Why I LOVE Sony !!

[Lloydy]

12-24, 80-100, 50 and 70-300. I agree with your point, to an extent, but I was using what I had.

The 717 is versatile, sharp, light and the noise issue is way out of proportion. I doubt many people have compared large prints. Yes, the DSLR has cleaner noise when you view on a monitor.

As I have posted many times before, I print 717 images up to 20x30 consistently and noise is rarely visible. I do use Neat Image, occasionally, for both cameras.

I have just printed a 30x40 image from the 717 which is on display in one of our shops - no NI. Most people think it must be from a medium format or, at least, a DSLR. They are always surprised when they know it is from the 717.
Anyway, I love the 717 and am looking forward to the 828.

Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

To date, the DSLR oufit with 4 lenses, etc., etc., has cost me 4
times my investment in the 717. I doubt I'll be buying any more
lenses. Don't get me wrong, it is a great camera - but not for this
type of work.

For this type of work you need the right lens with the DSLR. A
80-200 f2.8 lens would give you crisper pictures at a higher
shutter speed (not too mention much less noise).

Thanks,

Lee

 

[Lloydy]

I agree to a point but the 12-24 I bought recently cost me more than the 717 did. I would much rather invest the money in the 828 and have a lot more fun.

The DSLR is good but not as consistently outstanding as the 717. Incidentally, I find the DSLR much better for portrait work than the 717.
Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

Thanks,

Lee

Don't get me wrong, I like the Sony (I own the F717) but I think
that your comparison is not valid. Can you give us the specs on
the lens that you were using with the D100? As one of the other
posters stated, if you are wide open and your aperature is f5.6
then it was the lens that wan't up to the job...

Thanks for sharing!

Lee

Shot #1 Sony DSC717
ISO 100 - 1/30, f2.4, 190mm

Shot #2 Nikon D100
ISO 3200 (Yes, 3200) - 1/50, f5.6, 315mm

--
The Secret to Life is... Calcium!!
http://max-fun.fotopic.net

 

[Lloydy]

Cheryl, I hope you have as much enjoyment from it as I do. A GREAT camera.
Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

 

[zazoo1994]

Hi Dave,

I agree. The F717 is a great camera. I know I love mine mainly due to the lens (f2.0 wide - f2.4 tele)... I would tend to disagree with the noise issue though (vs. a DSLR) but this has been argued to death.

Anyway, I can't wait to see the F828. I was able to test one out at a show in Toronto and in my opinion looks and feels much nicer than my F717. Can't wait for Phil's reviews...

Thanks,

Lee

Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

To date, the DSLR oufit with 4 lenses, etc., etc., has cost me 4
times my investment in the 717. I doubt I'll be buying any more
lenses. Don't get me wrong, it is a great camera - but not for this
type of work.

For this type of work you need the right lens with the DSLR. A
80-200 f2.8 lens would give you crisper pictures at a higher
shutter speed (not too mention much less noise).

Thanks,

Lee

 

[Ace Kool]

I suppose I could take a 717, set it to 5.6 at maximum zoom, take a Nikon D100 with a 2.8 lens at 200mm, take equivalent lighting and make a post titled, "Why I love Nikon". It would be kind of the same arrangment. At any rate, I too look forward to the DSC F-828 if in fact there really is going to be one. It has some features I much prefer over the 717. The first and most obvious is the manual zoom. I hope it lives up to much of what has been made of it.

I've been doing a working shoot with a local band in Bangkok for
the past 2 weeks. Have taken 1500+ frames using my 717 and DSLR.
The 717 shoots in almost no light and delivers clear crisp shots.
The DSLR struggles and every shot has to have Neat Image applied.
As most of the shots were trying to capture motion - a tripod or
flash was not a consideration.
A couple of examples below - adjusted for brightness/contrast - no
noise filtering applied. They both come up clean using Neat Image.
These were the only 2 shots I could find that had - close to -
similar lighting. The Sony shot, however, had an extra red stage
flood on the subject.
The 717 was a delight to use. The DSLR ? A pain in the proverbial !!

