Yes, but what about noise?..

[Shutter.]

It may "appear" noisier at full resolution because the image is much larger than a 5 mp image. I imagine, and Andy can probably verify this, that the prints of the 8 mp image at ISO 200 are better than the 5 mp prints.

i do shoot at iso 64 whenever possible. why wouldn'd i?

here's a shot that actually my wife took with my camera, at a party
on new year's day. the subjects are notorious "blinkers" so the
mom was happy to get this shot of her man and her boys. just a
candid, but it is iso200. also, notice the lack of any ca where
one might think it would show up.

---

Thanks - those look very good to me - obviously, your missus has
talent as well (cue gnashing of teeth...)

The noise isn't as bad as I feared - still not very jolly for a
flagship camera though. Is it?.

My experience of Neat Image is that it tends to 'plasticise' the
photo, unless used with extreme caution - so I'd rather not use it
unless absolutely necessary.

Still, it's something else to add to my deliberations...

The stupid thing is that I have been looking forward to buying this
camera for some time - it has everything I would (probably) ever
want

But

It seems to me that it has a fatal and fundamental flaw - i.e. the
size of the sensor relative to the number of pixels.

Perhaps it's a shame that they didn't keep to 5k, and still added
all the extra features? - after all, 5k seems perfectly adequate
for this sort of camera.

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/366

• You're not in third grade anymore. Take as many recesses as you want!
• Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.

http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

 

[Mark Ransom]

People just naturally want to get the best the camera has to offer. That means ISO 64. I shoot 90% of my pictures on the 717 at ISO 100 for the same reason.

The noise of the 828 is comparable to all the other single lens cameras in its class, so you have nothing to whine about. If you absolutely require low noise at high ISO, you should be looking at cameras with a larger sensor. That was as true 6 months ago as it is today.

Before the 828 was officially launched all the speculation was
about the probable noise resulting from 8m pixles crammed onto a
relatively small sensor.

Perhaps, all the hoo-hah over the PF artifacts has diverted
attention from that initial concern?

I'm considering buying the 828 but have grave reservations about
the noise issue.

I have had great difficulty in finding review shots taken at higher
ISO's - owners seem to be extremely coy about showing anything
taken past ISO 64.

The few shots that I have seen at 200, 400, and 800 have been
progressively worthless - certainly, anything above 200 seems to be
totally unnaceptable.

What is the considered view of owners re: the noise issue?

Thanks for your input,

tivot

 

[gk08]

I must admit i have been using the camera at 5 mp for the most part - but only because i dont have the money to buy more memory. i have to say i am more than happy with the results so far...

 

[Peter King]

I bought AND RETURNED the F828 (after many hundred shots) since I
found it was about 2 to 3 stops worse/noisier than the F717 at full
telephoto and ISO 800. The ISO noise of the F828 was simply
unusable. I also take many thousand pictures a year - don't expect
me to use Noise Ninja or anyything else on every one of those. I
don't spend my hard earned money for the priviledge of getting to
post process images. If I wanted that I'd buy a cheap digital.

this helps...

Ron

I have had great difficulty in finding review shots taken at higher

ISO's - owners seem to be extremely coy about showing anything
taken past ISO 64.

The few shots that I have seen at 200, 400, and 800 have been
progressively worthless - certainly, anything above 200 seems to be
totally unnaceptable.

tivot

Thanks ron and tivot. My opinion is now firming up against the f828. You have confirmed the opinions of the many other posters and reviewers I have read. I owned an F717 for 9 months, and found the noise levels unacceptable above the lowest setting of ISO100. Incidentally, I got rid of it because of the inaccurate autofocus (even after attention at the Sony Service Centre) but that is another story. I want to print at A3, and found the noise in smooth tones was visible at normal viewing distance, but of course it was not intrusive when prints were hung on the wall. So, if the F828 is worse, then all of the improvements over the F717 are worthless to me. I feel that the final image quality is all that matters in the end, and all the features in the world are not worth having if the end product, the image, needs loads of post processing.

