F707 - Be Honest

Ed (;¬ >) · Oct 10, 2001

Softtower:

I am not responding to silents (his current guise) because I have reviewed his posts and he is a Troll.

You, on the otherhand, at least post intellligently and stick around to defend your position. You may be a bit abrasive but we all can't be Ulysses, now can we?

I have read a great many of your posts and I am still confused. You have admitted that the 707 provides greater detail and other positive things in its pics, you criticise its noise and color rendition. All well and good but you sum it up by saying that its over-al picture quality is bad.

This is where I start to lose you. In a recent post you said that the quality is poor on a pixel for pixel comparison. In this post again you cite 'quality.'

Perhaps you can quantify a little more clearly for me exactly what makes a high quality pic vs a low quality one. Now that you have a 707 (or soon will) perhaps you can post some specific examples.

-Ed

softtower said:
I need to say this:

The main point about F707 isn't the image quality! The reason to
buy and owe this camera is:

F707 is very "handy" camera. Zoom, viewfinder, exposure control,
operational speed - it has it all. If you forget about image
quality for a second and just think about the process of taking
pictures, that is exactly where F707 shines.

I am a big quality freak. I do understand that I am not a pro, I
can have over(under)exposured pics, they might be poorly framed,
blurred, etc, but that does not explain noise, reds, problems like
that. And even I am thinking of keeping F707 more and more, because
I just found my old SLR joy again: owning a camera isn't just about
pictures, it's about process of taking them too!

Andy58717 · Oct 10, 2001

I have a couple of questions for you: Have you taken any pictures with the F707 that have really impressed you with the overall quality? Have you seen any F707 pictures taken by others that have really impressed you?

softtower said:
Dub said:

In other words you don't want to be reasonable you just want to
bash the camera.

Click to expand...

Why you F707 lovers are so deaf? The my entire post, as a few
others, was about reasons why F707 images aren't that good, as
they have must been.

softtower said:

There were a number of very good posts in this series that
explained the difference between print(most important to me) and
what you see on screen(any low end digital camera can take picturs
suitable for the web).

Click to expand...

There was a great explanation by me, a few days ago, that making a
great-looking WEB-pictures isn't easier (even a bit) than creating
a great-looking print. Why do you think we don't see tons of
great-looking web-galleries?

softtower said:

The image quality when printed is what is important to me and in
that area the F707 is great so far.
Yes I own some of the other digital cameras and the F707 images are
superior to them.

Click to expand...

And I explained why F707 pics look great when printed, in that very
post which you completely igored.

There must be a definition of "sony people", those who don't
respond to the facts (they look at noisy pictures and say "they're
great!"), who don't understand what you're saying and not even
trying to. And all you guys are looking for, in other people posts,
is bad things about your lovely sony product, just to say something
like "you just want to bash the camera". Why, tell me, would I
spent $999.95 on F707, to just bash it?

Randy44818 · Oct 10, 2001

Ed (;¬ > ) said:
I am not responding to silents (his current guise) because I have
reviewed his posts and he is a Troll.

You, on the otherhand, at least post intellligently and stick
around to defend your position. You may be a bit abrasive but we
all can't be Ulysses, now can we?

I have read a great many of your posts and I am still confused. You
have admitted that the 707 provides greater detail and other
positive things in its pics, you criticise its noise and color
rendition. All well and good but you sum it up by saying that its
over-al picture quality is bad.

This is where I start to lose you. In a recent post you said that
the quality is poor on a pixel for pixel comparison. In this post
again you cite 'quality.'

Perhaps you can quantify a little more clearly for me exactly what
makes a high quality pic vs a low quality one. Now that you have a
707 (or soon will) perhaps you can post some specific examples.

-Ed

softtower said:

I need to say this:

The main point about F707 isn't the image quality! The reason to
buy and owe this camera is:

F707 is very "handy" camera. Zoom, viewfinder, exposure control,
operational speed - it has it all. If you forget about image
quality for a second and just think about the process of taking
pictures, that is exactly where F707 shines.

