Reading mode: Light Dark

New 828 and some bad news

Go to last post
Evil Eggplant said:
Not to stir the pot here, what you're doing is telling a guy with a
brand new car that he has to crawl under the car and bang the
starter with a baseball bat each time he wants to start the car.
But once the engine is running, the car is really quite nice.
Click to expand...
That is a very evil example. I could give you another one.

6 months ago I rented a Ferrary for the weekend just to see how it is. It was awesomme, only I ended the weekend with a terrible backache. It was a very uncomfortable car, although all the rest was just fantastic. Oh yes, also there wasn't enough place for the supermarket bags.

I guess there is nothing perfect. Also in cameras and there is a certain tradeoff you pay for other qualities.

What I will tell the guy is that according to my experience, I get PF on not more then 2-3% of my photos. This is the tradeoff I am paying very gladly to get a 28-200mm fast and very sharp lens, great colors and fantastic built.

So what? I do post processing anyway as most photographers do, then it takes another 20 seconds on 2% of my photos for an aditional action in PS and I am extremely happy with the results.

I believe that those who can see nothing but the negative sides of a piece of an equimpent, should maybe, choose another hobby.
 
Moti said:
So what? I do post processing anyway as most photographers do, then
it takes another 20 seconds on 2% of my photos for an aditional
action in PS and I am extremely happy with the results.
I believe that those who can see nothing but the negative sides of
a piece of an equimpent, should maybe, choose another hobby.
Click to expand...
Moti, you great old master of extenuation, there must be a little bit more than just 2-3% of them, so please tell me no clean truths ;)

The main objection to this "FIX": It affects THE COMPLETE IMAGE & EVERY SINGLE PIXEL OF IT, not only the spoiled PF-parts. It changes that way the color balance of the pic. Besides, it just turns the purple fringe in the very ugly GREY fringe - really not a big profit.

Try instead a good UV-filter - it costs about $40 and it is good for lens protection too. I had it on my G5 for a while, it really helped a bit, but I didn't want to have a BULKY small cam - you can mount it on G5 with an adapter only. The polarising filter cuts UV light too for sure.

Instead of Shay's "shix" try the SPONGE TOOL in PS, with option "diminish saturation" - that way you are not changing the color balance of the image. The "Wacom" tablet is most helpfull here.

Have fun on a great job.
 
yo rich

i disagree

he showed one bad photo. i've taken almost 5000 since december and really have seen it very rarely. when i get it, i apply the fix, selectively, and the photo is great.

i was only pointing out to the guy that there's a fix.

keep it, return it, i don't care, it's his choice
 
if i had selected only the purple areas it would have been better.

since i don't have a lot of purple shots, i haven't run the fix that much.
 
and selecting only the purple area would have been better.
 
Holdswort said:
Moti, you great old master of extenuation, there must be a little
bit more than just 2-3% of them, so please tell me no clean truths
;)
Click to expand...
Lets put it that way. Most of the time I don't even get that much. Of course, you get much more then that if you try your best to test and shoot aluminium foil and things like that, but once you calm down and do just photography for the sake of photography, you'll be amazed how little PF you will get.
Holdswort said:
The main objection to this "FIX": It affects THE COMPLETE IMAGE &
EVERY SINGLE PIXEL OF IT, not only the spoiled PF-parts. It changes
that way the color balance of the pic. Besides, it just turns the
purple fringe in the very ugly GREY fringe - really not a big
profit.
Click to expand...
I do agree on this point, but what I do, I select the area with the PF and then the correction is applied only to the selected area.
Holdswort said:
Try instead a good UV-filter - it costs about $40 and it is good
for lens protection too. I had it on my G5 for a while, it really
helped a bit, but I didn't want to have a BULKY small cam - you can
mount it on G5 with an adapter only. The polarising filter cuts UV
light too for sure.
Click to expand...
I always ave a good UV filter on all my cameras maybe that is one of the reasons I get very little PF. Never tried to shoot without it though.
Holdswort said:
Instead of Shay's "shix" try the SPONGE TOOL in PS, with option
"diminish saturation" - that way you are not changing the color
balance of the image. The "Wacom" tablet is most helpfull here.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about it because with the sponge tool you actually desaturate all channels while to remove PF you have to apply only on the magenta channel but I'll try it out.
Holdswort said:
Have fun on a great job.
Click to expand...
Thanks :-)
 
