Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony DSC-F828  (Read 22026 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #40 on: January 06, 2004, 11:37:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just thought I would add that the 828 can certainly use teleconversion lenses, and they work just fine.
Matthew,
    thanks for the correction (one review said otherwise, but probably out of ignorance.)

   One grievance I have had with telephoto supplementary lenses is that they typically allow little or no zooming; they can only be used at or close to maximum focal length: is that true with the 828?
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2004, 02:36:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is one shootoff

http://www.a-digital-eye.com/Shootoff4.html

They have other ones at shootoff1, 2, 3 etc.
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #42 on: January 07, 2004, 09:12:33 PM »
ReplyReply

You can also buy a real good prime for not a lot of money, use a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate mirror slap motion.  The extra ISO settings of a dSLR may give you the room to cut shutter speed.  

But until there are some really good comparisons of the *actual* resolution of the F28 vs. 6 meg dSLRs one might want to keep their credit card number off the web.

I haven't seen any real tight studies (maybe they are out there and I haven't seen them) but I have seen a couple of examples that makes me wonder if the noise suppression routines of the F828 might be wiping out some detail in the final product.

But...  It may yet be a good budget landscape digital.  Just like the role that the 14n plays for full frame.
Logged
Ray
Guest
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2004, 03:13:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not sure why anyone would expect a 5 meg small sensor to resolve as well as a the 8 meg Sony.
Quite so! But the larger pixel usually has the advantage of superior DR and less noise. The F828 appears to be the first digicam that has significantly boosted pixel count without significantly degrading the image in terms of DR and noise.
Logged
Ray
Guest
« Reply #44 on: December 27, 2003, 08:44:53 AM »
ReplyReply

The comparison between the F828 at 200mm, f5.6 and ISO 64 and the 10D at 100 ISO, same everything else, shows the difference.

The Sony F828 is inevitably suffering from 'small pixel syndrome'.

But not quite as small as Michael has stated. A micron is not a millionth of an inch, by a long shot, but a thousandth of a millimetre, or a 25 thousandth of an inch.

Sorry to be a nitpicking pain in the arse.  Cheesy
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #45 on: December 29, 2003, 07:01:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't like 10D or 300D landscape images at 12x18 inches. To my eye, they look a bit "plasticky" or "over-enlarged".
Matthew,
You're beginning to sound like a diehard film buff who thinks digital images look artificial, or an analogue hi fi buff who thinks the crackles and pops add ambience. Are you sure you're not losing objectivity  Huh  Many owners of even the D30 would not consider 12x18" an over enlargement. However, I agree that 24x36" for a D60 image is stretching things a bit. This size really shows up the deficiencies of the lens. But one should bear in mind that such prints are generally not viewed from a distance of 15" as an A4 size print is.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2003, 08:27:30 AM »
ReplyReply

The point that the F828 noise might not be noticeable in a Super B3 size print has a certain validity - but which print are we talking about? All A3/B3 prints?

Noise is related to dynamic range. I often expose for the highlights with my D60, which sometimes results in large areas of the image being dark and underexposed. Fortunately, because the D60 has low noise at ISO 100, I can bring out the detail in the shadows in post processing without too much noise becoming evident.

I wonder if I could do the same with the F828.  Huh
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2003, 08:00:32 AM »
ReplyReply

In a actual print, there are 2 factors in play: the number of pixels, and the quality of those pixels. Obviously, the Sony is noisier on a per-pixel level than the DSLR. But the fact that it has 33% more pixels than the DSLR helps counteract the higher per-pixel noise level. Add in the apparently weaker anti-aliasing filter of the Sony compared to the Rebel (on a per-pixel level) and it seems to get even more interesting. If I was in the market for a second camera, I'm not sure which one I would get, frankly. I already bought into the Canon DSLR system (I have a 1Ds), so I have lenses and flashes that would fit the Rebel. But if I really needed something compact, light, and unobtrusive, I would seriously consider the Sony.
Logged

MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #48 on: January 01, 2004, 10:19:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

The 300/2.8 is overpriced no doubt -- but I suspect you will be able to get it cheaper in a couple years.

The other lenses are not overpriced, and quality is very high.  With the 14-54 and 50-200 and a TC you have a small, portable kit capable of shooting from 28-580 with very high quality lenses.

I think a lot of people want a smaller dSLR kit with high quality.  When I go for a dSLR I'm certainly strongly considering the 4/3 system.

If a couple other vendors (think Sony) decide to pick up 4/3, I think it could slowly dominate over time as the lenses can be smaller, cheaper, faster, and just as sharp as those designed for a 35mm sensor.
Logged
drm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


WWW
« Reply #49 on: January 02, 2004, 04:26:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Well I'm very interested in facts but so much bothered about majority opinions. The fact is I have a budget large enough to buy any midrange DSLR, the basic accessories, and a couple of lenses. I want it to be lighter and close to as versatile as my Canon T90 FD system. Believe me I've looked at everything. The Canons don't quite click with me. I'm very appreciative of all Canon have done to raise the standards, but the midrange DSLR bodies all have various flaws (in my opinion, so I'll keep it to myself) and the 1Ds, even if I could afford it, is too big and heavy for my kind of use. Actually no Canon EOS body has ever really screamed "buy me". Closest is the EOS 3, but even then, all those focus points ? The lenses are another matter, there are some jewels, and the T/S range are almost enough to win the case on their own. But Canon EOS lenses are designed for 35mm, up to now, so fitting them to a non-full frame body is inevitably going to lead to some compromises. A Canon 10D or 300D with a "35mm" lens reminds me of a duck-billed platypus... not quite one thing nor the other.
Obviously the same goes for Nikon, although they've at least said they're committed to "APS" format and have started to flesh out a range of lenses. But if Olympus (say) were as bad at meeting delivery targets as Nikon are with their APS lenses, can you imagine the howls of derision ? Actually I love the Fuji S2 - in theory - but I'd rather see Fuji develop their own body and adopt their awesome Fujinon lens technology to digital. I simply cannot imagine why they're happy to be a Nikon second string.

I think you can do some fantastic work with the E-1, and I also see a lot of sense in going for a system where the lens range is perfectly tailored to the camera. A completely new system is also quite exciting, and I like the 4/3 format. I could choose a 10D and then dither for ages over which lenses to choose - and I know that whatever I choose will be non-optimal. I also know personally that the spash proofing of the E-1 would get a serious test in my hands. I doubt the 10D (or 300D) would survive very long...

It is certainly true, as Ray points out, that competition will not stop, but this helps everybody. Ok, so Canon will bring out a mega-machine in one year - but so what - everybody who has bought a 10D or whatever isn't going to get a discount on it. It doesn't really matter. There's also no logical reason at all in getting hung up on "full frame" sensors - except if you're tied in to a 35mm legacy system. If pixel size really is the dominating factor (and I'm not saying it isn't) then "full frame 35mm" has limitations too. Basically if your ambitions are limited to printing up to Super A3, as mine are, for now, then whilst 5Mp is a bit weak, 10Mp (say) would be overkill...depending on the frame geometry of course.

Just my thoughts, really. I'm not trying to convince, or hoping to be convinced. I really don't care what other people are using, beyond a general interest. I've never really understood all this Canon / Nikon stuff either. I've been using Canon gear for about 20 years but I'm not emotionally attached to it...
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #50 on: January 03, 2004, 03:43:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray and Matthew seem to want to judge the viability of the Olympus E system on the basis of lens combinations needed to achieve rarely used extremes of telephoto reach. I instead like to assess desirability and likely popularity of a system on the basis of options that roughly match some of the most popular choices of 35mm format amateur enthusiasts, like (a) one lens covering about 28-105mm ( two lenses covering about 28-300mm.

  Amongst DSLR's under US$4000, only the Olympus E system currently offers anything close to (a) in a single good quality lens: in contrast, what 35mm using amateur would pay US$800 for a 28-64mm f/4 lens, which is what one effectively gets by using the Canon 17-40 with a 1.6x crop camera?

  For option (, the Olympus 14-54 plus 50-200 is a bit of overkill, covering the equivalent of about 28-400 for $1500, and with f/3.5 or better over the whole range. Ray's Canon option of 17-40/4 plus 35-350/3.5-5.6 costs $700 more; adding in bodies (10D, not 300D to be comparable to the E-1) the Olympus option is still significantly cheaper and lighter, and distinctly faster at the telephoto end. One could replace the Canon 35-350 by something like the 70-200/4L, but then need a third lens to cover the 40-70mm gap.

