My first test / 828

[Bine]

Well, I can confirm that's not a duck, not a fake, but a real Sony 828.

We gathered in our ZOO yesterday, it was foggy and freezzy but we were staying around for almost six hours. Talking, testing, shooting ... freezing, etc.

You have to know that Matjaz (mato) is an editor & publisher of our local e-photo magazine, and it's not the first time, that he got a brand new model for testing purposes (same happened with Canon 1ds).

Anyway: it's not a duck, even if it looks like a duck.

Regards from Slovenia,
Bine.

 

[Ulysses]

Hello, Bine.

Thank you for your great comments. Hopefully no one is saying or thinking anything disparaging about Mato. There have been so many problems and complaints about the pre-production cameras that everyone is hesitant to believe that the REAL camera is soon to become available.

We're looking forward to seeing even more images.

Well, I can confirm that's not a duck, not a fake, but a real Sony
828.
We gathered in our ZOO yesterday, it was foggy and freezzy but we
were staying around for almost six hours. Talking, testing,
shooting ... freezing, etc.

You have to know that Matjaz (mato) is an editor & publisher of our
local e-photo magazine, and it's not the first time, that he got a
brand new model for testing purposes (same happened with Canon 1ds).

Anyway: it's not a duck, even if it looks like a duck.

Regards from Slovenia,
Bine.

--

Ulysses

 

[Ulysses]

Hi there, Sparky.

Would you try taking the ISO 800 shot and then run it through NN, and finally post some sample 100% crops from the result so that we can compare the original versus the NN version?

I don't have NN yet. It would be nice to see how the worst areas of noise are affected by NN.

Thanks, if you're able.

Thanks for posting these
the iso 64 is a great clean shot I really like it
iso 100 is also fine
800 is a tad noisy for me but nothing NI wouldn't fix
I hardly ever use 800 iso
I would like to see an iso 800 photo in a darker environment
Again thanks for posting these shots
it looked like a cold day for photo taking

--

Ulysses

 

[Ulysses]

Hahahahah... were you actually there on the day that this shot was taken? ;-)

Canon EOS 300D, D30, 10D, G3 ... EOS 10
Sigma SD10
Olympus 2100
Sony F828

Zgoljo

--

Ulysses

 

[Johannes Czernin]

Has anyone checked the EXIF info of those latest pictures Mato posted on the Slovenian magazine's forum site? Look at the Checkered-Jacket-On-The-Wall series: The ISO 800 shot pretends to have been taken at 1/6400th of a second!

I had one of those demo units that are currently making the rounds at local Sony importers in my hands myself yesterday. I've reported on that in some earlier postings: Though that particular camera carried a proper 7-digit serial number some of its functions were still unusable. I just wonder about the 828 Mato had the opportunity to use....... that strange EXIF reading might be another hint to a pre-production unit.

I'm only glad we'll be able to get factual reports from R-E-A-L production/retail unit users within the next couple of days or so!

And I'm extremely jealous, by the way - why has Sony not chosen my country to be the first to get 828's shipped?

Gratulations to all you happy first-in-the-liners!

Johannes

He updated the shots there at:
http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_156.shtml

Two more pics can be seen there.

 

[Ulysses]

Has anyone checked the EXIF info of those latest pictures Mato
posted on the Slovenian magazine's forum site? Look at the
Checkered-Jacket-On-The-Wall series: The ISO 800 shot pretends to
have been taken at 1/6400th of a second!

Check again, Johannes. It's 1/640th of a second.

Too many zeros in your EXIF reader?

I had one of those demo units that are currently making the rounds
at local Sony importers in my hands myself yesterday. I've reported
on that in some earlier postings: Though that particular camera
carried a proper 7-digit serial number some of its functions were
still unusable. I just wonder about the 828 Mato had the
opportunity to use....... that strange EXIF reading might be
another hint to a pre-production unit.

Again, your EXIF reports wrongly or you saw wrongly.

But it is possible he had a pre-pro unit, yes.

--

Ulysses

 

[zgoljo]

Hahahahah... were you actually there on the day that this shot was
taken? ;-)

yes I was and in earlier publication I have forgotten to add one camera-Nikon 3500

 

[Bine]

You are welcome, Ulysses.

Btw: after more than 20 years, I had fun with (brand new) Canon 10d and a bunch of Sigmas... 18-50, 55-200, 28-300, 15FishEye and I've completelly forgotten Saturday lunch (so don't ask me what I've been told by my wife later :-().

I made some nice shots even on bad conditions (fog) and pretty cold day, so I'm getting more familiar with zooms, while I'll probably go back to primes.
(And: love on first sight: fisheye.)

Anyway - have a nice day,
B.

 

[Sparky_ca]

Sure Thing I can do that
Give me about 30 minutes or so

Would you try taking the ISO 800 shot and then run it through NN,
and finally post some sample 100% crops from the result so that we
can compare the original versus the NN version?

I don't have NN yet. It would be nice to see how the worst areas of
noise are affected by NN.

Thanks, if you're able.

Thanks for posting these
the iso 64 is a great clean shot I really like it
iso 100 is also fine
800 is a tad noisy for me but nothing NI wouldn't fix
I hardly ever use 800 iso
I would like to see an iso 800 photo in a darker environment
Again thanks for posting these shots
it looked like a cold day for photo taking

--

Ulysses

--
Sparky_ca
I have a photographic memory, but I always seem to have the lens cap on.

 

[Johannes Czernin]

Thanks for the hint, Ulysses - yes, I goofed once again!

As a matter of fact I have several different Exif reader programs installed as each of them has different capabilities of reading files from different camera brands.

Just by silly co-incidence the one I normally use does read shutter times correctly for my own current camera which happens to be a Canon (shame upon me!), but it indeed adds an additional zero both in the numerator and in the denominator of the shutter speed fraction. Of course I have always been fully aware of this fact, but as I had just finished some intensive work with some of my own photos before I checked Mato's shots I was so flabbergasted to see that 6400 figure that I totally forgot about those surplus zeros!!

Thanks for pointing out my error to me - I'm afraid I'll have to get used to lots of silly zeros when I start shooting with the 828..... or the writers of EXIF programs should rather try for some better communication with camera manufacturers so that they might be able to properly interpret all those "manufacturer's notes" in the EXIF!

Kind regards,

Johannes

Check again, Johannes. It's 1/640th of a second.

Too many zeros in your EXIF reader?

 

[Ulysses]

Thanks to all of you photographers and reviewers there who are willing to share your experience of your day.

Tell us, were any others there excited and enjoying the use of the F828?

yes I was and in earlier publication I have forgotten to add one
camera-Nikon 3500

--

Ulysses

 

[Sparky_ca]

Ok I ran the ISO 800 image through NI as well as slight level adjustments to get the white balance corrected

I also Included the ISO 64 image with level adjustments to show the 828 does not have a hazy look



Downsized just to show level adjustments

Would you try taking the ISO 800 shot and then run it through NN,
and finally post some sample 100% crops from the result so that we
can compare the original versus the NN version?

I don't have NN yet. It would be nice to see how the worst areas of
noise are affected by NN.

Thanks, if you're able.

Thanks for posting these
the iso 64 is a great clean shot I really like it
iso 100 is also fine
800 is a tad noisy for me but nothing NI wouldn't fix
I hardly ever use 800 iso
I would like to see an iso 800 photo in a darker environment
Again thanks for posting these shots
it looked like a cold day for photo taking

--

Ulysses

--
Sparky_ca
I have a photographic memory, but I always seem to have the lens
cap on.

--
Sparky_ca
I have a photographic memory, but I always seem to have the lens cap on.

 

[zgoljo]

Thanks to all of you photographers and reviewers there who are
willing to share your experience of your day.

Tell us, were any others there excited and enjoying the use of the
F828?

there was around 16 people and they all can tested 828

here have also links from pictures, which they recorded. This pictures are not recorded with 828 but with their own cameras.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=359831

http://titan.fov.uni-mb.si/~davko/photos/index.php?pageType=folder&currDir=./Various_pictures/Ljubljana_Zoo

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=359900

Photographs recorded with 828 are on link:
http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_156.shtml

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_155.shtml

zgoljo

 

[Sparky_ca]

Here is the crop comparison
NI levels image



Original



--
Sparky_ca
I have a photographic memory, but I always seem to have the lens cap on.

 

[Ulysses]

Is it usable and printable, from where you sit?

Ok I ran the ISO 800 image through NI as well as slight level
adjustments to get the white balance corrected
I also Included the ISO 64 image with level adjustments to show the
828 does not have a hazy look

http://www.teentime.ab.ca/ISO800LevelsNI.jpg

Downsized just to show level adjustments

--

Ulysses

 

[Bine]

And he didn't even mention all the stuff that we were playing with ;-).

Regards,
Bine.

 

[zgoljo]

And he didn't even mention all the stuff that we were playing with
;-).

Regards,
Bine.

Bine tell him about "BETON" test

Zgoljo

 

[Ulysses]

You are certainly trying to tease us.

Tell us more!

And he didn't even mention all the stuff that we were playing with
;-).

Regards,
Bine.

--

Ulysses

 

[Sparky_ca]

Totally printable to me
looks very nice even on my old HP 7350
Whats your thoughts on the ISO 800
I mean for me its a non issue as 90% of my photos are taken outside
so I will use ISO 64-200
and print off my nice 5x7 and the odd 8x10
Come spring I am looking forward to shooting with the 828

Ok I ran the ISO 800 image through NI as well as slight level
adjustments to get the white balance corrected
I also Included the ISO 64 image with level adjustments to show the
828 does not have a hazy look

http://www.teentime.ab.ca/ISO800LevelsNI.jpg

Downsized just to show level adjustments

--

Ulysses

--
Sparky_ca
I have a photographic memory, but I always seem to have the lens cap on.

 

[Ulysses]

I expect that for most folks, ISO 800 used along with a good noise reduction program will be just the ticket.

Totally printable to me
looks very nice even on my old HP 7350
Whats your thoughts on the ISO 800
I mean for me its a non issue as 90% of my photos are taken outside
so I will use ISO 64-200
and print off my nice 5x7 and the odd 8x10
Come spring I am looking forward to shooting with the 828

--

Ulysses