Moti said:
Holdswort said:
Try instead a good UV-filter - it costs about $40 and it is good
for lens protection too. I had it on my G5 for a while, it really
helped a bit, but I didn't want to have a BULKY small cam - you can
mount it on G5 with an adapter only. The polarising filter cuts UV
light too for sure.
Click to expand...
I always ave a good UV filter on all my cameras maybe that is one
of the reasons I get very little PF. Never tried to shoot without
it though.
Click to expand...
Make few shots without the UV-filter, you'll be singing some other song ;)
 
Joerg-Engel said:
Nearly 30 % of all my pics show PF.
Inside-shots as well as outside-shots,
with onboard flash and without onboard flash,
small aperture or wide aperture – it doesn´t matter.
These 30 % of my pics look really terrible.
Click to expand...
Then you have a real problem. Mine doesn't even have 3% PF in my photos and I did about 3500 since I bought the camera.
Joerg-Engel said:
I´m not willing to spend my time by correcting pictures
with somekind of photoshop plug-ins,
let this do the SONY-loyalists ... (sorry folks)
Click to expand...
I find it a very strange statement from someone claiming he has 24 years of photography experience. When I did film photography and every shutter click cost me money, I spent much more time taking the perfect shots compared to the little time I spend now in Photosgop doing some corrections.

I used to spend many hours in a wet darkroom trying to get better results then what my film camera was able to produce. I do the same things now in photoshop in seconds.

I believe that if someone is not willing to spend some time on his hobby for better results, he should maybe go and do something else...
 
Holdswort said:
Holdswort said:
Holdswort said:
Try instead a good UV-filter - it costs about $40 and it is good
for lens protection too. I had it on my G5 for a while, it really
helped a bit, but I didn't want to have a BULKY small cam - you can
mount it on G5 with an adapter only. The polarising filter cuts UV
light too for sure.
Click to expand...
I always ave a good UV filter on all my cameras maybe that is one
of the reasons I get very little PF. Never tried to shoot without
it though.
Click to expand...
Make few shots without the UV-filter, you'll be singing some other
song ;)
Click to expand...
 
It's not like CA has been a big secret. I mean every other post on here for a while was noise and CA issues with the 828. If you read this forum, you must have known that before you bought it.

--
'Image is everything'
 
Joerg-Engel said:
I´m now in my 24th year of photografy and beside
using some very expensive analog SLR´s, I preowned
the 505, 505V, 707 and the 717.

give 828 a fair chance.

experience the same disappointing picture quality
with the second 828.
Click to expand...
What about the 70% you get that must be OK?
Joerg-Engel said:
I´m not willing to spend my time by correcting pictures
with somekind of photoshop plug-ins,
Click to expand...
Did you develop your own film prints over those 24 years, and how long did it take you to get 1 shot printed, one that was perfect??? that is.
Joerg-Engel said:
The job of my 828 should be,
to give me sharp and clear pictures
in a quality, that doesn´t have to be corrected in any way.

Hello
Joerg-Engel said:
Hang on since when has PF/CA got to do with sharp clear pictures, the images I have from the 828 are superior to other prosummer cameras that I have tried, including my old 707 and current 717, they are very clear and very very sharp, and PF etc does not take away from that, that said I am an amature and I almost always do some post corrections in PS, even friends with DSLRs do this so it is not a criteria to me, corrections or improvements take me all of about 60 seconds, a friend with a D100 often takes an hour to get the image just as he likes, to me that is not essential, and I find it visible that needs any correction in maybe 5% of my images, I think before I shoot as to what I am taking and the likely hood of it showing up before I shoot, I also look before any shot to see what I will get regardless of the PF.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
David Cooper.
 
Moti said:
Joerg-Engel said:
Nearly 30 % of all my pics show PF.
Inside-shots as well as outside-shots,
with onboard flash and without onboard flash,
small aperture or wide aperture – it doesn´t matter.
These 30 % of my pics look really terrible.
Click to expand...
Then you have a real problem. Mine doesn't even have 3% PF in my
photos and I did about 3500 since I bought the camera.
Moti said:
I´m not willing to spend my time by correcting pictures
with somekind of photoshop plug-ins,
let this do the SONY-loyalists ... (sorry folks)
Click to expand...
I find it a very strange statement from someone claiming he has 24
years of photography experience. When I did film photography and
every shutter click cost me money, I spent much more time taking
the perfect shots compared to the little time I spend now in
Photosgop doing some corrections.
I used to spend many hours in a wet darkroom trying to get better
results then what my film camera was able to produce. I do the same
things now in photoshop in seconds.
I believe that if someone is not willing to spend some time on his
hobby for better results, he should maybe go and do something
else...
Click to expand...
David Cooper writes

Could not agree more most proffessional photographer's I know love digital as they spent many hour trying to get the perfect shot, NOW! simply minutes for a perfect result.
David
 
Evil Eggplant said:
Not to stir the pot here, what you're doing is telling a guy with a
brand new car that he has to crawl under the car and bang the
starter with a baseball bat each time he wants to start the car.
But once the engine is running, the car is really quite nice.
Click to expand...
Eggplant, I feel your example here is way off base. You sound really silly. Sometimes you amaze me.
Evil Eggplant said:
If he is unhappy he should return the camera, unless he is willing
to do the photoshop fix on his images.
Click to expand...
He didn't say that he was unhappy, he just said he was concern because he found some minor CA. We all know you are anti-F828, but there are a lot of people who are not. He is smart enough to know if it will not meet his expectations, that he will return it if he can.
Evil Eggplant said:
There are a bunch of new 8mP cams coming down the pike that may
behave better than the 828. I would recommend he return the 828 and
wait. If he still wants the 828, it will probably be less expensive
once the minolta and nikon are on store shelves.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but so far from looking at the other offerings, I think the F828 will hold it's own. I am looking forward to seeing the new Minolta and hope to see it at PMA, but I don't think it is going to outperform the F828 based on past performance. But most of the new cameras shown or announced at the show will take two to six months to hit the stores.
Evil Eggplant said:
Unsatisfied owners of the 828 (who still have time to return the
camera) will really be in the drivers seat in a few weeks.
Click to expand...
You must read another site then I do. I haven't seen or read about any dissatisfied F828 owners. No camera is perfect and you know that. A person can aways wait for the perfect camera until the cows come home, but for most people it is better to capture the special memories now. One should to learn photography and enjoy whatever camera they may get. When you wait for the next camera and then the next, you will never take any pictures. Life will pass you by while you are waiting for perfection which will never come. All cameras have shortcomings and the one thing good photographers do best is learn to take beautiful photos with those imperfect cameras.;-)
Evil Eggplant said:
Andy Williams said:
i think you'll be happy when you try it on some real shots. that
said, it took 22 seconds to fix that shot (which wasn't horrible
to begin with) in photoshop (can do it the same way in paintshop
pro, too) using shay's pf action.

fixed



original

Click to expand...
--
rich
'beware the eggplant'
c-7oo, d-51O, DSC-F7O7, 3OOD
'it's not having what you want, it's wanting what you got'
http://www.iceninephotography.com
Click to expand...
--
Life is just a stage and we all have enough pictures to proof it!
 
I feel the same way as you. I remember all the time in the darkroom. Sort of miss the chemical smell. On second thought, maybe not,;)

Have fun with your new camera. Looking forward to seeing your new photos. Take care.
JamesMontgomery said:
I agree with Andy and the others. What we need to remember is that
there is really no difference between correcting PF in Photoshop
vs. correcting PF in firmware in the camera. True, it would be a
lot more convenient in the camera, but so long as it is corrected,
I don't see what the problem is. Time savings? I suppose.
However, those of us who are in photography realize that very
rarely do we ever see the perfect raw file.