I have seen some sample shots (I think it was the dcresource web site) taken at night, and at higher ISO levels. The noise, and purple fringing on lights were such that they would were reminiscent of the worst of the early primitive high- speed colour negative emulsions I can recall.

I also have been a loyal Sony supporter, (for over 30 years), but I was disappointed when Sony returned my F717 without managing to repair the defective auto-focus. Although involving a lot of chasing on my part, in the end they honoured the guarantee and gave me a full refund. Still, if the F828 had come up to expectations, I would probably have bought one.

In February, I believe Nikon will have a competitor for the Canon EOS 300D, and a battle for sales of affordable digital slrs will ensue. I have read the reviews and looked at the sample images of the 300D which are without a doubt as smooth and noise free at ISO200 as the 828 at ISO64. The resolution appears to be superior, especially after sharpening in Photoshop, when noise is of course amplified. Incidentally, I found the noise level of the Minolta A1 appallingly bad when comparing a sample with the 300D on the imaging-resource site, and far worse than the F828. The F828 is probably the best of the so called pro-sumer digicams, but image quality is not up to the 300D.

So, I think I will wait a little longer, to see how the new Nikon digital slr shapes up, and the 300D prices fall. The Nikon might even have a mag. alloy body, which would be nice ( I am somewhat put off the 300D by the silver-painted plastic body). Competition is a wonderful thing.

Yes, I know, that the cost of buying an additional lens to match the longer end of the F828 zoom is a pain. However, I never bought a new lens for my Olympus OM4 system, saving buckets, and getting perfect, as-new lenses. I would hope that second-hand Canon lenses are as readily available. Perhaps not, but you might be able to enlighten me on this point (oops, wrong forum)

 

[tivot]

you really don't know that much about digital, do you?

Try not to patronise me, there’s a good digicam owner.

I know enough to expect better noise performance than that exhibited by the 828.

Apart from your own unaccountable fixation with this camera, how many Pro's are going to use it - other than for taking snaps of their families at the beach?

It sells in the UK for between $1200 - £!600, at that price the noise level is unacceptable.

At least, to anyone with two brain cells still functioning, it is.

 

[tivot]

People just naturally want to get the best the camera has to offer.
That means ISO 64. I shoot 90% of my pictures on the 717 at ISO
100 for the same reason.

The noise of the 828 is comparable to all the other single lens
cameras in its class, so you have nothing to whine about

I'm not 'whining' - I've no need to 'whine' because my money is still safely in the bank.

In six months time, when the new 'cheap' DSLR's are selling by the truckload, the 'whines' will be coming from 828 owners who are sick of their image quality.

Today hasn't been wasted for me (although I managed to get drawn into some flaming) I've now decided against the Sony digicam - and will probably buy the Nikon D70 (if the price is right - which I think it will be)

These forums have a use - I was all set to buy the 828, until reading the comments.

It was the blind hysteria of enthusiasm for the Sony that really made me worry - when people flock like sheep to buy a product, and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that a small sensor loaded with 8k's worth of pixels necessarily creates excessive noise, then it's worthwhile to step back from the crowd.

Half of the owners just seem to besotted with the novelty value of owning the latest gadget - I bet e-bay is stuffed with them before too long.

 

[Pj79172]

I have taken many of these shots that were worthless as is and
treated them to a single or double pass through NeatImage to render
them as good as ISO 100 shots and sometimes ISO 64. This is an
efficient process and NeatImage is not only FREE, but standalone.
It doesn't require Photoshop.

Neat Image is NOT Free. A single user license for the home version is $29.90.

http://www.neatimage.com/purchase.html

Thanks!

 

[Shutter.]

tivot...

The camera doesn't underperform (except for maybe the PF in some cases). The noise is actually better than what people expected. If you expected it to be impossibly good at ISO 400 then the problem is in your expectations and not the camera. The noise is not bad for a small sensor, and better than even many 5 mp (brand independent) with the same size sensor, IMO.

