News Photog considering F828, feedback wanted.

[tim baker]

I shoot for a small local newspaper, mostly b/w. I'm leaning toward getting the F828 as my main camera. Here's the thinking:

No DSLR offers the zoom range in one lens.
Carrying one small, light, versatile camera is make for greater versitility.

28 - 200mm covers 99% of news needs. Any single lens on a DSLR covers maybe 70%. Changing lenses to get that other 30% would likely loose more pictures than it gained.

Shutter lag on the 828 seems no longer to be a problem. Resolution is more that needed.

Low and high angle shots are often needed in news work; the 828 shines here with its flex body.
I'm thinking that the 828 might be the ideal camera for newswork.

Comments please
--
Tim Baker

 

[Shay Stephens]

I would have to agree here. The camera is ultra convenient and covers the range needed for nearly everything.

The shutter lag is not a problem when taking non-flash shots, there is still a noticable lag when shooting with an external flash.

I shoot for a small local newspaper, mostly b/w. I'm leaning toward
getting the F828 as my main camera. Here's the thinking:

No DSLR offers the zoom range in one lens.
Carrying one small, light, versatile camera is make for greater
versitility.
28 - 200mm covers 99% of news needs. Any single lens on a DSLR
covers maybe 70%. Changing lenses to get that other 30% would
likely loose more pictures than it gained.
Shutter lag on the 828 seems no longer to be a problem. Resolution
is more that needed.
Low and high angle shots are often needed in news work; the 828
shines here with its flex body.
I'm thinking that the 828 might be the ideal camera for newswork.

Comments please
--
Tim Baker

--
As long as the Lomo exists, it doesn't matter what camera you use.

 

[Evil Eggplant]

tim

I disagree. The 828 will not cut it when 200mm is not enough. I don't know what you're actually going to shoot, but from a photojournalistic perspective 200mm seems a bit limiting in certain situations. Just like the abscense of 28mm with the DSLR would also hinder in certain situations.

The 828 will not stop motion (allow faster shutter speeds) in all but the brightest light.

A DSLR with a 28-200mm lens gives you a 7X zoom ratio, just like the 828. The DSLR has a little more on the long end, the 828 on thee wide end.

The DSLR would produce much better images when shooting without flash indoors, and for general low light photography. Pop on a 70 dollar 50mm f/1.8 on a canon DSLR and you will absolutely blow away any non DSLR, be it the 828, or anything else.

So, with the 828 you exclude yourself from (decent) indoor sports shots. For that matter you exclude yourself from anything in low light without a flash or tripod. That, and you're "stuck" with an EVF, making composure in low light that much more difficult.

Again, from the requirements of a photojournalist, IMO, the 828 would be far more restrictive than a DSLR.

If you said you were considering the 828 for fine art, landscape of portrature, I would pass along my best wishes, but I honestly don't think the 828 will cut it for you.

Good Luck however you decide to do this.

Best Regards

--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'Mmmm, floor pie'
http://www.iceninephotography.com

 

[stenberg]

"there is still a noticable lag when shooting with an external flash."

Does that depends on the camera?

anyway, I think the 828 is great. Beside all the things you already said,
manual zoom, how can anyone live without it? I just love it.

stenberg

 

[arthur53821]

Could be a good choice, except when you are in a low ambient light situation and not allowed to use a flash - for example at certain performances, lectures, etc. Then you'd have no choice but to go for a dSLR and an expensive, perhaps even image stabilized, L-lens.

 

[Shay Stephens]

tim

I disagree. The 828 will not cut it when 200mm is not enough. I
don't know what you're actually going to shoot, but from a
photojournalistic perspective 200mm seems a bit limiting in certain
situations. Just like the abscense of 28mm with the DSLR would also
hinder in certain situations.

But he said 99% of his work is in the 28mm to 200mm range.

The 828 will not stop motion (allow faster shutter speeds) in all
but the brightest light.

How can that possibly be true? You can set the shutter speed to 1/2000th. You can set the ISO to 800.

