Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Scott_H on December 27, 2003, 08:42:58 pm

Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Scott_H on December 27, 2003, 08:42:58 pm
Sorry Ray, I hadn't realized you were making fractions.  

Imperial measurements in machining are commonly done to 0.001 inches or in thousandths.  So 25 thousandths would generally be interpreted as 0.025", not 1/25 000.

Now, most measurements are done in metric, even here in the US.  But most of the old school people still 'think' in imperial units.  It's easy to remember 1 mm=0.040" and do a quick conversion.

Just me, putting my personal biases and preconceptions into the discussion.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Iain West on December 29, 2003, 08:55:24 am
I had expected the Sony 828 (8mp) images to be bigger than those from the 10D (6mp) when comparing 100% crops. But they look exactly the same size. Can Michael explain the methodology he used to find comparable focal lengths ?
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on December 30, 2003, 11:09:44 pm
Ray,

I'm allergic to shooting stitched scenes.

I'll probably do it occasionally with the 828, perhaps 2 or 3 shots, but I'm just not someone who can visualize without the image showing up on the live LCD.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2004, 10:11:58 pm
Quote
The self-portrait was shot at 100mm, the rock wall at 35mm. Not bad for a "coke bottle".
Absolutely! Lovely rocks! I wondered how long it would take you to jump in and defend the reputation of your 35-350mm  :D .
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on January 08, 2004, 06:14:08 pm
Bob,

I've made 13x17 prints with my 828 and it blows the 5MP cameras away as far as resolution goes.  This camera eats resolution for lunch.

I like using the 100% coverage live LCD for composition -- this is the biggest reason I chose the 828 instead of a drebel.  I also prefer 4:3 instead of 3:2.  The resolution is better than the drebel in the short dimension, it's a wash in the long dimension.  But since I typically print 4:3 prints or 5:4, the 828 has a bit of a resolution.

However, there are some drawbacks to the camera.  The biggest one for me is the CA, although I found it only shows up in a minority of shots I take (20% or so) and even there (unlike Uwe) I was always able to clean it up easily with a photoshop adjustment layer (saved to a function key action, no less).  I didn't try Uwe's method (his method never worked with me on any camera) instead desaturating the exact color of the CA and darkening it a bit in a saturation adjustment layer.  If you did have an image with violet you would have to use the adjustment layer mask, which would be more painful.

I sent my 828 back in hopes of scoring a unit with less CA.  It should show up next week -- I'll let all know whether it is any better.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Fabio Riccardi on December 27, 2003, 06:57:12 am
I'd like to thank Michael for his nice review of the F828, I just bought this camera and I share Michael's enthousiasm and concerns.

One thing I've found is that there is quite a discrepancy between the ISO sensitivity of my F828 and my Canon 10D, the latter being twice as sensitive with the same ISO rating. This translates the F828's ISO 100 to something like an ISO 50 for the 10D, making the F828 pretty useless in low light situations, despite of its fast lens.

I owned a Canon G3 previous to my 10D and I remember being able of taking some very usable indoor shots with it, with my new F828 I can't get anything useful indoors without using a flash...
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on December 27, 2003, 07:43:00 pm
To be fair, the 828 matrix meter underexposed that scene a bit.  You can push the histogram hard to the right without blowing out the whites on this camera, and get a lot less noise than this.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Matthew Cromer on December 29, 2003, 09:02:32 am
Ray,

I suppose when you are talking about enlargements past 16x20 or so I am a "die hard" 6x7 MF and LF fan.  Personally I am not going to use a view camera right now -- it doesn't fit my working style nor budget.  But for big enlargements it definitely makes even the 1Ds look poor from a details standpoint.

Now with prints up to 13x17, the 1Ds is very impressive, and even 16x24 prints look good.  But the detail on a 4x5 inch plate of provia is a force to be reckoned with.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on December 30, 2003, 11:07:38 pm
I think the 4/3" cameras will be around for some time to come, if only because you can make a very nice, high resolution camera with two rather smallish, very high quality lenses cover 28-400mm.  If they get IS (or the rumored IS sensor or teleconvertor) then the system will be very appealing indeed for bird photographers.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Bobtrips on January 08, 2004, 03:26:12 pm
Karel -

I'm in the same boat as you.  I don't have extremely deep pockets and have looked for the best fit camera for my budget.  I chose the A1, not saying that it's the camera that would best fit your needs.

I was willing to spend up to $1kUS for a new camera, didn't really want to spend that much.  I knew the conditions under which I normally shoot, how large (and how little) I actually print.

I could have gotten a dRebel/300D for my money.  But I would have had a marginal lens.  So I would have ended up spending even more for a good quality IS lens.

So I've got an image stabilized camera with a 28-200 lens and it only weighs a pound.  That means a lot more fun to me, less weight and more money for travel.

Just be careful with the F828, be convinced that it has the extra pixels and that they aren't wiped out in processing.

And I'm with BJL, dSLRs win in terms of exchangeable lenses, higher ISOs, and the hope of shallower DOFs.  The big complaint I have with fixed lens digitals is the lack of shallow DOF for isolating subjects.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on January 05, 2004, 10:24:39 pm
Just thought I would add that the 828 can certainly use teleconversion lenses, and they work just fine.  I'd recommend sticking to the TCON 17 or B300 instead of using the much heavier HGD-1758 or TCON 14B.  Most of the other afocal teleconvertors used on digicams are complete crap and should be avoided like the plague (I owned 3 before ponying up for the B300).
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Matthew Cromer on December 27, 2003, 08:12:58 am
Fabio,

I'm surprised you find the G3 more usable indoors than the 828.  Can you elaborate on this?  The G3 doesn't have an ISO 800 mode unless I am remembering incorrectly.

Michael, thanks for the review of the 828.  I'm very pleased that your unit did not display atrocious Chromatic aberration problems at the wide and telephoto ends of the lens.  As soon as I can get another unit I'm swapping mine out.

I'm happy that your problems with the camera were with the RAW mode and buffer issue and the lack of "shooting priority" with the top control knob.

PS I've heard rumors that the beta version of photoshop CS will open Sony RAW files.  Thomas Knoll was asking about SRF files a couple months ago and he mentioned the encryption problem, so I guess he managed to crack the encryption (or my rumor source is lying).
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on December 27, 2003, 07:15:22 pm
Quote
Michael states that at 64 ISO the noise is "essentially non-existant", but to my eyes the images posted are very noisy, similar to 10D's 800 ISO !  ???
To my eyes also. Check out fig. 18 (crops of the Royal York). The noise is so bad on the F828 shot, the shadow side of the skyscraper on the right has lost all its windows. ???

By the way, Scott, 4x10-5 inches is one 25 thousandth of an inch (1/25,000). What are you getting at?  :)
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: on December 28, 2003, 07:00:12 pm
I haven't mentioned it anywhere before, but I received a Fuji 7000 for review when it first came out a couple of months ago.

I never reviewed it because it was so terrible in almost every respect. I simply sent it back to Fuji with polite thanks.

It wasn't a patch on the Sony.

Michael
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on December 29, 2003, 08:30:01 am
Quote
Don't forget the lens that comes attached to the 828.  Even putting aside lens quality, if you buy a 300D you will have to buy more glass to cover the focal length of the lens attached to the 828.  That will add a lot to the dollar part of the equation.  
Absolutely! The F828 sounds like terrific value, but let's not kid ourselves that the extra noise, which is very apparent in all the sample shots in Michael's review, is not an issue. Noise is always an issue, which is why we have programs like Neat Image. But such programs, in my experience, always sacrifice at least some detail.

I find this review of Michael's inconsistent on the noise issue, especially considering the panning he gave the Kodak 14n. I don't recall any conciliatory note on this issue, that the increased noise at ISO 400, compared with the 1Ds, would not show up on prints, and was therefore virtually nonexistent.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: on December 30, 2003, 08:08:03 am
Scott,

Let me try alleviate your confusion.

First of all, I already own a comprehensive Canon outfit. I don't own an Olympus E-1 system. And I wouldn't, because as I wrote in my review -- although it's a fine camera I feel that the format is a dead end, and that's why I wouldn't buy one.

Secondly, I didn't do a "comparison" when I did the E-1 review because frankly one would assume that the difference between it and the other mainstream DSLRs in that price range are subtile to non-existant in terms of final image quality. That was not the assumption that I initially made vis-a-vis the Sony and DSLRs, for all of the obvious reasons. I believed that readers, just as I did, would be interested in how it stacked up against a camera like the Canon Rebel, though I only had a 10D to compare it with. (Image quality between the 10D and the Rebel is essentially identical, so that's why I felt the comparison to be fair).

Finally, I wish people would get off the "noisy F828 kick". On 13X19" prints at ISO 64-100 there is usually no more visible noise than from Canon 10D images. Really! Why would I say this if it weren't true, since pretty soon tens of thousands of photographers will be able to see this for themselves?

Higher ISOs? Sure, noisier. But I have done some stunning prints made from  F828 shots at ISO 400, once it's run through Noise Ninja (a 3 minute task) that again are comparable to Canon 10D output. (It's the final print that counts -- right?)

