Reading mode: Light Dark

Did Reichmann go BLIND?!

Go to last post
John Mankos said:
He claims the noise is not visible on prints. He's full of it.
I printed 2 of his crops on my i960 and the noise is CLEARLY
visible on print.
And the CA looks absolutely horrible.
Click to expand...
Image quality doesn't matter ... as long as you're trying to make the best image you possibly can:

"The fact that it is somewhat noisier than other cameras at any given ISO, and that there is some occasional CA really has little to do with its usefulness as a photographic tool.

Those who spend their time peering at computer screens will be able to find fault. Those who's livelihoods and artistic passions are related to producing the best images that they can with the best tools they have available will find the Sony F828 to be an estimable camera because of its fine qualities — which include low bulk and weight."
 
theblue said:
That's partly true, but if you have detail totally destroyed by
noise than no matter what you do there is no detail to print.
This is particularly true when you crop.......it gets worse,or if
you apply a noise reduction filter.......it smooths detail.......or
sharpen..........more noise unless you use the history brush to
sharpen only the parts you want.
But there is no way you can recreate which is not there in the
first place.
Click to expand...
You're talking about theoretical extremes that rarely if ever come into play in the real world. I've printed some of my "noisy" scans at 16x20"...you simply cannot see on the printed page the grain artifacts that show up on-screen at 100% res. Thus detail is not "totally destroyed." IMO if you can't see such artifacts on paper they don't matter, period.

This whole ridiculous thread is about nothing but dogmatic ignorance vs. real-life experience. Michael Reichmann has the experience on his side. Where does that leave his critics? (Hint: rhetorical question.)

-Dave-
 
marianco said:
All this controversy about the Sony F828 can only mean good things
for Canon lovers. The competition should spur Canon to come out
with an 8+ megapixel 10D replacement as soon as possible.
To this I say, yeah!!!!! Hoorah!!!! I'm so happy!!!!!! The
sooner, the better!!!!!
The 300D announcement was so disappointing to this 10D owner. I
expected better of CAnon. I'm ready to jettison the 10D in favor
of a better version.
Let's see:
1) 8+ megapixel. Even higher would be more like it. To easier to
crop.
2) Larger Sensor = 1.3x Focal length multiplier = truer wide angle
3) Lower noise. Come on - beat the Fujifilm S2 Pro, please.
4) Improved DEF mode.
5) Larger RAM buffer.
6) Spotmeter!!!
Click to expand...
I want all those things--and I'm hoping that Canon will decide to do it sooner rather than later as I'm ready with an almost 2 year D60 (with LOTS of shots on it) to upgrade.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me
 
David Kieltyka said:
theblue said:
That's partly true, but if you have detail totally destroyed by
noise than no matter what you do there is no detail to print.
This is particularly true when you crop.......it gets worse,or if
you apply a noise reduction filter.......it smooths detail.......or
sharpen..........more noise unless you use the history brush to
sharpen only the parts you want.
But there is no way you can recreate which is not there in the
first place.
Click to expand...
You're talking about theoretical extremes that rarely if ever come
into play in the real world. I've printed some of my "noisy" scans
at 16x20"...you simply cannot see on the printed page the grain
artifacts that show up on-screen at 100% res. Thus detail is not
"totally destroyed." IMO if you can't see such artifacts on paper
they don't matter, period.
Click to expand...
True enough.

However, suppose you have a high-DR scene where exposing "normally" would blow the highlights. Normally, I'd cheerfully underexpose a stop or even two, and then pull up the midtones in post-processing, maybe simulating a GND to blend the modification. Sure, now the noise will be visible at 100%, but not even in big prints.

Now try that with the Sony. Yee-haw.
David Kieltyka said:
This whole ridiculous thread is about nothing but dogmatic
ignorance vs. real-life experience. Michael Reichmann has the
experience on his side. Where does that leave his critics? (Hint:
rhetorical question.)
Click to expand...
Of course, I only have about 20 years of experience as an amateur, and MR has about twice that (?) as a professional, but not all of his critics are total newbies.

The fact is that MR has consistently exhibited the following behaviour:

1. Very competently shot test images.

2. Very apposite comments about the "fieldability" of various types of equipment.

3. Totally off-the-mark remarks about image quality... if he happens to own the equipment he's reviewing; more so if he's only just bought it.

For example, check out his 16-35 vs 17-40 shootout. Look at the images, especially the corner crops. Then read his comments. Then tell me that the difference won't be easily apparent in an 11 x 14 print.

