Reading mode: Light Dark

A2 vs 828

Go to last post
R

rensheng

New member
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
San Jose, US
I have been using sony 828 for a while. Recently I got my A2. Below is my opinion about both cameras:
  • A2's AS is very pratical, specially in recording movies
  • noise from both camera are about the same and not very good
  • 828 has better start-up time
  • 828 has better shutter lag
  • 828 has much better flush
  • 828 has smaller file size. I can't tell too much difference between 828's 2M+ files and A2's 4M- files. Both are 8MP setting
  • A2's movies looks better on my notebook (IBM A31P)
Both are not living to my expectation. My ideal one would be 828's feature with 717's size and noise level with AS at this class.

Just FYI.
 
I feel the same way as you. I think the 828 may edge out the A2 due to color and noise. Sony has F2 also. BUT I do like the A2, so Im giving it a chance.
rensheng said:
I have been using sony 828 for a while. Recently I got my A2. Below
is my opinion about both cameras:
  • A2's AS is very pratical, specially in recording movies
  • noise from both camera are about the same and not very good
  • 828 has better start-up time
  • 828 has better shutter lag
  • 828 has much better flush
  • 828 has smaller file size. I can't tell too much difference
between 828's 2M+ files and A2's 4M- files. Both are 8MP setting
  • A2's movies looks better on my notebook (IBM A31P)
Both are not living to my expectation. My ideal one would be 828's
feature with 717's size and noise level with AS at this class.

Just FYI.
Click to expand...
 
Do you have a comment about the relative qualities of the EVFs?
David
 
rensheng said:
I have been using sony 828 for a while. Recently I got my A2. Below
is my opinion about both cameras:
  • A2's AS is very pratical, specially in recording movies
  • noise from both camera are about the same and not very good
  • 828 has better start-up time
  • 828 has better shutter lag
  • 828 has much better flush
  • 828 has smaller file size. I can't tell too much difference
between 828's 2M+ files and A2's 4M- files. Both are 8MP setting
  • A2's movies looks better on my notebook (IBM A31P)
Both are not living to my expectation. My ideal one would be 828's
feature with 717's size and noise level with AS at this class.

Just FYI.
Click to expand...
--I don't own either camera. My recollection of file size issues was that the Sony was quite large. On the review on this site the sizes are:
Sony 828
RAW 16.9megs
TIFF 23.4 megs
Jpeg Fine full size 3.5
smaller jpeg 2.0

The full review for the A2 is not out yet.

You may have been comparing the smaller sizes of one camera with a similar size from the other. However, the full size numbers seem to be overly large for the Sony. Can an A2 owner comment?

Jim Rickards



Photo critiques are always welcome.
 
I've been reading postings for the past few months and this last one seems to confirm what I've started to suspect.

High end prosumer (below SLR class) digicams are not quire there yet. I've waited eagerly the 828 only to realise that it was not to be the one. Then the Canon Pro1. That's out the window too (read the reviews). Then the Nikon 8700 (I read somewhere that Canon is better thus by inference not good enough either). Now the A2 is either equal or worse in some aspects to the 828. Back to square one.

They all seem more like toys for boys. They have all the bells and whisles but when the going gets tough they can not follow.

too much noise here,
too much CA there,
too much shutter lag .....

And they don't come cheap. 1000+Euro for a camera that will be outdated in six months and obsolete in 12 is too much. I can't afford to be that trendy. I remember I bought my EOS 5 with Canon 28-105 lens for 800 E and five years now it is tip top.

Opinions?

Chronis

P.S. What's wrong with 35mm full size CCDs? Why don't manufacturers struggle with smaller sizes and have all these noise issues? Surelly not camera size cause I remember that last of the 35mm point and shoots were compact enough.
rensheng said:
I have been using sony 828 for a while. Recently I got my A2. Below
is my opinion about both cameras:
  • A2's AS is very pratical, specially in recording movies
  • noise from both camera are about the same and not very good
  • 828 has better start-up time
  • 828 has better shutter lag
  • 828 has much better flush
  • 828 has smaller file size. I can't tell too much difference
between 828's 2M+ files and A2's 4M- files. Both are 8MP setting
  • A2's movies looks better on my notebook (IBM A31P)
Both are not living to my expectation. My ideal one would be 828's
feature with 717's size and noise level with AS at this class.

Just FYI.
Click to expand...
 
I also tried the 828 and found it very sharp but with a lot of flaws that caused me to sadly return it.

I bought the A2 and have had the A1 since October. Love the A1 and -tho I had to send the A2 back for faulty AS--am expecting a replacement unit.

My A1 is fantastic and less noise than others. I compared many shots and the detail is definitely better on the A2. Slight variance of color and in some shots the A2 is better and in others the A1.

I don't use raw shots and am not into action shots. WB better on the A2.

I do not print oversized. I know little processing but autofix and some other simple contrast and color alterations.

I had to finally admit the A2 was slightly better--even the EVF--so if my replacement does as well--I will be selling the A1. It is a hard choice.

I also bought the 8700. I had the 5700 and am particularly pleased with the 8700 except for the lack of WA and the same imbedded menus vs. the Minola dials and amenities and manual zoom.

I have seen virtually no CA or PF in either cam and the 8700 has less noise and slightly more resolution.

Only my personal opinions.

I would say to try for your own uses or wait for reviews.

Good luck.I most seriously considered the D70 and Pentax istd. I just like the size and convenience of the prosumers for my experience right now.

The Minolta features and AS are truly wonderful. Comparing shots when the AS is disabled or not working is an eye opener. And I don't know that I would dismiss the Canon either. I just was more used to these two cams.

Linda
urban75 said:
urban75 said:
the reviews).
Click to expand...
'Out of the window'?!!

Where's all these terrible, scathing reviews then?
I've only seen some fairly impressive photo samples.
Click to expand...
 
A2:
RAW 12MB
TIFF 24MB
ExFine 8MB
Fine 4MB
STD 2.5MB

all are round up.
Jim Rickards said:
rensheng said:
I have been using sony 828 for a while. Recently I got my A2. Below
is my opinion about both cameras:
  • A2's AS is very pratical, specially in recording movies
  • noise from both camera are about the same and not very good
  • 828 has better start-up time
  • 828 has better shutter lag
  • 828 has much better flush
  • 828 has smaller file size. I can't tell too much difference
between 828's 2M+ files and A2's 4M- files. Both are 8MP setting
  • A2's movies looks better on my notebook (IBM A31P)
Both are not living to my expectation. My ideal one would be 828's
feature with 717's size and noise level with AS at this class.

Just FYI.
Click to expand...
--I don't own either camera. My recollection of file size issues
was that the Sony was quite large. On the review on this site the
sizes are:
Sony 828
RAW 16.9megs
TIFF 23.4 megs
Jpeg Fine full size 3.5
smaller jpeg 2.0

The full review for the A2 is not out yet.

You may have been comparing the smaller sizes of one camera with a
similar size from the other. However, the full size numbers seem
to be overly large for the Sony. Can an A2 owner comment?

Jim Rickards



Photo critiques are always welcome.
Click to expand...
 
Looka said:
all are round up.
Jim Rickards said:
rensheng said:
I have been using sony 828 for a while. Recently I got my A2. Below
is my opinion about both cameras:
  • A2's AS is very pratical, specially in recording movies
  • noise from both camera are about the same and not very good
  • 828 has better start-up time
  • 828 has better shutter lag
  • 828 has much better flush
  • 828 has smaller file size. I can't tell too much difference
between 828's 2M+ files and A2's 4M- files. Both are 8MP setting
  • A2's movies looks better on my notebook (IBM A31P)
Both are not living to my expectation. My ideal one would be 828's
feature with 717's size and noise level with AS at this class.

Just FYI.
Click to expand...
--I don't own either camera. My recollection of file size issues
was that the Sony was quite large. On the review on this site the
sizes are:
Sony 828
RAW 16.9megs
TIFF 23.4 megs
Jpeg Fine full size 3.5
smaller jpeg 2.0

The full review for the A2 is not out yet.

You may have been comparing the smaller sizes of one camera with a
similar size from the other. However, the full size numbers seem
to be overly large for the Sony. Can an A2 owner comment?

Jim Rickards



Photo critiques are always welcome.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jim Rickards



Photo critiques are always welcome.
 