Here's the final point. The Sony F828, complete with its truely excellent 28-200mm f/2.8 lens and 8 Megapixel resolution, is positively tiny and feather weight compared to the equvalent combination of Canon 10D, 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 Canon lenses. It can fit in the pocket of my rain poncho. I could rock climb all day, or walk the street of a foreign city inconspiciously, and not even know it was with me. If It gets broken, dropped or stolen in some rugged or dangerous place it's almost cheap enough to be considered a "throw-away".

Yet, it can produce Super A3 sized prints that are in most ways are as good as those from a 6MP DSLR.

I hope that this answers the question. Now I'm offline till mid-January.

Michael
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: DaShiv on January 02, 2004, 11:59:22 am
Your confidence in the 4/3 system is admirable, and it seems that everyone who supports the system has hedged their bets on all sorts of future developments for this system.

However, the situation right *now* is that Canon (and Nikon) have the fast primes, the IS/VR, the huge selection of high-quality lenses at various price points (i.e. one can choose between 16-35/2.8 or 17-40/4, 70-200/2.8 IS or 70-200/4, 300/2.8 or 300/4, etc), broad third-party lens support to further supplement lens selection, a wide variety of well-established bodies, and a very large user base (with its concomitant benefits like software support and strong used lens market).  It seems that the most prudent choice for the moment is still to stay with an established system unless you really *need* things like an 28-108 equiv. single-lens solution or smaller form factor, since presently all the above advantages I've listed are still on the side of the established systems.  Keep in mind that it's a risky move to be an early adopter to any system based only on what "will" (or will not) come.

And it's an expensive risk at that--who knows if the other companies won't suddenly change the rules, like Canon did with the DRebel?  Nikon's new 12-24 does knock some of the wind out of the 4/3 system's sails since it shows that Nikon is willing to use their lenses to play the small-sensor game while keeping their bodies backward compatible with existing 35mm lenses.  With even more products coming out, who knows how things will look after this year's PMA, or even next year's?

Having said that, the 4/3 system does sound great in theory and I do hope the 4/3 system turns out well, because competition and choices are good for everyone!  I found myself rooting for the D2h before the reviews came out because it meant that Canon will have to work that much harder on a 1D replacement that I might be able to afford myself.  Eventually.  Some day...
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: BJL on January 05, 2004, 12:03:48 pm
Ray,
   perhaps I can meet you part way, acknowledging the desirability of focal lengths up to 400mm for a certain niche of amateur 35mm SLR users, and hence of 100-400 (Canon) or 80-400 (Nikon) lenses for 35mm format. On the other hand, (a) this is a statement about 35mm format, and since Canon and Nikon offer nothing beyond 400mm for under US$5,000, that is clearly a rarely entered domain; and ( in 35mm format, wide angle coverage to 24mm and beyond is significantly more popular (and affordable) than telephoto to 400mm.

   At the telephoto end, the counterpart of 100-400 in 35mm format is about 50-200 in 4/3 format, and since the Olympus 50-200 is smaller, cheaper and faster than 35mm zooms reaching 400mm, we should be able to agree that this is a desirable lens for that same niche of amateurs.

   At the wide end, Olympus has an 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 zoom coming soon, at a rumoured US$700, giving wide coverage comparable to between 20mm and 22mm in 35mm format, and they have also more vaguely announced a subsequent ultra-wide zoom for later this year (7-14mm, so reaching the equivalent of 13 or 14mm?).
   In contrast, for Canon's amateur level DSLR bodies, the widest Canon zoom lens (16-35) reaches only 25mm equivalent, and costs about $1300; nothing wider has been announced or even hinted at. This seems related to Canon's intention to target "APS" DSLR's at low to mid-level amateurs, while expecting more serious photographers to pay the for now far higher price of 35mm format DSLR's, so that they are not doing much to accomodate some needs of more serious amateurs who use their smaller format DSLR's.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Matthew Cromer on January 05, 2004, 05:11:30 pm
Fabio,

I think we need to do a bit more testing before settling on it as gospel that the 828 meters 2 stops slower than the G3.  It could be a fault with one or the other of the cameras you tested.

In my testing the Canon cameras are close to a full stop more sensitive than other cameras in their metering / ISO ratings, but not 2 stops.

I'll see if I can run a couple of tests tonight if I get a chance to run by the local electronics stores.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Karel Geertsema on January 07, 2004, 08:33:01 am
Intended use versus fit for use....

Being very interested in the F828 or Minolta A1 or Digital Rebel, I cannot agree with Michael that the level of noise and CA is not important in the F828.

To me the F828 seems to be intended (of course I have no idea for which audience/use Sony designed the camera) for someone who wants a relative compact (thus highly portable) camera offering all kinds of settings and deliver high quality images (the price...). A camera you can take with you most of the time to most places. Photograph landscapes, city/street, ... any use. This is entirely different from a situation where you can use flash power (studio) or tripod (landscape) and where it does not matter that you must choose low iso. For a camera like the F828 I would like to be able to use as high an ISO setting as possible in some situations (the Minolta A1 anti-shake might help also).

May I suggest you take a look at a sample image (over 3 MB!) at steves-digicams:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_review...es/DSC00606.JPG (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f828/samples/DSC00606.JPG)
look at the ceiling in the upper left corner, then look at the hand of the guy behind the keyboard and tell me if you are happy with what you see. For reference, check the Digital Rebel/300D sample images on the same site (e.g. the one of the couple at a party with fill in flash, look at the people outside the flash range).

For portability (carry everywhere, anytime) I am very happy with my 300v/analogue Rebel with the 50mm/1.8 so I think I will go with the 300D or whatever is available after the Photokina this september. It should be a "hot" year with the PMA and the Photokina  :-) although I would have loved 28-200/2.0-2.8....
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on January 09, 2004, 08:13:13 am
Bob,

I already sent my 828 back to get one with less CA.  So obviously I don't just look at the camera with rose-colored glasses.

There are already reviews all over the web, including at A Digital Eye where you can compare images shot at the same time between the 828, A1, and other cameras.  The resolution difference is easy enough to see in the samples.

But then again you have the A1, so I guess you too "have a dog in this fight" too.

If I had to recommend one of the compact digital cameras at this point to the average photographer, I'm not sure I would recommend the 828.  The CA in enough of a problem on at least many of the units that a casual photographer who didn't know his or her way around Photoshop would be suffering nasty purple fringing on a fair number of shots.  My hope is that some of the units have a lot less CA and that Sony can tighten up their QA process.

The A1 has a lot to recommend it -- I'd probably tell someone getting a compact camera to look at it before the 828, unless they needed the higher resolution or better video of the 828 and were able to handle the fringing issue.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on January 09, 2004, 09:55:55 pm
We've been investigating over at DPReview STF and it looks like there are two classes of digital camera ISO ratings.

On the one side are Canon and Minolta's digicams (and Canon dSLRs) whose ratings are more sensitive.  Sony, Nikon, Fuji and Olympus' digicams are in the less sensitive group, and are equivalent to film ISO ratings.

Generally ISO 200 on the less sensitive group is, more or less, as sensitive as ISO 100 on the more sensitive group.

However, if we are talking about landscape, I think we need to consider how the cameras perform in their lowest ISO, as that is where the overwhelming majority of landscape images (particularly with digicams, whose smallest aperture is typically f/8 or f/11 instead of f/22 - f/48 for dSLR lenses).

And I would have to say that the 828 just destroys any 5MP digicam as far as resolution is concerned.

The good news is it looks like Nikon and Minolta will probably be releasing 8MP digicams in the near future.  So you'll be able to have other options than the Sony 828 with (hopefully) equivalent image quality.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on December 27, 2003, 08:26:57 am
Michael,

The histogram (and exposure preview) are inaccurate with exposures longer than 1/2 second.  Not sure why that is, but it works that way with the 717 as well.  Live Histogram gets progressively darker as does the live preview, even though after you take the shot the exposure is right and the post-shot histogram shows the correct values.

There does definitely seem to be a metering discrepancy vs. the Canon dSLRs -- although in my tests I'd estimated it to be 2/3 stop instead of a full stop.  That would put ISO 200 on the Sony about equal to ISO 130 on the dSLRs.  Perhaps if you look at this you can do more rigorous testing -- I just was playing around in a store.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: bandit on December 27, 2003, 06:30:51 pm
Quote
Hi,

I have just read Michael's review of the Sony F828, and I am very surprised: What I see is not what I read... ???
I agree.
Michael states that at 64 ISO the noise is "essentially non-existant", but to my eyes the images posted are very noisy, similar to 10D's 800 ISO !  ???

The lens seems very sharp so kudos to Zeiss for this little gem of optics (7x fast zoom which has to work on such a tiny sensor), but this new RGBE CCD didn't impress me...

And now I read that the ISO sensitivity is even less than the nominal ?
Are you saying that the samples posted at 64 ISO should be compared with something like 32 or 40 ISO ?!?
Well... these have always been the correct settings for Velvia 50, so maybe we are back in film times  

Ciao  

Marco
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: R Scott Adams on December 30, 2003, 12:12:08 am
Well, here's another angle.  I, for one, was sort of surprised by the qualitative difference between Michael's reviews of the Nikon 828 and the Olympus E-1.

The 828 review, while "harsh" in well deserved areas, was overall a polemic in defense of this camera, warts and all.

The Olympus E-1 review, on the other hand.... seemed to grudgingly admire certain aspects of the system (and also being critical where appropriate) while dismissing it as a serious image making machine, the 4/3 system and its potential, and Olympus, more or less "out of hand."  

