dwalton
Leading Member
The lack of a usable RAW mode in the 828 really kills the deal for me. I want the flexibility that RAW processing provides.
D
http://yooperdoug.smugmug.com
D
--
http://yooperdoug.smugmug.com
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I'm liking the F828 less and less... :-(
- Thread starter Tigadee
- Start date
Andy Williams
Veteran Member
i must disagree 
but then you'd have to define "usable" in your terms.
the raw on sony is quite usable. i've done plenty of raw shooting and it works great. sure, it could be a non-proprietary format, directly readable by photoshop, but it does work, and it works well.
the 11 sec write time limits your usage to landscapes and other static subjects but again, that's what i really like it for. i can capture a landscape, and develop multiple exposures and get a great image output.
but then you'd have to define "usable" in your terms.the raw on sony is quite usable. i've done plenty of raw shooting and it works great. sure, it could be a non-proprietary format, directly readable by photoshop, but it does work, and it works well.
the 11 sec write time limits your usage to landscapes and other static subjects but again, that's what i really like it for. i can capture a landscape, and develop multiple exposures and get a great image output.
Yehuda Katz
Veteran Member
Eh, are you familiar with the Merkava?????
I most need the 28mm WA. Also speed is desirable, but I can live with what I have.
Exactly that's what I'm going to do.and wait for the 838 or 939 or whatever is
next end of this year!
Thanks for the recommended reading, but I had enough from this 828 reviews.
I've just finished shooting more than 100 photos that go into a book about DIY building a computer. The 717 was flawless, with excellent closeups.
Thank you, Haver, and I hope that you will eventually own a decent camera for your business.
Take care, Yehuda
Karl Gnter Wnsch
Veteran Member
Simply: Fluorite has a very nice optical property: It's got a high refraction index (better than glass or even most current rare earth glasses used in lenses) and most of all it's the same across the spectrum. This lens really shouldn't show much CA because of this...
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
One thing that I have really been craving myself, is good continuous shooting. I would really like that for portaits and animal shots. I expect that for Yehuda's portrait shots, it would make it easier to catch good expression - being able to take (for example) 5-7 shots in succession.
http://arn.reverbe.com/
--
http://arn.reverbe.com/
Yehuda Katz
Veteran Member
ups...forget that post...
i would go to sony and ask for another new camera. yours is definitive defective...
Roger
i would go to sony and ask for another new camera. yours is definitive defective...
Roger
Yehuda Katz
Veteran Member
If you were following the thread, you could know that that's EXACTLY what Tigadee had done, and he got from Sony an even worse 828.
Yehuda
Trials Photographer
Leading Member
I have to agree with Yehuda on this one. I shoot mostly motorcycle trials so you'd think rapid sequence shots would be useful. For the most part when I've tried this with the digital and the motor-driven film cameras before, I end up with lots of mediocre shots instead of a few good ones. Could be me but it just always worked out that way. What I do like about the motordrives is the near instant cycle time. That would be great to have because the shot you really want is 1/4 second after you just tripped the shutter. It took me about 6 months to figure out the 707 and I figure the learning curve with the 828 will be about the same. I'll have to recalibrate all my timing.
Dan
Dan
Michael Hewitt
Member
I'm sure it isn't for everyone, but with all the negativity going on I thought I'd just mention that having owned a 505V and 717, I am completely blown away by my new 828. We have a an infant, so the video quality was the biggest up-sell for us. That said, I've been extremely impressed with the crisp focus and good color depth/accuracy, and auto-exposure for flash. I did a lot of manual mode shooting with my 717 and likely still will for outdoor shots with the 828, but after shooting mostly indoor shots for a couple of weeks, I now have implicit trust in the focus/exposure of the 828.
I also love the incredible wide angle, the feel of the mechanical zoom, the amazing upload speed over USB 2 ( 3 minutes for 512MB), and the overall responsiveness.
I have always enjoyed upgrading to the latest Sony, and while there are bugs to be worked out of this camera, for me it has been the most pleasurable digital camera upgrade ever.
