Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: I am pro "feel," but this is ridiculous...  (Read 4503 times)
Scott_H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 331


« on: January 20, 2004, 11:32:44 PM »
ReplyReply

The right tool for the job...

I think the 828 could be used to produce very good images; in the hands of a skilled user that understood it's limitations and was able to work within them.  Some people might argue there are cameras better suited for action than the 10d.
Logged

Sanders
Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2004, 08:18:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Some people might argue there are cameras better suited for action than the 10d.
Yes indeed there obviously are better cameras for action than the 10D - that is hardly the point - the reality is that there are a good number of people out there making good livings from shooting sports, portraits, weddings etc all with the 10D, shooting commercial quality work reliably...

Can that be said for the 828? How many working photogs are you going to see out there with an 828 as their sole piece of equipment? shooting weddings, sports, studio work, portraits?

I truly doubt it will ever happen with the 828 ... Not that it is a terrible camera by any stretch, or that you can't get good shots with it - but more the reality is it remains either a digicam enthusiast camera, or a camera that a working dSLR user might buy as a back up for when they don't want to take their dSLR and go out and take some snaps and come home with workable shots (maybe) ...

the 828 is not a camera to replace a dSLR in a working environment... that is just laughable. sure, comparable image quality in limited circumstances - no problem there, but it hardly tells the full story.

Similarly the point was made in Michael's review about lens performance - I'd be very interested to see some side by side shots in situations where minimal depth of field is a requirement, after all that is one of the beauties of fast lenses on an SLR right - fine control of DOF, bokeh.. does the same level of fine control exist on the Sony? hmmmm...

Don't get me wrong, it's an exciting time for digital stuff, and who knows what the future holds for the form and function of digital cameras, especially as we progressively loose our attachment to stuff like SLR design... 'bridge' cameras or whatever label people want to give it, bring em on! long way to go though.. lots of investment and experience out there with the SLR mode of working that won't disappear overnight.

The bottom line is I think the enthusiasm for the 828 as in Michael's review is misplaced, mistimed, and ultimately misleading. It (the 828) is what it is.

so 828 guys, convince a skeptic, let the images do the talking - if the camera is the second coming that all we're meant to have faith in please post bodies of work shot in a commercial environment using an 828, not just landscapes and street detail shots and the like, let's see some stuff that pushes the camera harder - take a look around online, you'll see lots of 10D images made by working photographers that fall into this category.

I haven't seen any images on this site or anywhere else to suggest the 828 is anything other than what it is, a high end digicam, not a dSLR replacement. It's not about dSLR snobbery etc - it's largely the same differences that have separated the user experience, SLR vs 'compact' for many years.

ps. post production to remove a level of fringing that would have been completely unacceptable in cameras from a year or more ago, but now we accept it because the camera is '8MP'? crazy.
Logged
Shivz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2004, 08:50:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How much does resolution fall off at f8? On what size print is that fall-off in resolution noticeable? No point in dismissing the issue with a "who wants to shoot at f8 all the time?" I use f8 a lot with my D60; probably more frequently than any other aperture.
Hi, listen, your points are totally valid.  I think the 828's hype has left a bunch of us, kinda disappointed and you know the 838's release is just a few months away. I think the way Sony tweaked the 707 and called it 717, the 828's shortcomings will be worked on to an extent and rather than providing a fix, which may not possible for the 828, Sony of course would ask us to shell out another G and buy the "next great thing."   Who can blame Sony, the mighty Dollar or Yen rules.

Do you really wanna buy a thousand dollar digi cam and shoot in F8 only?  It's better to just remove the CF in PS and use NI or NN to help with the noise.  It's sweet to have a F2 lens handy.  Smiley cheers....
Logged

Shivz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2004, 02:40:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Folks, I am a current 10D user and like many was pulled into the vortex of attention surrounding Sony's new 828 and was seriously considering buying one. Until I took it for a spin a couple of times. I have posted test images and some of my comments regarding this camera on my photography site shahram.info. I hope that some of you might find it of interest. Cheers, Shivz

Unacceptable CA/PF issues with the new Sony 828
Logged

Sanders
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2004, 10:17:58 PM »
ReplyReply

To me it seems fairly clear that the 828 may well be fine for amateur use but falls a long way short in the key area of image quality for the serious user.