I am a big quality freak. I do understand that I am not a pro, I
can have over(under)exposured pics, they might be poorly framed,
blurred, etc, but that does not explain noise, reds, problems like
that. And even I am thinking of keeping F707 more and more, because
I just found my old SLR joy again: owning a camera isn't just about
pictures, it's about process of taking them too!

Click to expand...

People keep looking at pictures made by the different cameras and judge for yourself and not someone who is pushing a certain brand. I could name names but as you read over a period of time, it is some that only think Nikon is good, only Canon, only Sony and as far as the pictures of the s 75 and s 85 being as good as the 707 or the 505v i would highly disagree and i do not own a digital camera. But i look at alot of pictures taken and to this point the most pleasing to my eyes bar none, is the Canon D30 and the 707 pictures have really impressed me also. He claims the 707 is noisy and go look at pictures from the Minolta D7 and even the Nikon cameras i see noise but i don't see it as bad is what he is saying on the 707. Phil has taken sample pics of all the cameras he reviews and i think looking at his is a good judgement along with many others that is on here. The only thing i have noticed that is a draw back, would be the oversaturated colors sometimes and not all times(red and green mostly i see and not always), a little bit heavy of a camera but not as bad as any slr, the memory sticks and not shooting in raw but hell all the cameras have draw backs and this is even the expensive slr's. I say the 505v and the 707 take much better quality pictures than the s75 and s85 but is it enough to upgrade to, who knows. The perfect digital camera is not here. So which ever you buy, you will have to work around their shortcommings. Someone posted pics in here of fall pics from the northeast with his new 707 and they looked beautiful to me.
Randy

Stuart D · Oct 10, 2001

I've looked at lots of pics taken with various digital cameras, and I like the ones from the 707. I think the pics have a general lack of noise and overall look very good, with very smooth looking surfaces. The low light performance particularly appears to be excellent, something my camera (FUJI 6900) is a bit of a letdown with, although I am very happy with it in other ways. All digicamns have their bad points, but I feel that the 707's good ones outweigh them, I know if I was buying now it would be a close thing between it and my 6900.

If anyone wants to compare their pics to mine I have a gallery at
http://www.pbase.com/stuartd/galleries

Viktor · Oct 10, 2001

Now you are expert and know everything about F707 in less than 24 hours? Is this a joke??? Let me explain for example you have noise. All digital camera has certain dynamic range. Check this meaning and know it my friend. Don't you see, the digital camera has some limit. Do you think other digital camera has some magic technology that F707 does not have to not have noise? I see such beautiful picture from this camera taken by good photographer. Anyone can take bad picture with good camera. If you can't do it, then maybe you should try a new hobby comrade.

softtower said:
I need to say this:

The main point about F707 isn't the image quality! The reason to
buy and owe this camera is:

F707 is very "handy" camera. Zoom, viewfinder, exposure control,
operational speed - it has it all. If you forget about image
quality for a second and just think about the process of taking
pictures, that is exactly where F707 shines.

I am a big quality freak. I do understand that I am not a pro, I
can have over(under)exposured pics, they might be poorly framed,
blurred, etc, but that does not explain noise, reds, problems like
that. And even I am thinking of keeping F707 more and more, because
I just found my old SLR joy again: owning a camera isn't just about
pictures, it's about process of taking them too!

Ed (;¬ >) · Oct 10, 2001

A very eclectic melange of albums, Stuart. I particularly liked the ones of your PC. I liked the PC, too.

The flowers taken against the window is a difficult shot. It came out well. I liked your concept of the single color flower from a B&W background. The fuji seems to handle color very well.

-Ed

Stuart D said:
I've looked at lots of pics taken with various digital cameras, and
I like the ones from the 707. I think the pics have a general lack
of noise and overall look very good, with very smooth looking
surfaces. The low light performance particularly appears to be
excellent, something my camera (FUJI 6900) is a bit of a letdown
with, although I am very happy with it in other ways. All digicamns
have their bad points, but I feel that the 707's good ones outweigh
them, I know if I was buying now it would be a close thing between
it and my 6900.

If anyone wants to compare their pics to mine I have a gallery at
http://www.pbase.com/stuartd/galleries

softtower · Oct 10, 2001

Viktor said:
Now you are expert and know everything about F707 in less than 24
hours? Is this a joke??? Let me explain for example you have noise.
All digital camera has certain dynamic range. Check this meaning
and know it my friend.

Don't worry about my education, I know about noise and dynamic range as much as you pretend to know. Everyone is screaming about "incredible image quality" of F707, but in fact, it's dynamic range and noise levels aren't impoved at all. And I don't even need 24 hours to check that. Just take a picture of a flat gray object with a long exposure.

Viktor said:
Don't you see, the digital camera has some
limit. Do you think other digital camera has some magic technology
that F707 does not have to not have noise?

All cams have noise. F707 has unaccpetable noise level for $1000 camera. I don't want it to be noisless. I wanted it to be less noisy in it's pricerange, after reading those comments about F707 on digital-resource.com, that are not true.

Viktor said:
picture from this camera taken by good photographer. Anyone can
take bad picture with good camera. If you can't do it, then maybe
you should try a new hobby comrade.

If I set ISO 100 on Canon D30 and pass it to you, I'll see where you're going to get the noise from, pridurok.

Viktor · Oct 10, 2001

softtower said:
Don't worry about my education, I know about noise and dynamic
range as much as you pretend to know. Everyone is screaming about
"incredible image quality" of F707, but in fact, it's dynamic range
and noise levels aren't impoved at all.

Who said they were improved? Compared to what???

softtower said:
And I don't even need 24
hours to check that. Just take a picture of a flat gray object with
a long exposure.

If you look for trouble, you can always find it comrade.

softtower said:
All cams have noise. F707 has unaccpetable noise level for $1000
camera.

What is technology that $1000 camera should use to kill noise?
Is D7 or E10 better for noise? They are more expensive.

softtower said:
If I set ISO 100 on Canon D30 and pass it to you, I'll see where
you're going to get the noise from, pridurok.

You should buy D30 and not complain about comsumer camera. I'm sure you are never happy with 707. You shouldn't believe everything you read then you are not so disappointed. 707 is not magic, it's just camera. Can't you enjoy and not always try to find some trouble to complain about to everyone?

softtower · Oct 10, 2001

Ed (;¬ > ) said:
You have admitted that the 707 provides greater detail and other
positive things in its pics, you criticise its noise and color
rendition. All well and good but you sum it up by saying that its
over-al picture quality is bad.

Hm... Yes, I agree, that was maybe a too strong statement. Sony made a big step forward in the digicam design with their F707: every little feature was improved a lot: especially a camera's operational speed (turn-on/off, autofocus, zoom, etc). The number of buttons you have to press in order to do something (almost anything) was reduced dramatically. Let's put a checkpoint here... #checkpoint#

Instead of saying "image quality" I should probably use "sensor+image processing technology". You see what I mean? Even that thing on that table shot, that some people refer to as "CA", is (as I think) some in-camera processing artifact, and hype about "clear color" (remember?) is just a hype - F707's abilities to suppress noise aren't great. What F707's image is, really, is what you get from S75 or S85 or F505, it's only bigger. And (here I'm not sure, but I have this feeling ) slightly more noisy. Most people don't see that because the image itself is big. So noise/information ratio is still good. That is also why F707 prints look great.

Now, let's go back to #checkpoint# and here's why camera mixes your feeligns. Looking at those great improvements I was talking about, you wonder "why their CCD hasn't changed?". Cameras from Canon did some improvements in their image quality (noise levels were reduced), but Sony didn't, although they had more problems than Canon in the first place. Red people faces is something only Sony cameras do. Again, I'm not talking about resolution in terms of number of pixels or optical lens resolution. I'm talking about what you're getting from, let's say, a crop of 100x100 pixels from some random CCD area, and how you process that. Now you should see why using words "image quality" was a bad idea. ;-)

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Perhaps you can quantify a little more clearly for me exactly what
makes a high quality pic vs a low quality one. Now that you have a
707 (or soon will) perhaps you can post some specific examples.

