Sony's DSC-F828 Cyber-shot Camera 8 megapixels for $999

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sasquatch, Jan 18, 2004.

  1. sasquatch

    sasquatch Guest

    sasquatch, Jan 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. The DSC-F717 is a great camera, but from what I read about the DSC-F828,
    Weight, operating ergonomics, colour reproduction .... many ways!

    Be sure to check the Minolta A1 as a comparison.
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. sasquatch

    Bob Salomon Guest

    I had the 717 and now have the 828. So far - Great Camera.
     
    Bob Salomon, Jan 18, 2004
    #3
  4. sasquatch

    John Hughes Guest

    John Hughes, Jan 18, 2004
    #4
  5. sasquatch

    Ron Hunter Guest

    What one wants, or needs bears strongly on what is 'right' or 'wrong' in
    a camera. If one wants a simple camera that will fit in a shirt pocket,
    then the F828 certainly is NOT the 'right' camera.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 19, 2004
    #5
  6. sasquatch

    Stewy Guest

    Careful - You'll need to spend at least $100 more the moment you buy it.
    You'll need another InfoLithium battery. Bigger memory sticks than the
    paltry 16mb thing that comes with the camera and if you want to charge the
    batteries outside the camera, add around $60 for that.
     
    Stewy, Jan 19, 2004
    #6
  7. I bought a second battery for my F707 ... and never used it. Unless you have
    specific need for a _lot_ of shooting, buying a second InfoLithium battery
    is a waste of money.
    The last I checked, up to 256 MB MS Pros weren't that outrageously
    expensive, and you can use your CF cards or microdrives if you have any. No
    more expensive than any other camera.
    Charging in the camera works fine. As does using the camera as a charger.
    (Well, for the F707. But it's a good bet the F828 is pretty similar.)

    The Sony InfoLithium battery really is seriously amazing, and is just one of
    the many things that makes using the F707 (and presumably, F828) a pleasure.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 19, 2004
    #7
  8. sasquatch

    Bob Salomon Guest

    The 828 comes with no memory stick or CF card. I have 2 batteries but
    find that the batteries are so efficient I have rarely had to change
    batteries while shooting on the 717 or the 828.
    Yes they do sell accessory chargers for outside the battery charging.

    So 1 out of 3 isn't too bad. Help you make the Hall of Fame if you
    constantly average .333 in baseball.

    Pretty sloppy though as an average for advice.
     
    Bob Salomon, Jan 19, 2004
    #8
  9. The F828 is almost blind. At 200 ISO it is about as sensitive as the
    Canon EOS 300D at 125 ISO. But allready at 64 ISO the F828 has more
    noise in the pictures than the the EOS 300D has at 4-800 ISO.

    So it is almost 1 stop slower than other cameras, and 3-4 stops
    more noisy.
     
    Povl H. Pedersen, Jan 19, 2004
    #9
  10. Bob, how's the shutter lag? That's the one thing I detest about my 707.

    --
    Albert Nurick


    '97 Honda Pacific Coast
    '93 Honda Helix
    '87 Honda Helix
     
    Albert Nurick, Jan 19, 2004
    #10
  11. sasquatch

    Bob Salomon Guest

    It seems much faster then my 717 or any of the Coolpix models I had from
    the 950 to the 5700.
     
    Bob Salomon, Jan 19, 2004
    #11
  12. sasquatch

    Bob Salomon Guest

    I do own one after having the 717 and have no complaints. And, yes, I
    have read the reviews. However I have been in the photography business
    since the mid 1950s and have learned to test it myself, under the
    conditions I will use it and form my own judgement. So far I am very
    pleased.
     
    Bob Salomon, Jan 19, 2004
    #12
  13. sasquatch

    Larry Guest

    I have the 717 and the 5mp Mavicam, and LOVE them both. Still, I
    wouldn't consider the 828 as a "Replacement" for the 717.

    I've been able to do some very profitable work with the 717 and even the
    Mavicam, and I MIGHT get an 828 later on AFTER I get a dslr (probably a
    Canon, unless Sony comes out with one).

    I'de like a chance to play with the color from an 828, but I dont feel a
    need for a camera that is basicaly noiser than what Im using.


    Larry
     
    Larry, Jan 19, 2004
    #13
  14. sasquatch

    Larry Guest


    My only reason for not jumping up to get one right away is simple, I
    have a relative who sent me several cdrs of raw images, and some un-
    edited jpgs, and I just didn't see a thosand dollars worth of "better"
    in them. It takes fine pictures, certainly, but not enough to justify
    $999, when I already have the 717 to shoot with.

    I got my 717 for a hell of a bargain price (mid $500 range) onsale at
    SEARS, of all places!

    When they start to carry the 828, and they are having a SALE, then I'll
    swoop down on one.


    Larry
     
    Larry, Jan 19, 2004
    #14
  15. sasquatch

    bmoag Guest

    This is the most badmouthed camera since the Sigma foveon.
    It is a great camera.
    Repeat: the Sony 828 is a great camera.
    It is not perfect either ergonomically or technically.
    What is?
    If you want an SLR with interchangeable lenses it is not for you.
    If you already have a high quality 5+mp camera it will not give noticeably
    better results.
    If you are willing to spend $1000 for the best all in one camera on the
    market the Sony 828 is it.
    The only real problem with noise with this camera comes from people who
    don't know what they are talking about.
     
    bmoag, Jan 20, 2004
    #15
  16. sasquatch

    Rick Guest

    What a troll.

    Anyone even thinking of believing this nonsense is invited to
    read any of the formal reviews posted about the F828:

    "Too much purple fringing for such an expensive camera"
    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f828-review/index.shtml

    "Strong visible chromatic aberrations in backlit or reflections in
    bright sunny conditions"

    "Higher noise levels than the current crop of five megapixel digital
    cameras"

    "Potential hue shift on overexposed greens"

    "Visible sharpening 'white halo' around black lines"

    "Barrel distortion at wide angle"

    "Difficult to get good macro performance without barrel distortion"

    "Annoying shutter release locking issue where you must wait before
    re-pressing"

    "No user settings / memories"

    And my personal favorite:

    "Very small photosite compromising image quality (marketing over
    quality)?"

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page21.asp

    Simply put, the F828 sucks. Unlike the F717, which kept its retail
    value for close to a year, look for prices on the F828 to plummet
    within a few months. At $1000 it's a royal ripoff, at $500 or $600
    one could make a better case for buying one.
    Yeah, people like Phil Askey and Jeff Keller are real noobies.
    Sheesh.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Jan 20, 2004
    #16
  17. How would you view the 828 versus the Minolta A1?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 20, 2004
    #17
  18. Not so. The signal/noise ration is far higher than on a DSLR - that much is
    factual.

    If you personally find that acceptable, then that is ok. Other people don't,
    thats ok too.
     
    Manfred von Richthofen, Jan 20, 2004
    #18
  19. sasquatch

    David Chien Guest

    Repeat: the Sony 828 is a great camera.
    Nope. Silly enough, even on continuous AF mode, when you press the
    shutter button down halfway or fully, the AF system still wants to rack
    the focus out of focus, then back into focus again before taking the shot.

    Now what's the point of that when the subject is already in 100%
    focus due to the continous AF mode in play?!? Unfocus a perfectly
    focused subject to take a picture?!?

    Honestly, the dumbest part of the F828 beyond a doubt!
    I know of many, many digital cameras with CAF mode that don't do
    this, and for $999, you'd expect, no, must have a CAF mode that doesn't
    do this.
    Nope. There are quite a few cameras that are better choices, IMO,
    and even the E20 would be a better choice. Heck, I could MF myself the
    E20 faster than the F828 will lock focus.
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml

    Take a look at the noise pictures yourself in this lengthy review.

    "By way of comparison with the 6 Megapixel Canon 10D; the Sony and
    the 10D are both essentially noise free up to ISO 100. At ISO 400 noise
    just starts to become visible on the 10D, though it's not objectionable,
    and at ISO 800 it looks like ISO 200 film used to look. ISO 1600 (which
    the Sony can't do) is much cleaner than the Sony's top sensitivity of
    800, but still needs software help. Overall I'd say that the Sony F828
    has about 1.5X more noise at speeds above ISO 100 than the better
    current 6MP DSLRs."

    Note in particular, the comparison between the F828 and Canon 10D of
    the same building and the higher noise leading to a poorer image in this
    review:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-14/sony298-detail.jpg
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-14/canon9634-detail.jpg

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-14/sony-fairmont301.jpg
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-14/canon-fairmont9637.jpg

    The point is why?

    Of course, the author agrees, just use it:
    "So, should you wait for the F838 and some of the needed fixes. Hell
    no — you'd be missing out on one of the most enjoyable digital cameras
    yet available. There's always going to be something new on the horizon.
    But in the meantime the Sony F828 has found a permanent place in my
    camera arsenal— it's the ideal digital travel camera, and I'll be back
    here in a few weeks with some real-world illustrations from my Tanzania
    Wildlife Workshop and Safari."

    But keep in mind this is a guy who has access to tons of digital
    cameras for testing, so he doesn't have to worry about picking and
    choosing where his money goes - just pickup what's sitting there for
    reivew and go. The rest of us, well, not everyday we drop $1000 for a
    digital cameras just for the heck of it, and that being the case, I
    would vote for something else, even the Canon Rebel.

    Noise is noise and it destroys the quality of your original image
    data. No matter what filters or programs you use to clean up the noise,
    you'll never get back detail or quality lost due to noise in an image.
    It's far better to start off with a pristine, clean image than a noisy one.
     
    David Chien, Jan 20, 2004
    #19
  20. Tell me the differences between the 828 and the coolpix 5700 (Which I
    currently own). I feel the 5700 is extremely lacking with low light
    (indoors) situations. I have been shooting some indoor non-flash
    concerts and really would like something that will focus faster. Any
    thoughts?
     
    Fulci Argento, Jan 27, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.