Reading mode: Light Dark

828 review..steve's digicams

Go to last post
Well, that's not exactly true...

Steve says: "Although the lens produced sharp results when stopped-down, there is fall-off in sharpness at the edges of images shot with a wide-open aperture at all focal lengths. In addition, the lens produces a moderate amount of chromatic aberration (purple fringing) in high-contrast areas, and there's noticeable barrel distortion at wide-angle and pin cushioning at the telephoto end of the zoom range"
 
the rest..well..u can find these observations in literally all reviews..every cam has barrel distortion at wide angle and pin cusioning at the telephoto end....comparisons are required
nemo captain said:
Well, that's not exactly true...

Steve says: "Although the lens produced sharp results when
stopped-down, there is fall-off in sharpness at the edges of images
shot with a wide-open aperture at all focal lengths. In addition,
the lens produces a moderate amount of chromatic aberration (purple
fringing) in high-contrast areas, and there's noticeable barrel
distortion at wide-angle and pin cushioning at the telephoto end of
the zoom range"
Click to expand...
 
quasimodo said:
quasimodo wrote:
Steve hasn't been able to identify any jaggies or PF...
Click to expand...
Yup, more like a glorified feature list with a few pictures. His reviews have always been on the extremely conservative side. I've never ever read a negative issue there about any product. I hope he puts up more content in addition to what he has now - it looks a bit "thin."

That said, up to this moment anyway, Steve's review has the most content of the four other reviews. He does need to update his spec. page and some comments carried over from the preview. (ISO64 added, MD type II's can do video too).

Still awaiting the Big review of Phil's.
  • David
 
David_S85 said:
David_S85 said:
quasimodo wrote:
Steve hasn't been able to identify any jaggies or PF...
Click to expand...
Yup, more like a glorified feature list with a few pictures. His
reviews have always been on the extremely conservative side. I've
never ever read a negative issue there about any product. I hope
he puts up more content in addition to what he has now - it looks a
bit "thin."

That said, up to this moment anyway, Steve's review has the most
content of the four other reviews. He does need to update his
spec. page and some comments carried over from the preview. (ISO64
added, MD type II's can do video too).

Still awaiting the Big review of Phil's.
  • David
Click to expand...
I'm agree with your observations, David. It isn't a deep review...anyway, it's one more thumbs up. When I read this kind of reviews, the devil inside me tell me...SOMEONE is pushing... and I start to think about the influence of the reviews in the sales market, a big big $big$ influence. I'm not saying that the reviewers are under the companies control but the doubt is sane.
 
hehehe

In retrospect...none of the reviewers besides Phil mentioned the blue cast problem with V1's auto white balance...but then..V1 got a 9 in dpreview....I wonder if it means that a cam can have an "obvious" flaw but can still pass as a gem
nemo captain said:
David_S85 said:
nemo captain said:
quasimodo wrote:
Steve hasn't been able to identify any jaggies or PF...
Click to expand...
Yup, more like a glorified feature list with a few pictures. His
reviews have always been on the extremely conservative side. I've
never ever read a negative issue there about any product. I hope
he puts up more content in addition to what he has now - it looks a
bit "thin."

That said, up to this moment anyway, Steve's review has the most
content of the four other reviews. He does need to update his
spec. page and some comments carried over from the preview. (ISO64
added, MD type II's can do video too).

Still awaiting the Big review of Phil's.
  • David
Click to expand...
I'm agree with your observations, David. It isn't a deep
review...anyway, it's one more thumbs up. When I read this kind of
reviews, the devil inside me tell me...SOMEONE is pushing... and I
start to think about the influence of the reviews in the sales
market, a big big $big$ influence. I'm not saying that the
reviewers are under the companies control but the doubt is sane.
Click to expand...
 
His photos have a little purple fringing, but it doesn't seem excessive.

But there seem to be a lot of green color on boundaries. It is most obvious in the rope-pulling picture. The knee of the photographer on the left, for example, is green. But you can see it everywhere.

