just "barely" recommended

[Evil Eggplant]

Phil "just barely" gave the 828 a "recommended". His test data confirmed every comment and observation made in a recent thread by Kubicide and others, including myself.

I wonder if Phil is going to get dragged over the coals like everyone else who dared to speak of the apparent flaws of the 828.

Personally, I could barely tell the difference in resolution between the 828 and the 300d with kit lens. I think the 300d with a 60 dollar f/1.8 prime would rival the 828 in resolution, and possibly beat it.

Lets not forget this comment found in Phils conclusion:
"Very small photosite compromising image quality (marketing over quality)?"

But when people (including myself) said the 8mP may be more of a marketing tool than something truly useful I was accused of spawning conspiracy theories, and attributing bad motives to those wonderful people at Sony.

It looks like the emporers really is undressed after all.

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

 

[sandy b]

LOts of time dragged over the coals was how it was said not what.

Phil "just barely" gave the 828 a "recommended". His test data
confirmed every comment and observation made in a recent thread by
Kubicide and others, including myself.

I wonder if Phil is going to get dragged over the coals like
everyone else who dared to speak of the apparent flaws of the 828.

Personally, I could barely tell the difference in resolution
between the 828 and the 300d with kit lens. I think the 300d with a
60 dollar f/1.8 prime would rival the 828 in resolution, and
possibly beat it.

Lets not forget this comment found in Phils conclusion:
"Very small photosite compromising image quality (marketing over
quality)?"

But when people (including myself) said the 8mP may be more of a
marketing tool than something truly useful I was accused of
spawning conspiracy theories, and attributing bad motives to those
wonderful people at Sony.

It looks like the emporers really is undressed after all.

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

 

[XL]

with all the comparison test with F717 . The F828 looked very bad.

The thing I dont' understand that Phill give the comments very very polite not very strong like he made before with other camera. I want to see the words like "Clearly the F717 noise is better and Purple is better than F828 or something like that". I think Phill is pretty hesitated to claim F828 qualtiy.

Phil "just barely" gave the 828 a "recommended". His test data
confirmed every comment and observation made in a recent thread by
Kubicide and others, including myself.

I wonder if Phil is going to get dragged over the coals like
everyone else who dared to speak of the apparent flaws of the 828.

Personally, I could barely tell the difference in resolution
between the 828 and the 300d with kit lens. I think the 300d with a
60 dollar f/1.8 prime would rival the 828 in resolution, and
possibly beat it.

Lets not forget this comment found in Phils conclusion:
"Very small photosite compromising image quality (marketing over
quality)?"

But when people (including myself) said the 8mP may be more of a
marketing tool than something truly useful I was accused of
spawning conspiracy theories, and attributing bad motives to those
wonderful people at Sony.

It looks like the emporers really is undressed after all.

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

--
http://www.xichlo.com

 

[Tigadee]

Hmmmm, so do I buy or not buy? Arrrrrrgh! Been waiting so long and tomorrow I will get a chance to buy a F828 and now this review turns up!

Do I buy nor not? Do I buy or not....

Evil Eggplant wrote:
Phil "just barely" gave the 828 a "recommended". His test data
confirmed every comment and observation made in a recent thread by
Kubicide and others, including myself.

Isn;t recommended still good... except for the F828's price, I guess... :-(

I wonder if Phil is going to get dragged over the coals like
everyone else who dared to speak of the apparent flaws of the 828.

I trust what he says. But in the end, my gut tells me the F828 still is the best camera for me...

Personally, I could barely tell the difference in resolution
between the 828 and the 300d with kit lens. I think the 300d with a
60 dollar f/1.8 prime would rival the 828 in resolution, and
possibly beat it.

With less noise too! But they're different category of cameras...

Lets not forget this comment found in Phils conclusion:
"Very small photosite compromising image quality (marketing over
quality)?"

Isn't everything about marketing? ;-)

But when people (including myself) said the 8mP may be more of a
marketing tool than something truly useful I was accused of
spawning conspiracy theories, and attributing bad motives to those
wonderful people at Sony.

Actually I think the F828 makes a fine 5mp camera! (I'm serious!)

