Yes, but what about noise?..

Before the 828 was officially launched all the speculation was about the probable noise resulting from 8m pixles crammed onto a relatively small sensor.

Perhaps, all the hoo-hah over the PF artifacts has diverted attention from that initial concern?

I'm considering buying the 828 but have grave reservations about the noise issue.

I have had great difficulty in finding review shots taken at higher ISO's - owners seem to be extremely coy about showing anything taken past ISO 64.

The few shots that I have seen at 200, 400, and 800 have been progressively worthless - certainly, anything above 200 seems to be totally unnaceptable.

What is the considered view of owners re: the noise issue?

Thanks for your input,

tivot

There were several posts on this matter, some just a few hours ago. Search the forum if you want to see more than that. Reviewers also had covered the topic, so there is plenty of info around.

Dmitry

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=7190872
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=7193188

tivot,

Personally I would not go further then iso200, unless I absolutely have to.
Here is an iso200 shot, no postprocessing.



Rgds,
Jaap

tivot said:

Before the 828 was officially launched all the speculation was
about the probable noise resulting from 8m pixles crammed onto a
relatively small sensor.

Perhaps, all the hoo-hah over the PF artifacts has diverted
attention from that initial concern?

I'm considering buying the 828 but have grave reservations about
the noise issue.

I have had great difficulty in finding review shots taken at higher
ISO's - owners seem to be extremely coy about showing anything
taken past ISO 64.

The few shots that I have seen at 200, 400, and 800 have been
progressively worthless - certainly, anything above 200 seems to be
totally unnaceptable.

What is the considered view of owners re: the noise issue?

Thanks for your input,

tivot

Click to expand...

--



The Naked Eye - Amateur Photography

Its a reasonable question to ask & there is ,without question, a noise issue on pics above 100 ISO.

Whether this is a problem depends on the type of photos that you take. If you take a lot of indoor snaps using available light then this camera may not be for you. If like many people you only take happy snaps in sunny weather then there is no problem. It would ,of course , be nice to have the low noise of the Canon 10D but if you are prepared to be realistic & accept some limitations then the Sony 828 may well be OK.

I have actually proposed the 828 as a suitable camera for B&W photography because the small amount of noise is often prefered by those who find digital B&W photos too smooth & plastic paricularly if they contain burntout highlights!
--
Keith-C

JaapNL said:

tivot,

Personally I would not go further then iso200, unless I absolutely
have to.

Click to expand...

Thank you Jaap - that was helpful.

The noise didn't look too bad at all in that shot.

I'm not looking for perfection - but, similarly, I don't want to spend a considerable sum of money on a camera that will produce excessive noise.

I'm aware of the reviews - and have probably read most of them.

However, most 'professional' reviewers seem to put a positive spin on just about every product they evaluate - after all, it's not 'their' money that will be spent, is it?

They will have long moved onto commenting on newer and better products while ordinary consumers will still be struggling with the limitations that they failed to clearly point out.

Neither, in my opinion, are shots taken by 'Super-Pro's' of any real relevance (at least, not to me)

I'm not a 'Photographer', and make no claim to be one - what I want is a camera that will make the very best of my limited skill, not require the hand of an artist to coax the best from it.

It's always nice to see 'what' can be achieved but, in the real world, people like me need the camera, itself, to produce good results

Thanks for your help

tivot

I have made a few comparisons at different ISO levels of a particular scene (it was a castle). And my conclusion was that I must keep the ISO level at 100 or less. I set the level to ISO64 as standard and I am happy with that. Most of my pictures are taken outdoors (handheld) or indoors (tripod). SO I don't have any problems with that.

Nico.

tivot said:

Before the 828 was officially launched all the speculation was
about the probable noise resulting from 8m pixles crammed onto a
relatively small sensor.

Perhaps, all the hoo-hah over the PF artifacts has diverted
attention from that initial concern?

I'm considering buying the 828 but have grave reservations about
the noise issue.

I have had great difficulty in finding review shots taken at higher
ISO's - owners seem to be extremely coy about showing anything
taken past ISO 64.

The few shots that I have seen at 200, 400, and 800 have been
progressively worthless - certainly, anything above 200 seems to be
totally unnaceptable.

What is the considered view of owners re: the noise issue?

Thanks for your input,

tivot

Click to expand...

I have taken many of these shots that were worthless as is and treated them to a single or double pass through NeatImage to render them as good as ISO 100 shots and sometimes ISO 64. This is an efficient process and NeatImage is not only FREE, but standalone. It doesn't require Photoshop.

If you are happy with the 828 for all of the other advantages that it has you should not be deterred by the noise issue. In low light situations outdoors I always use a tripod (monopod actually) and do not take indoor shots without a flash, so limitations here are not looming issues.

I chose the 828 because it had 80% of the capabilities I wanted natively and another 15% with minor work arounds, like NeatImage, defringing on the rare occasions where it was needed.

Any camera one might choose will have that top 5% of unachievables associated with it and some much more. Consider the tradeoffs and pick your poison.

****

cliffhanger said:

I have taken many of these shots that were worthless as is and
treated them to a single or double pass through NeatImage to render
them as good as ISO 100 shots and sometimes ISO 64. This is an
efficient process and NeatImage is not only FREE, but standalone.
It doesn't require Photoshop.

If you are happy with the 828 for all of the other advantages that
it has you should not be deterred by the noise issue. In low light
situations outdoors I always use a tripod (monopod actually) and do
not take indoor shots without a flash, so limitations here are not
looming issues.

I chose the 828 because it had 80% of the capabilities I wanted
natively and another 15% with minor work arounds, like NeatImage,
defringing on the rare occasions where it was needed.

Any camera one might choose will have that top 5% of unachievables
associated with it and some much more. Consider the tradeoffs and
pick your poison.

****

Click to expand...

m severely torn about this camera. I'm tempted to pick up the 'phone and order it from a UK supplier who has it in stock for £700 - but.....

I'm not much of photographer - but I do like things to work well (and to have the reassurance that the machine would be able to meet my requirements if I took more of an interest and decided to pursue the hobby 'properly'

And there is the dilemma.

Something about the 828 is nagging away at me - I don't know enough about photography to properly explain it, but I get the feeling that once the initial euphoria about this camera has subsided, we will start to hear more objective reports about its failings and limitations.

Plus (and this is a big 'plus') the other manufacturers are on their mettle now - and will probably be releasing some rather good stuff this year.

I know the argument about 'always waiting and never owning' but, in this case, we know for certain that rivals to the 828 are just around the corner.

Once I've made the purchase I'm unlikely to buy another camera for the next three or four years, so I don't want to be kicking myself because I couldn't wait another couple of months.

Besides, the Sony can only get better and cheaper as production speeds up - so perhaps that's another reason to hold fire.

Sorry to ramble on (sometimes, putting words on the screen helps to crystallise a decision, and I think that mine has to be 'wait and see')

Thanks for your comments - and I wish you every success with your new 828

Regards

tivot

NeatImage is a GREAT program for removing noise from images. It does as remarkable job of it.

tivot said:

Before the 828 was officially launched all the speculation was
about the probable noise resulting from 8m pixles crammed onto a
relatively small sensor.

Perhaps, all the hoo-hah over the PF artifacts has diverted
attention from that initial concern?

I'm considering buying the 828 but have grave reservations about
the noise issue.

I have had great difficulty in finding review shots taken at higher
ISO's - owners seem to be extremely coy about showing anything
taken past ISO 64.

The few shots that I have seen at 200, 400, and 800 have been
progressively worthless - certainly, anything above 200 seems to be
totally unnaceptable.

What is the considered view of owners re: the noise issue?

Thanks for your input,

tivot

Click to expand...

I can understand what you're saying, tivot.

There are two ways of looking at this: Some users enjoy the advantages that a camera brings along, while working through the idiosyncracies. You get that with any camera. It's just a matter of choosing which idiosyncracies and issues you're willing to work with.

Or... if you really feel that you'd rather allow the camera to do all the work and hope for the best, then you're probably better off with a true point-and-shoot style of device. Many of them produce excellent results for the type of shooting you're describing. For example, the Canon A80 is excellent and yet provides manual control if you need it, along with a decent megapixel rating for good prints. Or there is also an offering or two from Minolta or Olympus. Options abound besides the F828.

But for those who like the feature set of the F828, they're going to generally work through problems, while letting Sony know about others so as to find a better resolution, all the while shooting and sharing their pictures.

tivot said:

It's always nice to see 'what' can be achieved but, in the real
world, people like me need the camera, itself, to produce good
results

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

You are correct. Without applying noise reduction software, you would be unlikely to get much of any value above ISO 200. That would be the same as it is with the 717. Actually, I think the noise issue isn't buried, but rather just not too bad for small sensor. Of course looking at gigantic prints you're going to see noise, but again, same with any small sensor.

Noone is being coy, they just know the limitations of the camera. And actually, the need to shoot at higher ISO's with the 828 is less than say, a DSLR, because of the more effective DOF at the wide apertures of the 828. Hence, you'll see fewer shots at higher ISO's. With my 707 I almost never shot above 100, mostly because I just didn't need to, but also because I knew that the noise would be more than I would want.

This is nothing different than you'll experience with any fixed lens digital camera.

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/366

• You're not in third grade anymore. Take as many recesses as you want!
• Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.

http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

tivot said:

tivot said:

I know the argument about 'always waiting and never owning' but, in

Click to expand...

this case, we know for certain that rivals to the 828 are just
around the corner.

Click to expand...

I doubt that. Before that, the only serious rival of Sony F series was Minolta 7, and indeed after the A1 they won't release anything new any soon. Canon's primary business is to sell lenses, hardly they're interested in releasing camera that may rival their own DSLRs. May be Nikon? But they seems also decided to go Canon's way with their D70.

Dmitry

tivot said:

Before the 828 was officially launched all the speculation was
about the probable noise resulting from 8m pixles crammed onto a
relatively small sensor.

Perhaps, all the hoo-hah over the PF artifacts has diverted
attention from that initial concern?

I'm considering buying the 828 but have grave reservations about
the noise issue.

I have had great difficulty in finding review shots taken at higher
ISO's - owners seem to be extremely coy about showing anything
taken past ISO 64.

The few shots that I have seen at 200, 400, and 800 have been
progressively worthless - certainly, anything above 200 seems to be
totally unnaceptable.

Click to expand...

Totally worthless, compared to what other digital camera? Do you know of a camera with lower noise at higher ISO's? If you don't want noise and you'd like a nice soft buttery smooth image. Get a Dslr. You won't be happy with any other digital camera.

tivot said:

What is the considered view of owners re: the noise issue?

Click to expand...

There's noise. No doubt about it. It looks to be on a par with my 717. Maybe a bit worse and a touch noiser than my 707. If I were a person that only took my pics to view on a monitor. I'd be buying a Dslr. 828 images do look noisy @ 100% size. But since I'm a person who prints 8X10's exclusively, the 828 will work extremely well for me. I'll trade a tiny bit of print noise for the color and detail, it gives. If you have the capability to print, you might want to print out an 8x10, or two, of some of the 828 images floating around. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by how little noise is actually visible in prints. Especially when the print is viewed from a normal distance of 18 inches, or so.

Steve

--
http://www.pbase.com/slo2k
'The question is not what you look at, but what you see' - Thoreau

i do shoot at iso 64 whenever possible. why wouldn'd i?

here's a shot that actually my wife took with my camera, at a party on new year's day. the subjects are notorious "blinkers" so the mom was happy to get this shot of her man and her boys. just a candid, but it is iso200. also, notice the lack of any ca where one might think it would show up.



here's the photo we printed and gave to them. you'll notice i did some editing and touch ups to the kid's faces (chocolate etc..)



here are a couple of 100% crops that should give you enough detail:

well said, steve.

i do most of my shooting at 64 if possible (why wouldn't i?) but i've done some at 100 and 200. the prints look fantastic imo. i'm not the noise police but i think that 64 is a bit better than the 100 on a 717. i think that 100 on the 828 is as good as 100 on the 717, to my eyes, anyhow.

anything over 200 and i'm going to run noise ninja on it... and, thank goodness for that product, it now allows one to go into a dark-ish gym, and shoot indoor sports at a faster shutter speed!

Steve Cavigliano said:

tivot said:

Before the 828 was officially launched all the speculation was
about the probable noise resulting from 8m pixles crammed onto a
relatively small sensor.

Perhaps, all the hoo-hah over the PF artifacts has diverted
attention from that initial concern?