I hear all the time complains of PF, but I don't think I saw a picture with so much GF.
 
This review is probably the best example of maximising all the good points while minimising all the bad points. I wonder if the Sony mafioso is paying Steve very well for a glowing review. Kind of reminded me of the time when Sony was bribing me with a free TV to keep quiet over a possible demonstration outside a top department store of a faulty Wega TV which the company cannot fix. I think Steve's reviews did not explain the problems of CA and noise too deeply, sort of ignored ISO 64 and the rapid unuseability of noise above ISO 100 and failed to explain about what he meant when suggesting "performance approaching and exceeding lower level SLR", there are too many gaps and over hype of good points and an apparent oversight of the bad, take the Raw for example and the delay. Steve's review for me has loss some of its credibility as a reliable source of information when so many people and reviewers has made a much more informed reviews.
quasimodo said:
for all those who r sitting on the fence of "to buy or not to buy"
..here's another review..

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f828.html
Click to expand...
 
Everyone can of course read the reviews they like and HOW they like, concentrating only on the bits that sound nice.
quasimodo said:
quasimodo wrote:
the rest..well..u can find these observations in literally all
reviews..every cam has barrel distortion at wide angle and pin
cusioning at the telephoto end....comparisons are required
nemo captain said:
Well, that's not exactly true...

Steve says: "Although the lens produced sharp results when
stopped-down, there is fall-off in sharpness at the edges of images
shot with a wide-open aperture at all focal lengths. In addition,
the lens produces a moderate amount of chromatic aberration (purple
fringing) in high-contrast areas, and there's noticeable barrel
distortion at wide-angle and pin cushioning at the telephoto end of
the zoom range"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

 
Steve's reviews are usually handy for one thing: making you feel good about a purchase already done. They have almost always been overly glorifying. Nice reading, but usually very shallow and not very objective or thorough. Not to be considered a source of hard data.
taikonaut1 said:
taikonaut1 wrote:
This review is probably the best example of maximising all the good
points while minimising all the bad points. I wonder if the Sony
mafioso is paying Steve very well for a glowing review. Kind of
reminded me of the time when Sony was bribing me with a free TV to
keep quiet over a possible demonstration outside a top department
store of a faulty Wega TV which the company cannot fix. I think
Steve's reviews did not explain the problems of CA and noise too
deeply, sort of ignored ISO 64 and the rapid unuseability of noise
above ISO 100 and failed to explain about what he meant when
suggesting "performance approaching and exceeding lower level SLR",
there are too many gaps and over hype of good points and an
apparent oversight of the bad, take the Raw for example and the
delay. Steve's review for me has loss some of its credibility as a
reliable source of information when so many people and reviewers
has made a much more informed reviews.
Click to expand...
--

 
Arn said:
Arn wrote:
Steve's reviews are usually handy for one thing: making you feel
good about a purchase already done. They have almost always been
overly glorifying. Nice reading, but usually very shallow and not
very objective or thorough. Not to be considered a source of hard
data.
Arn said:
taikonaut1 wrote:
This review is probably the best example of maximising all the good
points while minimising all the bad points. I wonder if the Sony
mafioso is paying Steve very well for a glowing review. Kind of
reminded me of the time when Sony was bribing me with a free TV to
keep quiet over a possible demonstration outside a top department
store of a faulty Wega TV which the company cannot fix. I think
Steve's reviews did not explain the problems of CA and noise too
deeply, sort of ignored ISO 64 and the rapid unuseability of noise
above ISO 100 and failed to explain about what he meant when
suggesting "performance approaching and exceeding lower level SLR",
there are too many gaps and over hype of good points and an
apparent oversight of the bad, take the Raw for example and the
delay. Steve's review for me has loss some of its credibility as a
reliable source of information when so many people and reviewers
has made a much more informed reviews.
Click to expand...
--
http://koti.mbnet.fi/arn/Arn__the_inner_me_small2.jpg
Click to expand...
 
