Thinking of getting a Canon G2 instead of 707... >>

[Amando Hernández]

The G2 is able to go down to 34 mm. instead of 38 mm. for the 707 (in 35 mm. focal distance eq.)

Well, four milimiters don't semm too much, but if you like wide angle photography, that makes a difference.

The same thing can be said about tele. Here, the F707 is a clear winner.

Well, someone would say, buy a tele/wide angle converter if you need an extra reach... I have only tested the Sony WA for the S85 (from 34 to 24 mm.). I wasn't pleased at the result (too heavy, too much barrel distortion, the camera was locked at 24mm.). I don't have any experience with teleconverters.

The G2 eq. in Snoy's terms is the S85.

My two pixels.
Amando

I would not make this decision based on any of the reliability
issues discussed on these forums. Both cameras are good enough in
practice. The question I would ask is what style of camera you
want. Do you want something that's somewhat compact, uses an
optical tunnel viewfinder, and has a twist/swivel LCD when you want
to see what the lens sees? Or do you want something a bit bigger,
more like an SLR, with an electronic viewfinder and bigger lens
that has more reach? If you actually try using both cameras in a
shop, you'll soon find yourself gravitating towards one or the
other.
--
Peter Epstein

 

[Amando Hernández]

Well, Frank, this is not exactly true. JPEG low level of compression makes very hard to find any difference between TIFF (no compression) and fine JPEG. I'm still looking for such a difference.

I agree with you that some aspects of a JPEG pic cannot be changed. Sharpness is one. Fortunately, nowadays cameras allow for no sharpening at its minimum level, so you can apply the unsharp mask later.

Besides, RAW produces bigger pics, thar are slow to transfer, use more memory and demand more time to postprocess. So RAW is not the everyday choice for everyone; even the most advanced D-SLRs still have JPEG. I would say that having RAW is great in some occasions, but you can make good, consistent pics in JPEG most of the time.

Amando.

Frank

I LOVE Sony, I have all sony Home theater (except speakers) and
Sony CD Players, TV, alarm clock..etc..etc...

but... damn - i'm reading so many problem with this camera... and
I've read a couple problems with the G2.. but they aren't very big
and its starting to look like a better camera....

What should I do?????

--

• Frank

 

[Peter Epstein]

I've never used raw format myself (no opportunity to do so yet), but my understanding is that it goes beyond what you might get with TIFF. I see it this way: The image starts as values from the sensor (CCD or CMOS or whatever). This is then interpolated (unless we're talking X3) to create RGB triples for each site. The lossy jpeg compression is then applied. So, the raw data from the sensor is smaller than the uncompressed image generated after interpolation. Since the number of bits per pixel on the sensor is more than the 8 bits allowed by the jpeg format, and since the raw format stores all these bits, it should allow you to recover detail is shawows and highlights that you couldn't once it was squeezed down to 8 bits per color per pixel.

For some people, raw format is virtually a requirement. For others, it's a feature they have and never use. To each his own ;-)--Peter Epstein

 

[=JT=]

no doubt.

but this one does a pretty good job at showing how much better the 707 is at portrait shots. and believe me it is MUCH better than the G2.
http://www.pbase.com/bsiverly/portrait

Not the best of comparisons, perhaps.

--

Ulysses

 

[Amando Hernández]

Even if it works like this, you cannot see more than 8 pixels per colour on a current monitor. I was talking about TIFF to illustrate that jpeg compression doesn't make any noticeable difference (fine, of course) to an uncompressed format. I didn't imply that TIFF is comparable to RAW, it is not, of course.

Amando.

I've never used raw format myself (no opportunity to do so yet),
but my understanding is that it goes beyond what you might get with
TIFF. I see it this way: The image starts as values from the sensor
(CCD or CMOS or whatever). This is then interpolated (unless we're
talking X3) to create RGB triples for each site. The lossy jpeg
compression is then applied. So, the raw data from the sensor is
smaller than the uncompressed image generated after interpolation.
Since the number of bits per pixel on the sensor is more than the 8
bits allowed by the jpeg format, and since the raw format stores
all these bits, it should allow you to recover detail is shawows
and highlights that you couldn't once it was squeezed down to 8
bits per color per pixel.

For some people, raw format is virtually a requirement. For others,
it's a feature they have and never use. To each his own ;-)
--
Peter Epstein

 

[Darla80828]

Shay, your pictures in your photo gallery are simply beautiful! If I didn't own the F707, I think I would have to go out and get it!

Thanks for sharing your pictures!

What kind of problems specifically are concerning you about the F707?
--
Shay - My Sony F707 Gallery: http://shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

--Darla

 

[Tigadee]

At least half the problems you see/read or hear about are from user error (didn't read the manual or lack of familiarity or misunderstanding).

The F707 is a great camera and has the best image quality and feature set for its price range. Go to users' galleries for a look and decide for yourself. I've never had any problems with my F707....

Tigadee

ddd75 wrote:

Give me some other opinions

I just want the best for my money - Thanks for the replies..

later.

--TigadeeKeep On Snappin'!www.pbase.com/tigadee

 

[ddd75]

After looking at some galleries.. and reading everything, and looking at some other reveiws.. then I am going with the Sony

I cannot get a camera until the end of July, so the new camera's should be out, hopefully they aren't that much more, or maybe the 707 will come down a lot in price.

 

[Amando Hernández]

Sony is very quiet at this PMA show. So I expect more new Sony products along the first half of the year. Perhaps you'll reconsider your current decision, who knows...

Amando.

After looking at some galleries.. and reading everything, and
looking at some other reveiws.. then I am going with the Sony

I cannot get a camera until the end of July, so the new camera's
should be out, hopefully they aren't that much more, or maybe the
707 will come down a lot in price.

 

[Homer40784]

You are a hard guy to keep up with!
I thought you bought a D30?

Homer

Both are great cameras and both have there own problems but keep in
mind one thing the G2 has a lot of focus issues thats why I got the
707.
--
Steven

 

[Arlene]

I've messed with a G2 and the 707 is more user friendly. Also I found the pictures from the g2 to be soft and when sharpened didn't hold up. You will not regret the 707. It's the camera that makes people shoot photos. It's so easy and fun. You can't go wrong with Sony.

Check out some photo websites to see the quality of the photos

Here's mine http://www.pbase.com/arlene/root

a lot of other people on this forum have great gallerys. And 707 wins a lot of Photos of the Day. So go for it. You won't regret it.

Arlene

I just read the post about the red/green in the corners.... and
everyone replied saying they has the same thing - I don't want
that.. especially from a higher end camera... I want a nice clean
shot..

All I want a camera for is really to take pictures of my car, other
cars, some pics of my girl, maybe some scenary pics .. but thats
all.

I also don't want to buy a camera and have to ship it to Sony to
let some dumbasses throw my camera around and damage it.

sigh.... I read a lot about the camera's.. I've been reading about
both for about a month, decided on the 707... but the only thing I
didn't like about the pictures was that the red's were too
excessive... but photoshop will fix that -- but I don't want to
have to adjust every picture... hmmm --

Give me some other opinions

I just want the best for my money - Thanks for the replies..

later.

 

[Peter Epstein]

The extra bits per pixel in the raw file mean you can sometimes retain detail in the shadows or highlights if you have to adjust the brightness of the image significantly due to exposure problems.

I think you can convert a raw file into a 48 bit per pixel TIFF file, but I think Photoshop has only limited support for working with such deep images (no first hand experience, just what I recall hearing).

I completely agree that the level of compression used on the highest quality jpeg setting doesn't do a lot of damage to the image, and that you'd have a hard time finding any difference when viewing the images side by side. JPEG compression is frankly amazing. It manages to dramatically reduce file size without doing too much damage to the image.--Peter Epstein