I thought the images Michael captured with the E-1 were stunning, compared to the noisy stuff shot with the 828.  Also, conspicuously absent in the E-1 reivew are the kind of comparisons found in the 828 review, vis the 10D.  It seems to speak of "not caring to bother" that supports my paragraph above... dismissed out of hand.

I, for one . . . honestly don't get it.  This is not a rant, or bash, or any such thing.  I just honestly don't get it.

Seems to me like a trip to Africa where one could take a camera w/ two lenses and a 1.4x extender and cover 28-560mm+ equivalent focal length, at less than half the cost and and significantly less weight than a 1Ds with equivalent range... well, "I" think it would be a great thing and a wonderful test of a "whole new system concept."  Instead we have a noisy 8mp digicam off to do "serious work."  As I said... I don't get it.

Cheers,
Scott
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: svein on December 28, 2003, 01:34:47 pm
Found the review and the discussion interesting. One question though. There seem to be one camera that has fairly similar features to the 828 (maybe except for build quality), and that's the Fuji S7000.
Although it has "only" 6+ megapixels it's the closest competitor to the 828. It's also equiped with a EVF, a similar zoom (in range) and raw support.
It would be interesting to see a direct comparision with the 828.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: on December 29, 2003, 08:47:45 am
Ray,

The type of noise displayed between the F828 and the 14n are of completely different types.

On the Sony (with the very clear exception of ISO 800) the noise takes on the appearance of  "grain", similar to that of film. Using this as an analogy, on the Sony at ISO 64 it's almost invisible, maybe like Panatomic-X. At ISO 100 it looks like Plus-X. At ISO 400 it's like Tri-X developed in Rodinal.

The Kodak 14n on the other hand displayed blotchyness similar to the Sony at ISO 800, even at ISO 400.

So, while the fine "grain" of the Sony is either invisible to subdued with images from the Sony, the 14n's noise characteristics (at least from when I tested it) was much coarser, and therefore more visible and annoying.

Michael

Hope this helps.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: BJL on January 04, 2004, 11:15:50 pm
Ray,
   about the Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS; given that it costs almost US$1400 (over Au$2000?), your idea of "relatively popular" must be very different than mine. I stick to my story that the overwhelming majority of 35mm SLR photographers never use lenses going outside the range of about 20mm to 300mm, but beyond the "one lens entry level crowd", they typically aspire to at least 28-200 total, and to about 28-105 (or maybe 24-85) in a single "standard" lens.
   On your shift to discussing lenses for the 1Ds; its cost puts it completely out of the range of about 99.9% of SLR users, so it is irrelevant to considerations of the mainstream DSLR market. I think I am very typical of would-be DSLR buyers in that for my camera buying purposes, I restrict my considerations to DSLR systems costing under about US$3000 including one or two lenses and other essential accessories. It also strikes me that your proposed comparison of two camera systems differing in price by a factor of about four would not be very enlightening (unless the cheaper system were to do better!) And bringing it up takes us even further away from the 828, so let us return to that topic.

   About image quality comparisons between the E-1 and 828, particularly in respect of noise, you are joking, right? After the criticism you have passed on about the high ISO performance of the E-1 (only a significant issue at ISO800 and above, especially now that you have put noise reduction post-processing on the table), surely you must have noticed that the 828 is far worse in this respect (with problems starting maybe as low as ISO100 and certainly by ISO200). The difference is far more than can be compensated for by the 828's half to one stop advantage in minimum aperture ratios. Not to mention the frequent complaints about colour fringing (CA?) with the 828.
   I also find it strange that after you recent enthusiasm for extreme telephoto reach, you suddenly shift to discounting the difference between the 828's limit of 200mm equiv FOV with no TC available and the E system's option of zooming to 400mm equiv. FOV (before TC). Not to mention the current limitations of EVF's as in the 828; by contrast, I recently got the chance to look through the E-1's viewfinder, and found its image size, brightness and clarity very nice for my purposes.

   On the other hand, for the many photographers who are satisfied with a 28-200 equiv. FOV range, using an EVF instead of a TTL OVF, somewhat limited high speed/low capability, no option of ever using any prime lenses or of being able to upgrade the body without throwing away the lens too, the Sony 828 or Minolta A1 might be quite attractive options. So as a variant on your 828 to E-1 comparison, how do you think the 828's superfically impressive advantages in pixel count (and probably test pattern resolution) and aperture ratios, plus its far wider zoom range, compactness, more solid build, and all the cute digicam advantages like movie mode, swivelling live LCD VF and live histogram match it up against the comparably priced Canon 300D + 18-44/3.5-5.6 lens kit? I suspect your claimed enthusiasm for the 828 will wane at this point.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2004, 09:40:12 pm
Quote
  about the Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS; given that it costs almost US$1400 (over Au$2000?), your idea of "relatively popular" must be very different than mine.
BJL,
If I could have got the Canon 100-400 for a mere A$2000, it would have been a no-brainer. I'd have bought it a lot sooner than I did. Expensive lenses do not sell like hot cakes, whatever their usefulness or focal length range. But those that are useful and seem good value, despite their high price tag, tend to sell quite well, and I think the Canon 100-400 IS comes within that category.

But rather than tackle you on each point, I'll just try to describe where I'm coming from since we seem to be coming from different directions, so to speak.

Trying to assess the desirability of a camera or camera system is no easy task for those who are serious about their photography and for whom photography is likely to be a growing interest or passion.

Each person has different aspirations and means when it comes to buying photographic equipment. I've listed below the issues that are important to me in the form of 6 guidelines which I hope might be helpful to others. These are my guidlines, distilled from my own experience. They cover my concerns. They may not cover yours. They are not in any order of importance.

(1) Weight, bulk and general handling.

(2) Build quality and other features of a more professional nature, such as MLU, high maximum shutter speed, waterproof seals etc etc.

(3) Range and quality of lenses and accessories, which of course will include both expensive lenses and cheap lenses, affordable lenses and not affordable lenses, popular lenses and 'unusual' lenses.

(4) Maximum system image quality achievable. Notice I used the phrase 'system image quality'. This allows for the possibility of increasing resolution by simple attaching a different body to the lens, as you can do with the Canon system. Of course, maximum quality only comes at a high price, but the point is ... do you have that option in the system you're considering?

(5) Company image and reputation for innovation. Ie. buying into a camera system which happens to meet present needs at the right price, might be shortsighted. Many of us know how easy it is to accumulate lenses and accessories over the years and then feel trapped in the system. We can't afford to switch.

(6) Perhaps the most important consideration of all, price and general value of the product.

I think anyone using these guidelines, and perhaps awarding points out of 10 in each of the 6 broad categories and then buying the camera/system that has the highest total, would not go far wrong.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on January 02, 2004, 01:01:02 pm
I guess I'd rather have a few excellent zooms with good coverage than more bigger more expensive zooms to do the same coverage in a package that can't be carried long distances as easily.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Bobtrips on January 07, 2004, 12:01:28 pm
Comparing a small sensor F828/A1 type camera with a dSLR, even the 300D is a compact pickup vs. full-sized, V8, 4x4 monster.  They're just not operating in the same categories.  

Smaller sensors have smaller photosites which gather less light per unit time.  The ambient electronic noise in the system is greater in relation to the signal produced by that smaller capture.  One can't amplify that signal (use ISOs) in the same way that one can amplify the signal from a larger photosite.

If you want a smaller, more compact, less expensive camera and choose a F828/A1 type camera it's probably best to make the purchase that you are buying the equivalent of film camera that won't accept high ISO film.  Be prepared to shoot at low ISO.

That said... If you're truly a landscape photographer, that is if you generally take studied shots, take your shots from tripod, etc. being limited to ISO 100 shouldn't be a big handicap.  You probably shot film in this range in order to get fine grain.

If the F828 does actually produce the resolution that one would expect from an 8 meg camera (the jury's out) then it should be a budget option for landscape photographers.

For my photography I need/want a camera that carries well.  I bought an A1 knowing that I probably won't ever shoot above ISO 100.  In-camera stabilization will help in low light conditions since I can't crank up the ISO.

I also drive a compact Toyota pickup.  I don't need to haul cubic yards of gravel very often.  I can make a couple of trips when I do.  ;o)
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Bobtrips on January 08, 2004, 07:24:29 pm
Well, Matthew, no offense, but I wouldn't consider you an objective reviewer.  You've spent actual money on a F828.  You've got a dog in this fight.

Me?  I'm just an interested bystander.  I didn't even seriously consider the F828 because I heard that it wouldn't be out until the spring and I wanted a camera now.  (OK a few weeks ago.)

But I am an  interested bystander.  I'm looking forward to someone who has to be as objective as possible shooting controlled test shots of the F828 and comparing it to 5 and 6 meg cameras.  

If it out-resolves them, Great!  Next time out I might take Sony more seriously, and people who really can't afford a dSLR have a less expensive option for good resolution.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Bobtrips on January 10, 2004, 01:15:51 am
I'm not sure why anyone would expect a 5 meg small sensor to resolve as well as a the 8 meg Sony.  

I think my question is whether you get the full 8 megs worth of resolution, whether you get 1/3rd more resolution than you would get with a 6 meg camera.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Olivier G. on December 27, 2003, 09:42:49 am
Hi,

I have just read Michael's review of the Sony F828, and I am very surprised: What I see is not what I read... ???