Remember the old days? Some of my very best photography work was
with a negative that was flawed in some way - too much grain, a bit
underexposed, etc. We had to sweat and strain in the darkroom...
dodging, burning, switching papers, doing all sorts of contortions.
I remember spending days in the darkroom, and realizing I hadn't
seen tbe sun all day long.

These days, the change is so dramatic - it used to cost a fortune
to do color, much less BIG color - 8x10s, 5x7s, 11x14s. I am so
very thankful for what we have today, and if it takes a few seconds
to kill off some purple fringe, no big deal!

Let's take it all in perspective. I am awaiting my own camera from
Dell, and I am pretty certain it will have pics with PF, but I am
so enamoured of the overall design, and realizing that everything
the camera is deficient in is mostly correctable, makes me pretty
excited. I am convinced that the size, weight, speed,
user-friendliness, color fidelity, high ROI, flexibility, and FUN
of the camera will far far outweight a few minutes with Photoshop.
In fact, I think fixing things in PS is FUN as well.

So, don't dispair, and when you start to, then check out Andy's
photos, not to mention luminous landscapes, and others.

Smile!

James
Click to expand...
--
Life is just a stage and we all have enough pictures to proof it!
 
...show them the PF that the 828 produces, I would take that very shot you have posted.

Full blast flash shot indoors towards reflective materials making sure I can see the flash reflection in the shot. The more reflections the better to show it.

Fortunately for me, that type of photo is not my typical photo, so I don't have to worry about it. If that's the typical photo you have to take, then I recommend you return the camera because there is no way around it other than fixing it in post processing.

Olga
 
Most people are not putting up with anything. The F828 is not seriously flawed. I know of no good photographers here that are brand loyalists. You are really being disrespectful and not presenting a well inform arguement. In other words, you are being silly. They are enjoying a great camera and producing great pictures. I don't understand how people like you can continue to bash the F828 in the face of seeing all the great work being done with the camera. It seems that mainly people who don't own the camera make the biggest noise. I think it is silly in the face of all the happy owners. That to me is an unbelievable attitude, I am glad it is not mine.
D P O'neil said:
NO its not and thats the whole point!, it should not be acceptable
in any modern camera. If all th
e 828 owners sent their cameras back Sony would be forced to "Fix"
the 828, unfortunately too many of you are prepared to put up with
a machine which is seriously flawed simply because of brand
loyalty. If I had paid $1000 US for this thing I would want my
money back pronto!.
Dennis
Click to expand...
--
Life is just a stage and we all have enough pictures to proof it!
 
Take more phots, that is really a crappy shot to judge the cam by. I should know since 90% of my photos get deleted. I am my own worst critic. If you shoot lots of shiny chrome you are in for a lot of purple and the cam might not be for you. Don't just walk around the house shooting things for the sake of shooting I never have success with that. Think about your subject and compose a photgraph. Find and shoot subjects you plan on shooting to really test out if the cam is for you.
there is my .02 for now.
-Mike
 
In other words, there are certain types of shots that are going to aggravate any sort of PF inclination. Using direct onboard flash is one of them.

If it were up to me, ALL cameras --- digicams as well as dSLR --- would have their onboard flash sawed off at the hinges. I hate 'em.

As a sort of work-through, has anyone tried using a modified ShayTech flash enhancer device for their F828 flash. As a reference, see the following thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=1606930

The pictures are missing, but perhaps this will give some of you a start for another search.
Olga Johnson said:
...show them the PF that the 828 produces, I would take that very
shot you have posted.

Full blast flash shot indoors towards reflective materials making
sure I can see the flash reflection in the shot. The more
reflections the better to show it.

Fortunately for me, that type of photo is not my typical photo, so
I don't have to worry about it. If that's the typical photo you
have to take, then I recommend you return the camera because there
is no way around it other than fixing it in post processing.

Olga
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
 
Hi Moti,

I´m sorry, but I think you´re a little bit rude and unfair to me.

I started in photografy when I was 20 years old.

The only things I had at this time, was :
  • my camera and my car.
Now I´m 44 years old and I have :
  • my wonderful wife
  • two sons
  • one daughter
  • three cameras
And the only thing I want to have now,

is
  • A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME.
Joerg
 
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