If you're realizing that you want cleaner high ISO's then that's just great. The 828 definitely isn't for you. But remember one thing, you're going to need those higher ISO's because you're going to have shoot more closed up in order to achieve the same DOF you get with a smaller sensor at f2. That's even if you get decent enough glass. If you don't get a fast lens, you'll be shooting at ISO 400 or 800 just to achieve the same DOF as you get with the small sensor. This kind of equalizes the issue a little bit. This is assuming you don't lug around a tripod for everything. No doubt you can get cleaner better images with a DSLR, as you can always throw it on a tripod and shoot at ISO 100.

Make that two things to remember.... you've made some comments today about post processing.... get ready to do a whole heck of a lot more of it, especially if you shoot RAW!

Enjoy your D70, but know that for your logic you shouldn't have been comparing the two in the first place.

Jim

People just naturally want to get the best the camera has to offer.
That means ISO 64. I shoot 90% of my pictures on the 717 at ISO
100 for the same reason.

The noise of the 828 is comparable to all the other single lens
cameras in its class, so you have nothing to whine about

I'm not 'whining' - I've no need to 'whine' because my money is
still safely in the bank.

In six months time, when the new 'cheap' DSLR's are selling by the
truckload, the 'whines' will be coming from 828 owners who are sick
of their image quality.

Today hasn't been wasted for me (although I managed to get drawn
into some flaming) I've now decided against the Sony digicam - and
will probably buy the Nikon D70 (if the price is right - which I
think it will be)

These forums have a use - I was all set to buy the 828, until
reading the comments.

It was the blind hysteria of enthusiasm for the Sony that really
made me worry - when people flock like sheep to buy a product, and
steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that a small sensor loaded with
8k's worth of pixels necessarily creates excessive noise, then it's
worthwhile to step back from the crowd.

Half of the owners just seem to besotted with the novelty value of
owning the latest gadget - I bet e-bay is stuffed with them before
too long.

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/366

• You're not in third grade anymore. Take as many recesses as you want!
• Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.

http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

 

[Todd Bright]

It sells in the UK for between $1200 - £!600, at that price the
noise level is unacceptable.

It seems rather clear that you would not be happy with this camera. It is also very obvious that you aren’t interested in making a decision; rather your decision has been made. The only remaining question is what is your motive for continuing to post on this subject as though you were seriously considering the F828? The F828 is not your choice, fine I can respect that, now move on and invest your energy in finding a camera that will meet your standards and needs.

 

[Darren Grant]

As an F707 owner I thought maybe I should update to the 828 just because I don't like the silly zoom button arrangement that is upside down to my mind. After nearly 2 years I still get it wrong when zooming.

So the one feature that attracted me was the real zoom on the 828 coupled with the possibility of using CF as a bonus. So it would mean selling the 707 to upgrade and I would expect to get a few more things for the money. If the image quality is the same or worse then there seems little point in upgrading.

I think the camera will sell simply because to the man in the street more pixels = better quality but it does look like SONY dropped the ball a bit here. My guess is they have gone for highest pixel count for maximum Top Trumps numbers at the camera store. They could of just as easily gone to say 6MP and concentrate on on maximizing quality over the broadest range of settings and ironing out any glitches from the 717.

Looks like I will stay with what I have and see what happens with DSLR's

 

[Shutter.]

Darren,

The image quality is better. It may not seem better when comparing both at full resolution, but there has been little, if any, disagreement that the 828 allows you to go up at least one print size while maintaining the same image quality, and improving image quality at the smaller prints.

"equal" noise in an 828 means that because of it's resolution it will be less noticeable.

Jim

As an F707 owner I thought maybe I should update to the 828 just
because I don't like the silly zoom button arrangement that is
upside down to my mind. After nearly 2 years I still get it wrong
when zooming.

So the one feature that attracted me was the real zoom on the 828
coupled with the possibility of using CF as a bonus. So it would
mean selling the 707 to upgrade and I would expect to get a few
more things for the money. If the image quality is the same or
worse then there seems little point in upgrading.