Michael Hewitt
I also love the incredible wide angle, the feel of the mechanical zoom, the amazing upload speed over USB 2 (
I have always enjoyed upgrading to the latest Sony, and while there are bugs to be worked out of this camera, for me it has been the most pleasurable digital camera upgrade ever.
Michael Hewitt
Olga Johnson
Veteran Member
Andy,i must disagree
terms.
the raw on sony is quite usable. i've done plenty of raw shooting
and it works great. sure, it could be a non-proprietary format,
directly readable by photoshop, but it does work, and it works well.
the 11 sec write time limits your usage to landscapes and other
static subjects but again, that's what i really like it for. i can
capture a landscape, and develop multiple exposures and get a great
image output.
I have to agree with the previous poster's statement of lack of usable raw. After using Canon's RAW files for over a year and settling with a good raw converter program, going to the Sony Raw is like leaving College to go back to First Grade.
It's not only the 15 seconds that it takes to write a single raw file that discourages me; it's the lousy converter software that accompanies it, and the atrocious real estate it requires on the storage card.
I assure you it is not very usable to me. It's merely passable.
Olga
worse with the flash problem, but we dont know about the blown out print just yet
--
- The French HiP -
Guillaume paris2
Veteran Member
In case someone hasn't said it loud enough yet: throw away that old flash you've put on your 828... or at least check the flash's specs and especially output voltage...
It's the same problem with many cameras (if not most), I have a D60 and after reading some posts of warning in the Canon DSLR forum, trust me, I'll NEVER try an unknown flash on my D60... yes, even that TTL-auto Pentax lying there in the closet... NEVER!
People say you can literally FRY the camera's internal electronics with an old flash that is sending too much current through the hotshoe (like 200 volts or so, each time you shoot it!!)
The bands you see on each camera you try, must be coming from a harmful voltage... Sony don't recommend the X32-something just for marketing purposes...
It's like when I can't use older Canon flashes on my D60, because the camera doesn't have the appropriate sensors to detect the light from the old flashes. When the camera only does ETTL, old TTL or A-TTL flashes are useless... it's technology, my friend! marketing, sometimes, but technology advances, most of the time!
Now for the poor opinion you have of the 828 experience: I know what you're talking about. It only took a 30-minute test in a shop with one of my CF cards, then back home, to realize why that camera has earned the title of "flawed jewel"...
The body IS great, I loved it better than my D60!! the D60 is polycarbonate, the 828 is full metal, it's a huge difference. The lens is impressive for a digicam, with its ability to zoom and focus manually with the rings... the zoom range is impressive especially when you see the max apertures you get, f2 is REALLY fast for a superzoom. 28mm at wide angle is GREAT. It writes soooooo fast to the card, it felt faster than my D60!! the camera is just a bit less responsive than my D60 (impressed here). Image review is faster than my D60.
Then I open up the pics at home... and begin to cherish my good old D60!! the noise was purely UNACCEPTABLE above ISO100 (which isn't much already). ISO400 is the routine sensivity on my D60, at which I can shoot in daylight and not worry about noise even if I could have gone with ISO100 in that situation. Well ISO200 wasn't so nice, and ISO400 on the 828 was just plain terrible, with those black dots everywhere!! on other cameras, white dots (=high frequency noise) are easy as 1 2 3 to remove with a noise-reduction software. I still haven't found a way to remove or at least make the black dots less visible!! and I know what I'm doing, trust me!
this is the real problem with the 828... unremovable noise. Noise is something I know when I shoot at ISO800 with my D60, I see white dots everywhere, and good color noise too. But that is easily removed. ISO800 on the 828 is just a waste of time.
a 828 with 5 megapixels would have been a KILLER. That metal body is just.... yummmm!!!!!!
Guillaume
It's the same problem with many cameras (if not most), I have a D60 and after reading some posts of warning in the Canon DSLR forum, trust me, I'll NEVER try an unknown flash on my D60... yes, even that TTL-auto Pentax lying there in the closet... NEVER!
People say you can literally FRY the camera's internal electronics with an old flash that is sending too much current through the hotshoe (like 200 volts or so, each time you shoot it!!)
The bands you see on each camera you try, must be coming from a harmful voltage... Sony don't recommend the X32-something just for marketing purposes...
It's like when I can't use older Canon flashes on my D60, because the camera doesn't have the appropriate sensors to detect the light from the old flashes. When the camera only does ETTL, old TTL or A-TTL flashes are useless... it's technology, my friend! marketing, sometimes, but technology advances, most of the time!
Now for the poor opinion you have of the 828 experience: I know what you're talking about. It only took a 30-minute test in a shop with one of my CF cards, then back home, to realize why that camera has earned the title of "flawed jewel"...
The body IS great, I loved it better than my D60!! the D60 is polycarbonate, the 828 is full metal, it's a huge difference. The lens is impressive for a digicam, with its ability to zoom and focus manually with the rings... the zoom range is impressive especially when you see the max apertures you get, f2 is REALLY fast for a superzoom. 28mm at wide angle is GREAT. It writes soooooo fast to the card, it felt faster than my D60!! the camera is just a bit less responsive than my D60 (impressed here). Image review is faster than my D60.
Then I open up the pics at home... and begin to cherish my good old D60!! the noise was purely UNACCEPTABLE above ISO100 (which isn't much already). ISO400 is the routine sensivity on my D60, at which I can shoot in daylight and not worry about noise even if I could have gone with ISO100 in that situation. Well ISO200 wasn't so nice, and ISO400 on the 828 was just plain terrible, with those black dots everywhere!! on other cameras, white dots (=high frequency noise) are easy as 1 2 3 to remove with a noise-reduction software. I still haven't found a way to remove or at least make the black dots less visible!! and I know what I'm doing, trust me!
this is the real problem with the 828... unremovable noise. Noise is something I know when I shoot at ISO800 with my D60, I see white dots everywhere, and good color noise too. But that is easily removed. ISO800 on the 828 is just a waste of time.
a 828 with 5 megapixels would have been a KILLER. That metal body is just.... yummmm!!!!!!
Guillaume
Hey Yehuda
I saw this. And i would return it again to Sony. Before this i would do some extensive testing - the lines look a little like interferences from a cellular phone or something.
Regards
Roger
I saw this. And i would return it again to Sony. Before this i would do some extensive testing - the lines look a little like interferences from a cellular phone or something.
Regards
Roger
Tigadee
Veteran Member
http://tigadee.fotopic.net/p2724814.html
Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee
--hip2 wrote:
do post some blown out pics so that we at STF can print them as is
and tell you (maybe even show you by taking a picture of the print
Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee
Tigadee
Veteran Member
If you need flash with those shots, you can't use it with the F828 as flash is disabled when in cont. or burst mode.
Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee
--
Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee
Tigadee
Veteran Member
That's quite funny because it reminds me of the first job I had right after I got the F828 and it involved a couple models.
I was so used to the shutter lag on the F707 that I didn't realise how quick the F828 was! The shutter lag was almost non-existant! So you can imagine that with the F707 mindset, the first few shots were of action BEFORE it was expected to happen, not as it happened! :-D
Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee
I was so used to the shutter lag on the F707 that I didn't realise how quick the F828 was! The shutter lag was almost non-existant! So you can imagine that with the F707 mindset, the first few shots were of action BEFORE it was expected to happen, not as it happened! :-D
--
Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee
Tigadee
Veteran Member
I enjoy the F828 in many ways but it takes some steps backwards in some ways which iut should never have needed to.
Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee
--
Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee
Tigadee
Veteran Member
The prob happened only after 500 pics. Happens only when bouncing the flash instead of direct. OTOH, this problkem onyl happens with this flash...
Well... Considering that the FX32 is one-third the price of the F828 here in Malaysia, I think it IS more marketing than for altruistic reasons. And the FX32 isn't a fast recharger...
Those are indeed its strengths, no doubt...
I am using it as a 5mp cam, unless I know my client wants a banner or poster or something huge...
--
Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum