Reading mode: Light Dark

Is 828 a Pro camera?

Go to last post
R

rarehipster

Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney, AU
Does the 828 deliver an acceptable size for image libraries and of a quality that a high end magazine (ie National Geographic) would publish?
 
hmm it's hard to say... many people call it a prosumer camera (a mix between professional and consumer)

the main pro-like features it has: high resolution, and good build quality (the grip is wonderful, apparently)

the main consumer-like stuff: much smaller sensor than the pro cameras... means more visual noise but allows for smaller lenses, no interchangeable lenses (but you can attach other lenses on to the end of it)

I'm not sure what kind of resolution national geographic prints at, but it's probably something around 300dpi, in which case I'd imagine it'd probably be ok, although at full resolution the noise becomes more apparent

hope this helps

Dan
rarehipster said:
Does the 828 deliver an acceptable size for image libraries and of
a quality that a high end magazine (ie National Geographic) would
publish?
Click to expand...
 
Daniel Peebles wrote:
although at full resolution the noise
Daniel Peebles said:
becomes more apparent
Click to expand...
This is the whole point really, isn't it? If an image isn't publishable because of a technical issue (eg noise at 100%) or rather its chances of acceptance are reduced then it is marketing semantics - read hype- to put a pro label on this camera. Are there any pros out there who sell their 828 images?
 
I feel it depends on the photographer and the manner in which he is using the camera. I go to many sporting events and occasionally see someone using a DSC-F717 on the sidelines. But more likely the professional photographer will own a DSLR because of experience or training with SLR systems.
 
Indeed. Noise and PF is not an issue for prints in a magazine. Color, quality etc is.

You only see noise when printed very large and the picture is taken with 400 Iso or more.
(100% crop on a monitor is only done bij reviewers :-D )
 
As always with the 828 the answer is if there is enough light. Comparing the 828 shots with my new D70 in situations where there isn't a great deal of contrast between the bright areas and the dark areas the 828 has better resolving power then the D70. The lens is crisp and the resolution is obviously higher. Where there is a choice between blowing out highlights and too dark areas the Sony doesn't fare as well. I don't know what the criteria for National Geographic is but I assume for the people type shots they are famous for the 828 would shine. It's more important to get the shot then worry about technical details. The 828 is not as imposing to non-photogs compared to a DSLR. people tend to be more natural around it. Even more so with a 707/717.

For scenics it's impossible to control the lighting. That means you will find some scenes where the 828 will have image quality problems. I know there's a school of thought that you can fix most of the issues in a paint program and you can fix quite a bit but any modification to correct fringing and noise is still a loss of data that would be there with a better sensor.

If you're shooting "semi-pro" for a mag that doesn't pay much (or anything) they will usually accept less quality but if your competition is shooting high end equipment the 828 is going to be a handicap.

Most of the people in this forum with a DSLR have kept their 828 as a grab shot camera. Similar to film pros keeping a rangefinder in their pocket. At $1000 it's an expensive back-up/snapshot camera and the usual scenario is an 828 owner who recognized the limitations and could afford to make the jump to a DSLR but couldn't part with their 828 because of it's strengths.

If you have the choice (and yes I mean money) the DSLR will serve you better in the long run. I bought the D70 for the future. The real cost isn't the camera body. It's the lenses and they're not getting any cheaper, they are getting better. 10 years from now I'll be able to use the Nikon lenses on whatever the latest and greatest 100M pixel wunderkind body is. This is based on the 25 years I got out of my Minolta film bodies and lenses.

The common wisdom is you don't have to buy a whole system of lenses with the integrated cameras. The truth is you are buying a whole system that has to be re-bought with every succeeding generation. Just like digital saves money in the long run because you don't buy film and developing the DSLR saves money in the long run because the real money is in the lenses.

Good luck,
Dan
 
rarehipster said:
Does the 828 deliver an acceptable size for image libraries and of
a quality that a high end magazine (ie National Geographic) would
publish?
Click to expand...
I would think that in many situations it would. The digital SLRs have two main advantages over a camera like the 828 -- 1. shallow depth of field because of the larger sensor; 2. lower noise levels. As for outright picture quality, the lines between the high end all-in-one digitals and the DSLRs are becoming increasingly blurred, and with the 828/Pro1/8080 the gap has closed even more. In addition to the two points mentioned above, DSLRs also have the advantage of flexibility since they have interchangeable lenses, but all-in-one digitals certain have their place as well.

--
Todd Walker
Canon 10D
28-70/2.8L, 80-200/2.8L, 50/1.8
Sony F707
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.twphotography.net
http://www.pbase.com/twalker294
 
Sure, under the right circumstances. But so can many cams. The Sony is, I believe, the best 1 lens cam you can buy. BUT and its a big one, if I fed my family with my camera, it would not be the Sony 828. There are obviously better choices. Biggest reason is ability to use high isos when you need them, and as a pro, you will need them.

You gotta be damned good to get in the NG, and I really wonder if anyone has ever had a picture posted in there from an prosumer cam. I doubt it.

Still, the 828 takes fab pics as can easily be seen at this forum. Set your sights a little lower than NG and it will do fine.
rarehipster said:
Does the 828 deliver an acceptable size for image libraries and of
a quality that a high end magazine (ie National Geographic) would
publish?
Click to expand...
 
Really then, it all comes down to the image itsef... obviously. One could sell an image taken with a shoebox pinhole camera the picture was terrific, I guess.

But it really all relies on enough resolution. The 8 megapixels delivers a 24mb RGB tiff, easily competing with, in my professional scanning experience, with a decent 35mm scan. Anything after this is just blowing up films inherant noise. But do image banks prefer film to digital? ..that I guess is the bottom line.
 