It looks like the emporers really is undressed after all.

--



Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee

 

[Azrifel]

Actually I think the F828 makes a fine 5mp camera! (I'm serious!)

And it is certainly better than a S7000, except for the price.

--
Sander [Fuji602 SonyP1]
http://www.azrifel.org
http://www.pbase.com/azrifel/

 

[Matthew Cromer]

Rich,

The camera has boatloads more resolution than the 717. It has a bit more than the 300D (although I think it's time for Phil to put some smaller details on his resolution test to help judge today's super-high resolution cameras). Clearly it isn't "just a marketing tool" or it wouldn't have boatloads more resolution than the 717.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

 

[Evil Eggplant]

Jeez, propriatary color space. It figures.. Yep, the "real color" mode is useless for lifelike color rendition due to the fact that there is no profile for it. It figures sony would do something like this. I guess Sony feels that their users are are not advanced eniugh to use serious tools like color ICC profiles.

The only thing I don't like about my 707, being forced to use MS.

So sony gives CF support, but then forces the use of their clumsy RAW converter, and operates in a color space (real color) that does not have an available profile..

Yuck

I like my 707 even more. I think the 300 wiol stay home today and I'll go out withh my trusty 707.

Phil "just barely" gave the 828 a "recommended". His test data
confirmed every comment and observation made in a recent thread by
Kubicide and others, including myself.

I wonder if Phil is going to get dragged over the coals like
everyone else who dared to speak of the apparent flaws of the 828.

Personally, I could barely tell the difference in resolution
between the 828 and the 300d with kit lens. I think the 300d with a
60 dollar f/1.8 prime would rival the 828 in resolution, and
possibly beat it.

Lets not forget this comment found in Phils conclusion:
"Very small photosite compromising image quality (marketing over
quality)?"

But when people (including myself) said the 8mP may be more of a
marketing tool than something truly useful I was accused of
spawning conspiracy theories, and attributing bad motives to those
wonderful people at Sony.

It looks like the emporers really is undressed after all.

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

 

[Chris MacClellan]

I think Phil did the RIGHT thing and gave us data to make our own opinion other than saying "Clearly the F717 noise is better.ETC.

Chris

Phil "just barely" gave the 828 a "recommended". His test data
confirmed every comment and observation made in a recent thread by
Kubicide and others, including myself.

I wonder if Phil is going to get dragged over the coals like
everyone else who dared to speak of the apparent flaws of the 828.

Personally, I could barely tell the difference in resolution
between the 828 and the 300d with kit lens. I think the 300d with a
60 dollar f/1.8 prime would rival the 828 in resolution, and
possibly beat it.

Lets not forget this comment found in Phils conclusion:
"Very small photosite compromising image quality (marketing over
quality)?"

But when people (including myself) said the 8mP may be more of a
marketing tool than something truly useful I was accused of
spawning conspiracy theories, and attributing bad motives to those
wonderful people at Sony.

It looks like the emporers really is undressed after all.

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

--
http://www.xichlo.com

 

[Matthew Cromer]

So sony gives CF support, but then forces the use of their clumsy
RAW converter, and operates in a color space (real color) that does
not have an available profile..

Yuck

Calm down.

You can use the real color mode in the jpeg color space, and it works perfectly fine (if a bit less saturated than you might like). It seems very likely that a profile will be released for the 828 soon, if you prefer.

As for the Sony RAW convertor, there are already two third-party convertors in production, and more very likely to come (since the decryption code has been released as open source software).
--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

 

[XL]

Oops it's not my words, please read other review on Sony F717 or Canon.

He said something like that very ofter" This camera is a winner, better blah blah blah"

Chill out.

Chris

Phil "just barely" gave the 828 a "recommended". His test data
confirmed every comment and observation made in a recent thread by
Kubicide and others, including myself.

I wonder if Phil is going to get dragged over the coals like
everyone else who dared to speak of the apparent flaws of the 828.

Personally, I could barely tell the difference in resolution
between the 828 and the 300d with kit lens. I think the 300d with a
60 dollar f/1.8 prime would rival the 828 in resolution, and
possibly beat it.

Lets not forget this comment found in Phils conclusion:
"Very small photosite compromising image quality (marketing over
quality)?"

But when people (including myself) said the 8mP may be more of a
marketing tool than something truly useful I was accused of
spawning conspiracy theories, and attributing bad motives to those
wonderful people at Sony.

It looks like the emporers really is undressed after all.

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

--
http://www.xichlo.com

--
http://www.xichlo.com

 

[Evil Eggplant]

Matthew

I really don't want to pull your lever, I agree that the 828 beats the 717 hands down, but the 300d with the kit lens looked better t me in the resolution tests. The edge the 828 had was a small one, and IMO wass offset by the superior image quality of the 300d. The 300d may actually beat the 828 in resolution with a 60 dollar f/1.8 prime.

Yes, there is an increase of resolution there, I do not dispute that, but the increase in resolution comes at a price in terms of image quality. Many have said this, including Phil.

I think the 828 would have been AMAZING** with a 7x7 5mp sensor, Yes, I would rather have a 828 with the 7x7 sensor then their 8mP. Many will agree with this. For people who agree with this the "8mp as a marketing tool" comments are spot on.

Matthew, you are a niche user. For your application the 828 may be perfect, but for many others it is far from perfect.

Rich,

The camera has boatloads more resolution than the 717. It has a
bit more than the 300D (although I think it's time for Phil to put
some smaller details on his resolution test to help judge today's
super-high resolution cameras). Clearly it isn't "just a marketing
tool" or it wouldn't have boatloads more resolution than the 717.

--
my favorite work:
http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

 

[Matthew Cromer]

The one I sent back has entirely too much PF.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

 

[Evil Eggplant]

Matthew, there is no such thing as ."jpeg" color space.

For accurate color your camera and editor must operate in the same color space. You define these color spaces with ICC profiles. You set your editor to trhe color space your camera uses. Then, when it's time to print, you match up profiles between the editor and printer.

So, how real is "real color" when you end up editing in sRGB even though "real color" operated in a different space.

Yes, you may like one mode more than the other, and leave it at that, and that would be just fine. But to put the "real" into "real color" the editor and camera must be operating in the same color space. Anything else is a "best guess" by the photographer while editing his work.

I'm certain you know this, but others who read this may not get it.

Sony giveth, then taketh away. It figures.

So sony gives CF support, but then forces the use of their clumsy
RAW converter, and operates in a color space (real color) that does
not have an available profile..

Yuck

Calm down.

You can use the real color mode in the jpeg color space, and it
works perfectly fine (if a bit less saturated than you might like).
It seems very likely that a profile will be released for the 828
soon, if you prefer.

As for the Sony RAW convertor, there are already two third-party
convertors in production, and more very likely to come (since the
decryption code has been released as open source software).
--
my favorite work:
http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

 

[Matthew Cromer]

Matthew, there is no such thing as ."jpeg" color space.

Sorry, I meant sRGB. Duh!

For accurate color your camera and editor must operate in the same
color space. You define these color spaces with ICC profiles. You
set your editor to trhe color space your camera uses. Then, when
it's time to print, you match up profiles between the editor and
printer.

So, how real is "real color" when you end up editing in sRGB even
though "real color" operated in a different space.

Yes, you may like one mode more than the other, and leave it at
that, and that would be just fine. But to put the "real" into "real
color" the editor and camera must be operating in the same color
space. Anything else is a "best guess" by the photographer while
editing his work.

I'm certain you know this, but others who read this may not get it.

So if a profile appears for the new colorspace, does that settle the matter for you?

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

 

[Evil Eggplant]

Matthew Cromer wrote:
So if a profile appears for the new colorspace, does that settle
the matter for you?

Yes, just like CF support settled the MS thing for me. MS is the only nit I have with my 707.

--
my favorite work:
http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

 

[Tigadee]

Yes it is, except for the price... sigh

I wonder how the S7000 12mp will look like downsized to 8mp and both shot at ISO200...

Azrifel wrote:
And it is certainly better than a S7000, except for the price.

--



Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee

 

[Dmitry K]

He's admitted this.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=7236634

Dmitry

 

[Uwe Steinmueller]

I think the 828 would have been AMAZING** with a 7x7 5mp sensor, Yes, I would rather have a 828 with the 7x7 sensor then their 8mP.

Whatever camera I carry (own many from Sony F828 to Canon 1Ds) the only question people ask (besides calling my 1Ds big): How many MP. Sony's answer 8MP .

Uwe
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/sony_f828/sony_f828.html

I really don't want to pull your lever, I agree that the 828 beats
the 717 hands down, but the 300d with the kit lens looked better t
me in the resolution tests. The edge the 828 had was a small one,
and IMO wass offset by the superior image quality of the 300d. The
300d may actually beat the 828 in resolution with a 60 dollar f/1.8
prime.

Yes, there is an increase of resolution there, I do not dispute
that, but the increase in resolution comes at a price in terms of
image quality. Many have said this, including Phil.

I think the 828 would have been AMAZING** with a 7x7 5mp sensor,
Yes, I would rather have a 828 with the 7x7 sensor then their 8mP.
Many will agree with this. For people who agree with this the "8mp
as a marketing tool" comments are spot on.

Matthew, you are a niche user. For your application the 828 may be
perfect, but for many others it is far from perfect.

Rich,

The camera has boatloads more resolution than the 717. It has a
bit more than the 300D (although I think it's time for Phil to put
some smaller details on his resolution test to help judge today's
super-high resolution cameras). Clearly it isn't "just a marketing
tool" or it wouldn't have boatloads more resolution than the 717.

--
my favorite work:
http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt

 

[Willem Tahon]

I hesitated between buying the Canon 300D or waiting for the new 828. 2 months ago I made the move to go for the 300D. I Like it a lot.
Happy shopping !

Do I buy nor not? Do I buy or not....

Evil Eggplant wrote:
Phil "just barely" gave the 828 a "recommended". His test data
confirmed every comment and observation made in a recent thread by
Kubicide and others, including myself.

Isn;t recommended still good... except for the F828's price, I
guess... :-(

I wonder if Phil is going to get dragged over the coals like
everyone else who dared to speak of the apparent flaws of the 828.

I trust what he says. But in the end, my gut tells me the F828
still is the best camera for me...

Personally, I could barely tell the difference in resolution
between the 828 and the 300d with kit lens. I think the 300d with a
60 dollar f/1.8 prime would rival the 828 in resolution, and
possibly beat it.

With less noise too! But they're different category of cameras...

Lets not forget this comment found in Phils conclusion:
"Very small photosite compromising image quality (marketing over
quality)?"

Isn't everything about marketing? ;-)

But when people (including myself) said the 8mP may be more of a
marketing tool than something truly useful I was accused of
spawning conspiracy theories, and attributing bad motives to those
wonderful people at Sony.

Actually I think the F828 makes a fine 5mp camera! (I'm serious!)

It looks like the emporers really is undressed after all.

--



Keep On Snappin'!
http://www.tigadee.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee2
http://www.pbase.com/tigadee

 

[Jogger]

Why do you care so much that the Sony fails? How does it affect you so deeply?

Phil "just barely" gave the 828 a "recommended". His test data
confirmed every comment and observation made in a recent thread by
Kubicide and others, including myself.

I wonder if Phil is going to get dragged over the coals like
everyone else who dared to speak of the apparent flaws of the 828.

Personally, I could barely tell the difference in resolution
between the 828 and the 300d with kit lens. I think the 300d with a
60 dollar f/1.8 prime would rival the 828 in resolution, and
possibly beat it.

A fixed-85mm equivelent lens is hardly appealing to most people no matter how fast or sharp it is. Canon knows this and it is why they didn't bundle it with the DR kit.

Lets not forget this comment found in Phils conclusion:
"Very small photosite compromising image quality (marketing over
quality)?"

(almost) Same photosite as all recent 1/1.8 sensor digicam...why wasn't this brought up before.

But when people (including myself) said the 8mP may be more of a
marketing tool than something truly useful I was accused of
spawning conspiracy theories, and attributing bad motives to those
wonderful people at Sony.

It looks like the emporers really is undressed after all.

--
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.pbase.com/iceninevt