Or, to take another example, read his review on the Epson 2200 (2100 in the "rest of the world"). He especially mentions the lack of metamerism, to the point that he retired his piezography system for B/W prints. Well, that sure as hell ain't my experience. (Nor Michael Johnstons, by the way; read his columns on digital B/W printing). What practical difference does it make? Not much: most people will hardly notice the green tint B/W prints take under certain types of lighting... but I do, and it bothers me to the point that I'm actually casting wistful looks at the new HP inkjet that's specifically "designed for B/W" (no way I'll buy it, though -- no room to put it), and I think it would've been appropriate to make note of it.

In other words, I really enjoy reading his reviews, find especially the images and the "hands on" bits highly valuable, but take his image analysis with a huge grain of salt.

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
 
GagBagger said:
I just read, and then re-read, Michael Reichmann's new Sony F828
"Review" over at LL -- found here:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml

While the thing is obviously built and designed exceptionally well
for a high-end P&S digicam, I can't help but come away with a
strong sense of "what was he seeing?" when looking at the
comparison images -- particularly the ones shot with the F828 at
ISO 64 compared to ISO 100 on the 10D.

Those 8MP images are so noisy and fail to resolve anywhere near the
detail of the 6MP 10D files as a result -- forgetting even higher
ISOs. Looking at the building detail, it's clear to see that Sony's
new RGBE sensor with such a high density just isn't able to get the
job done.

Perhaps I'm too used to smooth, clean dSLR images, but the F828
images look worse then Kodak's early 14n samples by a wide margin,
and that's none too flattering. They SO hit a home run on the rest
of the features (save for RAW speed) that I was dying for them to
do likewise with the sensor as well. I've been looking closely at
the images posted in STF, but they're all the same, noisy, blotchy
images that Michael has posted.

That's too bad :-(

Brendan
--
Things that make you go, hmmmm...
Click to expand...
Totally agree, Brendan. Those of us who have posted to that effect have had umpteen levels of criticism thrown at us, but no-one yet has explained what on earth he is talking about when he refers to very low noise levels and then posts pics which are noisy as all-get-out!

Or explained what on earth he means by comparing lenses on two different cameras, and apparently he doesn't count things like sharpness like the edges or wide open as being of any importance - in short all the things the rest of us rate a lens according to.

The answer seems to be that he is a good photographer, so he can make any statements he wishes and doesn't have to make any sense-he's going to Africa, after all!
Pure nonsense.

OTOH, I wouldn't take his pictures from the 828 too seriously on the downside either - I've seen much better from the 828 - I'm wondering if their was an early model QC problem - great news if that's what the problem is.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
So it's not a problem if you don't see it. What will happen to this world if even half the people believe that. Or do they ;)

Call it fetish or whatever you want, but I care to preserve as much as possible and yes I check most of my pictures at 100%. If we weren't picky about this whole digital photography thing, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. We need those certain picky ones to motivate the manufacturers to improve their products.

Sadly though I think they'll sell tons of these cameras since most people will buy into this 8MP thing. It's sad because if will only hinder product improvement based on good sales numbers - numbers that are generated by marketing people and not actual quality of the product.
David Kieltyka said:
theblue said:
That's partly true, but if you have detail totally destroyed by
noise than no matter what you do there is no detail to print.
This is particularly true when you crop.......it gets worse,or if
you apply a noise reduction filter.......it smooths detail.......or
sharpen..........more noise unless you use the history brush to
sharpen only the parts you want.
But there is no way you can recreate which is not there in the
first place.
Click to expand...
You're talking about theoretical extremes that rarely if ever come
into play in the real world. I've printed some of my "noisy" scans
at 16x20"...you simply cannot see on the printed page the grain
artifacts that show up on-screen at 100% res. Thus detail is not
"totally destroyed." IMO if you can't see such artifacts on paper
they don't matter, period.

This whole ridiculous thread is about nothing but dogmatic
ignorance vs. real-life experience. Michael Reichmann has the
experience on his side. Where does that leave his critics? (Hint:
rhetorical question.)

-Dave-
Click to expand...
 
Petteri, I'm hardly saying the Sony 828 is the perfect camera. The RAW issues MR points out are enough by themselves to prevent me from buying one. Your point about underexposure and noise is well-taken too. But every camera has strengths & weaknesses, and it annoys me to see people fixate on one element--noise in this case--and blow it out of proportion. IMO photographic equipment should be evaluated in terms of the real-world results it provides. None of us are sitting next to MR looking at his evaluation prints. So how can we get worked up over what he says he sees? (Note: this applies to MR's lens evaluations too. He's judging prints, not on-screen display.)

Skepticism is one thing. Personally I'm skeptical, when it comes to things photographic, of everyone's results except my own. Too many people out there with agendas. Too much proselytizing. So I don't take anyone's conclusions, even MR's, as gospel. But I've done enough shooting & processing & printing of my own to get MR's take on the matter. When he says, in effect, "trust the prints, not Actual Pixels," I know exactly what he means.

But there's skepticism and then there's narcissistic vitriol. "How dare MR disagree with MEEEEEEEE!" "How dare anyone's conclusions violate one of MY dogmatic precepts!" "My name is Tim L and how dare you tell me MY evaluation of the Sigma 12–24mm is based in ignorance!" :-) Gimmee a freakin' break. This attitude has nothing to do with evaluation, nothing to do with learning, nothing to do with enhancing anyone's enjoyment of photography.

And here's the main point: if there is no "gospel" then there's no reason to take offense when someone else's conclusions differ from yours. So why all the fuss then? The tone of the objection to MR's 828 article makes it clear to me that gospel, photographic religion, is exactly why this thread and others like it exist. Johnny Canon/Nikon/Whatever Zealot can't stand the idea of an infidel brand stealing away potential recruits to the true photographic faith. Complete dogsh*t IMO.

-Dave-
 
David Kieltyka said:
But there's skepticism and then there's narcissistic vitriol. "How
dare MR disagree with MEEEEEEEE!" "How dare anyone's conclusions
violate one of MY dogmatic precepts!" "My name is Tim L and how
dare you tell me MY evaluation of the Sigma 12–24mm is based in
ignorance!" :-) Gimmee a freakin' break. This attitude has nothing
to do with evaluation, nothing to do with learning, nothing to do
with enhancing anyone's enjoyment of photography.
Click to expand...
David Kieltyka said:
yours. So why all the fuss then? The tone of the objection to MR's
Click to expand...
Most of the fuss is over what the definition of "is" is. LumaLand, which presents itself as an expert in the field ( he was right with the D30 vs 35 mm, he was right with the 1Ds vs 6x7, he was right with the 400/4 DO vs the 100-400L, ... ), says "noise is virtually non-existant" at ISO 64 and 100. Then he shows crops that demonstrate the exact opposite of what he's saying.
 
no text
David Kieltyka said:
You're talking about theoretical extremes that rarely if ever come
into play in the real world. I've printed some of my "noisy" scans
at 16x20"...you simply cannot see on the printed page the grain
artifacts that show up on-screen at 100% res. Thus detail is not
"totally destroyed." IMO if you can't see such artifacts on paper
they don't matter, period.

This whole ridiculous thread is about nothing but dogmatic
ignorance vs. real-life experience. Michael Reichmann has the
experience on his side. Where does that leave his critics? (Hint:
rhetorical question.)

-Dave-
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/sfleming

Too many cameras ... not nearly enough photography.
 
Before I got my D10, I owned a relatively noisey 5.2 MP Cam, the Minolta D7. Most will agree it's images are fairly noisy. Heck, even Phil poited that out in his review. So much so that anything over ISO200 was barely useable, 400 and 800 were nightmares.... We all conceided that while 100% crops showed the noise, but prints didn't. And I have several 8x10's and 10x12's hanging on my wall from that camera that look gorgeous. Yet on closer inspection you can see the noise in the shadows, plain as day. And when compared to the images from the D10, the D7 images look "digital". The D10 looks awesome, while the D7 looks very good.

I see the images from the Sony and they look worse than my D7 pics were. The shadows and pics look a tad worse than my D7. Sure, there may be more pixels, but if you start cropping, your noise will bite you in the butt (it did with my D7).

Noise reduction software is a band-aid solution at best, and not somehting you want to do to every picture that comes out of your $1000 camera. Not to mention it takes time for post processing every picture and even then if the detail isn't there, you can't recreate it. NR S/W is for saving those few shots where you need to bump up the ISO to get the shot, not for every frame you shoot.

The Sony may be a great snapshot camera, but if all you are going to do is 4x6's there are far better choices out there, for much less money. Also, comparing it to the D10 is just very poor journalism at best, idiotic at worst. It should be compared with the DRebel, not the D10. The D10 body only is about 1.5x more expensive than the Sony, so not many people looking at the Sony are even going to be thinking D10. They are going to be thinking and comparing DRebel.
 
You could see noise in my Minolta D7 shots at 8x10. Most prevalent when shooting animals with light and dark fur/skin. Also in the shadows of everyday pics there was visible noise.

Still the cam made great shots, but the noise was there, even in the prints!
 
Hi Petteri,
Petteri Sulonen said:
However, suppose you have a high-DR scene where exposing "normally"
would blow the highlights. Normally, I'd cheerfully underexpose a
stop or even two, and then pull up the midtones in post-processing,
maybe simulating a GND to blend the modification. Sure, now the
noise will be visible at 100%, but not even in big prints.

Now try that with the Sony. Yee-haw.
Click to expand...
The only thing that saves a situation like that is bracketing. :-)

I've been sitting here with the Sony 828 for about 10 days now. I needed an all-in-one camera to take on trips and places where the 10D + lenses would be too much for me and where I would want to photograph landscapes. For that purpose, the 828 is a keeper.

I did one, non-scientific, non-precise test.

10D, 17-40L, ISO200, f11, 40mm (I use ISO200 when outdoors just to get the shutter speed up a bit.) Taken in RAW and converted w/sharpening by C1LE.

828, ISO64, f4, and tried to match the focal length. (I said unscientific, didn't I?)

I used f4 vs. f11 just to match the depth of field between the cameras.

Also forget the 6.3MP v. 8MP. That's a lot of MPs lost to the 4:3 aspect ratio. The actual pixels of the Sony are only 192 more horizontally than the 10D.

Don't look at leaves since it was a windy day and the leaves were being stirred quite a bit.

For illustration purposes I cropped the 828 image to semi-match the 3:2 aspect ratio of the 10D in the presentation linked to this message but have made the full image available at the end of my message.

I think it's hard to argue that the 828 doesn't put up a good fight here. Unless viewed at 100% magnification and because of some tell-tale signs, I'm hard pressed to see a difference, not only in this extremely reduced size (which really doesn't tell you anything) but at bigger sizes as well.





(The first image is of the 10D and the second is the Sony.)

For full size images see:

http://www.pbase.com/image/24557020

http://www.pbase.com/image/24557363

Olga
 
Olga Johnson said:
Olga Johnson said:
However, suppose you have a high-DR scene where exposing "normally"
would blow the highlights. Normally, I'd cheerfully underexpose a
stop or even two, and then pull up the midtones in post-processing,
maybe simulating a GND to blend the modification. Sure, now the
noise will be visible at 100%, but not even in big prints.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Olga Johnson said:
The only thing that saves a situation like that is bracketing. :-)
Click to expand...
... everything you want to capture falls within the tonal range your sensor is able to capture. In a high-contrast landscape, that's rarely the case.
 
DavidP #28649 said:
Don't you remember the 100-400 shots he thought that were focused
properly that were clearly mis-focused?
Click to expand...
And how they're really in focus -- it's just a bunch of Internet morons who insist they're not... Or how incredible and good enough for any purpose the D30's resolution was until the D60 and then the 1Ds came out, no matter what a bunch of 35 mm film idiots would say? How his 100-400L stomped the 70-200L through a TC, but looked like mud when he compared it's OOF image against a well focused image from a prime?
 
I've been for too long watching a$$kissers like you.

Nobody cares if he is your boy fried and you try to defend him without providing anything to his advantage.

All of us can see that he is a biased jerk who sold his a$$ like many others.

His review is just pure unfairness, and many other readers in this thread have pointed this out.

Read on, and see what others think.
Mike Johnston said:
GOVA1 said:
No, He just sold hiss a$$ like many ohers...
Click to expand...
...And do you eat your own dung?

This insult is no worse that the one you so casually fling at
Michael Reichmann.

He has not "sold" anything. Nor can he be bought. I know whereof I
speak.

You do everyone a disservice when you slander people without so
much as a thought.

--MJ
Click to expand...
 
John Mankos said:
Not exactly....I printed his crop at both 200ppi and
300ppi....which resulted in prints of about 1.5 x 2 and 2x3
(approximate sizes)...this is representative of what would actually
be printing if we had the whole image. And the noise is still
there, and quite visible
Click to expand...
So, are you saying when you print a file, your printer prints what's in the file? What an absurd concept!!
 
I have a question. One main reason I like using a DSLR is the fast AF and practically non-existant shutter lag. How does the Sony F828 compare in this area?

You know, I just re-read the LL review and I can see where he's coming from. He's mainly referring to print quality and he did just write a rebuttal to some of the accusations here. Sounds like the Sony is a pretty decent camera and as he says, even with the CA and noise...the impact from such is reduced when printed. I haven't printed anything from that camera so I'll just go by what he has to say and others here (who say it can still be noticeable).
 
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