For example: Fig17 (comparison F828@64ISO vs 10D@100ISO).
From the comment on the lens ("almost identical") and the previous comment on noise ("Essentially non-existant"), it should be very close...
But when I look at those pictures, I see Chromatic Aberration (white edges of windows) and strong Noise at 64 ISO (dark area of windows - and everywhere...).

Is there something more to take into account ?
Did I miss something ?

Thank you for your answers,

Olivier
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Scott_H on December 28, 2003, 10:44:30 am
Noise can be an elusive beast.  I use an Olympus E-20, a camera notorius across the world wide web as being too noisy.

If I get the exposure right, then visible noise is not an issue, it is tough to spot on screen at 100%, and won't show up at all in a print.

Underexposures can be a problem, and shadow areas can be as well.  It depends on how much correcting I have to do, and how much sharpening I apply to the image.  I can correct a certain amount by blurring a copied layer, and setting it to colour, but that doesn't always help.

Even then the final print may look ok.  It depends on the size of the print, and the method used to create the print.  I've found that noise will show up on a Fuji Frontier print that does not show up on an inkjet print.  I've read that this is because the ink on an inkjet print tends to run together and blur out some of the noise.  Looking at the screen, I can guess by the amount of noise whether or not it will show up in a print, but I always proof to make sure.

In general, I would say the noise issue on the E-20 is blown out of proportion.  I do occasionally throw out an image because of noise, but it is usually because I messed up the exposure.

The 828 is interesting to me.  I'm not sure I would buy one, but I'd probably consider it.  To me, the limitation is that you aren't working on a camera system like you would be with a dslr.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Scott_H on December 29, 2003, 12:41:53 am
Quote
This might be largely true and might sway some people who were thinking of getting a Canon 300D to opt for a Sony F828.

Don't forget the lens that comes attached to the 828.  Even putting aside lens quality, if you buy a 300D you will have to buy more glass to cover the focal length of the lens attached to the 828.  That will add a lot to the dollar part of the equation.  

To me, this could easily be a deciding factor.  I could put up with a lot of limitations in a camera (and am, come to think of it) simply because I can afford it, and it will be good enough.  A few hundred dollars may not mean much to some people, but it does to a lot of people.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: R Scott Adams on December 30, 2003, 11:12:19 am
Michael,

Thanks for the response.  In that context it makes perfect sense.  I not only "know about" your extensive Canon kit, I envy you on a daily basis!

I for one, hope the 4/3 system doesn't turn out to be the "Beta Max" of digital photography, ergo the dead end that you predict.  On the other hand, Olympus did abandon the OM system despite its success.  Their track record isn't good in the long term support-development department.  Only time will tell.  It does appear as though they are selling as many E-1's as they can produce, but I suspect this is true of all new-release digital cameras.

I also appreciate, and agree with, your comment on the difference between visible noise "on screen" versus in prints.  

I'd still like to see you get an E-1 system on loan from Olympus some time, and take it with you on one of your trips -- work the heck out of it, abuse it, make a bunch of prints, give us a thorough field report in an issue of the Video Journal.

I'm one of those people who doesn't have an investment in either of the "big two's" glass, and find the 4/3 size, weight, focal range to date ( and scheduled for release soon ) very interesting / appealing.

Again, thanks for the feedback.

Scott
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on January 01, 2004, 10:56:09 pm
Quote
I think the 4/3" cameras will be around for some time to come, if only because you can make a very nice, high resolution camera with two rather smallish, very high quality lenses cover 28-400mm.  If they get IS (or the rumored IS sensor or teleconvertor) then the system will be very appealing indeed for bird photographers.
Matthew,
I really hate to hit someone when they're just getting up, being such a gentleman, an' all that  , but there are too many things about this 4/3rds system that don't stack up, so I'm going to compromise my principles.

I can only look at things from my own biased perspective of course, but when I consider the broad areas of performance that are important to me in a camera system, the Olympus E-1 doesn't have enough going for it.

The jewel in the crown is without doubt the 300mm F2.8. This would seem ideal for birds and wildlife, especially with the 1.4x converter. The 35mm equivalent then becomes 840mm F4, which is something to drool over.

The trouble is, that Zuiko 300mm lens is very expensive. The lowest price I could find on the net is US$7000, which is about the same as the lowest price for the Canon 600mm F4 IS. Sure that Zuiko 300mm lens is lighter, but not as light as you might think (3.3Kg as opposed to 5.3Kgs for the Canon).

As fine as the Zuiko lens might be, don't tell me it can compare with a 960mm F4 which is what the Canon 600mm lens becomes attached to a 10D. Okay, that extra 2Kgs can be a pain. Someone who's frail and wealthy might be willing to sacrifice a bit of quality (and/or focal length whichever way you look at it).

But the point I would make is, with a Canon system no sacrifices are required, not in terms of price, not in terms of quality, and not always in terms of weight.

If the Canon 600mm lens is too heavy, then go for the 500mm F4 IS. This lens is definitely cheaper than the Zuiko 300mm, no heavier, surprisingly, and I would suggest still gives better quality images attached to a 10D or 300D (800mm + 6MP as opposed to 600mm + 5 MP).

However, if you really want a lightweight system with perhaps only a slight sacrifice in quality, then a 300D attached to a Canon 400mm F5.6 prime would be an excellent choice. At a 640mm 35mm equivalent, this lens weighs only 1.25Kgs as opposed to the Zuiko 3.3Kgs. And best of all, it's a lot, lot cheaper. Of course, the Zuiko lens is 2 stops faster and that's a big advantage. But it's also much, much more expensive and heavier[/i]. So where does that leave us? Two steps forward and two steps backward  ??? .

I find it difficult to make a case for the E-1 system.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: DaShiv on January 02, 2004, 02:00:16 pm
Well if the smaller form factor is that important to you and you're willing to take the risk, by all means enjoy the Olympus if and when you decide to take the plunge.  Maybe Olympus will even top everyone with a 14-100 (28-200 equiv) lens that'll be exactly what you were looking for, who knows.

I don't currently own any lens longer than 70mm on my DRebel, so the whole "lens too heavy to carry" phenomenon is lost upon me.  No bird or squirrel shooting for me.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on January 04, 2004, 08:49:49 pm
Quote
Ray and Matthew seem to want to judge the viability of  the Olympus E system on the basis of lens combinations needed to achieve rarely used extremes of telephoto reach. I instead like to assess desirability and likely popularity of a system on the basis of options that roughly match some of the most popular choices of 35mm format amateur enthusiasts, like (a) one lens covering about 28-105mm ( two lenses covering about 28-300mm.

  
Welcome back to the fray, BJL!  

"... rarely used extremes of telephoto reach." ??? I think you'll find (if you take the trouble to do the research   ) the Canon 100-400 IS zoom is a relatively popular lens and probably a minimum requirement for anyone interested in photographing wildlife. This relatively cheap lens takes you beyond what is currently available within the E-1 system at an affordable price.  

The notion of a single, high quality zoom that covers all your requirements must be the Holy Grail of all zoom lens designers. There will always be a compromise in quality, as anyone who's bought a 10x zoom has found out. (I believe the Canon 35-350 zoom, despite being an L lens, is a bit soft at the 350mm and 35mm ends. But I doubt very much that it would be worse than the Zuiko 50-200mm with 1.4x extender. Surely it's widely known by now that all teleconverters seriously degrade lens performance. I can only assume that Matthew is just trying to be entertaining   .)

It's true the Olympus 14-54mm fills a gap in the Canon range as it applies to the 22x15mm sensor, but not as it applies to full frame 35mm. I'd love to see a comparison between the Zuiko 14-54 and the Canon 28-135 IS zoom attached to a 1Ds ...... at full aperture and widest angle.  

Since this thread is primarily about the Sony F828, we should at least give it the occasional mention. For all those with 'average' requirements who are searching for a light, compact camera with a single lens that covers most situations, the F828 might be just the ticket. It's certainly cheaper, lighter and more compact than the Olympus E-1 yet produces about the same quality of image, perhaps even slightly better with a bit of help from Neat Image   .
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: BJL on January 06, 2004, 12:37:56 pm
Quote
Just thought I would add that the 828 can certainly use teleconversion lenses, and they work just fine.
Matthew,
    thanks for the correction (one review said otherwise, but probably out of ignorance.)

   One grievance I have had with telephoto supplementary lenses is that they typically allow little or no zooming; they can only be used at or close to maximum focal length: is that true with the 828?
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on January 09, 2004, 03:36:39 pm
Here is one shootoff

http://www.a-digital-eye.com/Shootoff4.html (http://www.a-digital-eye.com/Shootoff4.html)

They have other ones at shootoff1, 2, 3 etc.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Bobtrips on January 07, 2004, 10:12:33 pm
You can also buy a real good prime for not a lot of money, use a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate mirror slap motion.  The extra ISO settings of a dSLR may give you the room to cut shutter speed.  

But until there are some really good comparisons of the *actual* resolution of the F28 vs. 6 meg dSLRs one might want to keep their credit card number off the web.

I haven't seen any real tight studies (maybe they are out there and I haven't seen them) but I have seen a couple of examples that makes me wonder if the noise suppression routines of the F828 might be wiping out some detail in the final product.

But...  It may yet be a good budget landscape digital.  Just like the role that the 14n plays for full frame.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on January 10, 2004, 04:13:53 am
Quote
I'm not sure why anyone would expect a 5 meg small sensor to resolve as well as a the 8 meg Sony.  
Quite so! But the larger pixel usually has the advantage of superior DR and less noise. The F828 appears to be the first digicam that has significantly boosted pixel count without significantly degrading the image in terms of DR and noise.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on December 27, 2003, 09:44:53 am
The comparison between the F828 at 200mm, f5.6 and ISO 64 and the 10D at 100 ISO, same everything else, shows the difference.

The Sony F828 is inevitably suffering from 'small pixel syndrome'.

But not quite as small as Michael has stated. A micron is not a millionth of an inch, by a long shot, but a thousandth of a millimetre, or a 25 thousandth of an inch.

Sorry to be a nitpicking pain in the arse.  :D
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on December 29, 2003, 08:01:21 am
Quote
I don't like 10D or 300D landscape images at 12x18 inches.  To my eye, they look a bit "plasticky" or "over-enlarged".  
Matthew,
You're beginning to sound like a diehard film buff who thinks digital images look artificial, or an analogue hi fi buff who thinks the crackles and pops add ambience. Are you sure you're not losing objectivity  ???  Many owners of even the D30 would not consider 12x18" an over enlargement. However, I agree that 24x36" for a D60 image is stretching things a bit. This size really shows up the deficiencies of the lens. But one should bear in mind that such prints are generally not viewed from a distance of 15" as an A4 size print is.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2003, 09:27:30 am
The point that the F828 noise might not be noticeable in a Super B3 size print has a certain validity - but which print are we talking about? All A3/B3 prints?

Noise is related to dynamic range. I often expose for the highlights with my D60, which sometimes results in large areas of the image being dark and underexposed. Fortunately, because the D60 has low noise at ISO 100, I can bring out the detail in the shadows in post processing without too much noise becoming evident.

I wonder if I could do the same with the F828.  ???
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 30, 2003, 09:00:32 am
In a actual print, there are 2 factors in play: the number of pixels, and the quality of those pixels. Obviously, the Sony is noisier on a per-pixel level than the DSLR. But the fact that it has 33% more pixels than the DSLR helps counteract the higher per-pixel noise level. Add in the apparently weaker anti-aliasing filter of the Sony compared to the Rebel (on a per-pixel level) and it seems to get even more interesting. If I was in the market for a second camera, I'm not sure which one I would get, frankly. I already bought into the Canon DSLR system (I have a 1Ds), so I have lenses and flashes that would fit the Rebel. But if I really needed something compact, light, and unobtrusive, I would seriously consider the Sony.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on January 01, 2004, 11:19:20 pm
Ray,

The 300/2.8 is overpriced no doubt -- but I suspect you will be able to get it cheaper in a couple years.

The other lenses are not overpriced, and quality is very high.  With the 14-54 and 50-200 and a TC you have a small, portable kit capable of shooting from 28-580 with very high quality lenses.

I think a lot of people want a smaller dSLR kit with high quality.  When I go for a dSLR I'm certainly strongly considering the 4/3 system.

If a couple other vendors (think Sony) decide to pick up 4/3, I think it could slowly dominate over time as the lenses can be smaller, cheaper, faster, and just as sharp as those designed for a 35mm sensor.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: David Mantripp on January 02, 2004, 05:26:52 pm
Well I'm very interested in facts but so much bothered about majority opinions. The fact is I have a budget large enough to buy any midrange DSLR, the basic accessories, and a couple of lenses. I want it to be lighter and close to as versatile as my Canon T90 FD system. Believe me I've looked at everything. The Canons don't quite click with me. I'm very appreciative of all Canon have done to raise the standards, but the midrange DSLR bodies all have various flaws (in my opinion, so I'll keep it to myself) and the 1Ds, even if I could afford it, is too big and heavy for my kind of use. Actually no Canon EOS body has ever really screamed "buy me". Closest is the EOS 3, but even then, all those focus points ?  The lenses are another matter, there are some jewels, and the T/S range are almost enough to win the case on their own. But Canon EOS lenses are designed for 35mm, up to now, so fitting them to a non-full frame body is inevitably going to lead to some compromises. A Canon 10D or 300D with a "35mm" lens reminds me of a duck-billed platypus... not quite one thing nor the other.
Obviously the same goes for Nikon, although they've at least said they're committed to "APS" format and have started to flesh out a range of lenses. But if Olympus (say) were as bad at meeting delivery targets as Nikon are with their APS lenses, can you imagine the howls of derision ? Actually I love the Fuji S2 - in theory - but I'd rather see Fuji develop their own body and adopt their awesome Fujinon lens technology to digital. I simply cannot imagine why they're happy to be a Nikon second string.

I think you can do some fantastic work with the E-1, and I also see a lot of sense in going for a system where the lens range is perfectly tailored to the camera. A completely new system is also quite exciting, and I like the 4/3 format.  I could choose a 10D and then dither for ages over which lenses to choose - and I know that whatever I choose will be non-optimal.  I also know personally that the spash proofing of the E-1 would get a serious test in my hands. I doubt the 10D (or 300D) would survive very long...

It is certainly true, as Ray points out, that competition will not stop, but this helps everybody. Ok, so Canon will bring out a mega-machine in one year - but so what - everybody who has bought a 10D or whatever isn't going to get a discount on it. It doesn't really matter. There's also no logical reason at all in getting hung up on "full frame" sensors - except if you're tied in to a 35mm legacy system. If pixel size really is the dominating factor (and I'm not saying it isn't) then "full frame 35mm" has limitations too. Basically if your ambitions are limited to printing up to Super A3, as mine are, for now, then whilst 5Mp is a bit weak, 10Mp (say) would be overkill...depending on the frame geometry of course.

Just my thoughts, really. I'm not trying to convince, or hoping to be convinced.  I really don't care what other people are using, beyond a general interest. I've never really understood all this Canon / Nikon stuff either. I've been using Canon gear for about 20 years but I'm not emotionally attached to it...
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: BJL on January 03, 2004, 04:43:14 pm
Ray and Matthew seem to want to judge the viability of  the Olympus E system on the basis of lens combinations needed to achieve rarely used extremes of telephoto reach. I instead like to assess desirability and likely popularity of a system on the basis of options that roughly match some of the most popular choices of 35mm format amateur enthusiasts, like (a) one lens covering about 28-105mm ( two lenses covering about 28-300mm.

   Amongst DSLR's under US$4000, only the Olympus E system currently offers anything close to (a) in a single good quality lens: in contrast, what 35mm using amateur would pay US$800 for a 28-64mm f/4 lens, which is what one effectively gets by using the Canon 17-40 with a 1.6x crop camera?

   For option (, the Olympus 14-54 plus 50-200 is a bit of overkill, covering the equivalent of about 28-400 for $1500, and with f/3.5 or better over the whole range. Ray's Canon option of 17-40/4 plus 35-350/3.5-5.6 costs $700 more; adding in bodies (10D, not 300D to be comparable to the E-1) the Olympus option is still significantly cheaper and lighter, and distinctly faster at the telephoto end. One could replace the Canon 35-350 by something like the 70-200/4L, but then need a third lens to cover the 40-70mm gap.

   Nikon and Pentax have the same problem that two lenses starting at the popular moderate wide angle FOV of 28mm (equiv.) can only cover up to about 200mm (equiv.) unless one resorts to slow, lower quality ultra-wide ranging zooms.

   I expect that tele zooms reaching the 35mm equivalent of about 300mm will be very popular with the smaller DSLR formats, since being only 200mm or less in reality, they can offer far better speed and size than true 300mm zooms. (Canon, Olympus and Sigma all seem to agree with me!)

     I am also guessing that in 2004, Canon will offer something like a 17-70/2.8-4 for a step up from the entry level 18-55/3.5-5.6 EF-S kit lens; if it is EF-S, there will be a successor to the 10D that accepts such EF-S lenses. Nikon might offer something similar for the D70, to fit below its already announced, very expensive, professional grade "28-80/2.8 equivalent" DX standard zoom. These lenses would mesh better with existing tele zooms starting at about 70mm. Olympus has indicated a second cheaper and lighter tele zoom of about 50-150 (100-300 equiv.).

    So let us redo the comparisons after the next round of lens announcements!
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 06, 2004, 02:04:20 pm
Quote
Quote
The self-portrait was shot at 100mm, the rock wall at 35mm. Not bad for a "coke bottle".
Absolutely! Lovely rocks! I wondered how long it would take you to jump in and defend the reputation of your 35-350mm   .
It's odd, for some reason the 35-350 seems to be the forgotten bastard child of Canon L glass. I won't claim that is sharper than the 200/1.8L or some of the other good primes out there, but it is certainly way better than any of the cheapo zooms. The only Achilles heel of this lens is the performance at the edges, outside the frame of a 1D or 10D. If I get another body, it would be the 1D, and I would put the 35-350 on the 1D and get a 24-70 for the 1Ds and probably a 70-200/2.8IS L for the 1Ds. My 35-350 will outresolve the sensor on the 1D at any focal length. The only time I would ever need to remove the lens would be to put a faster lens on for shooting low-light or for wide angle work.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on January 07, 2004, 08:04:46 pm
Karel,

You can clean up a small amount of noise in an 828 image or some CA, but you cannot fix the soft corners of the Rebel kit lens at wide angle, or reduce the motion blur caused by mirror slap in photoshop.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Bobtrips on January 09, 2004, 02:44:01 pm
Matthew -

I tried finding the comparison shots on the site that you listed.  All I found was where someone had uploaded some pictures from Disneyland.  Is that what you meant?