I apologise the files are a little large.

Shot #1 Sony DSC717
ISO 100 - 1/30, f2.4, 190mm



Shot #2 Nikon D100
ISO 3200 (Yes, 3200) - 1/50, f5.6, 315mm



Where's my 828 ?!?!

Rgds, Dave
http://www.pixplanet.biz

--
Lance
http://www.pbase.com/lhphoto

 

[LanceD]

Dave,

Yes, for low-light shooting, the F series cameras are extremely good compare with other cams. Just that in this particular case, the D100 could do better with a diff. lens. When you have to deal with low-light and also require large DOF, then nothing can beat the F. But if shallow DOF is OK, then the D100 is OK in low-light as well.

Regardless, low-light is the strongest characteristic of the F series cameras. Both for its focus ability and low aperature.

I've been doing a working shoot with a local band in Bangkok for
the past 2 weeks. Have taken 1500+ frames using my 717 and DSLR.
The 717 shoots in almost no light and delivers clear crisp shots.
The DSLR struggles and every shot has to have Neat Image applied.
As most of the shots were trying to capture motion - a tripod or
flash was not a consideration.
A couple of examples below - adjusted for brightness/contrast - no
noise filtering applied. They both come up clean using Neat Image.
These were the only 2 shots I could find that had - close to -
similar lighting. The Sony shot, however, had an extra red stage
flood on the subject.
The 717 was a delight to use. The DSLR ? A pain in the proverbial !!

I apologise the files are a little large.

Shot #1 Sony DSC717
ISO 100 - 1/30, f2.4, 190mm



Shot #2 Nikon D100
ISO 3200 (Yes, 3200) - 1/50, f5.6, 315mm



Where's my 828 ?!?!

Rgds, Dave
http://www.pixplanet.biz

--
Lance
http://www.pbase.com/lhphoto

--
Lance
http://www.pbase.com/lhphoto

 

[Artworks]

The DSLR struggles and every shot has to have Neat Image applied.

They both come up clean using Neat Image.

Hi, I'm new here and have seen several references to "New Image". What is that, please?

Thanks,
Art H

 

[snooter]

The dSLR produced subpar images because you have a subpar lens on it. For that kinda of shooting, subpar is an accurate description for that lens, and it is not surprising to get results like that (especially at iso 3200). You can't expect a sensor to "look" through "coke bottle glass" in low-light and still see sharply.

In your situation, without the right dSLR equipment, I would say to definitely stick with the 717(828), which is (going to be) an incredible camera. Lenses make a big difference in the dSLR world. All lenses are not equal. Of course, the good lenses cost $$$, and the great ones $$$$$. Those are both points in favor of the 717/828. Quite frankly, I would rather have the 828 than a dSLR with marginal/submarginal glass on it. With the right lenses (read $$$$), I'll take the dSLR no doubt.

Have fun shooting, regardless which camera you use.

I've been doing a working shoot with a local band in Bangkok for
the past 2 weeks. Have taken 1500+ frames using my 717 and DSLR.
The 717 shoots in almost no light and delivers clear crisp shots.
The DSLR struggles and every shot has to have Neat Image applied.
As most of the shots were trying to capture motion - a tripod or
flash was not a consideration.
A couple of examples below - adjusted for brightness/contrast - no
noise filtering applied. They both come up clean using Neat Image.
These were the only 2 shots I could find that had - close to -
similar lighting. The Sony shot, however, had an extra red stage
flood on the subject.
The 717 was a delight to use. The DSLR ? A pain in the proverbial !!

 

[Lloydy]

I wouldn't call the 70-300 G subpar. It produces beautifully clear pictures in the right circumstances.
I think the 717 does a remarkable job and am looking forward to getting the 828.

The Sony's are a lot of fun. I have owned 4 different ones now. DSLR's are a lot of hard work.
Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

In your situation, without the right dSLR equipment, I would say to
definitely stick with the 717(828), which is (going to be) an
incredible camera. Lenses make a big difference in the dSLR
world. All lenses are not equal. Of course, the good lenses cost
$$$, and the great ones $$$$$. Those are both points in favor of
the 717/828. Quite frankly, I would rather have the 828 than a
dSLR with marginal/submarginal glass on it. With the right lenses
(read $$$$), I'll take the dSLR no doubt.

Have fun shooting, regardless which camera you use.

I've been doing a working shoot with a local band in Bangkok for
the past 2 weeks. Have taken 1500+ frames using my 717 and DSLR.
The 717 shoots in almost no light and delivers clear crisp shots.
The DSLR struggles and every shot has to have Neat Image applied.
As most of the shots were trying to capture motion - a tripod or
flash was not a consideration.
A couple of examples below - adjusted for brightness/contrast - no
noise filtering applied. They both come up clean using Neat Image.
These were the only 2 shots I could find that had - close to -
similar lighting. The Sony shot, however, had an extra red stage
flood on the subject.
The 717 was a delight to use. The DSLR ? A pain in the proverbial !!

 

[Lloydy]

Lance, Hi.

Another consideration I had was that the band has 14 members and they do a lot of dance routines. DOF was a primary concern and, again, the 717 delivered. A DSLR at f2.8 would not give me the DOF I needed. Even the shots at f5.6 have shallow DOF.
Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

Regardless, low-light is the strongest characteristic of the F
series cameras. Both for its focus ability and low aperature.

I've been doing a working shoot with a local band in Bangkok for
the past 2 weeks. Have taken 1500+ frames using my 717 and DSLR.
The 717 shoots in almost no light and delivers clear crisp shots.
The DSLR struggles and every shot has to have Neat Image applied.
As most of the shots were trying to capture motion - a tripod or
flash was not a consideration.
A couple of examples below - adjusted for brightness/contrast - no
noise filtering applied. They both come up clean using Neat Image.
These were the only 2 shots I could find that had - close to -
similar lighting. The Sony shot, however, had an extra red stage
flood on the subject.
The 717 was a delight to use. The DSLR ? A pain in the proverbial !!

I apologise the files are a little large.

Shot #1 Sony DSC717
ISO 100 - 1/30, f2.4, 190mm



Shot #2 Nikon D100
ISO 3200 (Yes, 3200) - 1/50, f5.6, 315mm



Where's my 828 ?!?!

Rgds, Dave
http://www.pixplanet.biz

--
Lance
http://www.pbase.com/lhphoto

--
Lance
http://www.pbase.com/lhphoto

 

[Lloydy]

Art, Hi.

Neat Image is a program which reduces CCD produced noise. I think their URL is neatimage.com ? You can get a free download trial, which I did and purchased after I saw the results.

It is quite good but also removes detail and needs to be used cautiously or the picture looks 'plasticky'.
Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

The DSLR struggles and every shot has to have Neat Image applied.

They both come up clean using Neat Image.

Hi, I'm new here and have seen several references to "New Image".
What is that, please?

Thanks,
Art H

 

[snooter]

Dave,

I wouldn't call the 70-300 G subpar. It produces beautifully clear
pictures in the right circumstances.

That was my point actually. In those conditions, that lens is subpar. Those are not the ideal/right circumstances for that lens. f5.6 is not fast enough for that setting. For those conditions in your pictures, lenses over 2.8 are going to be sub-par. Just my opinion. I think you would see a huge difference if you used a 80-200 2.8 on it.

Yes, dSLRs require a lot more work and thought, no doubt. They also require more equipment.

