Reading mode: Light Dark

Phil WHO...! Got it wrong with the D60...!

Go to last post
This is about the craziest thread I have even seen on here lol. I think we all need to back off and just talk photography. Some of these forums are just becoming total flame wars and put downs. I admit there is CA in a lot of his pictures, but hey it is just a camera. Not the end of the world. I own a Kodak DCS 460 and I can tell you what CA is without a IR filter and a anti alais filter trust me. But guess what I can get rid of evey bit of it in Photoshop. I had a F717 and it was pretty neat but not really wanted I needed to try and produce the best shots I could. But I sure don't want to knock someone that is happy with one, or a 828 for that matter.

If you go to Photosig and search by camera you can find some pretty amazing shots taken with even a 1mp Sony Mavica on there. So it all boils down to what each person can afford or is happy with. This used to be a enjoyable site to visit 6 months ago and longer. But as of late it has just turned into a feeding frenzy of my camera is better than yours contest. I must admit I have been caught up in it myself lol.

I think all of us need to just offer constructive comments and be darn glad we we live in a digital camera age that is so full of promise in the future. And treat people like people. We all are very different, and much the same.

My thoughts,

Don
 
How do you get a shallow DOF with the 828 with its smaller sensor?

Chris
DVWarrior-2 said:
Dont kid yourselves Phil Askey is not the be all and end all of
digital camera reviews he got it so wrong with the Canon D60...this
was and is a shocking camera and he awarded it a "Highly
Recomended". I bought two of them and they were both KACK, bad
focus, soft as old boots and very erratic exposures. Both went back
to the shop. My F828 out performes the D60 hands down. Due to the
weather in rainy old Scotland I have not had a chance to put my 828
through its paces but so far I remain delighted. Just for a few
cinics out there I took some pics with the 828 and the Canon G5 as
a side by side comparison. The picture looking into my desk lamp
which is as overexposed as you can expect shows no sign of the
dreaded purple fringing.

http://www.pbase.com/dvwarrior/warrior
Click to expand...
 
I'm with you Don. Personnally I think Mr Warrior took Phil's review far to personal. Its time for some pills and maybe some pictures.
 
I agree with you on most of these points. You however missed my point entirely.

I know that the term "flop" in this thread is referring to the engineering standpoint. My point was and still is that there is that this does not matter. The only thing that matters is if this camera sells. Canon, Sony, Olympus, ect ect are not in business to make cameras, rather money, some forget this here.

If Sony built the best digital camera ever and Phil awarded it a special "Super Highly Recommended" but the unit did not sell and thus make money all the praise would be little comfort to Sony.

By the way the Beta example you cited is a perfect example. Beta is was a superior format to VHS. VHS simply continued to sell and market their format while Sony awaited a court ruling regarding the legality of video recorders. VHS became established and in the end prevailed despite being the lesser of the two.
jhsu said:
Todd Bright said:
Some here seem to forget that is the end it doesn’t matter which
camera is better, rather which one sells. Considering Sony’s
marketing prowess I doubt this camera will be a flop.
Click to expand...
I think you are talking about "flop" in terms of sales when others
may have been talking about "flop" in terms of camera itself.

Hyperboles are usually too extreme if you are a betting man. I
would say that from an engineering standpoint the 828 is neither a
complete flop nor a rousing success, but one that is hovering in
the middle and probably not offering enough pros and a few more
cons than to my liking for me to spend my $1000 on it.

I just don't believe that folks who are that serious about pictures
to be considering spending $1000+ on a camera would happily forego
the DSLR's flexibility and possibility for future growth and buy a
digicam with very limited ceiling for upgrading.

I also don't see that folks who don't want to or know or care about
taking, editing, and improving their digital pictures would want to
spend $1000, not to mention on a camera they can't even put in a
small camera bag that fits inside their coat pockets. Maybe the
"8.0 MP" bullets can sell a few more than a 6MP camera, but at what
cost to picture quality, when there are already proven setups at
4-6MP that can take pics with minimal noise and CA?