A DSLR with a 28-200mm lens gives you a 7X zoom ratio, just like
the 828. The DSLR has a little more on the long end, the 828 on
thee wide end.

The DSLR would produce much better images when shooting without
flash indoors, and for general low light photography. Pop on a 70
dollar 50mm f/1.8 on a canon DSLR and you will absolutely blow away
any non DSLR, be it the 828, or anything else.

This is for B&W newpaper prints. You don't need fine art quality here.

--
As long as the Lomo exists, it doesn't matter what camera you use.

 

[Shay Stephens]

I don't understand the question, sorry.

"there is still a noticable lag when shooting with an external flash."

Does that depends on the camera?

anyway, I think the 828 is great. Beside all the things you already
said,
manual zoom, how can anyone live without it? I just love it.

stenberg

--
As long as the Lomo exists, it doesn't matter what camera you use.

 

[timpdx]

The swivel body is a godsend, get above crowd and see what you are doing OR be seated and use it like a waist-level finder and take a true candid shot, nice and subtle. Some I my 707 shots have been fine up to Full page tabloid (full cover, cover of entertainment section). The 828 should hold up even better. Getting the shot is a big part of the game, and the swivel body is a big advantage here.

--
http://www.pixelmap.com

 

[stenberg]

ok, let's try to rephrase

Is it just 828 thats have a noticable lag when shooting with an external flash?

Is there a significant difference in lag between digital cameras when shooting with an external flash?

Hope I get a little bit more clearer =)

 

[Visor Blue]

I disagree. The 828 will not cut it when 200mm is not enough. I

Hmm. Going by what Tim said that would be 1% of the time for him. Then a 1.5X or cropping might suffice.

The 828 will not stop motion (allow faster shutter speeds) in all
but the brightest light.

Isn't that a function of shutter speed/flash? How would a DSLR stop motion better?

A DSLR with a 28-200mm lens gives you a 7X zoom ratio, just like
the 828. The DSLR has a little more on the long end, the 828 on
thee wide end.

Hmm. A DSLR with a 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 lens (typically goes to f5.6 at about 70mm) seems less useful to my way of thinking than a 28-200 f2.0-2.8. Add in that you can hand hold the 828 at slower shutter speeds than a DSLR, the depth of field on the 828 is a lot higher than the DSLR, live preview, 28mm is a wide angle on the 828 and not on a non-full frame DLSR, a low power flash is all that's needed when a flash is required...

The DSLR would produce much better images when shooting without
flash indoors, and for general low light photography. Pop on a 70
dollar 50mm f/1.8 on a canon DSLR and you will absolutely blow away
any non DSLR, be it the 828, or anything else.

This "better images" thing always gets to me. I'm never sure what people mean by it. Less grain/noise at higher ISO's? Sure, I'll buy that. But a lot of that requires that the viewer stick their nose on the print. At that point I'd say the image didn't move or work for you so move on, quit looking for technical flaws in my prints, please.

You see a moving image of a fireman carrying a baby he/she saved from a fire. It's a moving picture, grain/noise or not. Print it at whatever coarse screening they now use in newspapers and everyone that sees it will be moved. Few will think/say "You know, had that been shot with a DSLR (or 4x5) it would be a better image.

Sorry, I'm not picking on you, Eggplant, I just see the "better image" argument a lot and it irks me.

So, with the 828 you exclude yourself from (decent) indoor sports
shots.

I disagree, low grain/noise shots, that I'll agree to that. But a shot of the game winning 3-point shot with the 828 hand held at ISO 800 1/60 @ f/2.8 at 200mm will be a missed shot with the DLSR. That 28-200 lens you mentioned you'd have to shoot at f5.6 (wide open on the 28-200's I know of -- even at the 130mm, which gives a 208mm with a 1.6x factor) and approx. 1/15th sec. You'll get a nice fine grain/noise motion blur arty shot with that combo.

The solution for a DSLR that will equal the 828's lens is a 17mm f2.8, 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. The 17's a little slow but close enough. While that's a nice assortment it's very costly, big and heavy (a Canon 28-70 2.8L is bigger, heavier and costs more than the 828 by itself), requires lens changes (VERY fast at times) or multiple bodies, sensor cleaning, and you still may not get the shot as you still can't hand hold that as slow as a 828.

I don't know, seems the 828 makes more sense to my way of thinking.

Disclaimer: I have been wrong before.

--
------------------------------------
Digital Cameras - Current: Canon G2, Minolta D7i
Previous: Apple Quicktake 100, Olympus C2000, C2020, Canon G1,
Canon EOS 10D
Film - 35mm - 8X10
Next: Sony 828 or Minolta A2?

 

[Shay Stephens]

The F717 has a lag too, though it is not noticable when taking non-flash shots in either camera. I don't know what the specs are for any other cameras when it comes to flash related shutter lag though. I will defer to others there.

ok, let's try to rephrase

Is it just 828 thats have a noticable lag when shooting with an
external flash?

Is there a significant difference in lag between digital cameras
when shooting with an external flash?

Hope I get a little bit more clearer =)

--
As long as the Lomo exists, it doesn't matter what camera you use.

 

[Visor Blue]

Is it just 828 thats have a noticable lag when shooting with an
external flash?

Is there a significant difference in lag between digital cameras
when shooting with an external flash?

I'm curious as to the cause of that. Is this with any external flash or just the Sony external flashes?

For instance, I saw some nice wedding pictures in this forum that were shot with a 828 and Sunpak 383 (I believe). So, if you use a hotshoe to PC adapter and a Sunpak or Vivitar 283 or whatever is there a lag? Just curious.

--
------------------------------------
Digital Cameras - Current: Canon G2, Minolta D7i
Previous: Apple Quicktake 100, Olympus C2000, C2020, Canon G1,
Canon EOS 10D
Film - 35mm - 8X10
Next: Sony 828 or Minolta A2?

 

[Evil Eggplant]

tim

I disagree. The 828 will not cut it when 200mm is not enough. I
don't know what you're actually going to shoot, but from a
photojournalistic perspective 200mm seems a bit limiting in certain
situations. Just like the abscense of 28mm with the DSLR would also
hinder in certain situations.

But he said 99% of his work is in the 28mm to 200mm range.

You got me there

The 828 will not stop motion (allow faster shutter speeds) in all
but the brightest light.

How can that possibly be true? You can set the shutter speed to
1/2000th. You can set the ISO to 800.

Yes, in bright light. Clearly this is one area a DSLR excels. There really is no comparison in this area.

A DSLR with a 28-200mm lens gives you a 7X zoom ratio, just like
the 828. The DSLR has a little more on the long end, the 828 on
thee wide end.

The DSLR would produce much better images when shooting without
flash indoors, and for general low light photography. Pop on a 70
dollar 50mm f/1.8 on a canon DSLR and you will absolutely blow away
any non DSLR, be it the 828, or anything else.

This is for B&W newpaper prints. You don't need fine art quality
here.

You also don't need 8 megapixels for newsprint, but its a nice feature to have. The fact I stated is indisputable, a DSLR with a 50mm f/1.8 will chew up and spit out any non-DSLR digicam, period. A DSLR with the 50mm prime will downright freeze motion, indoors, under ambient light. Flash performance would be much better with the DSLR. The DSLR with a fast lens will be a much, much more effective tool for a journalist.

Would you rather work with a ISO 800 shot out of a DSLR or an 828?

Suggesting that ISO 800 would be "usable" because the noise would be killed by downsizing is not much of a testament to the camera. God forbid this fellow wants to print this ISO 800 shot he took witrh the 828 and finds out that image isn't much good for any other medium than newsprint?

A popular argument is that the 828 is OK for some things, and a DSLR is OK for others. The DSLR will capture high quality in more situations than the 828.

YOu would recommend an 828 to a journalalist as opposed to a DSLR?

O well, we're all entitled to our opinions. I have always respected your opinion, I still do. I just disagree with it.

--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'Mmmm, floor pie'
http://www.iceninephotography.com

 

[Evil Eggplant]

I disagree. The 828 will not cut it when 200mm is not enough. I

Hmm. Going by what Tim said that would be 1% of the time for him.
Then a 1.5X or cropping might suffice.

The 828 will not stop motion (allow faster shutter speeds) in all
but the brightest light.

Isn't that a function of shutter speed/flash? How would a DSLR stop
motion better?

Increased sensitivity in low light = faster shutter speed. Optical viewfinder better in low light

A DSLR with a 28-200mm lens gives you a 7X zoom ratio, just like
the 828. The DSLR has a little more on the long end, the 828 on
thee wide end.

Hmm. A DSLR with a 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 lens (typically goes to f5.6
at about 70mm) seems less useful to my way of thinking than a
28-200 f2.0-2.8. Add in that you can hand hold the 828 at slower
shutter speeds than a DSLR, the depth of field on the 828 is a lot
higher than the DSLR, live preview, 28mm is a wide angle on the 828
and not on a non-full frame DLSR, a low power flash is all that's
needed when a flash is required...

You would think so, wouldnt you. How many stops do you lose shooting at ISO 64 which is closer to ISO 40. Don't let the f/2 - 2.8 fool you. Low sensitivity eats up this spec

The DSLR would produce much better images when shooting without
flash indoors, and for general low light photography. Pop on a 70
dollar 50mm f/1.8 on a canon DSLR and you will absolutely blow away
any non DSLR, be it the 828, or anything else.

This "better images" thing always gets to me. I'm never sure what
people mean by it. Less grain/noise at higher ISO's? Sure, I'll buy
that. But a lot of that requires that the viewer stick their nose
on the print. At that point I'd say the image didn't move or work
for you so move on, quit looking for technical flaws in my prints,
please.

Yes, subjective sometimes. But what I said stands. A canon DSLR with a 50mm f/1.8 prime, at ISO 1600, will do things impossible with the 828. The lens is faster, the camera is perfectly useable up to ISO 3200 with a 10D. So let me rephrase my statement. The images are not "better" than similar 828 images, because the 828 just cant do it. Not like that.

You see a moving image of a fireman carrying a baby he/she saved
from a fire. It's a moving picture, grain/noise or not. Print it at
whatever coarse screening they now use in newspapers and everyone
that sees it will be moved. Few will think/say "You know, had that
been shot with a DSLR (or 4x5) it would be a better image.

Sorry, I'm not picking on you, Eggplant, I just see the "better
image" argument a lot and it irks me.

In certain situations, yes, better. It shouldn't irk you, and I'm not offended. But in certain situations the DSLR shines. I believe that a journalist would appreciate a DSLR for these reasons. This is far from a "my camera is better" troll post from me. I am sharing honest feelings about why a journalist would be better suited with a DSLR.

So, with the 828 you exclude yourself from (decent) indoor sports
shots.

I disagree, low grain/noise shots, that I'll agree to that. But a
shot of the game winning 3-point shot with the 828 hand held at ISO
800 1/60 @ f/2.8 at 200mm will be a missed shot with the DLSR. That
28-200 lens you mentioned you'd have to shoot at f5.6 (wide open on
the 28-200's I know of -- even at the 130mm, which gives a 208mm
with a 1.6x factor) and approx. 1/15th sec. You'll get a nice fine
grain/noise motion blur arty shot with that combo.

You may be correct, but again, low-light is one area where the DSLR shines. The DSLR will simply do it better. I have seen 828 sports shots, I have seen them from a DSLR. The DSLR images, captured under these circumstances are simply better IMO, sorry

The solution for a DSLR that will equal the 828's lens is a 17mm
f2.8, 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. The 17's a little slow but close
enough. While that's a nice assortment it's very costly, big and
heavy (a Canon 28-70 2.8L is bigger, heavier and costs more than
the 828 by itself), requires lens changes (VERY fast at times) or
multiple bodies, sensor cleaning, and you still may not get the
shot as you still can't hand hold that as slow as a 828.

If this is the criteria of the photographer then I agree with you 100%

I don't know, seems the 828 makes more sense to my way of thinking.

I reserve the right to disagree

Disclaimer: I have been wrong before.

Me too---

Regards
--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'Mmmm, floor pie'
http://www.iceninephotography.com

 

[Shay Stephens]

tim

I disagree. The 828 will not cut it when 200mm is not enough. I
don't know what you're actually going to shoot, but from a
photojournalistic perspective 200mm seems a bit limiting in certain
situations. Just like the abscense of 28mm with the DSLR would also
hinder in certain situations.

But he said 99% of his work is in the 28mm to 200mm range.

You got me there

The 828 will not stop motion (allow faster shutter speeds) in all
but the brightest light.

How can that possibly be true? You can set the shutter speed to
1/2000th. You can set the ISO to 800.

Yes, in bright light. Clearly this is one area a DSLR excels. There
really is no comparison in this area.

If by bright light you mean EV 10, or the amount of light available immediately after sunset, then yes. That is the amount of light you could properly expose at 1/2000 at ISO 800 using f/2.

That does not include using flash or push processing the image or using longer shutter speeds, all of which would be available.

A DSLR with a 28-200mm lens gives you a 7X zoom ratio, just like
the 828. The DSLR has a little more on the long end, the 828 on
thee wide end.

The DSLR would produce much better images when shooting without
flash indoors, and for general low light photography. Pop on a 70
dollar 50mm f/1.8 on a canon DSLR and you will absolutely blow away
any non DSLR, be it the 828, or anything else.

This is for B&W newpaper prints. You don't need fine art quality
here.

You also don't need 8 megapixels for newsprint, but its a nice
feature to have. The fact I stated is indisputable, a DSLR with a
50mm f/1.8 will chew up and spit out any non-DSLR digicam, period.
A DSLR with the 50mm prime will downright freeze motion, indoors,
under ambient light. Flash performance would be much better with
the DSLR. The DSLR with a fast lens will be a much, much more
effective tool for a journalist.

That same DSLR can't be used over the head and the shot composed. That same DSLR with a 50mm lens can't get the shot that a 28mm to 200mm can, frozen motion or not. That same DSLR probably can't sync with a flash beyond 1/200th of a second. That same DSLR probably can't be used in total darkness. But I am sure you just forgot about those things ;-)

Would you rather work with a ISO 800 shot out of a DSLR or an 828?

Depends on the situation and the look I am going after. Let me ask you, would a silky smooth ISO 800 have the same gritty impact as a grainy ISO 800?

Suggesting that ISO 800 would be "usable" because the noise would
be killed by downsizing is not much of a testament to the camera.
God forbid this fellow wants to print this ISO 800 shot he took
witrh the 828 and finds out that image isn't much good for any
other medium than newsprint?

That is something only he knows.

A popular argument is that the 828 is OK for some things, and a
DSLR is OK for others. The DSLR will capture high quality in more
situations than the 828.

Depends on the situation and the user.

YOu would recommend an 828 to a journalalist as opposed to a DSLR?

Depends on the situation and the user.

O well, we're all entitled to our opinions. I have always respected
your opinion, I still do. I just disagree with it.

Hehehe, no problem with that, I am not the final authority on anything except Shaytech Industries, and that I rule with an iron fist of despotism hahahaha

--
As long as the Lomo exists, it doesn't matter what camera you use.

 

[Visor Blue]

Increased sensitivity in low light = faster shutter speed. Optical
viewfinder better in low light

Ah, you were thinking of ISO 3200. Got ya.

You would think so, wouldnt you. How many stops do you lose
shooting at ISO 64 which is closer to ISO 40. Don't let the f/2 -
2.8 fool you. Low sensitivity eats up this spec

Well, assuming that he'd be shooting at 200...

Yes, subjective sometimes. But what I said stands. A canon DSLR
with a 50mm f/1.8 prime, at ISO 1600, will do things impossible
with the 828.

Wait. We were sticking to the 28-200 range, weren't we? Where'd the 50mm f1.8 (metal mount Mark 1, I hope) come from? I could sneak in IR/night shots and say the DSLR doesn't cut it there.

In certain situations, yes, better. It shouldn't irk you, and I'm
not offended.

No, you don't irk me the "better images" statement people seem to like to toss around irks me. Then, I don't equate an image's quality on the fine grain/low noise aspect.

sharing honest feelings about why a journalist would be better
suited with a DSLR.

I've been journalist, but not a sports shooter, so my opinions/feelings differ. Rarely was it that dark or flash restricted in what I did. I have set the f/stop, hyperfocal distance focus and held cameras above my head shooting semi-blindly. The LCD and preview of a prosumer camera suits my needs better. Just sold my 10D and bag o' lenses.

You may be correct, but again, low-light is one area where the DSLR
shines. The DSLR will simply do it better. I have seen 828 sports
shots, I have seen them from a DSLR. The DSLR images, captured
under these circumstances are simply better IMO, sorry

Define "better," please.

If this is the criteria of the photographer then I agree with you 100%

Again, going by what Tim said. A 28-200mm would handle his needs 99% of the time.

I reserve the right to disagree

Noted.

--
------------------------------------
Digital Cameras - Current: Canon G2, Minolta D7i
Previous: Apple Quicktake 100, Olympus C2000, C2020, Canon G1,
Canon EOS 10D
Film - 35mm - 8X10
Next: Sony 828 or Minolta A2?

 

[Milo86176]

Go for it. I shoot for a local NYC newspaper using my Sony 717.

Except for extreme speed situations it works out fine. I even have had bike race photos published with this slower 717. See the examples.

http://www.pbase.com/sproket/downtown_express

the above for newspaper shots

below for my portfolio using mostly 717

http://www.pbase.com/sproket

 

[Evil Eggplant]

tim

I disagree. The 828 will not cut it when 200mm is not enough. I
don't know what you're actually going to shoot, but from a
photojournalistic perspective 200mm seems a bit limiting in certain
situations. Just like the abscense of 28mm with the DSLR would also
hinder in certain situations.

But he said 99% of his work is in the 28mm to 200mm range.

You got me there

The 828 will not stop motion (allow faster shutter speeds) in all
but the brightest light.

How can that possibly be true? You can set the shutter speed to
1/2000th. You can set the ISO to 800.

Yes, in bright light. Clearly this is one area a DSLR excels. There
really is no comparison in this area.

If by bright light you mean EV 10, or the amount of light available
immediately after sunset, then yes. That is the amount of light
you could properly expose at 1/2000 at ISO 800 using f/2.

C'mon Shay. In general, everyday terms, would you agree that the performance of a DSLR would be superior to a non-DSLR in low ambient light?

That does not include using flash or push processing the image or
using longer shutter speeds, all of which would be available.

Yes, flash, push-processing and longer exposures are all things you can do with a non-DSLR to get a shot that the DSLR would capture without effort. What gives? You know this. The DSLR can also be push-processedand use longer shutter speeds. That would put the DSLR in territoty where the 828 couldnt even go. I would consider this useful feature for a journalists tool, wouldn't you?

A DSLR with a 28-200mm lens gives you a 7X zoom ratio, just like
the 828. The DSLR has a little more on the long end, the 828 on
thee wide end.

The DSLR would produce much better images when shooting without
flash indoors, and for general low light photography. Pop on a 70
dollar 50mm f/1.8 on a canon DSLR and you will absolutely blow away
any non DSLR, be it the 828, or anything else.

This is for B&W newpaper prints. You don't need fine art quality
here.

Would you rather work with a ISO 800 shot out of a DSLR or an 828?

Depends on the situation and the look I am going after. Let me ask
you, would a silky smooth ISO 800 have the same gritty impact as a
grainy ISO 800?

No, but I would rather start with a pristine image and work in the noise if I want it. It is much easier to add noise than remove it. And of course, what if you don't want the noise in the first place.

Suggesting that ISO 800 would be "usable" because the noise would
be killed by downsizing is not much of a testament to the camera.
God forbid this fellow wants to print this ISO 800 shot he took
witrh the 828 and finds out that image isn't much good for any
other medium than newsprint?

That is something only he knows.

Yes, but I am probably right. Besides, you were the one who made the "800 is useable in newsprint" comment. What if he doesn't want a "gritty" image, as you suggested?

A popular argument is that the 828 is OK for some things, and a
DSLR is OK for others. The DSLR will capture high quality in more
situations than the 828.

Depends on the situation and the user.

Yes, I am talking about this situation. Honestly, Shay, with you refusing to admit that, in the most general terms, the DSLR will outperform a non-DSLR, you're beginning to sound like you work for Sony marketing. What gives? You won't agree or disagree with anything, you sound like a polititian.

To say that the grittiness of a high ISO image is a "feature" is ridiculous. It can be a feature in certain situations, but generally speaking, it is better to start with a clean image.

I have been attempting to make a real case for the DSLR as a journalists' tool. I invite discussion, but if you won't admit to obvious advantages of a DSLR in certain situations then there will be no discussion. the reader will decide.

You are well known and respected here. Not making concessions to the DSLR when it is the tool of choice (in an appropriate situation) will only hurt you out here. People trust you. How can they trust you when you get wishy-washy when I say a DSLR is superior in most low light shooting situations? Sheesh, why is it so hard to agree with this?

Yes, you do sound like a Sony marketing guy.

Saying that noise is advantagious is very unlike the professional I know you to be.

YOu would recommend an 828 to a journalalist as opposed to a DSLR?

Depends on the situation and the user.

O well, we're all entitled to our opinions. I have always respected
your opinion, I still do. I just disagree with it.

Hehehe, no problem with that, I am not the final authority on
anything except Shaytech Industries, and that I rule with an iron
fist of despotism hahahaha

Got me there

--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'Mmmm, floor pie'
http://www.iceninephotography.com

 

[dleuen]

Tim-

I think for the most part the F828 would be great. However,
I recently had to send in my F828 to Sony Repair (US). It
took 4 weeks to get a replacement. Maybe that is not the
norm for Sony but that was my experience. If your primary
camera is gone for 4 weeks, you may have a tough time doing
your work. At any rate, as a professional you should have a good
backup that will get you through should you be so unfortunate.
I don't know how other manufacturers are at their service so maybe
that is just what you have to put up with. Just mentioning another
thing you might want to consider to make the best decision you
can. Other that that incident, I really like my camera. I've never
handled a camera that feels as good as the 828.

Don

I shoot for a small local newspaper, mostly b/w. I'm leaning toward
getting the F828 as my main camera. Here's the thinking:

 

[Mike Sumaquial]

I believe the 828 would be a fine choice for your needs. In photojournalism, I think there are several important factors. Camera speed, accurate focusing, portability, ergonomics, very detailed images.

The below picture was a difficult shot for me because I was not allowed to take pictures, there were security guards, and the lighting was poor. I got this shot off in 1 sec, by slowing walking past the people in prayer, shooting from waist level, and quickly moving off.

I didn't worry about composing, and because of the fine focusing of the 828, the picture came out clear, and the flash went off for proper exposure.



Thanks to the 8mp, there's so much detail in the picture that I can crop to adjust the composition without losing any details.

Because the cam is so small, I don't call attention to myself, especially since I place my 828 in a small waist pouch. I think fast focusing, portability, the versatile 28-200mm lens, and the 8mp would be of great use for your line of work. Check out my galleries to see more 828 examples.
Hope this helps

Mike
http://pacificsunsets.smugmug.com/