--Mike

I think the 717 does a remarkable job and am looking forward to
getting the 828.
The Sony's are a lot of fun. I have owned 4 different ones now.
DSLR's are a lot of hard work.
Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

In your situation, without the right dSLR equipment, I would say to
definitely stick with the 717(828), which is (going to be) an
incredible camera. Lenses make a big difference in the dSLR
world. All lenses are not equal. Of course, the good lenses cost
$$$, and the great ones $$$$$. Those are both points in favor of
the 717/828. Quite frankly, I would rather have the 828 than a
dSLR with marginal/submarginal glass on it. With the right lenses
(read $$$$), I'll take the dSLR no doubt.

Have fun shooting, regardless which camera you use.

I've been doing a working shoot with a local band in Bangkok for
the past 2 weeks. Have taken 1500+ frames using my 717 and DSLR.
The 717 shoots in almost no light and delivers clear crisp shots.
The DSLR struggles and every shot has to have Neat Image applied.
As most of the shots were trying to capture motion - a tripod or
flash was not a consideration.
A couple of examples below - adjusted for brightness/contrast - no
noise filtering applied. They both come up clean using Neat Image.
These were the only 2 shots I could find that had - close to -
similar lighting. The Sony shot, however, had an extra red stage
flood on the subject.
The 717 was a delight to use. The DSLR ? A pain in the proverbial !!

 

[Ace Kool]

Lance, I'm a little confused. The Sony F-717 is almost incapable of a very shallow DOF? My experimenting was with a F-707 and never had the oppoutunity to view any of my shots on a screen. I would really want to be able to have the option of having a shallow DOF. If so, how about the F-828, same thing (problem) for me?

Dave,
Yes, for low-light shooting, the F series cameras are extremely
good compare with other cams. Just that in this particular case,
the D100 could do better with a diff. lens. When you have to deal
with low-light and also require large DOF, then nothing can beat
the F. But if shallow DOF is OK, then the D100 is OK in low-light
as well.

Regardless, low-light is the strongest characteristic of the F
series cameras. Both for its focus ability and low aperature.

 

[Stephen Reed]

A DSLR is a pain to shoot in low light you say? You're being extremely absurd. Here’s some pics to blow a huge hole in your case. No flash was used in any of these and all were shot between ISO800 and ISO1600 using a DSLR. If you would like to see the full size circus photos, visit my gallery in my sig.

This shot taken ISO1600 with no noise reduction WHATSOEVER!!!



Here's some action frozen WITHOUT noise reduction;



Once again. . . no noise reduction;



Caught in action with no noise reduction;



--



http://www.pbase.com/domotang

 

[Stephen Reed]

You bet that lens is subpar for the job you're trying to achieve. I wouldn't THINK about using that lens for that type of photography unless it had IS (and even then I might not). I would use a 70-200 f2.8.

The problem isn’t the DSLR as you would have everybody believe. The problem is the photographer in this case. Given the right lens, I could get those shots bang-on.

I wouldn't call the 70-300 G subpar. It produces beautifully clear
pictures in the right circumstances.
I think the 717 does a remarkable job and am looking forward to
getting the 828.
The Sony's are a lot of fun. I have owned 4 different ones now.
DSLR's are a lot of hard work.
Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

--



http://www.pbase.com/domotang

 

[Stephen Reed]

And it was with a DSLR handheld;



--



http://www.pbase.com/domotang

 

[Lloydy]

Stephen, Hi.

I would have responded sooner but have been off on a shoot and only got back today. Nice shots you have !

The difference I see, from the shadows, is that you have 3 or 4 spotlights on your subjects - I had one. This is clearly a lot more light than I had. Absurd ? Not for the light I had.

In my shots you can see that I have plenty of light to the left of subject but I did not want to capture a face on view. As I was capturing the mood, this meant I was attempting to get light from the 'fill' bins.
When I did shoot face on, I could get up to 1/125.

With a f2.8 lens, it would have been slightly easier but DOF would have dissapeared.

I suppose the thing that confused me most was why the 717 was ISO 100, 1/30 at f2.4 and the DSLR - to get 1/50 had to be set at ISO3200. I tried numerous other settings but could not get a reasonable shutter speed.

In the end, the 717 produced clear usable shots, the DSLR was difficult to use and the shots are soft (yes, I know, they're handheld) and full of noise (due to the ISO).
My major point was, that for this lighting, the 717 was extremely efficient.
Rgds, Dave,
http://www.pixplanet.biz

A DSLR is a pain to shoot in low light you say? You're being
extremely absurd. Here’s some pics to blow a huge hole in your
case. No flash was used in any of these and all were shot between
ISO800 and ISO1600 using a DSLR. If you would like to see the full
size circus photos, visit my gallery in my sig.

 

[Terry Straehley]

You bet that lens is subpar for the job you're trying to achieve. I
wouldn't THINK about using that lens for that type of photography
unless it had IS (and even then I might not). I would use a 70-200
f2.8.

The lens that you are recommending he use costs about the same as the camera he did use.

 

[Boxerdog]

Lloydy,

Are you serious? Do you know that the noise is a function of the ISO level? Your arguement about the amount of light on your subject and his is, well, out in left field. If there were significant noise in his picts it would show up in the dark background.

For the record, I have a Sony V1 and a fully equiped 10D. I'm well versed in how each performs in low light. I think perhaps you should invest in a better lens for the D100.
--
See profile for equipment list.
Have you walked your boxer today?

 

[Lloydy]

Boxerdog, Hi.

I'm well versed in the art. I've been a photographer for more than 30 years and have used almost all equipment, media, etc. Yes, I do know a little about noise/grain.

I thought Stephen's images were good and commented such. I doubt there is any 'printable' noise in his images as, in my experience, I find ISO640 about comparable with ISO100 on the 717. This doesn't mean that prints from the 717 are noisy - they are not. It is also quite clear that there were 3-4 spotlights used in his scenes.

With the light I had, my point was that using the DSLR and lens I had was difficult (a pain.....). I used this lens to approximate what I could do with the 'bog standard' 717 lens. I also wanted a bit more 'reach'. Sure a higher speed lens would have helped but I don't own one and am not about to get one. My experience, generally, with shallow DOF on a DSLR leaves this a no brainer. I'll spend the money on the 828.

I was also very surprised I had to use such a high ISO to get a 'reasonable' shutter speed. The math did not make any sense. At first I thought ISO800 - 1000 would suffice as I had used this type of setting in low light shooting before. Where I had a fully 'spotlit' subject, this was OK and I could get 1/125. Where I was using the fill lighting for the effect which I, and also the band, wanted it was unuseable.

I tried ISO1600 and had a shutter speed of 1/30. Interestingly enough, this did not 'freeze' the scene the same as 1/30 on the 717 ?? I'm still puzzling over all the above.

To be honest, not just in this situation but overall, I find a DSLR does not consistently deliver the goods. Constant lens changes, continual dust on the CCD, the weight of all the kit, etc., really turn me off using it. I've just been up North for a few days and changed lenses only 3 times - always in as clean an environment as I could get. After viewing some images today, shot with the 12-24mm lens, I can count 11 dust spots in the blue sky area. This is after having the CCD cleaned last week. There was only one small dust spot visible after the clean.

Whereas, the 717 delivers clean workable pics all the time. However, as I have stated before, I find the DSLR fantastic for portrait work and the 717 unworkable. I also much prefer a DSLR viewfinder than using an EVF.

Anyway, I enjoy both for different purposes but would always recommend a 717/828 to someone who wants to capture life without the hassle.
Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

Lloydy,

Are you serious? Do you know that the noise is a function of the
ISO level? Your arguement about the amount of light on your
subject and his is, well, out in left field. If there were
significant noise in his picts it would show up in the dark
background.

For the record, I have a Sony V1 and a fully equiped 10D. I'm well
versed in how each performs in low light. I think perhaps you
should invest in a better lens for the D100.
--
See profile for equipment list.
Have you walked your boxer today?

--
Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz