Reading mode: Light Dark

Perfectly focused 717 photo post here!

Go to last post





wildbill said:
Some say the 717 does not focus properly.

Others disagree!

I have been viewing some photos taken with the 717 and not to be on
either side of the fence but I really haven't seen any that look as
sharp as ones taken with the 707.

So, Shay and others show me some GREAT Portrait shots (indoor)
taken with the 717.

Regards,

wildbill
Click to expand...
--
Jay Jervey
Former Sony DSC-S70, S85, F707
Canon S200 (ultra portable)
Sony DSC-F717
 
Nice Jay. Very NICE!

The red car reminds me of the 707 reds (somewhat). What do you think?

Thanks for sharing with us. They reallly do look good.

wildbill
 
Yup. The 717 can still saturate those reds in bright sunlight (particularly MY car). The rose was also clipped but I was able to recover most of the detail with PS levels and desaturation. Things were much worse when I tried these kind of shots with the 707.

The car and rose were shot at -0.7 EV. I really needed to do -1 or -1.3. All in all though I am VERY satisfied with the 717 color rendition and saturation.
wildbill said:
Nice Jay. Very NICE!

The red car reminds me of the 707 reds (somewhat). What do you think?

Thanks for sharing with us. They reallly do look good.

wildbill
Click to expand...
--
Jay Jervey
Former Sony DSC-S70, S85, F707
Canon S200 (ultra portable)
Sony DSC-F717
 
Hey there, buddy. :-)

I'm totally on-board with ya. That why I posted the little out-of-focus runt. :-)

Funny. It's only been a few days in reality, and it can seem like a hundred years at the rate that things pick up in the forum when it comes to a problem, minor or major.

I'm sure that in short time, all of this will pass, and we'll all be posting better stuff. The best is yet to come, I'm sure of it! You were just trying to challenge us. And we need it. :-)
wildbill said:
Ulysses said:
I'm chilled.

But I do have an awful lot of pain from my wisdom teeth right about
now.
Click to expand...
Sorry about your teeth. Just sit back a enjoy the photos. You have
to admit there has been to much to talk (of an unproductive nature)
about focusing and frankly I am tired of it myself. I thought it
might be a nice change for people with the 717 to share their
photos. That's all it is honest. (:-)

Best regards,

wildbill
'
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 
I'm surprised that I haven't found this discussed yet, but I'm getting the distinct feeling that Sony has backed off the default in-camera sharpening slightly with the 717. As to why they'd want to do this I'm not sure, but I'd imagine the aim would be to decrease apparent noise in images -- I haven't seen anyone griping about excessive sharpening artefacts with the 707 for over a year, when it was being vigorously compared with the DiMAGE 7, and I've certainly never seen it as a problem.

Looking at a wide selection of pics, from quite a few people, it's my impression that 717 images are almost always just a touch "softer" even when it is obvious that the critical focus plane is somewhere in shot. IMO this softness is exacerbated by the 717's tendency to slightly overexpose in some situations relative to its predecessor, putting something of a veil over images in the process.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. It merely brings the 717 more into line with pretty much all other digicams, whose images need a touch of USM if you want results from which the subjective sharpness jumps out and grabs you in the way we've become accustomed to from the 707. This is readily accepted with DLSRs where optimal results are more or less expected to be achieved only after some post processing.

Look carefully at highly detailed subjects, and you'll find that the captured detail is all there. It's simply smoother to begin with. Try a modest amount of sharpening with some originals from Harry Behret's excellent series -- "brickwall" is a possible exception and really should not be dwelled upon -- and you'll find there's every bit as much detail from the 717, and with no rider attached.
http://www.pbase.com/hpb/707_v_717&page=all

Here's another image that I think speaks volumes for the 717's true potential. It's one of a group set to me privately by Helen Betts, and is one of the very first shots taken with her new F717. The detail in the buildings here is phenomenal; all the more remarkable when you consider that this 800 x 600 downsample (that's all that's been done) was compressed to only 135 kB for expediency -- well below the JPEG quality level we would normally use for gallery shots!