I know you're likely asking as a potential Sony owner ? However, don't let the camera stress you too much. It all boils down to the photo. I've only had one image sold/published and it was a fluke they found it and asked. I never even attempt(ed) to sell anything. The magazine never questioned what camera I took the image with.

It will boil down to what you can do with what you have. Look at these forums and pbase sites and you'll be amazed at what is out there and what the artists shoot with.

Good luck and enjoy.
rarehipster said:
Does the 828 deliver an acceptable size for image libraries and of
a quality that a high end magazine (ie National Geographic) would
publish?
Click to expand...
--
-tim
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp
 
rarehipster said:
Does the 828 deliver an acceptable size for image libraries and of
a quality that a high end magazine (ie National Geographic) would
publish?
Click to expand...
I shoot a good numer of small, fine art objects for clients with the F828 even though I have the entire line of Canon dSLR's, the Kodak DCS-760 and Kodak digital MF back along with all relevant film platforms.

The F828 has exceptional depth of field at F8 to print exceedingly sharp 16x20's of small, highly detailed art objects without diffraction becoming an issue. Often it's much easier for me to get a hand-held shot with the F828 at F8 with the built-in flash and a reflector or two than to set up my soft boxes, speculars, reflectors, tripod and do it with my 1DS or Kodak back. I get superb results which please my clients and are equal in print at sizes used in National Geographic to anything I've seen there taken with the typical 35mm platform or even MF.

In that sense, yes, it indeed does deliver acceptable size for publishable results. The F828 isn't suitable for some types of professional work, but then a good carpenter doesn't use a framing hammer for finishing work or a sledge to drive a tack. It's all a matter of choosing the proper tool for the task at hand.

Would I suggest the F828 for a "general professional tool?" Probably not because there are better all-around tools and the better dSLR's like the Canon 1DS and 1D Mark II are probably better all-around, but the F828, like most of the better prosumer cameras are quite capable of rendering professional results as long as used within the parameters of their capabilities and limitations.

Here's a link to a typical image of small fine art taken with my f828 which prints beautifully at 16x20.

http://www.lin-evans.com/samples/bigturtle.jpg
Lin
 
rarehipster said:
Really then, it all comes down to the image itsef... obviously. One
could sell an image taken with a shoebox pinhole camera the picture
was terrific, I guess.
Click to expand...
bingo. end of conversation. you send in a groundbreaking image with a 35mm disposable, and someone sends in a so-so image taken with a 30,000 dollar scanning back, and they will publish the better picture.
rarehipster said:
But it really all relies on enough resolution. The 8 megapixels
delivers a 24mb RGB tiff, easily competing with, in my professional
scanning experience, with a decent 35mm scan. Anything after this
is just blowing up films inherant noise.
Click to expand...
again, bingo. 8MP is enough to capture just about as much detail as 35mm film (some will argue that the 8MP captures more, others that the film captures more). any publication-sized print (like national geo, TIME, ect) will not require more than 8MP at the most. i would even argue that anything less than full page can be done with 5MP.

side note, you are much better off shooting RAW if you plan to publish. TIFF is useless IMO and has no detail advantage over JPEG (at least in sony cameras)
rarehipster said:
But do image banks prefer
film to digital? ..that I guess is the bottom line.
Click to expand...
yep, id say this is what it comes down to. and id bet that they are increasingly preferring digital, as that seems to be the evolution of cameras. for example, i know sports illustrated is almost exclusively staffed by digital photogaphers toting 10Ds and 1Dses (probabbly MKIIs by now)

i would say the issue also depends on resolution requirements, as people insist that you need to submit an image of 300DPI or higher to a magizine. unless they plan to distibute magizines made of photo paper, this makes no sense to me.

--------------

anyway, i think you answered your original post. its not so much "can you publish 828 output" its more "what do they prefer"

monky

--

excuse any typos or unusually short exchanges for the next few weeks. i have a broken hand. ; )

AIM: monky9000
 
Hi,

I'm working on three different professional areas with the 828: fine art photography, panoramic and contract.

I'm selling photographs for some big size panoramas printed in high resolution archival printers, fine art and some contracted for advertising and publishing. I'm using the 828 because of the versatility and construction.

I think the main part of a picture isn't the camera. Is the subject, composition, the feeling... definitely not the camera.

Only if you have some special needs for technical, sports, scientific... you should search for a camera with high speed (1/8000 and up) higher resolution, high ISO with low noise, etc.

Just my opinion.

Carlos

http://www.fotodigital.tk
rarehipster said:
rarehipster said:
becomes more apparent
Click to expand...
This is the whole point really, isn't it? If an image isn't
publishable because of a technical issue (eg noise at 100%) or
rather its chances of acceptance are reduced then it is marketing
semantics - read hype- to put a pro label on this camera. Are there
any pros out there who sell their 828 images?
Click to expand...
 
It's not perfect, the F828, that's for sure. But in terms of a mix of performance/AF speed/image quality/ergonomics/flash options/zoom range/lens, it's hard to beat.

Sure, other cameras may beat the F828 in a few areas, but they also lag in others. And I've handled friends' 300Ds, D60s & D70 and I am surprised that the F828's AF speed is comparable except in the worst possible lighting conditions!

True, DSLRs have the advantage of higher, less noisy ISOs and I have at times wished for that, but for its price and the mix I mentioned above, it really comes close to the DSLR realm without the expense of lenses! ;-)
rarehipster said:
rarehipster wrote:
Does the 828 deliver an acceptable size for image libraries and of
a quality that a high end magazine (ie National Geographic) would
publish?
Click to expand...
--



Keep On Snappin'! :-)
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top