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

http://www.photo-forums.com/[email protected]/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".

 

How about noise.

 

http://www.photo-forums.com/[email protected]/727!enclosure=.ee96ff9

Noted, and kill-filed.

We don't need any more George Preddy types here.

 

My VGA mobile phone camera has less noise than that.

-Adam

 

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.

 

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡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


???????????????????

 

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

 

Maybe you were being sarcastic?

 

Is that a Manet or a Monet?

Andrew

 

If this is multiple guess,

A) Noise
B) Dark
C) 5 yard lights

I'd go with

D) All of the above

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

I thouhgt it was more like Pollocks

 

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

 

Looking at the exif data, we see manual exposure, shutter at 1/640 and

Agreed

Someone is taking the Michael, as we say!

David

 

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?

 

I came to the same conclusion.