And FWIW here's the same shot with USM applied in Photoshop to the tune of 100/0.6/2. Considering the relatively low grade JPEG we're starting with here, this suggests that orignal images can take quite a degree of enahancement without suffering any ill effects at all, and the idea of doing so routinely is a minor change in direction:



I'd say that this image not only renders pointless any discussion about her particular 717's capture potential, let alone her ability to extract perfect results from the camera; it actually strengthens the argument that there's a very real problem with its low light focus performance. See
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=3594998
and
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=3599985

I'm convinced there's definitely a focus "issue" to be resolved with the F717, but I believe there's a lot of confusion running between focus and apparent sharpness. They're two quite separate things.

Mike
 
Interesting.

Phil implies that the clipping is over... kaput... a done deal.

Do you have the original rose we can look at?
And the car, while you're at it?
I'd like to check the RGB numbers.

There's a difference between clipped and well saturated, which ought to show up one way or the other.
Jay Jervey said:
Yup. The 717 can still saturate those reds in bright sunlight
(particularly MY car). The rose was also clipped but I was able to
recover most of the detail with PS levels and desaturation. Things
were much worse when I tried these kind of shots with the 707.

The car and rose were shot at -0.7 EV. I really needed to do -1 or
-1.3. All in all though I am VERY satisfied with the 717 color
rendition and saturation.
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 
umm...being positive doesn't mean he is stupid.
jgaddy said:
Come on Ulysses, you have an answer for everything else, I am
really waiting for your answer on this.......You have got to be one
of the most positive people I have ever listened. You can explain
everything and nothing is ever wrong. I've got some ocean front
property in Arizona I would love for you to buy!
Click to expand...
--
John
 
Phil has answered that himself.

He takes outdoor pics in sunlight because those are the conditions under which ANY camera responds and shows itself off BEST. No one shoots indoors or in fluorescent or in cloudy conditions to show the camera at its full potential. You test film in the same way. :-)

Nothing wrong with that.

Unless you're talking studio lighting, most indoor shots are going to at best look kind of... well... amateurish. The problem is in the lighting and the framing, not intrinsically a problem with the camera.
jgaddy said:
There must be a reason why camera reviews and this board do not
post very many of them. How can you do an accurate camera review
if 99% of your shots are outdoor shots under sunlight????
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 
Gimme a few minutes to get some originals ready. Be back...
Ulysses said:
Phil implies that the clipping is over... kaput... a done deal.

Do you have the original rose we can look at?
And the car, while you're at it?
I'd like to check the RGB numbers.

There's a difference between clipped and well saturated, which
ought to show up one way or the other.
Jay Jervey said:
Yup. The 717 can still saturate those reds in bright sunlight
(particularly MY car). The rose was also clipped but I was able to
recover most of the detail with PS levels and desaturation. Things
were much worse when I tried these kind of shots with the 707.

The car and rose were shot at -0.7 EV. I really needed to do -1 or
-1.3. All in all though I am VERY satisfied with the 717 color
rendition and saturation.
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

Click to expand...
--
Jay Jervey
Former Sony DSC-S70, S85, F707
Canon S200 (ultra portable)
Sony DSC-F717
 
Very interesting Mike. Why don't you copy this post and start a new thread. Should generate a lot of discussion on its own.

--
John
 
Amen and Amen,

I absolutely love the color quality of the 717. It beats my 707 hands down. The kicker is when I use the camera in low light situations with the laser assisted focus. the 707 beats the (2 cameras I have tried so far) 717 quiet a bit.

Please put your camera on a tripod in a dimly lit room that will require flash and the laser assisted focus and try both cameras taking pictures of small print or a resolution chart with the zoom set at 5x and also 10x and post them for for comparison so we can all see.

I am personally praying that I had the only 2 goofy F717 cameras that will ever be made but I am shocked enough that I am waiting a few weeks to try another one.

That sounds pretty negative but truthfully I am only writing this because I like the Sony cameras so much and want to own one that does a good job even in the tough lighting situations like the 707 does.
Sincerely,
Oran Green
jgaddy said:
This is waht kills me about this whole issue......

Nobody is questioning full daylight shots, How about some indoor
pics with or without flash??????

There must be a reason why camera reviews and this board do not
post very many of them. How can you do an accurate camera review
if 99% of your shots are outdoor shots under sunlight????
Click to expand...
 
Ulysses said:
Interesting.

Phil implies that the clipping is over... kaput... a done deal.
Click to expand...
You are right Ulysses you can tell somewhat that it is gone from Helen's photos of the books.

I also noticed that the shots are brighter. Is this good or bad? I don't know.

wildbill
 
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