What about Minolta Z2... could that be the compromise people been looking for (less pixels + minolta high-tech)?
 
Just curious - what was the issue with the AS on your first A2? Was it obvious or could it be something that we might need to test on our own cameras?

Lee
lharris said:
I also tried the 828 and found it very sharp but with a lot of
flaws that caused me to sadly return it.

I bought the A2 and have had the A1 since October. Love the A1 and
-tho I had to send the A2 back for faulty AS--am expecting a
replacement unit.
Click to expand...
...
lharris said:
Linda
Click to expand...
 
urban75 said:
urban75 said:
the reviews).
Click to expand...
'Out of the window'?!!

Where's all these terrible, scathing reviews then?
I've only seen some fairly impressive photo samples.
Click to expand...
Read the dpresources review. It is not terrible but it is not raving either. For the camera I would spend 1000Euros on I want the review to have his jaw snapped in awe. Just like the film camera I bought few years ago. Know what I mean?

Didn't say it is worthless. I said it is flawed in more than one significant ways.

Chronis
 
Ren

Thanks for your response. When you say "A2 has better resolution", it is supposed to be 4 times better. Would this be true? In my opinion, as a Nikon film SLR owner looking to go digital, the A1's EVF is very disappointing... unclear and lacking sharpness. I am hoping the A2 is a major improvement, altho won't have a chance to see it in Australia for many months yet.
rensheng said:
A2 has better resolution, but I feel 828's color is slightly close
to reality. Both are enhanced too much to lose ISO fidelity in my
opinion.

ren
Click to expand...
 
Chronis said:
SNIP
Click to expand...
Chronis said:
P.S. What's wrong with 35mm full size CCDs? Why don't manufacturers
struggle with smaller sizes and have all these noise issues?
Surelly not camera size cause I remember that last of the 35mm
point and shoots were compact enough.
Click to expand...
Nothing is wrong with full frame - you've got a choice of the Kodak or the Canon 1Ds at the moment.

Of course, Full frame needs a lot bigger heavier, and more expensive glass than cameras with smaller sensors like the A2.

They are also way more expensive, as costs go up logarythmically in producing bigger sensors.

If you want full frame cheap at the moment, you will have to pay a lot of money, although costs will eventually doubtless go down.
You will still have the extra weight and bulk though.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
David Martin said:
Chronis said:
SNIP
Click to expand...
Member said:
P.S. What's wrong with 35mm full size CCDs? Why don't manufacturers
struggle with smaller sizes and have all these noise issues?
Surelly not camera size cause I remember that last of the 35mm
point and shoots were compact enough.
Click to expand...
Nothing is wrong with full frame - you've got a choice of the Kodak
or the Canon 1Ds at the moment.
Click to expand...
Yes but you have to sell a member of the family to get one :-)
Member said:
Of course, Full frame needs a lot bigger heavier, and more
expensive glass than cameras with smaller sensors like the A2.
They are also way more expensive, as costs go up logarythmically in
producing bigger sensors.
Click to expand...
This does not make sense(or maybe I miss something). I'm not asking for 20MP 35mm sensors but say 8MP noise free 35mm ones. I would imagine minutarisation being difficult and expensive not the other way round.

As for bulk as i said in my orginal email I can still see in show windows 35mm film compacts that are quite small.

Doesn't really add up does it? Maybe is worth spawning a new thread on the subject.

Chronis
Member said:
If you want full frame cheap at the moment, you will have to pay a
lot of money, although costs will eventually doubtless go down.
You will still have the extra weight and bulk though.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
Click to expand...
 
Chronis said:
David Martin said:
Chronis said:
SNIP
Click to expand...
Chronis said:
P.S. What's wrong with 35mm full size CCDs? Why don't manufacturers
struggle with smaller sizes and have all these noise issues?
Surelly not camera size cause I remember that last of the 35mm
point and shoots were compact enough.
Click to expand...
Nothing is wrong with full frame - you've got a choice of the Kodak
or the Canon 1Ds at the moment.
Click to expand...
Yes but you have to sell a member of the family to get one :-)
Click to expand...
Surely you have at least one member of the family who is surplus to requirements?
I got an excellent price for my mother.
Chronis said:
Chronis said:
Of course, Full frame needs a lot bigger heavier, and more
expensive glass than cameras with smaller sensors like the A2.
They are also way more expensive, as costs go up logarythmically in
producing bigger sensors.
Click to expand...
This does not make sense(or maybe I miss something). I'm not asking
for 20MP 35mm sensors but say 8MP noise free 35mm ones. I would
imagine minutarisation being difficult and expensive not the other
way round.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid the way it works is that costs are primarily a function of the area of silicon, not density. Even the chip in a camera like the A2 is huge compared to most of the chips used in computers.

The famous Moore's Law predicting a fall of around 50% every 18 months refers to the number of transistors in a given area of silicon, not the area of silicon.

On top of that, the bigger the area of silicon, the more likely it is that there will be flaws meaning you have to throw it away.

Even the APS-sized sensors used in cameras like the 300D and 10D cost several hundred dollars
Chronis said:
As for bulk as i said in my orginal email I can still see in show
windows 35mm film compacts that are quite small.
Click to expand...
Yep, and I can buy relatively compact lenses for my 10D. They are the ones which are the dimmest, maybe 3.5 at best.

To capture a lot of light you need a big area of glass, to correct the image you need complex lenses.
Both add to both the cost and weight.

I'm afraid we are pretty well stuck with the trade-offs for this level of technology, although the new DxO lens correction software may help future lens generations, as you can do most of the corrections for things like CA in software rather than needing such complex and bulky lenses.

At the moment, my 28-70/2.8L is going to weigh comfortably more than the whole of an A2!
Chronis said:
Doesn't really add up does it? Maybe is worth spawning a new thread
on the subject.

Chronis
Chronis said:
If you want full frame cheap at the moment, you will have to pay a
lot of money, although costs will eventually doubtless go down.
You will still have the extra weight and bulk though.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
Chronis said:
P.S. What's wrong with 35mm full size CCDs? Why don't manufacturers
struggle with smaller sizes and have all these noise issues?
Surelly not camera size cause I remember that last of the 35mm
point and shoots were compact enough.
Click to expand...
Cost. It costs Canon about US$2000 to produce each sensor of the type used in the 1Ds. A good percentage of those sensors fail QC, thus the cost per usable sensor is even higher. At this point Canon may be breaking even on the 1Ds but when the camera first came out they were selling 'em at a loss.

It'll be a good while before we have mass market cameras with 24x36mm sensors. At any rate such sensors won't be practical for zoom-equipped compacts, not unless you want to revert to slow lenses with limited focal length range. A true 28–200mm f/2.8–3.5 lens, not the so-called "equivalent" used by the A1 & A2, would be a monster .

-Dave-
 
Chronis said:
High end prosumer (below SLR class) digicams are not quire there
yet.
Click to expand...
Depends what you want. If you want full DSLR image quality in a camera that you can easily carry around with a 28-200 lens on it - no they are not there yet. You just can't get the portability/capability mix that these cameras offer with a larger sensor - the lenses needs to scale way up to compensate.
Chronis said:
And they don't come cheap. 1000+Euro for a camera that will be
outdated in six months and obsolete in 12 is too much. I can't
afford to be that trendy. I remember I bought my EOS 5 with Canon
28-105 lens for 800 E and five years now it is tip top.
Click to expand...
Obsolete? I still occasionally use an Olympus OM-1 film SLR, and it works just fine. Does it have the bells and whistles of today's cameras? No - of course not. Is it obsolete? No again. It works just fine - has great optics, and takes great photos. Why should the A2 or 828 be any more obsolete in 6 months than your EOS 5?
 
Chronis said:
Read the dpresources review. It is not terrible but it is not
raving either. For the camera I would spend 1000Euros on I want the
review to have his jaw snapped in awe. Just like the film camera I
bought few years ago. Know what I mean?
Click to expand...
So you're basing your assertion that the camera is "out of the window" on one single review?

And if you're waiting for a reviewer to 'snap his jaw in awe' at the results from an 8 megapixel prosumer camera, I suspect you're in for a long wait.

Everyone knows that there's compromises at this level. If you want awesome quality and pro quality features, get a dSLR. If you want a capable, versatile camera that can take great pictures most of the time, a Pro1 will do just fine.
 
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