Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Sony F828 -vs- Canon 300D ? . . .  (Read 2470 times)

  • Guest
Sony F828 -vs- Canon 300D ? . . .
« on: February 04, 2004, 07:54:35 am »

Since you already have two Canon lenses I'd go with the Rebel. If you didn't, I'd suggets the Sony.

Michael
Logged

boku

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
    • http://www.bobkulonphoto.com
Sony F828 -vs- Canon 300D ? . . .
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2004, 07:04:26 pm »

Just realize, with those two lenses, there won't be much wide angle capability. You may well be able to get by, but I suspect the Sony will go a bit wider.

Honestly, aside from the slick gadget appeal of the Sony, I'd ignore it unless I already had a "meat and potatoes" DSLR. I know it is controversially wonderful, but I jump at the chance to get an interchangeable lens camera for the same money.

That's just me - function before fun. Boring, no?
Logged
Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...[b

  • Guest
Sony F828 -vs- Canon 300D ? . . .
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2004, 07:00:38 am »

Now we see one of the reasons why I almost never answer questions like this one. There's always another opinion.

Alll I'll add is that I was responnding to the question asked, not some generalized A is better than B query.

Hilton said he had $1000 to spend and told us what he already owned. Based on this information I gave my response.

Otherwise I have nothing more to add to this. The F828, even with its flaws is a great little camera. I have been showing A3 prints from my Tanzania trip to a number of people, with shots taken with the 1Ds, 10D and F828 mixed together, and no one[/i] can say which are which. It met my needs on that shoot, and may be appropriate for other photographers. For others it may not.

Michael
Logged

keith smith

  • Guest
Sony F828 -vs- Canon 300D ? . . .
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2004, 08:04:42 am »

I would venture the opinion that the Sony lens will give sharper images than his existing 20-70 and 70-300 if those lenses are the "consumer" grade cheap ones.
I know my dimage7i produces much better images that my old canon 1000 with its 35-70 and 70-300 "plastic" lenses.
(but not as good as my Olympus e1- sorry had to say it)

keith
Logged

HiltonP

  • Guest
Sony F828 -vs- Canon 300D ? . . .
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2004, 04:43:19 am »

A question . . .

Given that one has a Canon EOS 500n 35mm SLR plus two lenses (28-70 and 70-300), you are wanting to move to digital, and you have around $1000 to spend . . .

Do you go for something like the Sony F828, or do you buy the Canon 300D body only?

P.S. . . . You do mostly travel, landscape, and wildlife photography, very few "people pics".

Regards, HILTON
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Sony F828 -vs- Canon 300D ? . . .
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2004, 06:58:03 pm »

I concur with Michael. Get the Rebel body only and you'll have more camera for less (additional) money.
Logged

Sanders

  • Guest
Sony F828 -vs- Canon 300D ? . . .
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2004, 01:42:08 am »

Quote
Since you already have two Canon lenses I'd go with the Rebel. If you didn't, I'd suggets the Sony.

Michael
I agree, go with the 300D for sure - a dSLR still offers significantly more versatility than a camera like the 828, even more so when you already own a couple of lenses.

But I COMPLETELY disagree with Michael's advice "If you didn't (already own lenses) I'd suggest the Sony"...

I don't fly the flag for any camera, but misleading advice really bugs me.

I would be curious to hear it directly from Michael - if he was a photographic enthusiast knowing what he does about the 828, the 300d, the differences between digicams and dSLRs etc and could only choose ONE camera, either the 300D or the Sony 828, would he really choose the 828? I truly doubt it.

Buy into a dSLR and you're buying into a system you aren't going to outgrow, no matter what you want to do down the track.

I'm not sure why he would assume your interest in photography and exploring all facets of it is any less than his own.

Let's revisit Michael's own comments on the 828:

Re autofocus:

"This makes the camera much more responsive than other digicams I have used. It isn't an M series Leica, but it also isn't that far behind most autofocus DSLRs. "

AF performance is behind par with a dSLR, not like AF performance is a big deal... right? Hmm.. no mention or 828 shots of anything vaguely demanding action wise.

Re buffer:

"This means that whether you take one frame or 7 frames in these modes, the moment you take your finger off the shutter release the camera starts writing to disk, and isn't available to take another frame until the write process has completed."

re RAW:

"Useless RAW mode" (see article for reasons)

I'd say for anyone seriously interested in exploring digital photography(!) this is a MAJOR glitch... of course though the camera is still 'a keeper'?

re noise:

"ISO 200 Visible, but not too objectionable
ISO 400 Visible and annoying. Definitely needs improvement with 3rd party software  
ISO 800 Blotchy. Sometimes unusable even with software noise reduction"

(lack of) noise is a 300D STRONG point across the ISO range. Don't let anyone fool you, the less noise in the original image the better! Noise Ninja etc is great, but it is FAR better to have less noise..  based on Michael's comments rule out shooting above 200. That's not acceptable to me. As Michael himself has stated at other times, freely changing ISO's is a key freedom made possible by digital photog.