I'm waiting for a real head-to-head test shooting, like what Phil does when he reviews a camera.

As for me having or not having a 'dog in the fight', my position is that I own neither the F828 or 300D.  Nor am I likely to own either in my lifetime.  I don't need the extra resolution that either might (probably would) provide and I'm not willing to carry the extra weight on a long trip.

But I'm very interested in what the F828 can do.  If Sony can figure out how to give real 8 meg performance on a small chip then that bodes well for my next camera.

Two or three years from now I think that I'll be upgrading to a *ist-sized dSLR with in-body image stabilization and a nice selection of lenses from which to choose.  If I can get more than 6 megs and higher ISO, then Whooopeeee!!!!
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on January 10, 2004, 08:42:29 am
Bob,

I think it has a slight advantage over the 6MP dSLRs due to a weak / no AA filter and more pixels in the vertical (short) dimension.  Much worse noise though.

As far as comparisons to 5MP 2/3 digicams, it looks to me like a huge difference (I suspect the lens is sharper than the 717 and this accounts as part of it).  I'd say you could easily get the same quality from a 11x14 as an 8x10 from the 5MP cameras.  And I'm quite happy with 13x17 prints (inked area 12x17).  As always with the consumer level cameras you have to expose very carefully or have terrible shadow noise, and you may need to use exposure blending to boot for high DR scenes.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on December 27, 2003, 11:10:45 am
There is noticable CA and noise with the 828 samples at 100% to be sure.  The levels of CA seen here are easily handled in photoshop though, and the noise would be very hard to see on at 13x17" Epson 2200 print.  If that level of noise is bothersome, the camera produces less noise if you turn down in-camera sharpening and "expose to the right" and there is always Neat Image or Noise Ninja.

My 828 (which is going back) has nasty levels of CA at full wide and full telephoto, but after removing the CA I've made some fantastic large prints.

One other point:  My startup times are about 2 seconds -- apparently start up time varies a lot based on what media is in use and (perhaps) whether the card was formatted in camera or not.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: bandit on December 28, 2003, 07:40:57 am
Quote
Still, 100% is not the same as a print. A print looks more like the 50% view, so the prints probably look great and that is what counts.
That is what I thought (hoped..) Michael meant about the "non-existant noise" and indeed he has just made a clarification at the bottom of his review:
"I should point out, for the benefit of those that see noise in the ISO 64 and ISO 100 F828 frames, that to the extent that it's visible in 100% on-screen enlargements, it's invisible in A3 or Super A3/B sized prints. The same applies to very small amounts of colour fringing. These just can't be seen in real world photographic prints."
To me, this is what counts though it diminishes a bit the cropping capability of the F828.

Ciao  

Marco
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2003, 10:02:29 pm
Quote
If I get the exposure right, then visible noise is not an issue, it is tough to spot on screen at 100%, and won't show up at all in a print.

Underexposures can be a problem, and shadow areas can be as well.  It depends on how much correcting I have to do, and how much sharpening I apply to the image.  I can correct a certain amount by blurring a copied layer, and setting it to colour, but that doesn't always help.
Well, maybe you're right. I'm loathe to use ISO 400 with my D60 because of the noise I see on my screen at 100% magnification. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily intimidated by the appearance of such noise on the screen and should use ISO 400 more often because it might not show up on the print. In fact I know I should use ISO 400 more often because I have a number of ruined shots as a result of subject movement which could have been frozen had I used ISO 400. My own biases are sometimes working against me.

But the fact remains, the F828 shots in Michael's review clearly show significantly more noise at ISO 64 than the 10D at ISO 100. Under what circumstances such increased noise can become a problem is perhaps another issue.

One could argue, for example, that all owners of an A4 printer, who have no intention of upgrading to a larger printer, need have no concern about this increased noise being reflected in their A4 size prints.

This might be largely true and might sway some people who were thinking of getting a Canon 300D to opt for a Sony F828.

But what about A4 prints of crops? Who never crops their images? Cartier-Bresson perhaps?

The reality is, people do not often know at the time the photo is taken, what degree of cropping they will later apply or what size print, at some stage (maybe 10 years later), they may wish to make.

I recently over-indulged and bought myself an Epson 7600 printer. I have a few high resolution 'stitched' images and many frames that have not yet been stitched, and a couple of 2nd hand MF cameras and a Nikon 8000 MF scanner, so I figured the purchase of the 7600 is justified. (Of course, if I didn't have this expensive hobby of photography, I could be driving around in a luxury car instead, which is what all this gear has cost me. The choice is really a no-brainer, but I haven't included the possible effect that a luxury car might have on the opposite sex, so perhaps the comparison is flawed  :D .

The point I would make is that a D60 image, taken with my finest lens, the $90 Canon 50mm F1.8, can look absolutely stunning when printed at 2ftx3ft. The quality beggars belief. It was only a few years ago, whilst attending a course on "How to run a small business", I had a conversation with a struggling professional photographer during a lunch break. He hadn't moved into the digital world yet. I tried to get him interested in the latest that Epson had to offer, the Photo EX which produced A3 size prints that could rival conventional darkroom prints. He was quite adamant that A3 was too big for 35mm. I could get nowhere with him. I wonder what he's doing now.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: on December 29, 2003, 10:05:47 am
Iain,

It was explained in the review. I changed the focal length of the Canon shots to match the framing of those from the Sony.

Think about the problem. How can you compare images taken with cameras with different resolutions and different lens magnifications and focal lengths? Something has to be "normalized".

I chose to do so by adjusting the focal length of the Canon.

Michael
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on December 30, 2003, 07:27:07 pm
Quote
If someone doesn't care about fine detail, then a 6MP dSLR blown up to 2" x 3" would look great.
Matthew,
I care about fine detail. In fact I'm quite obsessive about it. The main reason I never bought an LF camera was due to the discovery that resolution per unit area of film actually decreases as one moves up in format size. With 35mm film you can expect a good 40 lp/mm at a reasonable MTF. With 8"x10" LF, you get perhaps only half that, at best.

I figured I could get sharper and more detailed results by stitching together a large number of 35mm frames. Now that Photoshop CS can handle really large files, I hope that dedicated stitching programs will catch up  :D .
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Scott_H on January 02, 2004, 06:31:21 am
When I start thinking about a dslr system, I have trouble getting past the fact that I would need two Canon lenses to cover the focal length of the 14-54 mm Zuiko lens.  Even putting aside the cost, the extra weight and effort of changing lenses is something I would have a problem with.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on January 03, 2004, 09:30:33 am
Quote
All I want is a 6-8mp full frame camera for wide/normal and I can keep a backup 1.6x crop factor camera for longer reach.  No need for huge megapixel inflation; judging from the 1Ds I'd have to shoot all primes to get the most out of an 11mp full frame sensor anyways.
DaShiv,
You're being too modest.  More pixels are always better, provided you (they) can overcome the inherent disadvantage of more noise and less dynamic range. The remarkable thing about the Sony F828 is that they've crammed 8MP into an area about 1/4 the size of the Olympus 4/3rds' sensor, yet still have acceptable noise levels at 64 and 100 ISO. Not sure about the DR though. That's often a spec that gets overlooked. However, judging by some sample pics I've downloaded, DR doesn't look too bad.

One can only assume that the people responsible for the Sony technology could do a better job in terms of noise and/or dynamic range if the pixels were to be 4x the size.

The 6MP 10D sensor, according to test results at Norman Koren's site, can deliver nothing meaningful beyond 54 lp/mm, and the MTF at that peak resolution is only about 10%.

You don't have to go to Zuiko lenses to get better performance than that in a lens, but it seems you do need more pixels. However, there's no point in providing more pixels if the extra resolution is going to have a contrast of less than 10% MTF. And that, I guess, is the technological challenge.

It's interesting to note, although the pixel density of the E-1 is about the same as the 10D (smaller number of pixels, but smaller sensor), the 10D is less noisy (very significantly so at ISO 800 and above) and has marginally better resolution than the E-1 - according to dpreview. This seems a bit odd, considering the Zuiko lenses are so much better than the Canon lenses ???
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Matthew Cromer on January 05, 2004, 05:08:46 pm
Jonathan,

Thanks for sharing your pictures from the 35-350.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Fabio Riccardi on January 06, 2004, 01:41:50 am
Quote
In my testing the Canon cameras are close to a full stop more sensitive than other cameras in their metering / ISO ratings, but not 2 stops.
If you check dpreview's D300 tests against the G5 you can see that at equal ISO the G5 is 2/3 of a stop more sensitive.

In my tests my the 10D is at least one stop faster than the F828.

This adds up to some 1.7-2.0 EV of difference in sensitivity between the F828 and the G5.

Finally, in dpreview's test of Nikon's D100 you can see that the D100 is exactly as sensitive as a Canon D60, so Canon cameras are not "in general more sensitive", only their digicams.

 - Fabio
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: BJL on January 08, 2004, 01:29:16 pm
Some comments about the effective system speed of the Sony 828, and comparisons to the only comparable priced DSLR option, the Canon D300 with 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.