Given the (image quality) performance of other cameras that Michael has come out and said it was more or less equivalent to (10D) it doesn't cut it to have to rely on third party NR tools like Neat Image or Noise Ninja to corrrect 828 images.

And this is without addressing the usability of an 828 vs an SLR... maybe ok for slow moving, still stuff - but come on you guys with an 828, show us some stunning images of demanding action photography - birds, sports... something impressive - the entire file, not sized down for the web, where many sins are forgiven...

Sanders
Logged
DaShiv
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2004, 06:40:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Are the fringing samples you posted 100% crops, or resampled down?  That second shot is particularly awful in terms of both noise and fringes, but it might be more forgivable if it's at 100%.  After all, image defects abound at 100% for many cameras (including the 10D with many lenses), but smaller prints can be more forgiving than 100% crops onscreen.
Logged
Shivz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2004, 06:52:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are the fringing samples you posted 100% crops, or resampled down?
Hi, They are 100% crops.  The P/F on the lights is completely visible even in reduced version and in print. Actually at Circuit City they have posted printed color comparisons of the 828 vs the 300D in 8.5X11.  Same shot, two cameras, the 300D shows no PF, the 828 has the purple monster.  As I said, it seems almost too easy to recreate the PF.  Good news is that in most cases the PF comes out in post production.
Logged

Scott_H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 331


« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2004, 11:00:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Sanders, I think you are reading a lot into the review that just isn't there.  I think Michael did a good job of evaluating the camera objectively, including pointing out some of the limitations that you seem to have missed.

No, I don't think the 828 is a replacment for a 10D.  For one thing, the lens is not interchangeable, and it is not an slr.  That doesn't mean it isn't a useful tool, or that it is not a good compromise for someone that does not want to spend over twice as much money to cover the same focal length, or that someone can't use it to cut down on weight and still get good images.

Besides, I thought the photographer was the professional, not the camera.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5078


« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2004, 11:13:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I will leave the "purple fringing" discussion to others, but I am puzzled at the number of people who claim that any serious photographic equipment must be able to handle high speed, low light conditions: not long ago, it was a badge of seriousness for many photographers that they never used film any faster than ISO 100, or maybe even ISO 50.

  If the Sony 828 performs adequately at ISO 200 and its fast maximum apertures (f/2 to f/2.Cool are usable, it seems to have quite decent overall system speed (combined sensor and lens speed). Note also that when one is constrained to achieve a certain minimum DOF, the 828 can operate at aperture ratios almost four stops "wider", or almost 16 times faster, than 35mm format to get the same DOF on prints of the same size with photos of the same angular field of view taken from the same position and focused on the same subject. So in that situation, even if its true minimum ISO speed is 50 as suggested in some earlier discussions, the 828 can be used with shutter speeds almost as fast as with ISO 800 in 35mm format. Many of us have never used film faster than ISO 400 ...
Logged
Ray
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2004, 06:38:30 PM »
ReplyReply

This should merely be a matter of sorting out the pros and cons and weighing the significance of each pro and each con in your scheme of things, for your purposes etc.

For example, there are faster lenses than F2 available for the 300D, but none that will give the same DoF as the F828 at that aperture (as BJL pointed out). That's a pro.

On the other hand, if you want a really shallow DoF that only F2 on a 300D can give you (you want to take that special portrait with the eye in focus and the ears and nose out of focus  Cheesy ), then you're not going to be able to do it with the F828. That's a con.

Which is more important for you?

There are other obvious pros that are a feature of the F828; a fine 28-200mm lens that has no equivalent on a 300D; and less bulk and weight.

There are some serious cons. However, not feeling free to shoot at ISO's above 200 because of noise, is [/I]not one of them. As BJL has pointed out again, for any required DoF and given shutter speed on the F828 at ISO 100, you will need to use something like ISO 600 on the 300D (assuming a 2 1/2 stop difference in DoF equivalency). This is something that seems to have been overlooked in these debates.

Another issue which I'm really surprised no-one has bothered to take up, is performance at f8. If chromatic aberration and purple fringing is a major problem with the F828, as it certainly seems to be, and stopping down to f8 can fix it, then let's have some examination of F828 performance at f8.

How much does resolution fall off at f8? On what size print is that fall-off in resolution noticeable? No point in dismissing the issue with a "who wants to shoot at f8 all the time?" I use f8 a lot with my D60; probably more frequently than any other aperture.
Logged
Ray
Guest
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2004, 02:43:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do you really wanna buy a thousand dollar digi cam and shoot in F8 only? It's better to just remove the CF in PS and use NI or NN to help with the noise. It's sweet to have a F2 lens handy. cheers....
No. Not all the time. But f8 should produce great DoF with such a small camera and could be ideal for lots of shots, especially landscape work, so naturally I want to know if there's any resolution disadvantage at F8. Don't you?  Smiley
Logged
Ray
Guest
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2004, 06:02:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Have you seen this test on Dpreview?
If that's the foil torture test, I have. The fact that there is still some slight PF at f8 is no big deal. All digital cameras will show that to some degree or other. However, my eyes tell me the f8 shots are actually sharper. This needs tp be sorted out.
Logged
Ray
Guest
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2004, 06:08:52 PM »
ReplyReply

So the controversy continues! It's interesting to get other points of view. My main concerns with the F828 (if I were thinking of getting one) would be:-

(1) How successfully and easily can the CA be removed with post processing when it does occur?

(2) Can CA be eliminated by stopping down to F8, as dpreview pictures seem to imply?

(3) If it can be eliminated by stopping down to f8, is resolution compromised at such small apertures on full size (A3+) prints? I'm thinking here of the extra enlargement of the effects of diffraction, Airy disks and so on, which would be less apparent on the same size print from 35mm.

(4) How successfully can that extra noise (compared with the 10D) be removed in post processing (if indeed it is necessary to remove it) without compromising the resolution benefit of those 8MP? However good Neat Image may be, and it is good, I find it virtually impossible to significantly reduce noise without sacrificing at least some detail.
Logged
Shivz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2004, 06:46:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So the controversy continues! It's interesting to get other points of view. My main concerns with the F828 (if I were thinking of getting one) would be:-

(1) How successfully and easily can the CA be removed with post processing when it does occur?

(2) Can CA be eliminated by stopping down to F8, as dpreview pictures seem to imply?

(3) If it can be eliminated by stopping down to f8, is resolution compromised at such small apertures on full size (A3+) prints? I'm thinking here of the extra enlargement of the effects of diffraction, Airy disks and so on, which would be less apparent on the same size print from 35mm.

(4) How successfully can that extra noise (compared with the 10D) be removed in post processing (if indeed it is necessary to remove it) without compromising the resolution benefit of those 8MP? However good Neat Image may be, and it is good, I find it virtually impossible to significantly reduce noise without sacrificing at least some detail.
Hi, I am not so sure if the point is so much about using 3rd party software to fix issues on a very expensive P&S.  Imagine being forced to shoot in F4 or 6 or 8 (smallest on this camera) all the time?  Doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose of buying a versatile machine... . Also, you can't shoot above ISO 200, the noise becomes too severe.  Michael has posted a very thorough review of this product, including some noise reducing software tests. But the thought of being forced to use Neat Image, Noise Ninja, CA reducing tactics on every other shot doesn't work so well with me.  I bet you Sony is working on a 838 already, which should address some of the short comings...
Logged

Shivz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48



WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2004, 12:46:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How many working photogs are you going to see out there with an 828 as their sole piece of equipment? shooting weddings, sports, studio work, portraits?
I think the concept of 828 borders on professional: fast lens, pro design, fast processing, heavy-metal body, high res, on and on. If the image matched the hype, some semi-pro photographers would have jumped on it...
Logged

Shivz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2004, 09:59:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Have you seen this test on Dpreview?  CA test on a few F-Stops.  There is some PF even at F-8.  Click on the link and scroll down. I don't think (but not too sure) if you will lose any picture quality at F8, specially shooting outdoors on bright days.

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page16.aspF" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews....the 828
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad