-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Full review @ luminous-landscape.com
- Thread starter scratch
- Start date
here is a quote from reveiw:That's the bad news. The good news is that the Sony 828 isn't the only camera that displays this characteristic. I've seen it in every single digital camera that I've ever tested or used, including my Canon 1Ds and all of the 16 and 22 Megapixel backs that I've reviewed — some of them costing $30,000. Sometimes you see it and sometimes you don't. Sometimes it's cased by lens CA, and sometimes by overloaded photo sites bleeding into adjacent darker frames. I've often seen CA on $6,000 lenses when using film. It's a fact of life.
quote:
"Frankly, I'm astonished at the Sony's performance. When you consider that the non-IS version of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L sells for about $1,150, and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L retails for some $1,300, the Sony offers astonishing value, especially since these two L series Canon lenses are considered among the finest in their respective focal lengths."
Well did he have to do this? Now it will really be nuts around here
"Frankly, I'm astonished at the Sony's performance. When you consider that the non-IS version of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L sells for about $1,150, and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L retails for some $1,300, the Sony offers astonishing value, especially since these two L series Canon lenses are considered among the finest in their respective focal lengths."
Well did he have to do this? Now it will really be nuts around here
Andy Williams
Forum Pro
--quote:
"Frankly, I'm astonished at the Sony's performance. When you
consider that the non-IS version of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L sells
for about $1,150, and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L retails for some
$1,300, the Sony offers astonishing value, especially since these
two L series Canon lenses are considered among the finest in their
respective focal lengths."
Well did he have to do this? Now it will really be nuts around here
-- andy
http://williams.smugmug.com - galleries
another quote : So, should you wait for the F838 and some of the needed fixes. Hell no — you'd be missing out on one of the most enjoyable digital cameras yet available. There's always going to be something new on the horizon, but in the meantime the Sony F828 has found a permanent place in my camera arsenal— it's the ideal digital travel camera, and I'll be back here in a few weeks with some real-world illustrations from my Tanzania Wildlife Workshop and Safari.
jsnydstrup
Well-known member
Overall a very positive review of the Sony F828. Having used the camera for a couple of weeks now it seems obvious to me that most reviews will come out positive for this awesome breakthrough camera.
I don't even care about 6 or his seven bad points...lol.
I don't use .raw images and don't care about write time after using burst mode.
I don't even care about 6 or his seven bad points...lol.
I don't use .raw images and don't care about write time after using burst mode.
U
Ulysses
Guest
It's almost as if they quoted me. Oh well.
"Unfortunately, CA/blooming/color-fringing is just a fact of life in digital imaging, whatever term we call it. For instance, here is a sample that was shot with the excellent EF 17-40 f/4L lens, just to keep it all in perspective."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=6970398
"Let's address some older facts: Nearly all cameras demonstrate some level of CA or chromatic aberration. It comes with the territory. Even dSLR cameras have to deal with it, even when they're coupled with lenses that are in the thousands of dollars. Sad, but true."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=6849875
Ulysses
"Unfortunately, CA/blooming/color-fringing is just a fact of life in digital imaging, whatever term we call it. For instance, here is a sample that was shot with the excellent EF 17-40 f/4L lens, just to keep it all in perspective."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=6970398
"Let's address some older facts: Nearly all cameras demonstrate some level of CA or chromatic aberration. It comes with the territory. Even dSLR cameras have to deal with it, even when they're coupled with lenses that are in the thousands of dollars. Sad, but true."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=6849875
--
Ulysses
Andy Williams
Forum Pro
U
Ulysses
Guest
Has less to do with the camera but more with how they dealt with issues. It's like they've been reading my/our posts right in the forum here:
Noise Ninja
And another comment that will be of help to us very soon:
"In any event, this is something that can easily be cleaned up with software, and there is in fact a new product coming in the Spring of 2004 that will handle CA as easily as programs like Noise Ninja handles high ISO noise."
The guys at Luminous Landscape are almost exclusively L-series people when it comes to their choice in glass (read some of their other articles:
"It took two large and very expensive Canon L series lenses to match the coverage and aperture of the Zeiss lens on the F828, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L."
"At 200mm the lenses are almost identical in performance. There's little to choose between them except for the fact that the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L (in non-IS version) retails for over $150 more than the entire Sony F828 camera! Something to ponder."