  Nikon and Pentax have the same problem that two lenses starting at the popular moderate wide angle FOV of 28mm (equiv.) can only cover up to about 200mm (equiv.) unless one resorts to slow, lower quality ultra-wide ranging zooms.

  I expect that tele zooms reaching the 35mm equivalent of about 300mm will be very popular with the smaller DSLR formats, since being only 200mm or less in reality, they can offer far better speed and size than true 300mm zooms. (Canon, Olympus and Sigma all seem to agree with me!)

  I am also guessing that in 2004, Canon will offer something like a 17-70/2.8-4 for a step up from the entry level 18-55/3.5-5.6 EF-S kit lens; if it is EF-S, there will be a successor to the 10D that accepts such EF-S lenses. Nikon might offer something similar for the D70, to fit below its already announced, very expensive, professional grade "28-80/2.8 equivalent" DX standard zoom. These lenses would mesh better with existing tele zooms starting at about 70mm. Olympus has indicated a second cheaper and lighter tele zoom of about 50-150 (100-300 equiv.).

  So let us redo the comparisons after the next round of lens announcements!
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 06, 2004, 01:04:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
The self-portrait was shot at 100mm, the rock wall at 35mm. Not bad for a "coke bottle".
Absolutely! Lovely rocks! I wondered how long it would take you to jump in and defend the reputation of your 35-350mm .
It's odd, for some reason the 35-350 seems to be the forgotten bastard child of Canon L glass. I won't claim that is sharper than the 200/1.8L or some of the other good primes out there, but it is certainly way better than any of the cheapo zooms. The only Achilles heel of this lens is the performance at the edges, outside the frame of a 1D or 10D. If I get another body, it would be the 1D, and I would put the 35-350 on the 1D and get a 24-70 for the 1Ds and probably a 70-200/2.8IS L for the 1Ds. My 35-350 will outresolve the sensor on the 1D at any focal length. The only time I would ever need to remove the lens would be to put a faster lens on for shooting low-light or for wide angle work.
Logged

MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #52 on: January 07, 2004, 07:04:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Karel,

You can clean up a small amount of noise in an 828 image or some CA, but you cannot fix the soft corners of the Rebel kit lens at wide angle, or reduce the motion blur caused by mirror slap in photoshop.
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2004, 01:44:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Matthew -

I tried finding the comparison shots on the site that you listed.  All I found was where someone had uploaded some pictures from Disneyland.  Is that what you meant?

I'm waiting for a real head-to-head test shooting, like what Phil does when he reviews a camera.

As for me having or not having a 'dog in the fight', my position is that I own neither the F828 or 300D.  Nor am I likely to own either in my lifetime.  I don't need the extra resolution that either might (probably would) provide and I'm not willing to carry the extra weight on a long trip.

But I'm very interested in what the F828 can do.  If Sony can figure out how to give real 8 meg performance on a small chip then that bodes well for my next camera.

Two or three years from now I think that I'll be upgrading to a *ist-sized dSLR with in-body image stabilization and a nice selection of lenses from which to choose.  If I can get more than 6 megs and higher ISO, then Whooopeeee!!!!
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2004, 07:42:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Bob,

I think it has a slight advantage over the 6MP dSLRs due to a weak / no AA filter and more pixels in the vertical (short) dimension.  Much worse noise though.

As far as comparisons to 5MP 2/3 digicams, it looks to me like a huge difference (I suspect the lens is sharper than the 717 and this accounts as part of it).  I'd say you could easily get the same quality from a 11x14 as an 8x10 from the 5MP cameras.  And I'm quite happy with 13x17 prints (inked area 12x17).  As always with the consumer level cameras you have to expose very carefully or have terrible shadow noise, and you may need to use exposure blending to boot for high DR scenes.
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2003, 10:10:45 AM »
ReplyReply

There is noticable CA and noise with the 828 samples at 100% to be sure.  The levels of CA seen here are easily handled in photoshop though, and the noise would be very hard to see on at 13x17" Epson 2200 print.  If that level of noise is bothersome, the camera produces less noise if you turn down in-camera sharpening and "expose to the right" and there is always Neat Image or Noise Ninja.

My 828 (which is going back) has nasty levels of CA at full wide and full telephoto, but after removing the CA I've made some fantastic large prints.

One other point:  My startup times are about 2 seconds -- apparently start up time varies a lot based on what media is in use and (perhaps) whether the card was formatted in camera or not.
Logged
bandit
Guest
« Reply #56 on: December 28, 2003, 06:40:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Still, 100% is not the same as a print. A print looks more like the 50% view, so the prints probably look great and that is what counts.
That is what I thought (hoped..) Michael meant about the "non-existant noise" and indeed he has just made a clarification at the bottom of his review:
"I should point out, for the benefit of those that see noise in the ISO 64 and ISO 100 F828 frames, that to the extent that it's visible in 100% on-screen enlargements, it's invisible in A3 or Super A3/B sized prints. The same applies to very small amounts of colour fringing. These just can't be seen in real world photographic prints."
To me, this is what counts though it diminishes a bit the cropping capability of the F828.

Ciao

Marco
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #57 on: December 28, 2003, 09:02:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If I get the exposure right, then visible noise is not an issue, it is tough to spot on screen at 100%, and won't show up at all in a print.

Underexposures can be a problem, and shadow areas can be as well. It depends on how much correcting I have to do, and how much sharpening I apply to the image. I can correct a certain amount by blurring a copied layer, and setting it to colour, but that doesn't always help.
Well, maybe you're right. I'm loathe to use ISO 400 with my D60 because of the noise I see on my screen at 100% magnification. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily intimidated by the appearance of such noise on the screen and should use ISO 400 more often because it might not show up on the print. In fact I know I should use ISO 400 more often because I have a number of ruined shots as a result of subject movement which could have been frozen had I used ISO 400. My own biases are sometimes working against me.

But the fact remains, the F828 shots in Michael's review clearly show significantly more noise at ISO 64 than the 10D at ISO 100. Under what circumstances such increased noise can become a problem is perhaps another issue.

One could argue, for example, that all owners of an A4 printer, who have no intention of upgrading to a larger printer, need have no concern about this increased noise being reflected in their A4 size prints.

This might be largely true and might sway some people who were thinking of getting a Canon 300D to opt for a Sony F828.

But what about A4 prints of crops? Who never crops their images? Cartier-Bresson perhaps?

The reality is, people do not often know at the time the photo is taken, what degree of cropping they will later apply or what size print, at some stage (maybe 10 years later), they may wish to make.

I recently over-indulged and bought myself an Epson 7600 printer. I have a few high resolution 'stitched' images and many frames that have not yet been stitched, and a couple of 2nd hand MF cameras and a Nikon 8000 MF scanner, so I figured the purchase of the 7600 is justified. (Of course, if I didn't have this expensive hobby of photography, I could be driving around in a luxury car instead, which is what all this gear has cost me. The choice is really a no-brainer, but I haven't included the possible effect that a luxury car might have on the opposite sex, so perhaps the comparison is flawed  Cheesy .

The point I would make is that a D60 image, taken with my finest lens, the $90 Canon 50mm F1.8, can look absolutely stunning when printed at 2ftx3ft. The quality beggars belief. It was only a few years ago, whilst attending a course on "How to run a small business", I had a conversation with a struggling professional photographer during a lunch break. He hadn't moved into the digital world yet. I tried to get him interested in the latest that Epson had to offer, the Photo EX which produced A3 size prints that could rival conventional darkroom prints. He was quite adamant that A3 was too big for 35mm. I could get nowhere with him. I wonder what he's doing now.
Logged
Guest
« Reply #58 on: December 29, 2003, 09:05:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Iain,

It was explained in the review. I changed the focal length of the Canon shots to match the framing of those from the Sony.

Think about the problem. How can you compare images taken with cameras with different resolutions and different lens magnifications and focal lengths? Something has to be "normalized".

I chose to do so by adjusting the focal length of the Canon.

Michael
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #59 on: December 30, 2003, 06:27:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If someone doesn't care about fine detail, then a 6MP dSLR blown up to 2" x 3" would look great.
Matthew,
I care about fine detail. In fact I'm quite obsessive about it. The main reason I never bought an LF camera was due to the discovery that resolution per unit area of film actually decreases as one moves up in format size. With 35mm film you can expect a good 40 lp/mm at a reasonable MTF. With 8"x10" LF, you get perhaps only half that, at best.

I figured I could get sharper and more detailed results by stitching together a large number of 35mm frames. Now that Photoshop CS can handle really large files, I hope that dedicated stitching programs will catch up  Cheesy .
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad