Pointless, Pompous, Pedantic, Pontification...
Really, Lin. Do you think these kinds of outbursts are helping your case? Did you think you were taking the high road when you called brn68, "nuts?"
Why are you making it difficult to have a civil discussion with you?
That's what I found and that's what I still find. No issues of any
"significance" with "purple fringing."
As has been explained to you by me and many others, the shots you took aren't of the type where the PF problem is at its worst.
This whole thing isn't fun for me, but I suspect it would be less
fun for somebody who reads your message then spends $1000
expecting to get an 828 that doesn't do purple fringing.
Anyone who buys any camera without testing it for themselves and
reading all available reviews is doing themselves a large
injustice. I'm not reviewing the camera, I'm giving my personal
opinion.
The problem is that the photos you have presented are not consistent with the statement you are making. That's what so many people are trying to tell you.
You, on the other hand seem to be on a personal quest for trashing
the camera. I remember a few years ago when you were arguing just
as strongly about the differences between the F707 and the D30 when
I posted images of the yellow house in the snow. Then you bought a
Canon and suddenly you are back on the Sony forum arguing against a
camera you don't even have to test for yourself.
I find it very funny that you interpret my actions as trashing the camera.
I remember the yellow house discussion. Here's a link:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=2041143
Your recollection of the discussion seems a bit off. I complained about the compression artifacts in the Sony shot and how the compression level was making the noise look even worse than it was.
This was correct. You posted the original 707 image and the noise was much better.
I didn't suggest that the D30 would be comparable in noise. In fact, in my first response to you, I directed readers to a discussion in my FAQ on why larger pixels have less noise.
It appears that this may be another instance of you misinterpreting criticism of your experimental methodology with criticism of the tools used.
Ron, I really don't care about discussing this issue any further
with you. You intentionally destroyed an image with zealous levels
adjustments introducing all types of artifacts and then make a
feeble attempt to explain it as "showing me" the PF which you
assume I can't see.
Your comments indicated that you were unable to notice it.
The fact that it was there in the image but less noticeable due to the composition and brightness level proves once again that it's caused by chromatic aberration.
I suspect my vision and my equipment used to
display the images are equal to yours in every way, if not better.
To me, you simply have an "agenda" which you are disguising as a
altruistic effort to "inform" people about the dreaded "PF" in the
F828.
My comments are consistent with the images and facts. Yours aren't. My agenda is the truth. What's yours?
This B.S. is nothing more than that to me. Yes, I'm not going to
improperly expose an image to create artifacts which I can create
with any of my cameras by doing likewise. A camera is nothing more
than a tool for a photographer. Use the proper tool for the job at
hand and use it as it was intended to be used.
There should be a little jingle that plays every time somebody uses the "camera as tool" story to explain away some issue with a camera.
Yes - it's a tool. Different tools have different properties and different strengths and weaknesses. People here try to explore and understand these strengths and weaknesses because they do make a difference in how we use and enjoy cameras.
That's what I do. I
like the F828 myself and I find its good features far outweigh its
deficiencies.
That's great for you. The fact that you have many other cameras to fall back upon probably helps, but I have little doubt that many will find the 828 an enjoyable camera to own. In my mind, this fact is fully consistent with their having a fair picture of its strengths and weaknesses. You seem to think that there is some kind of contradiction in this.
I'm expressing my "opinion" about what I've found to be the case
with my camera, nothing more and nothing less. If you disagree
that's fine with me and you have every right to do so. On the other
hand, when you pull a stunt like you did by mis-adjusting levels
and claiming you did it so I could see the purple fringe, you
destroy your credibility with me.
Stunt? What the heck are you talking about? I stand fully behind my actions here. Adjusting the levels made the PF more visible. It did exactly what I said it did.
Then you come back and tell me
that adjusting levels has nothing to do with color. I provide an
example which is quite obvious to anyone with a clue that you were
wrong and you attempt to wiggle out of what you said with
obfuscation.
I suppose it could seem like obfuscation if you don't understand the point. I'll say it again: Adjusting the levels will not introduce colors that aren't there.
You caught a mistake that I made. I thought it wouldn't change the color, but it did change it a little. It added red.
This doesn't change the fact that the PF was there in the original image but, as I've explained multiple times:
- not as bad as it could be because of your choice of aperture and focal length
- not as striking because of the composition and colors involved
--
Ron Parr
FAQ:
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/parr/ 
This is sort of obvious isn't it?