And if you are talking marketing wise? Sony may have a prowess with
marketing but they have been notably humbled a few times despite
heavy marketing effort. Remember beta video format? MiniDisc never
quite took off, did it? MemoryStick is still being marketed as all
get out, but they finally had to acquiesce and cough up a
CompactFlash port in the 828. Not debating that these formats don't
have their merits, but they did not hit despite Sony's push.
They've shown flashes of cockiness in all of these examples, trying
to stiff arm their own proprietary formats instead of listening to
the market and realizing that sometimes better ideas and designs
come from people other than Sony's.

As for what I am here for: I am looking for info to help me on what
cameras to consider to spend my same $800-1200 on, based on my
projected course and future needs as a photobug. So I would be more
interested in finding out which camera better suits me, not which
one sells better.
Click to expand...
 
Me, get a life? LOL. I’m not the one who is adamant about the 828 having no PF. I’m not the one trying to mask it in your weak attempt at PS. I’m not the one who attempts to put down a well respected individual who provides FREE, UNBIASED reviews.
Why don’t you get a life? Or better yet, work on your PS skills.
DVWarrior-2 said:
Jason said:
Oh man..................nice job on trying to hide the PF. Looks
like you missed a few spots though. Before you spout your mouth
off, at least try to be credible in your samples.
Click to expand...
OH MY GOD...How sad are you...I have this picture printed as a 10"x
8" which is as big as I care to produce my prints to and you dare
to nit pick an excellent picture of my family dog...GET A LIFE
JASON.
Click to expand...
 
Beta was a superior format to VHS, but my point in my post: despite Sony's prowess in marketing they could not push it through. Ditto the MiniDisc.

One would hope that Sony has a certain amount of pride at stake in the 828. Certainly they'd feel great if this thing sold like salt in the Northeast in January, but one should hope that they would listen and take note if everyone serious about photography told them sonething's not quite right.

What happens when the thing is not a "flop" but is fair to middlin' in sales, and is barely "recommended" in the more advanced photo reviews? a darling in no one's eyes?

My suspicion, as I belabored too much in the previous post, is that this 828 smells like a camera that's designed with something for everyone, while hitting no one market segment in particular, in the wrong way:

too expensive and big for the casual amateurs, despite the 8MP spec designed to attract them;

too much noise/CA for the pros, maybe because of the 8MP?

Kind of reminds me of, to mention another short-lived catch-22 in the auto world: Remember the Cadillac Cimarron, circa early '80s? basically a Cavalier with Cadillac badge, leather-trim seats, and chrome wheels. Price was $20,000 when a 1982 Cavalier cost $11,000.

Problems? those looking for a small car can't afford it, and too small a car for those who could afford it.
 
DVWarrior-2 said:
Dont kid yourselves Phil Askey is not the be all and end all of
digital camera reviews he got it so wrong with the Canon D60...this
was and is a shocking camera and he awarded it a "Highly
Recomended". I bought two of them and they were both KACK, bad
focus, soft as old boots and very erratic exposures. Both went back
to the shop. My F828 out performes the D60 hands down. Due to the
weather in rainy old Scotland I have not had a chance to put my 828
through its paces but so far I remain delighted. Just for a few
cinics out there I took some pics with the 828 and the Canon G5 as
a side by side comparison. The picture looking into my desk lamp
which is as overexposed as you can expect shows no sign of the
dreaded purple fringing.

http://www.pbase.com/dvwarrior/warrior
Click to expand...
You are talking about a camera that was just released and compareing it to one that came out years ago..a lot of things have changed in the last two years!!

What would you do ....or say about a Canon EOS 1 body??......Back when that camera came out, it was the choice among PJ & sports photographers all over the world.......now, I am guessing that you would come out with a Nikon F5 and compare the two...and say that the EOS 1 was slow, inaccurate, had few features...and was slow.....and wonder why so many photographers and magazines gave that "piece of junk" such high ratings......or why they would "highly recomend" it! ;-)

I agree with some of the things that I have read on some of the now closed topics....like each camera should be rated against other cameras in their own league but,....things change over time.....and two years ago when the D60 came out, if you compared it to 6MP cameras that came out back in 1997, you would be happier than a clam...and highly recomend it as well! Think about it!

JP

--
Check out my nifty website....

http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=6108
 
Chris Charlton said:
Chris
DVWarrior-2 said:
Dont kid yourselves Phil Askey is not the be all and end all of
digital camera reviews he got it so wrong with the Canon D60...this
was and is a shocking camera and he awarded it a "Highly
Recomended". I bought two of them and they were both KACK, bad
focus, soft as old boots and very erratic exposures. Both went back
to the shop. My F828 out performes the D60 hands down. Due to the
weather in rainy old Scotland I have not had a chance to put my 828
through its paces but so far I remain delighted. Just for a few
cinics out there I took some pics with the 828 and the Canon G5 as
a side by side comparison. The picture looking into my desk lamp
which is as overexposed as you can expect shows no sign of the
dreaded purple fringing.

http://www.pbase.com/dvwarrior/warrior
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
--
Check out my nifty website....

http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=6108
 
Jared Hunter said:
Jared Hunter said:
DVWarrior-2 http://www.pbase.com/image/25035114/original
Click to expand...
Your dog pic was the first instance that I was surprised to see CA.
It really shouldn't appear that easily. The kicker is that it even
appears in the bokeh as evidenced in the tombstones and tree
branches in your image.
Click to expand...
Yeah, wow, I was kind of skeptical of all the complaints after buying the Canon S50 that Phil criticized so harshly for CA and not finding it to be nearly the problem the review made it out to be. That dog/gravestone image really does show it all, though. Noise in the shadows, gravestones shaded green on the left and red on the right, and purple fringing in numerous places. I read about "bokeh" on the luminous landscape website and I don't think I'll be calling DOF "blur" by its japanese word from now on...but I think I know what you're referring to and, yeah, it sure is there.

--
--- RAD
 
50-500 is a fine lens but the 100 2.8 macro smokes it, as does the 200 2.8, obivously the 135 f2 L that lens blows everything away) etc

There are some primes that arent great however, look at most of the wide angle primes, like the 24mm USM, horrible performance

bottom line is that any prime is going to be better than any zoom all the time, the best prime is better than the best zoom though but lets not forget the top quality zoom lens give you tons of versatily and the top primes cost as much as the zoom and give you one focal lenght

35mm L lens is over $1000 and so is the 24-70L, the prime is a touch sharper but the zoom was alot of money for me to spend, I cant image spending that type of money for just one focal lenght.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
 
Before we all complain about how bads its AF performs think back a short while to before there was AF at all.

D60 wasnt great but there are tons of great photos taken with it.

At the time it came out it was a pretty great camera. Digicams were all about 2 megapixels back then with terrible optics.

Today it cant compete but they dont currently sell it today.

I remember reading old auto magazines that talked about how fast the old muscle cars were at 0-60 in 8 seconds. Now you read about stuff doing it in 3.2 seconds.

Were those magazines 'wrong" because 40 years later technology is improved ?

--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
 
Don Van Patten said:
If you go to Photosig and search by camera you can find some pretty
amazing shots taken with even a 1mp Sony Mavica on there.
Click to expand...
Eh? I'll have to check that out.

The first digicam I ever saw was that floppy disc 1mp Mavica and I thought it was the neatest gadget I'd ever seen, even if the images did cause me to speculate that it was a camcorder with a frame-grabber thrown on. At that time my camera was a DCR-TRV8 with a Snappy! video digitizer.

Results of that here:



Here's some photos from where I first saw Julia's Mavica, also the furthest I've been from home (Raleigh, NC):
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/3722/exoticon.html
I'm #5.
Don Van Patten said:
as of late it has just turned into a feeding frenzy of my camera is
better than yours contest. I must admit I have been caught up in it
myself lol.
Click to expand...
Some of the other sections aren't so bad. I've been enjoying the Canon discussion here as well as on imaging-resource after getting a S50 last month.
Don Van Patten said:
I think all of us need to just offer constructive comments and be
darn glad we we live in a digital camera age that is so full of
promise in the future.
Click to expand...
True enough, though looking back at those photos from November 1998, wow have digicams come a long way in five years. From a video digitizer and a Deskjet 600 to a S50 and being able to get real photo paper prints at Wal-Mart for 29c... Frankly, I'm just stunned.

Not that I don't occasionally complain, heck, that can be fun too. Recently though I was at my parents' and my mother is still using an Olympus Stylus Zoom that I used to think was just an incredible camera, at least for something smaller than a SLR. I picked that camera up and looked at it and my first thought was "where are the controls?" I remember having fun taking all sorts of creative shots and learning all about photography with that camera, and it has only: Shutter, Wide-Tele, Flash mode, and Self Timer buttons on it. Tells you frames left but not aperture or shutter speed. No preview LCD, no way to see if your shot came out on a review display.

I just forgot what it was like. What I thought was plenty of camera to take good photos with (and which, in fact, was...I have the photos).

--
--- RAD
 
So now you are compairing the F828 to the G5? If you notice the G5 review, it was only 'recommended' as well, so that must be a bad review too?

Seriously, the F828 is a fine camera. But I would say it is rather expensive for the quality it gives. Further if you go to a camera store or ebay, you will find the D60 is cheaper than the F828, if you want to make that compairison... but I suggest you play fair as Phil did and compaire the F828 to the 300D and you will probably see why most people disagree with you.

Andrew
DVWarrior-2 said:
YES as I have said before the same purple line can also be seen in
the G5 picture for those coming on board...

http://www.pbase.com/dvwarrior/warrior

And no I will not apologise my opinion stands...many people were
bitten very badly by taking such comments on board and if I had to
take Mr Askeys review about the F828 I would have missed out on a
great camera he is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to
mine.
Click to expand...
 
DVWarrior-2 said:
Trolls like you old son are being delt with so crall back into your
slum where you came from...these are family snaps...idiot... I do
not display copyrighted clients photographs.
Click to expand...
-- Oh dear I'm still here. Your definition of trolls needs to be updated & revised -- have you ever re-read your original posting.

It is only down to Phil's good nature that he allows people of your kind to slag him off!

PS-- my family left Scotland when I was 2years old. Perhaps they made a mistake because sweet natured people like you would have made good neighbours.

PPS Why does the fact that they are personal 'snaps' mean that inferior photography is OK?
Keith-C
 
My D60 produces fantastic images, and was well worth getting. Phill's review was pretty accurate and was the thing that made me buy the camera.

The only downer is the autofocus, but since I use it in MF mode most of the time, I can't say that I worry about it.

Image quality is everything to me and the D60 provides it in spades.

Glad that you are happy with the F828 - each to his/her own I suppose.

cheers

Richard
DVWarrior-2 said:
Dont kid yourselves Phil Askey is not the be all and end all of
digital camera reviews he got it so wrong with the Canon D60...this
was and is a shocking camera and he awarded it a "Highly
Recomended". I bought two of them and they were both KACK, bad
focus, soft as old boots and very erratic exposures. Both went back
to the shop. My F828 out performes the D60 hands down. Due to the
weather in rainy old Scotland I have not had a chance to put my 828
through its paces but so far I remain delighted. Just for a few
cinics out there I took some pics with the 828 and the Canon G5 as
a side by side comparison. The picture looking into my desk lamp
which is as overexposed as you can expect shows no sign of the
dreaded purple fringing.

http://www.pbase.com/dvwarrior/warrior
Click to expand...
--
--
Richard Earney
http://www.method-photo.co.uk
 
DVWarrior-2 said:
Dont kid yourselves Phil Askey is not the be all and end all of
digital camera reviews he got it so wrong with the Canon D60...this
was and is a shocking camera and he awarded it a "Highly
Recomended". I bought two of them and they were both KACK, bad
focus, soft as old boots and very erratic exposures. Both went back
to the shop. My F828 out performes the D60 hands down. Due to the
weather in rainy old Scotland I have not had a chance to put my 828
through its paces but so far I remain delighted. Just for a few
cinics out there I took some pics with the 828 and the Canon G5 as
a side by side comparison. The picture looking into my desk lamp
which is as overexposed as you can expect shows no sign of the
dreaded purple fringing.

http://www.pbase.com/dvwarrior/warrior
Click to expand...
.............What does it matter to you?? It looks though your Sony camera is just fine and dandy for you....regardless of what it can do....because all you use it for...as far as I can tell.....is to take snap-shots of your dogs anyway!

Do you really NEED 8mp, an all metal body...and fast AF for that?? Do you even NEED a quality lens??

Personally, I think your Sony is overkill for you....perhaps you could be well served by a lesser camera.....like a used D60...and get some decent used lenses......still overkill but at least you are getting something more decent!

JP

--
Check out my nifty website....

http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=6108
 
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