I don't feel good and I'm sitting home and don't even go to work. Perhaps that is the reason why I write to dpreview.com so much. I don't have any good pictures to post, because:

1. They almost all are taken in my apartment (mostly these low-light
noisy ones).
2. I'm waiting for G2 to take each picture by two cameras and compare.

softtower · Oct 10, 2001

Viktor said:
Viktor said:

And I don't even need 24
hours to check that. Just take a picture of a flat gray object with
a long exposure.

Click to expand...

Viktor said:
If you look for trouble, you can always find it comrade.

First, don't call me comrade.

I don't look for trouble. I don't like using flash, and I'm not alone here. And when you don't use flash and you don't have enough light, a long exposure is the way to go. And (agree with me here) there's nothing wrong with long exposures. Now see that I used 1/2 sec at ISO 100. I didn't expect image to be 100% noise-free, but what I see is worse than how my old G1 performed and about the same, how my DSC S70 did.

Viktor said:
What is technology that $1000 camera should use to kill noise?
Is D7 or E10 better for noise? They are more expensive.

You are right. That is why I don'w own neither D7 or E10. But (hopefully) G2 at ISO 50 will do better.

Viktor said:
You should buy D30 and not complain about comsumer camera. I'm sure
you are never happy with 707. You shouldn't believe everything you
read then you are not so disappointed. 707 is not magic, it's just
camera. Can't you enjoy and not always try to find some trouble to
complain about to everyone?

I am not complaining about F707 in general. Camera is fantastic, I think I will keep it, I'm so sick of this G1/G2/S70 and other brick-looking designs and loud extracting lens... F707's sensor is noisy indeed, but fortunately it's big enough to hide it's noise within the image. But when exp is set to 1/2 sec... things get ugly.

Maybe your're right, I was expecting too much. After all, I found only two things I don't like about F707:

Average noise perfomance (expected it to be exceptional, based on

some reviews)

Reddish skintones on long exposures.

Not bad, not bad at all! I can give you much more reasons not to buy almost everything. ;-)

Viktor · Oct 10, 2001

softtower said:
Maybe your're right, I was expecting too much. After all, I found
only two things I don't like about F707:

Average noise perfomance (expected it to be exceptional, based on

some reviews)

Reddish skintones on long exposures.

Not bad, not bad at all! I can give you much more reasons not to
buy almost everything. ;-)

OK. Fair enough, Mr. softtower. I have one favor to ask you. We saw bad example, now please show us a best example that you are happy about!

softtower · Oct 10, 2001

Viktor said:
OK. Fair enough, Mr. softtower. I have one favor to ask you. We saw
bad example, now please show us a best example that you are happy
about!

Not like I'm happy about it. In search for a good subject I am limited to my apartment complex right now, but this one is OK, as most of outdoor shots. Also I have an amazing shot of the same pool at night, but the sever I use does not allow more than 5MB "web space" ;-(

http://home.austin.rr.com/zeka/DSC00127.JPG

softtower · Oct 10, 2001

http://home.austin.rr.com/zeka/DSC00127.JPG

is even better

softtower · Oct 10, 2001

softtower said:
http://home.austin.rr.com/zeka/DSC00127.JPG

I meant DSC00126.JPG

AlanS · Oct 10, 2001

Silents said:
I think Eva hit the nail on the proverible head. All the pictuers
that I have seen so far from new adopters of the 707 are a real
let down.

Well, I have to say that I agree. I was disappointed by some of the 707 pics so far online.

But then I remembered something: Of my FP6900 pics, most did not live up to the quality of those on reviews - mainly because of lighting or camera shake.

Therefore, it wasn't suprising that some 707 pics would not be of the same quality as the reviews. Most people (like myself) were rushing to get some pics online and so were taking pics without 707 experience, and probably with a small sample base.

I've only taken about 100 pics so far with the 707 but I can say two things for definite:

1. The details is superb. My shots have much more detail than the FP6900 - although that's not surprising.

2. I have better success with candid shots because of the faster lens and better ISO quality.

The moral: appreciate that some of these 'early' pics are from inexperienced 707 users, probably from their first batch of pics.
They are probably not representative of the true camera quality.

You can see my efforts at: http://www.pbase.com/misteralan

antoine52756 · Oct 10, 2001

softtower said:
Viktor said:

softtower said:

And I don't even need 24
hours to check that. Just take a picture of a flat gray object with
a long exposure.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

softtower said:

If you look for trouble, you can always find it comrade.

Click to expand...

First, don't call me comrade.

I don't look for trouble. I don't like using flash, and I'm not
alone here. And when you don't use flash and you don't have enough
light, a long exposure is the way to go. And (agree with me here)
there's nothing wrong with long exposures. Now see that I used 1/2
sec at ISO 100. I didn't expect image to be 100% noise-free, but
what I see is worse than how my old G1 performed and about the
same, how my DSC S70 did.

softtower said:

What is technology that $1000 camera should use to kill noise?
Is D7 or E10 better for noise? They are more expensive.

Click to expand...

You are right. That is why I don'w own neither D7 or E10. But
(hopefully) G2 at ISO 50 will do better.

softtower said:

You should buy D30 and not complain about comsumer camera. I'm sure
you are never happy with 707. You shouldn't believe everything you
read then you are not so disappointed. 707 is not magic, it's just
camera. Can't you enjoy and not always try to find some trouble to
complain about to everyone?

Click to expand...

I am not complaining about F707 in general. Camera is fantastic, I
think I will keep it, I'm so sick of this G1/G2/S70 and other
brick-looking designs and loud extracting lens... F707's sensor is
noisy indeed, but fortunately it's big enough to hide it's noise
within the image. But when exp is set to 1/2 sec... things get ugly.

Maybe your're right, I was expecting too much. After all, I found
only two things I don't like about F707:

Average noise perfomance (expected it to be exceptional, based on

some reviews)

Reddish skintones on long exposures.

Softtower,

Maybe you never satisfy with anything in your life! Not just a camera. It doesn't matter what you get, You will complain anyway. Do you know that complaining is a sickness? You have it and you don't even know! So, quit complaining, get out of the house and take some pictures, have fun with it! We want to see great pictures, not complaining! You are starting to get on people's nerve!!! Unbeleavable!!!

Antoine

softtower said:
Not bad, not bad at all! I can give you much more reasons not to
buy almost everything. ;-)

JoeR · Oct 10, 2001

I don't own a F707. But I'm on my seventh digital camera in three years and have gone from 0.8 MP to 4.0 MP. I've paid for my education.

Currently I have an Oly E-10 and a Sony DSC S85. I like them both, for different reasons. When I want control the E-10 is tops. But on the other hand, the S85 is easy to carry and I have it with me much of the time. Knowing the short comungs of each, both take excellent photos. Would I trade either one for the F707? Probably not.

If you already own a digital camera and it serves you well, there is no reason to upgrade.

Pixels are something but not everything. There is much more to a camera than the resolution. However, be aware that judging image quality on a monitor is grossly misleading. However, compare 8.5x11 photos from a quality printer and the difference becomes apparent.

Additionally, the extra pixels facilitate cropping, which provides another opportunity to improve the image.

Is the difference worth a $1K? Only you know the answer.

JoeR

Silents said:
I think Eva hit the nail on the proverible head. All the pictuers
that I have
seen so far from new adopters of the 707 are a real let down.
why can't people be honest with themselves and express what they feel
and see. the pictures really are not such a marked impovement over
any other cybershot camera.

I have a s75 and had high hopes for the 707 however here in the UK
I am going to have to pay around £900 - 1000 pounds for the privalge.

Can some 707 owners honestly tell me that the 707 is a marked
improvemnet on image quality over previous cybershot cameras ie,
p1, s75,

it maybe 5 megapixel but do the pcitures reflect the extra 2mega
pixle
quality over 3.3 mega pixel cameras ?

Stuart D · Oct 11, 2001

Thanks Ed, glad you liked some of it.
I've been told that the PC is a bit like a 60's or 70's disco

.

I am happy with my camera but it takes a fair bit of getting used to as I'm new to digicams (and photography in general) , but I do like the Sony 707 as well.

Ed (;¬ > ) said:
A very eclectic melange of albums, Stuart. I particularly liked the
ones of your PC. I liked the PC, too.

The flowers taken against the window is a difficult shot. It came
out well. I liked your concept of the single color flower from a
B&W background. The fuji seems to handle color very well.

-Ed

Keng Tay · Oct 11, 2001

Got my 707 last week took about 300 pictures, overall I think is lot better than DSC-S75 plus all the feature I think is worth to buy the 707

Silents said:
I think Eva hit the nail on the proverible head. All the pictuers
that I have
seen so far from new adopters of the 707 are a real let down.
why can't people be honest with themselves and express what they feel
and see. the pictures really are not such a marked impovement over
any other cybershot camera.

I have a s75 and had high hopes for the 707 however here in the UK
I am going to have to pay around £900 - 1000 pounds for the privalge.

Can some 707 owners honestly tell me that the 707 is a marked
improvemnet on image quality over previous cybershot cameras ie,
p1, s75,

it maybe 5 megapixel but do the pcitures reflect the extra 2mega
pixle
quality over 3.3 mega pixel cameras ?

W.R. White · Oct 11, 2001

Exactly antoine - some people live to gripe and complain - even when people don't care.

antoine said:
softtower said:

Viktor said:

antoine52756 said:

And I don't even need 24
hours to check that. Just take a picture of a flat gray object with
a long exposure.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

antoine52756 said:

If you look for trouble, you can always find it comrade.

Click to expand...

First, don't call me comrade.

I don't look for trouble. I don't like using flash, and I'm not
alone here. And when you don't use flash and you don't have enough
light, a long exposure is the way to go. And (agree with me here)
there's nothing wrong with long exposures. Now see that I used 1/2
sec at ISO 100. I didn't expect image to be 100% noise-free, but
what I see is worse than how my old G1 performed and about the
same, how my DSC S70 did.

antoine52756 said:

What is technology that $1000 camera should use to kill noise?
Is D7 or E10 better for noise? They are more expensive.

Click to expand...

You are right. That is why I don'w own neither D7 or E10. But
(hopefully) G2 at ISO 50 will do better.

antoine52756 said:

You should buy D30 and not complain about comsumer camera. I'm sure
you are never happy with 707. You shouldn't believe everything you
read then you are not so disappointed. 707 is not magic, it's just
camera. Can't you enjoy and not always try to find some trouble to
complain about to everyone?

Click to expand...

I am not complaining about F707 in general. Camera is fantastic, I
think I will keep it, I'm so sick of this G1/G2/S70 and other
brick-looking designs and loud extracting lens... F707's sensor is
noisy indeed, but fortunately it's big enough to hide it's noise
within the image. But when exp is set to 1/2 sec... things get ugly.

Maybe your're right, I was expecting too much. After all, I found
only two things I don't like about F707:

Average noise perfomance (expected it to be exceptional, based on

some reviews)

Reddish skintones on long exposures.

Click to expand...

Softtower,

Maybe you never satisfy with anything in your life! Not just a
camera. It doesn't matter what you get, You will complain anyway.
Do you know that complaining is a sickness? You have it and you
don't even know! So, quit complaining, get out of the house and
take some pictures, have fun with it! We want to see great
pictures, not complaining! You are starting to get on people's
nerve!!! Unbeleavable!!!

Antoine

antoine52756 said:

Not bad, not bad at all! I can give you much more reasons not to
buy almost everything. ;-)

Click to expand...

F707 - Be Honest

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Active member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Keng Tay

Guest

Active member

Keyboard shortcuts