I think the camera will sell simply because to the man in the
street more pixels = better quality but it does look like SONY
dropped the ball a bit here. My guess is they have gone for highest
pixel count for maximum Top Trumps numbers at the camera store.
They could of just as easily gone to say 6MP and concentrate on on
maximizing quality over the broadest range of settings and ironing
out any glitches from the 717.

Looks like I will stay with what I have and see what happens with
DSLR's

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/366

• You're not in third grade anymore. Take as many recesses as you want!
• Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.

http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

 

[tivot]

tivot...

The camera doesn't underperform (except for maybe the PF in some
cases). The noise is actually better than what people expected.
If you expected it to be impossibly good at ISO 400 then the
problem is in your expectations and not the camera

---

I think, Jim, that the ISO issue sums the camera up quite succinctly

400 and 800 are worthless (I suppose we can agree on that?) yet Sony included them.

Why?

Was it to make it appear like a 'real' camera to people who might not be aware of the limitations?

I think that the whole ethos of the F828 is 'Style' rather than 'Substance' - it is not a 'professional' camera (despite the interminable mantra chanted by a couple of tame Photog's) yet it purports to be so.

It's a bog standard family saloon plastered with Paris-Dakaar logos...

Of course, the 'cheap' DSLR's are not 'professional' either - but at least they make a good effort at competing with the 'real' stuff.

 

[Chris R-UK]

As an F707 owner I thought maybe I should update to the 828 just
because I don't like the silly zoom button arrangement that is
upside down to my mind. After nearly 2 years I still get it wrong
when zooming.

I bought a 717 less than a year ago so I am going to wait at least another year before upgrading.

So the one feature that attracted me was the real zoom on the 828
coupled with the possibility of using CF as a bonus. So it would
mean selling the 707 to upgrade and I would expect to get a few
more things for the money. If the image quality is the same or
worse then there seems little point in upgrading.

For me the other big improvements are the 28mm wide angle, colour rendition and the focussing speed (which looks to be outstanding for a non-DSLR). The RAW implementation is a big disappointment.

The minus for me (assuming PF gets fixed or turns out to be a non-issue) is the weight - 50% more than a Minolta A1. I remember why I stopped carrying around my film SLR, and more and more of my shots are being taken on my Canon S400 simply because I have it on me the whole time. If I am going to have to carry around a camera this heavy I might just as well go for a DSLR

I think the camera will sell simply because to the man in the
street more pixels = better quality but it does look like SONY
dropped the ball a bit here. My guess is they have gone for highest
pixel count for maximum Top Trumps numbers at the camera store.
They could of just as easily gone to say 6MP and concentrate on on
maximizing quality over the broadest range of settings and ironing
out any glitches from the 717.

Interesting that Minolta has now had 3-4 generations of 5MP cameras: 7/7i/7Hi/A1.
--
Chris R

 

[Shutter.]

400 and 800 are worthless (I suppose we can agree on that?) yet
Sony included them.

Aaah... yes... agreement....

I don't think this is specific to Sony, it's Canon, Nikon, Fuji.... all of the small sensors are not great at higher ISO's. I don't think they're trying to pretend that they are. They do serve a purpose when needed. Many times with my 707 I would use ISO 400 indoors for snapshots just because I didn't want to use a flash. No biggie, for 4x6's they're just fine. Allowing higher ISO's doesn't diminish the quality of the ISO 100, so why not at least give people the option.

Certainly, however, they are not making a claim that they would compare to DSLR. And again, this isn't anything new to the 828 (which, in essence, because of the large resolution and equivalent noise to the 717 (IMO), is actually better at higher ISO's when comparing equal sized prints), but was the case with all of Sony's, Canon's, Nikon's, Minolta's.... small sensor cameras.

Jim

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/366

• You're not in third grade anymore. Take as many recesses as you want!
• Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.

http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

 

[Matthew Cromer]

IMO The image quality is worlds better than the 707 and 717 when you consider that there are far more pixels to work with and the color is just beautiful from this camera.

OTOH the PF sucks in at least some of the 828s in certain lighting conditions.
--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1