I'm considering buying the 828 but have grave reservations about
the noise issue.

I have had great difficulty in finding review shots taken at higher
ISO's - owners seem to be extremely coy about showing anything
taken past ISO 64.

The few shots that I have seen at 200, 400, and 800 have been
progressively worthless - certainly, anything above 200 seems to be
totally unnaceptable.

Click to expand...

Totally worthless, compared to what other digital camera? Do you
know of a camera with lower noise at higher ISO's? If you don't
want noise and you'd like a nice soft buttery smooth image. Get a
Dslr. You won't be happy with any other digital camera.

Steve Cavigliano said:

What is the considered view of owners re: the noise issue?

Click to expand...

There's noise. No doubt about it. It looks to be on a par with my
717. Maybe a bit worse and a touch noiser than my 707. If I were
a person that only took my pics to view on a monitor. I'd be
buying a Dslr. 828 images do look noisy @ 100% size. But since
I'm a person who prints 8X10's exclusively, the 828 will work
extremely well for me. I'll trade a tiny bit of print noise for
the color and detail, it gives. If you have the capability to
print, you might want to print out an 8x10, or two, of some of the
828 images floating around. I think you will be pleasantly
surprised by how little noise is actually visible in prints.
Especially when the print is viewed from a normal distance of 18
inches, or so.

Steve

--
http://www.pbase.com/slo2k
'The question is not what you look at, but what you see' - Thoreau

Click to expand...

--
-- andy
http://www.moonriverphotography.com

my favorite movie: 'the color purple'
my favorite book: 'harold and the purple crayon'
my favorite band: 'deep purple'

Andy Williams said:

i do shoot at iso 64 whenever possible. why wouldn'd i?

here's a shot that actually my wife took with my camera, at a party
on new year's day. the subjects are notorious "blinkers" so the
mom was happy to get this shot of her man and her boys. just a
candid, but it is iso200. also, notice the lack of any ca where
one might think it would show up.

Click to expand...

---

Thanks - those look very good to me - obviously, your missus has talent as well (cue gnashing of teeth...)

The noise isn't as bad as I feared - still not very jolly for a flagship camera though. Is it?.

My experience of Neat Image is that it tends to 'plasticise' the photo, unless used with extreme caution - so I'd rather not use it unless absolutely necessary.

Still, it's something else to add to my deliberations...

The stupid thing is that I have been looking forward to buying this camera for some time - it has everything I would (probably) ever want

But

It seems to me that it has a fatal and fundamental flaw - i.e. the size of the sensor relative to the number of pixels.

Perhaps it's a shame that they didn't keep to 5k, and still added all the extra features? - after all, 5k seems perfectly adequate for this sort of camera.

tivot said:

The noise isn't as bad as I feared - still not very jolly for a
flagship camera though. Is it?.

Click to expand...

you really don't know that much about digital, do you?

tivot said:

My experience of Neat Image is that it tends to 'plasticise' the
photo, unless used with extreme caution - so I'd rather not use it
unless absolutely necessary.

Click to expand...

i wouldn't know, i use noise ninja when i need to reduce noise in a high iso photo.

tivot said:

Still, it's something else to add to my deliberations...

The stupid thing is that I have been looking forward to buying this
camera for some time - it has everything I would (probably) ever
want

Click to expand...

there are other cameras, thankfully, that you can choose from. perhaps you should consider one of them?

tivot said:

The noise isn't as bad as I feared - still not very jolly for a
flagship camera though. Is it?.

Click to expand...

It's usually not as bad as people sometimes think.

If we're comparing the F828 to cameras using its same sensor class, such as the A1 or the G5 or F717, then its noise levels are not much different than those at all. And the techniques you need for controlling it are going to be similar.

tivot said:

My experience of Neat Image is that it tends to 'plasticise' the
photo, unless used with extreme caution - so I'd rather not use it
unless absolutely necessary.

Click to expand...

Many have said that the defaults selected by Neat Image are at fault here, perhaps being too aggressive. As you mentioned, it's probably better to use a lighter hand here. Ideally, no one should have to use noise reduction software, but actually it's beneficialfor digicam users, for dSLR users, and for those that scan film. For example, have a look at what Noise Ninja was able to do for a high ISO shot from a dSLR:

tivot said:

Still, it's something else to add to my deliberations...

Click to expand...

It's at least worth looking into. Occasionally, at least, your images will benefit from it regardess of camera.

tivot said:

It seems to me that it has a fatal and fundamental flaw - i.e. the
size of the sensor relative to the number of pixels.

Click to expand...

Yes, there's the rub. OTOH, if you find you can deal with that, then you have a great option there.

tivot said:

Perhaps it's a shame that they didn't keep to 5k, and still added
all the extra features? - after all, 5k seems perfectly adequate
for this sort of camera.

Click to expand...

Not that I recommend this, but some folks are treating this as a 5MP camera, in other words a true feature and color-accurate upgrade to the F717. My take is that if it's supposed to be 8MP, then you treat it as 8MP. But for some folks, they are happy to use it and downsample the images or use the F828 in 5MP mode.

--

Ulysses

tivot,

I couldn't agree more. I take most of my pictures of action shots, far away and in lower light levels. I don't get to use flash. That is my situation and I understand it is not necessarily yours.

I bought AND RETURNED the F828 (after many hundred shots) since I found it was about 2 to 3 stops worse/noisier than the F717 at full telephoto and ISO 800. The ISO noise of the F828 was simply unusable. I also take many thousand pictures a year - don't expect me to use Noise Ninja or anyything else on every one of those. I don't spend my hard earned money for the priviledge of getting to post process images. If I wanted that I'd buy a cheap digital.

I contacted Sony, escalated the call up some, but they didn't want to declare the camera as operating outside of the design parameters.

I can understand those buying the F828 who have other manufacturer's products as the F828 compares favorably in ISO noise to most other digicams BUT I am comparing the F828 I owned to the F717 I own and it is FAR WORSE in ISO noise that the F717, especially at the higher ISOs. I can also understand those buying it who simply don't need the higher ISOs (and don't care about CA/PF). I like the F828 but if it not usable for me then the F717 remains king of the hill. Unusable is unusable. I am happy for you if the F828 works for you. Congrats on buying a nice camera.

People claim that it looks good on print and the noise is much less obvious but my clients don't print them out. I want, and (foolishly) expected, the F828 to at least equal the F717 noise considering the price point Sony was going for.

I've heard all the arguments that my needs are for a dSLR and I agree but the F717 was just barely able to satisfy my photo situations so I was hoping the F828 could at least be as good but with the new features. If it was only the same ISO quality as the F717 but with the new features I would have kept the camera. The F828 is, after all, supposed to be their flagship digital camera and the successor to the F717.

There are many who defend Sony as if they have some vested interested that Sony be protected. Sony can stand up for themselves. If they don't lead in technology then they follow. Period. Why do you feel the need to protect them? Don't call me a Sony basher because I like their F717 and happily own many of their other products. I don't like or hate a company - I evaluate their products and buy what I desire. They will live or die by their products regardless of what I say or what you say.

The way I see it is that many people are not holding Sony to the higher standards of the market Sony themselves are trying to define.

Finally, if anyone doesn't agree with my thoughts here then you are welcome to express your own but don't bother flaming me because you don't like what I say. Waste you time on someone else.

Hope this helps...

Ron

tivot said:

Before the 828 was officially launched all the speculation was
about the probable noise resulting from 8m pixles crammed onto a
relatively small sensor.

Perhaps, all the hoo-hah over the PF artifacts has diverted
attention from that initial concern?

I'm considering buying the 828 but have grave reservations about
the noise issue.

I have had great difficulty in finding review shots taken at higher
ISO's - owners seem to be extremely coy about showing anything
taken past ISO 64.

The few shots that I have seen at 200, 400, and 800 have been
progressively worthless - certainly, anything above 200 seems to be
totally unnaceptable.

What is the considered view of owners re: the noise issue?

Thanks for your input,

tivot

Click to expand...

Ron,

I'm glad that you returned the 828 as it wasn't meeting your needs. I think your expectations of the 828 were just too high. Its shutter lag is improved over the 717 but I don't see the noise as being any better.

Every camera has its strengths and weaknesses. As you probably have heard a number of times already it sounds like a DSLR would be a better match for you.

Harry
http://www.pbase.com/hpb
--

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams