not

    in
    >the political sense) of observers could see had unacceptable amounts

    of
    >CA/PF and he deliberately glossed over these problems. His reputation

    is
    >shot and his reviews are not worth the screen space taken to display
    >them.
    >
    >Sony new damn fine that there were serious issues with the 828 before

    it
    >was shipped. They would not allow any reviews of production models
    >before they were in the shops. Why, because they knew it would kill
    >their Xmas sales. Now they are telling users to limit apertures they
    >shoot at and use low ISO's to reduce the problems. The fault is with

    the
    >lens and it can't be fixed with firmware, this is a hardware design
    >issue. The 828 should be avoided by anyone who cares about image

    quality
    >and potential customers should hang on until the 929 appears, and

    even
    >then wait a few months to make sure Sony have not produced another
    >lemon.
    >
    >
    >
    >Kenny
    >

    Well said Kenny.
    --
    Like a game of pick up stick played by fucking lunatics
     
    , Jan 22, 2004
    #14
  15. Mango

    Hans Kruse Guest

    Not quite right. MR does comment on the weaknesses of this camera.
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828-II.shtml
    and he also puts it in perspective.
    Btw. I do not own a 828. I have a 10D.

    Hans

    "Kenny" <> wrote in message
    news:400f0df6$0$13349$...
    >
    > "Hans Kruse" <> wrote in message
    > news:400ee8dc$0$170$...
    > > See the articles here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ where Michael
    > > Reichmann in his usual style describes the good and bad about the 828.

    > He is
    > > at the end quite positive about it despite some glaring shortcomings.

    >
    > This 'review' is being used as a crutch by 828 owners who are trying to
    > kid themselves that there is nothing wrong with their cameras. Michael
    > posted images in his original review that even the most liberal (not in
    > the political sense) of observers could see had unacceptable amounts of
    > CA/PF and he deliberately glossed over these problems. His reputation is
    > shot and his reviews are not worth the screen space taken to display
    > them.
    >
    > Sony new damn fine that there were serious issues with the 828 before it
    > was shipped. They would not allow any reviews of production models
    > before they were in the shops. Why, because they knew it would kill
    > their Xmas sales. Now they are telling users to limit apertures they
    > shoot at and use low ISO's to reduce the problems. The fault is with the
    > lens and it can't be fixed with firmware, this is a hardware design
    > issue. The 828 should be avoided by anyone who cares about image quality
    > and potential customers should hang on until the 929 appears, and even
    > then wait a few months to make sure Sony have not produced another
    > lemon.
    >
    >
    >
    > Kenny
    >
    >
     
    Hans Kruse, Jan 22, 2004
    #15
  16. Mango

    Dave Guest

    "Kenny" <> wrote in message
    news:400f0df6$0$13349$...
    >
    > "Hans Kruse" <> wrote in message
    > news:400ee8dc$0$170$...
    > > See the articles here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ where Michael
    > > Reichmann in his usual style describes the good and bad about the 828.

    > He is
    > > at the end quite positive about it despite some glaring shortcomings.

    >
    > This 'review' is being used as a crutch by 828 owners who are trying to
    > kid themselves that there is nothing wrong with their cameras. Michael
    > posted images in his original review that even the most liberal (not in
    > the political sense) of observers could see had unacceptable amounts of
    > CA/PF and he deliberately glossed over these problems. His reputation is
    > shot and his reviews are not worth the screen space taken to display
    > them.
    >
    > Sony new damn fine that there were serious issues with the 828 before it
    > was shipped. They would not allow any reviews of production models
    > before they were in the shops. Why, because they knew it would kill
    > their Xmas sales. Now they are telling users to limit apertures they
    > shoot at and use low ISO's to reduce the problems. The fault is with the
    > lens and it can't be fixed with firmware, this is a hardware design
    > issue. The 828 should be avoided by anyone who cares about image quality
    > and potential customers should hang on until the 929 appears, and even
    > then wait a few months to make sure Sony have not produced another
    > lemon.


    --


    This is the Michael Reichmann who announced in a review that Neat Image was
    the finest noise reduction software available - and then went on to use
    Noise Ninja to repair his Sony shots...
     
    Dave, Jan 25, 2004
    #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. Lars L. Christensen

    G.SHDSL 828-to-828

    Lars L. Christensen, Dec 16, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,371
    Igor Mamuziæ
    Dec 17, 2004
  2. Puzzled

    little red X in little white box

    Puzzled, Dec 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    8,720
    Blinky the Shark
    Dec 13, 2004
  3. Godfrey

    Re: sony 828, minolta a1, fuji 7000

    Godfrey, Aug 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    493
    Bowser
    Aug 25, 2003
  4. Hugo Drax

    Sony 828 will sell well VS 300D

    Hugo Drax, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    564
  5. 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
Loading...

Share This Page