(Michael given your tests were so 'empirical' how about posting a range of long exposure shots at a range of ISO's compared to the 300D.. that kind of stuff is nuts and bolts of exploring photography isn't it?)

re the viewfinder:

"the Canon's optical SLR viewfinder is much better for framing and judging composition."

I'd say that the performance of the viewfinder is a key part of any camera, framing and judging composition, important stuff isn't it when making images? Why would you choose a lesser option?

on the system aspect:

"the Canon lens is removable, and any of Canon's 50 odd lenses, including all of their superb L series glass is available."

What is the option with the 828 as your interest grows, screw-on closeup and extenders?... of course, Michael would choose that type of system himself over a dSLR, NOT.

on credibility:

"I certainly wouldn't be bringing it along as a primary tool on a once-in-a-lifetime shoot, now would I?"

so the 828 was your pirmary tool, you packed it every day on your shoot without question and thought... 'nah, I don't need to take my 1Ds with a 500/f4 lens to get that shot... or my medium format digital setup for that once in a lifetime landscape... I'll take the 828 with screw-on extenders." I truly doubt it.

Actually if you read elsewhere in the article, the 828 wasn't the 'primary' tool at all, but:

"taking it as one of my main photographic tools on my trip to Tanzania"

one of the many pieces of equipment in Michael's kit.

A more accurate use of the 828? Michael's morning walk where as he himself said the purpose wasn't photgraphy, so he took the 828 along.

Yes ultimately photography is about the image, but as Michael himself well and truly knows equipment plays a huge part in getting many shots.. there are reasons photographers all aren't walking around with fuji quicksnaps, there's more to it than 'low bulk and weight'.

on camera testing/opinions:

"rather than spouting their diatribes based on the way they think things should be, rather than on empirical tests"

Michael's own tests are hardly empirical.

on depth of field control:

"Like most digicams with such short focal lengths depth of field is necessarily very deep, which can make selective focus almost impossible"

depth of field control is something I'm sure Michael would not give away, exploring it is great part of photography... why he is recommending you do exactly that (if you didn't own any Canon lenses) is beyond me!!

on interface usability:

"Sony needs to rethink this design if they want to produce a camera that serious photographers will find responsive."

if that kinda thing isn't ok for Michael, it's not ok for you either.

on the might 'live histogram':

"The live viewfinder histogram would be even better is it was accurate"

no comment needed.

on capability to deal with sports/action photography:

no comments by Michael, no images posted. I've only read posts of people having trouble getting decent action shots with the 828 (along with comments regarding the poor performance of the EVF). people are doing this kind of stuff with a 300D.

on the long exposure capability:

no detailed comments and no examples across a range of ISO's posted by anyone.


I could go on... but you get the picture!!

Here's what I think - read any online review with a grain of salt... or more.

Think about what the writer would actually choose themselves if they were given the choice between the camera they are reviewing and the ones _they use to make their living_...

I think as time goes buy the bridge concept will come of age for sure and it will most likely be great!!! (the bridge concept isn't new at all though, and did bomb in 35mm space)... but as it stands TODAY I think it is misleading to say anyone with a genuine interest in photography is better served in the long term by buying an 828 (or any of the top end digicams) over any of the entry dSLRs.

I'm not sure why Michael has chosen to be a cheerleader for the 828.. if it were ready for prime time I'd understand it, but as he himself clearly states it isn't. The optics look to be good, and the size is neat... but what else?

So to close this epic rant - take a look at the images Michael and others have taken with the 828, and ask yourself, could those images be taken with a 300D (or any other entry dSLR)... (I don't see anything outstanding from anyone) then look at images taken with the 300D... there's stuff you just can't do (or can do but the results aren't acceptable) with the 828... !

If you're ok with the limitations of the 828 and like a smaller camera go for it.

If you have a genuine interest in exploring all facets of photography and can see yourself being interested in digital photography for years to come... I couldn't agree less with Michael's secondary chunk of advice.. get the 300D, regardless of whether you own any Canon lenses or not.

Sanders
Logged

Scott_H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Sony F828 -vs- Canon 300D ? . . .
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2004, 07:20:57 am »

I would say that considering the lens you get on each camera for $1000, the 828 would be capable of a lot of things the 300D isn't.  Of course you can add another lens to the 300D later, and expand it's capabilities down the road, for a lot more money.
Logged
[url=http://scottsblog.my-expressions.co
Pages: [1]   Go Up