   Even if the 828 is limited to ISO 100 (probably 200 at least works reasonably well), its lens is about two stops faster than the Canon kit lens or typical amateur level zooms. So in this realm, one might be able to achieve the same shutter speeds as working with 35mm film or the 300D at about four times the ISO: 400 or even 800. that sounds fast enough to go well beyond "either bright light or a tripod".
   Also, due to the far smaller sensor size and hence smaller true focal lengths, working at apertures up to two stops faster on the 828 still gives one the same or greater depth of field, when adequate DOF is a consideration.

   The SLR's start to win on speed mainly when one spends more money on faster lenses for them, and the resulting lower depth of field is not a problem.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Scott_H on December 27, 2003, 12:31:11 pm
Since you're nitpicking Ray...

One mm is about 0.040 inches, so a micron is about 4x10-5 inches
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Dixon Zalit on December 28, 2003, 02:23:07 am
First, if Michael says the Sony 828 is great, I believe him. But the samples don't rate the comparisons to the 10d

To my eyes, the 828 seems to use some heavy duty sharpening compared to the 10D.  The halos are huge in the 100% samples. The appearance of grain may also be just from the sharpening.

Still, 100% is not the same as a print. A print looks more like the 50% view, so the prints probably look great and that is what counts.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on December 29, 2003, 05:22:54 pm
Quote
On the Sony (with the very clear exception of ISO 800) the noise takes on the appearance of  "grain", similar to that of film. Using this as an analogy, on the Sony at ISO 64 it's almost invisible, maybe like Panatomic-X. At ISO 100 it looks like Plus-X. At ISO 400 it's like Tri-X developed in Rodinal.
Michael,
Thanks for that clarification. (For a moment you had me worried  :D )

I guess all those film diehards who have resisted going digital on the grounds that digital images are too clean and plasticky will now have no excuse. The F828 could be ideal for them.  :)
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on December 28, 2003, 10:58:47 pm
Ray,

I don't like 10D or 300D landscape images at 12x18 inches.  To my eye, they look a bit "plasticky" or "over-enlarged".  Compared to 828 prints at 12x16 (an aspect ratio I prefer) I found the 828 images better due to finer details and less ability to see the constituent pixels.  Showed the prints to multiple others in the office who (blindly) preferred the 828 over 300D and 10D images for the same reason.

I can't imagine a 2"x3" landscape image from the 10D would be at all convincing in terms of detail and minimum feature size.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on December 30, 2003, 07:04:58 pm
Quote
I for one, hope the 4/3 system doesn't turn out to be the "Beta Max" of digital photography, ergo the dead end that you predict.  
I think Olympus and the 4/3rds system will be secure for as long as full frame (35mm) sensors are expensive to make. At present Olympus can successfully compete with the Canon APS size DSLRs which are heavier and offer little (and possibly no) quality advantage for the extra weight (excluding Canon's really big lenses, that is).

It's difficult to imagine that a camera of the quality of the 1Ds could ever be as affordable as the current 300D. Yet this is basically computer technology and past experience would suggest that sooner or later a camera that actually exceeds the image quality of the 1Ds will be available at less than $1000 (although build quality and other features might be lacking).

If and when this happens, and considering the further development of cameras along the lines of the Sony F828, Olympus could find itself in a big squeeze with nowhere to go.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: David Mantripp on January 02, 2004, 07:26:50 am
the only weakness I see with the E-1 (the E-1, not 4/3) is the relatively low resolution.  I think that the 4/3 system will find enough customers to be profitable. A system does not have to dominate the market in order to be cost effective (if that was the case we'd have 1 choice: Canon).  Only digital has killed off "niche" markets like the fixed lens Fuji 6x7s (for example).  To be honest, I think that an E-1 Mk2 with a stabilised 8Mp sensor (a la Dimage A1) would be close to perfect as a travel / wildlife system, and good enough for most other things.  The rumours of what Minolta are planning are also distracting, but as Michael is fond of pointing out (with a note of exasperation I imagine) you can wait & speculate or you can get on with photography.

Finally, the VJ review of the E-1 seems a little warmer than the web site review. I think that "recommended" is fairly unambiguous...
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: DaShiv on January 02, 2004, 10:03:32 pm
Here's my take on full frame: given that larger sensors tend to be cleaner, can you imagine, say, a full frame camera limited to 6MP but with an ISO 400-level clean performance at 800, 1600, or (miracle of miracles) 3200?  I don't think this scenario would be terribly likely, but I also do think companies are taking note at how the F828 is being taking some heat in certain quarters for the too-many-megapixels issue (although I'm sure it'll still sell like hotcakes).  I can't imagine them trying to cram 20 or 30 megapixels into a 35mm format sensor when the 1Ds's sensor is already outperforming many (if not most) lenses, and if they screw up trying to pull something like that then DSLR owners *will* change their buying habits.  I have some hope that Canon can use their full-frame 35mm sensor size to produce better performance (and not simply more megapixels) over smaller APS-sized cameras.  They're the current market leader in the DSLR segment, the ball's in their court and I really hope they use the 35mm legacy format well and don't squander their current advantage.

All I want is a 6-8mp full frame camera for wide/normal and I can keep a backup 1.6x crop factor camera for longer reach.  No need for huge megapixel inflation; judging from the 1Ds I'd have to shoot all primes to get the most out of an 11mp full frame sensor anyways.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 05, 2004, 04:43:34 pm
Quote
If that 35-350 lens isn't a coke bottle, I'd be very surprised.  I'm sure it's slow as molassas too.
Umm, it's the main lens on my 1Ds. Here are som hi-res sample shots:
Self-portrait (http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/PortfolioImages/Portraits/187U7480-8x10.jpg)
Rock Wall (http://209.77.219.162:8000/images/187U2033.jpg)

The self-portrait was shot at 100mm, the rock wall at 35mm. Not bad for a "coke bottle".
Aperture: f/3.5-5.6
USM focusing with full-time manual focus ring, AF is very fast.
Some softness is visible in the corners of the rock wall shot; but remember the 1Ds is full-frame, and the soft areas would be off-sensor on a 10D (1.6x) or even a 1D (1.3x). The softness is primarily on the wide end; form 70mm on out, overall performance is quite good, at least with my copy.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: BJL on January 06, 2004, 12:26:05 pm
Quote
I'll just try to describe where I'm coming from since we seem to be coming from different directions, so to speak.
...
I've listed below the issues that are important to me in the form of 6 guidelines which I hope might be helpful to others.
Ray,

    I like your idea of setting personal selection criteria for a  camera or photographic system, and also like many of your criteria, disagreeing mainly with elements that imply making a very long term or even life-time choice. So here is my slightly more "short-sighted" version. Order is vaguely indicative of importance, and realistically, item 1 takes absolute priority!

(1) Cost, based on an annual expenditure/depreciation allowance This includes the losses involved in replacing existing equipment if the choice is a new, incompatable system.
(Note: I expect current DSLR's to have life spans only comparable to laptop computers, after which either some of the fancy electronics will probably wear out or I will not be able to resist upgrading; thus I figure 20-25% per annum depreciation; film bodies and good lenses typically have far lower depreciation rates.)

(2) System image quality achievable, again within the scope of differences that are visibly significant with the print sizes and viewing conditions that I am likely to use in the short term, or have some significant probability of using in the longer term.
(Note: In the low probability of a radical and unforseen change in my photographic aspirations, I would do what I have done several times before; change systems: I will not significantly hamper either my current photography or my bank balance for the sake of hypothetical compatibility with very unlikely future needs.)

(3) Range and quality of lenses and accessories, within the scope of what I am likely to afford and use in the short term, or have some significant probability of buying in the longer term.
(See note above!)

(4) Weight, bulk, general handling, build quality and other features of a more professional nature.

(5) Company reputation for supporting the needs of my style of photography.


   Assuming only that you are not greatly bothered by the lack of a standard zoom lens for Canon's 1.6x "APS" format that comes anywhere close in zoom range to their 28-105, 28-135 or 24-85 for 35mm format, I expect that my criteria will easily vindicate your choice to stay with Canon. For my purposes as a happy Canon film SLR owner, they are just two or three lenses away from a very good ranking; but for now, the 4/3 system comes out on top, with the Nikon mount system (including Fuji and Kodak body offerings) in second place, due partly to Nikon's pricy but impressive DX lens program. Current fixed lens cameras, even quite impressive ones like the Sony 828, and even assuming a few supplementary lenses, probably fall well short for both of us.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Karel Geertsema on January 08, 2004, 07:43:20 am
Interesting replies:

Bobtrips wrote:
"Comparing a small sensor F828/A1 type camera with a dSLR, even the 300D is a compact pickup vs. full-sized, V8, 4x4 monster.  They're just not operating in the same categories."
  
Although I have never driven any pickup or 4x4 ... I dare say that actually I am not interested in comparing sensor sizes. I am trying to compare image quality within the limit of my budget while keeping an eye on the "fun to use factor". Michael's admiration for the F828 falls in this last category and I can imagine that the F828 or an A1 for that matter would be fun to use.
So my quest is "if I spend around 1000 $/Euro; what whould suit me best". I know I can buy a 4x5 camera for that amount of money that offers incomparable image quality, but that would not suit my style of photography. If I were to buy something like an F828, I don't want to be limited to bright days or a tripod because I still value image quality (as in limited noise). When shooting landscapes I am prepared however to use a tripod, but I expect more "flexibility" from something like an F828 and that is what I meant when talking about "intended use": an F828 is simply an entirely different thing than e.g. a Pentax 67 or other "tripod bound" jewels.(ouch, I already feel the flames :-)  )

MatthewCromer wrote:
"You can clean up a small amount of noise in an 828 image or some CA, but you cannot fix the soft corners of the Rebel kit lens at wide angle, or reduce the motion blur caused by mirror slap in photoshop."

I am a bit funny in this respect I must admit: when I buy a 1000$/Euro camera I am not prepared to buy an endless stream of add-on software to cope with flaws of the camera, starting with noise killers. CA removal is quite difficult though, read about it in Uwe Steinmullers diary on the F828.
The motion blur because of mirror slap might be a valid issue. but as far as I remember this occurs only at shutter speeds that are "tripod bound" anyway (can't find where I read about this, someone has figured this out in detail). So if I put a Digital Rebel on a tripod, knowing that is has a very small and light mirror I doubt that it would be a problem. Maybe one of these days I will try to compare my EOS 100/Elan (does MLU) with my Rebel TI/300v (which doesn't). The 300D should have a smaller/lighter mirror than the 300v, don't know about the damping.
Well, I do have some EOS/EF primes and zooms and therefore I would not buy the 300D kit lens, but of course not everyone is in that position.
Still, the absence of a mirror, the wide zoom range of the F828 and therefore less need (and of course no possibility) to change lenses and thus avoid dust is compelling.

Bobtrips wrote:
"You can also buy a real good prime for not a lot of money, use a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate mirror slap motion.  The extra ISO settings of a dSLR may give you the room to cut shutter speed."  
A fast lens and DSLR-high ISO would indeed be a great combo.
My Canon 50mm/F1.8 and a D300/Digital Rebel might be an awesome combination for available light; producing high quality images while being very portable and within (hobby) budget limits and of course trading off 28-200, no dust problems etc.

And now back to "being out there, have fun and actually taking photographs".
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Fabio Riccardi on December 27, 2003, 12:59:05 pm
Matthew,

The AF of the G3 sucks big time compared to that of the F828, but the G3 is way more sensitive than the F828, it actually claims ISO 50 that is almost an ISO 100. I used it at ISO 200 handheld indoors a lot and I was able to shoot at 1/30 or 1/25 in most situations.

Under the same circumstances (ISO 200, indoor) the F828 offers me to shoot at 1/10, which is pretty hard to do handheld. Pushing the sensitivity beyond ISO 200 doesn't produce very pretty images.

 - Fabio
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on December 29, 2003, 08:44:46 pm
Ray,

For me, a big part of the impace of a landscape print is fine detail.

If someone doesn't care about fine detail, then a 6MP dSLR blown up to 2" x 3" would look great.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on January 02, 2004, 10:39:48 am
Sorry guys! I just can't find any facts to support your arguments. It might be true that it's the E-1 sensor that is currently unable to take full advantage of the fine quality of some of the Zuiko lenses and it might prove to be true that the next upgrade to the E-1 will address these deficiencies, perhaps with an 8MP sensor as David suggests, but what do you imagine Canon will be doing in the meantime?

We can speculate on future developments till the cows come home, but it's the current situation I'm looking at.

Let's look at Matthew's suggestion of 2 lenses and a teleconverter that take you from 28mm to 560mm in 35mm terms. That would include the 14-54mm zoom, the 50-200mm, the 1.4x converter and the E-1 body. Total weight, around 2.34Kg; total price around $3500.

Let's look at the Canon equivalent. We'll exclude IS lenses to try to keep a level playing field. I've included a 300D body, 17-40mm zoom and 35-350mm zoom. Both are L lenses and good quality (although obviously not the best that Canon have to offer). The range in 35mm terms is about the same (27mm-560mm). The total weight is 175gms more, at 2.515Kgs (Hey! Big deal! That's the weight of a small block of chocolate) but the price is about $400 less and for that sort of savings I could get the very fine Canon 50mm F1.4.

I know which system I would prefer, but if any of you guys can point me to some sample photos that demonstrate the Olympus 14-54 or 50-200 lenses are significantly sharper than those Canon equivalents I've mentioned, I might change my mind  :D .
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: BJL on January 05, 2004, 03:26:50 pm
Quote
Did anybody get the fact that F828 ISO values are wrong? (ISO is a standard, isn't it?)
Unfortunately, the so-called "ISO" settings on digital cameras do not follow any standard: I almost wish the International Organization for Standardisation would sue camera makers to stop their misuse of the name "ISO".
   The closest thing is an ISO standard for digital cameras is "base ISO", which is often close to the minimum ISO setting of a digital camera. To be more accurate, base ISO is the setting that causes a scene of 18% average diffuse reflectivity to have highlights blow-out at 170% diffuse reflectivity. Thus, only when a scene's average reflectivity drops below about 10% will any normal subject of less than 100% diffuse reflectivity be blown out.

    Separately, there is the question of what level a pixel of average luminosity comes out at after amplification and A/D conversion. The ISO standard implies that it should come out at 18/170 of maximum, but Kodak has indicated that with compact digicams, they place average luminosity higher than this, so that highlights blow out at just over 100% instead of 170%; sacrificing that ISO recommended highlight headroom to reduce shadow noise I suppose.

    Given all the further manipulation of tone (contrast) curves and gamma, I find it hard to see how one can accurately compare the "sensitivity" settings of different digital cameras.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on January 09, 2004, 09:37:32 pm
Well, I guess there's no doubt that the F828 beats the socks off the A1. However, to normalise the results perhaps we're back to the title of the thread.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on December 27, 2003, 03:20:39 pm
Fabio,

I'd be surprised if the ISO 200 G3 image is better than the ISO 400 Sony image.  

Try doing a noise reduction and resample the Sony image to 4MP and compare to a NR G3 image see if you like the G3 images better.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on December 29, 2003, 06:41:20 pm
Quote
I suppose when you are talking about enlargements past 16x20 or so I am a "die hard" 6x7 MF and LF fan.  
Matthew,
I don't think it's helpful to be a diehard on any issue. It's better to have an open mind. Of course MF and LF is more suitable for the big enlargements. But when you examine the reasons for this, the extra detail is surprisingly not always the major factor.

I believe studies or polls on this issue have shown that the significant and very noticeable lack of grain of the MF enlargement, plus the greater tonality, often counts for more than the extra detail.

In other words, if it were possible to remove the grain from a 35mm film without sacrificing detail and also somehow impart greater tonality to the image (more subtle transitions from one shade to the other), a 24x36 enlargement from that 35mm film would generally be preferred to the same size enlargement of the same scene from an MF film which had had grain artificially added to simulate 35mm.

Now, when it comes to enlarging digital images, the best of the DSLRs are essentially grain/noise free. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a 24"x30" enlargement from the tiny 22mmx15mm D60 sensor showed less grain (in areas that are supposed to be 'clean', such as the sky) than the same size enlargement from 4x5 film. So, in effect, a good digital camera already has built in, one of the major factors why MF is preferred for big enlargements.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to disparage the larger format. For any enlargement that relies upon fine detail for its major impact (and that's almost an oxymoron), the larger the camera format the better.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: MatthewCromer on January 02, 2004, 11:09:02 am
Ray,

If that 35-350 lens isn't a coke bottle, I'd be very surprised.  I'm sure it's slow as molassas too.

The 4/3 lenses I mentioned are top-notch, the equal of the best Canon L zooms.

I'm not saying there will be no place for Canon full-sized sensors, I think for landscape photography they will do very well, but I suspect the majority of 35mm applications will go to APS and 4/3 sized sensors.
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Fabio Riccardi on January 05, 2004, 01:57:18 pm
Did anybody get the fact that F828 ISO values are wrong? (ISO is a standard, isn't it?)

That its sensitivity is about half than it should be?

That to get the same exposure (time/aperture) values that you would get on a 10D at ISO 100 you need to use ISO 200 on the F828?

That ISO 64 is actually ISO 32?

That other popular digicams (Canon G5) do exactly the opposite?

That G5 ISO 50 corresponds to F828 ISO 200?

What do you think are the implications on noise and image quality?

 - Fabio
Title: Sony DSC-F828
Post by: Ray on January 09, 2004, 09:55:02 pm
Quote
Even if the 828 is limited to ISO 100 (probably 200 at least works reasonably well), its lens is about two stops faster than the Canon kit lens or typical amateur level zooms. So in this realm, one might be able to achieve the same shutter speeds as working with 35mm film or the 300D at about four times the ISO: 400 or even 800. that sounds fast enough to go well beyond "either bright light or a tripod".
  
BJL,
You've forgotten the whole purpose of this thread, ie. the ISO ratings for the F828 are wrong[/i].

I suspect the reasons for this are as follows. Such a small photodiode that the F828 uses is typically going to be very, very noisy, especially in the shadows. To overcome this, Sony have adopted the technique of 'flooding' the sensor with light. At the same time, they've made the sensor quite insensitive so the highlights are not blown. This way they achieve the maximum DR the small pixel is capable of, whilst reducing (comparatively) the effects of the other sources of noise (thermal, dark current, photonic etc).