David_S85 said:
Yup, more like a glorified feature list with a few pictures. His
reviews have always been on the extremely conservative side
Click to expand...
I've never really seen Steve's "reviews" as reviews as such but more as a source of Photos taken in the same place for comparison purposes (I use the Marine Cafe and red building with the Dumpster ones) - Imaging resource IMO always have been the best (been there about the longest also) , treading a good line between a Measurebating review (Like Phil's) and a purely objective and conservative opinion (Steve) , also IR reviews make a great alternative to the camera's manual as Dave explains the features better than Sony, Canon, Nikon etc do ;-)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 
couldn't agree with you more.. Steve's reviews are kinda sugar coated

I felt so much better when I read his review of V1 :)...he ignored the blue cast problem completely and thought really high of the V1. V1 is a great cam.. so is the 828.. but like all prosumer cams they have their flaws which should be highlighted by reviewers whose objectivity we look upto

QUASI
Arn said:
Arn said:
Arn wrote:
Steve's reviews are usually handy for one thing: making you feel
good about a purchase already done. They have almost always been
overly glorifying. Nice reading, but usually very shallow and not
very objective or thorough. Not to be considered a source of hard
data.
Arn said:
taikonaut1 wrote:
This review is probably the best example of maximising all the good
points while minimising all the bad points. I wonder if the Sony
mafioso is paying Steve very well for a glowing review. Kind of
reminded me of the time when Sony was bribing me with a free TV to
keep quiet over a possible demonstration outside a top department
store of a faulty Wega TV which the company cannot fix. I think
Steve's reviews did not explain the problems of CA and noise too
deeply, sort of ignored ISO 64 and the rapid unuseability of noise
above ISO 100 and failed to explain about what he meant when
suggesting "performance approaching and exceeding lower level SLR",
there are too many gaps and over hype of good points and an
apparent oversight of the bad, take the Raw for example and the
delay. Steve's review for me has loss some of its credibility as a
reliable source of information when so many people and reviewers
has made a much more informed reviews.
Click to expand...
--
http://koti.mbnet.fi/arn/Arn__the_inner_me_small2.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
quasimodo said:
nemo captain said:
Well, that's not exactly true...

Steve says: "Although the lens produced sharp results when
stopped-down, there is fall-off in sharpness at the edges of images
shot with a wide-open aperture at all focal lengths. In addition,
the lens produces a moderate amount of chromatic aberration (purple
fringing) in high-contrast areas, and there's noticeable barrel
distortion at wide-angle and pin cushioning at the telephoto end of
the zoom range"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I've lost a lot of repect for Steve's site because of this review. He seems inconsistent with his relative ratings of good and bad. I have a F828 and it produces excessive amounts of PF (in all reflections) and noise. In moderate low lighting (above ISO 100), the noise seems pretty significant. I notice some jaggies also. I'm a newbie but even I can see these imperfections.

For a $1000 8MP camera, I expected much better clarity and performance. I'm disappointed by its 8MP JPG output. I was hoping to see more/better detail when zooming-in compared to my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ10. It seems reminiscient of the Fuji S5000 which is a 3MP camera but can output 6MP. It seems to generate images more on par with a 5MP camera. I haven't experimented with the RAW mode yet; so, the JPG conversion process may have deteriorated the original image. I will also test the 5MP output mode to see if smart zooming actually helps or not.

I also have a Lumix FZ10 which he gave a much harsher review. I see much more PF from the 828 than the FZ10. Also, the FZ10's MIS (Mega Image Stabilization) really helps in low lighting and high zoom situations; whereas, the F828 requires a tripod or the image will be soft and unfocused.

I really like the F828's whiz-bang features but it has some annoying idiosyncrasies. I don't want to post process every image.

CJoe
 
The PF is definitely terrible in this and other photos taken in the dark.

This is a big minus, but - if it were the only one, I'd buy two 828's. Unfortunately it seems to have many other major disadvantages.
 
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