Also, glad we covered this one, as it still seems to surprise people:
"... whether you take one frame or 7 frames in these modes, the moment you take your finger off the shutter release the camera starts writing to disk, and isn't available to take another frame until the write process has completed."
I figured the buffer was about 24MB, at the least.
"The camera appears to have approximately a 25MB buffer. This allows it to shoot seven 3.5MB Fine JPG images in just a bit over 2 seconds."
And ultimately the question: Which one should I buy, F828 or Rebel? His answer: He really can't say. Each has its advantages, and it depends upon what you need. Hmm... that sounds familiar too.
Great review. It's everything I've/we've been saying.
Ulysses
Noise Ninja
And another comment that will be of help to us very soon:
"In any event, this is something that can easily be cleaned up with software, and there is in fact a new product coming in the Spring of 2004 that will handle CA as easily as programs like Noise Ninja handles high ISO noise."
The guys at Luminous Landscape are almost exclusively L-series people when it comes to their choice in glass (read some of their other articles:
"It took two large and very expensive Canon L series lenses to match the coverage and aperture of the Zeiss lens on the F828, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L."
"At 200mm the lenses are almost identical in performance. There's little to choose between them except for the fact that the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L (in non-IS version) retails for over $150 more than the entire Sony F828 camera! Something to ponder."
Also, glad we covered this one, as it still seems to surprise people:
"... whether you take one frame or 7 frames in these modes, the moment you take your finger off the shutter release the camera starts writing to disk, and isn't available to take another frame until the write process has completed."
I figured the buffer was about 24MB, at the least.
"The camera appears to have approximately a 25MB buffer. This allows it to shoot seven 3.5MB Fine JPG images in just a bit over 2 seconds."
And ultimately the question: Which one should I buy, F828 or Rebel? His answer: He really can't say. Each has its advantages, and it depends upon what you need. Hmm... that sounds familiar too.
Great review. It's everything I've/we've been saying.
--
Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
Adam-T
Forum Pro
that he said that there was no noise at ISO64 and then posts a crop which is clearly pebbledashed with it (As we've all seen) - I'm not knocking the 828, just MR's ridiculous claim in his text, the 10D is totally clear of any noise at ISO100 as he said, unless his eyesight has gone wonky in his old age and he can't see noise that is ;-)..
Nice to see that he didn't make a fuss about the dreaded Purple Fringies, I agree, you'd swear that it hadn't ever been seen before the way people harp on in this forum about it and the way Phil made such a Fuss in his G5 & S50 reviews .. Sheesh, you'd think that the Olympus C5050 (the Fringe-Meister) had never been invented!
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Nice to see that he didn't make a fuss about the dreaded Purple Fringies, I agree, you'd swear that it hadn't ever been seen before the way people harp on in this forum about it and the way Phil made such a Fuss in his G5 & S50 reviews .. Sheesh, you'd think that the Olympus C5050 (the Fringe-Meister) had never been invented!
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Lenwoodbluz
Senior Member
i'm gonna go read this review right now....sounds like some good news..alot of naysayers on this forum lately.... i had already decided to buy the 828 but now it will be nice to justify my decision to the "SUPREME COMMANDER" ......aka ...wife......
LENWOODBLUZ........NO REGRETS
--
LENWOODBLUZ........NO REGRETS
I think the conclusion sums it up very well: "The bottom line though is that I know of no other camera at the price, or even close to it, that offers the small size, low weight, superb build quality, excellent and versatile optics and fine image quality of the Sony F828. Now if only Sony would address and fix some of the camera's glaring flaws it would really be something."
This was a very nice comparison of size: "It took two large and very expensive Canon L series lenses to match the coverage and aperture of the Zeiss lens on the F828." and the side by side image:
But I do find some contradictions from the review. See Fig. 17 and Fig. 18 : The difference in noise is VERY clear. The Sony 828's ISO 64 is annoying compared to 10D's smooth ISO 100 - when judged at 100% size, but this is really matters when printing big. There seems to be a clear contradiction in images and text. "In some cases the Canon lens has a slight edge in resolution and contrast, and in others it's the Sony's Zeiss lens" But clearly the 828 loses faint details compared to the 10D. In Fig 18. there is no almsot no detail at all in the darker areas of the crop.
Also, he says that the Sony F828 is abit worse that other digital cameras in CA (though "not so much as to cause all the the teeth gnashing"), but doesn't list that on the "Bad news list"
Also: Why is the 828 so d*mn slow to start up?! 717 does it in 2 seconds vs the 6-8 seconds.
This was a very nice comparison of size: "It took two large and very expensive Canon L series lenses to match the coverage and aperture of the Zeiss lens on the F828." and the side by side image:
But I do find some contradictions from the review. See Fig. 17 and Fig. 18 : The difference in noise is VERY clear. The Sony 828's ISO 64 is annoying compared to 10D's smooth ISO 100 - when judged at 100% size, but this is really matters when printing big. There seems to be a clear contradiction in images and text. "In some cases the Canon lens has a slight edge in resolution and contrast, and in others it's the Sony's Zeiss lens" But clearly the 828 loses faint details compared to the 10D. In Fig 18. there is no almsot no detail at all in the darker areas of the crop.
Also, he says that the Sony F828 is abit worse that other digital cameras in CA (though "not so much as to cause all the the teeth gnashing"), but doesn't list that on the "Bad news list"
Also: Why is the 828 so d*mn slow to start up?! 717 does it in
me too. The noise difference is so obvious.
D
David Martin
Guest
Have to disagree with you on this one, Ulysses. I think the 'reviews' at Luminous Landscape are dire - not just this one.
However, to take just one specific point - he compares the lens to 'L' glass and indicates little difference.
Now that's fair enough for contrast and colour, but he then goes on to say he has not tested wide open, checked for edge softness etc.
Differences between glass are not apparent when stopped down and using the centre of the lens, and in those circumstances most glass is as good as any other - the statement he has made is fairly meaning-free.
He also dismisses things like noise and CA as fixable in post-processing - sure, and if you want to you can just take a dark frame and paint whaever you want in in Paint-shop pro - but again he is not being any help at all in evaluating the camera - it's the differences which are crucial.
This is NOT to knock the 828 - just to say that I think LL reviews are junk.
The only marginally interesting comments he has to make in most of his 'reviews' are about things like build quality and handling.
He should leave reviews to someone like Phil, or Imaging Resources.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Unless they're on the same camera?, it's ridiculous to say that one lens is sharper than the other when one is running on an APS-C type 6mp CMOS with minimal in camera processing (the 10D) and the other is running on a consumer Digicam with a peanut sized 8Mp CCD and heavy in-camera processing.. I could Put a 35-80 on my 1D and proclaim that it's sharper than a 70-200L IS both at 70mm (Which would be on my 10D) by posting 100% crops at F5.6
also the DOF is a hell of a lot deeper on a consumer Digicam than it is on a DSLR, in fact, I'm sure that the 828's lens will have deeper DOF at F2 than the 24-70L at F8! (the G5 certainly does) ..
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Read my post below about the lens comparisons - I could Proclaim that the Cheapo canon 35-80 is sharper than the 70-200L IS by putting the 35-80 on my 1D and the fancy L IS lens on the 10D, of course the fact that the 1D has a walltile sized CCD with pinhead sized pixels and virtually no AA filter wouldn't have anything to do with it would it ? - LOL ....
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
D
David Martin
Guest
I did read your post - it strikes me when could go through his 'review' (or any of the other reviews that I have seen of his) and demonstrate that he is talking complete bilge on a line-by-line basis - see another guy in this thread talking about the actual picture comparisons showing relative detail!Read my post below about the lens comparisons - I could Proclaim
that the Cheapo canon 35-80 is sharper than the 70-200L IS by
putting the 35-80 on my 1D and the fancy L IS lens on the 10D, of
course the fact that the 1D has a walltile sized CCD with pinhead
sized pixels and virtually no AA filter wouldn't have anything to
do with it would it ? - LOL ....
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
I think he must produce the text as a separate excercise to the pics he shows - any relationship between his write-up and the evidence as shown in the pics is purely co-incidental!
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
MLynnL
Senior Member
So here’s my question. How come the 8MPs didn’t reveal more detail than the 6MPs of the DSLR? Also both lenses were stopped down quite a bit so it is no surprise at all that they show similar performance. I have found that even many of the inexpensive consumer zooms can deliver similar results to the L zooms when stopped down. The real test would be at f/2.8 (since the 24-70 can't do f/2).
Greg
Greg
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum