Superb, what else can you say about this new Sony miracle?...

Discussion in 'Sony' started by Marc, Jan 2, 2004.

  1. Marc

    Marc Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Marc

    Mark Herring Guest

    UMMMMMMM----That's not a very good picture. Underexposed and some
    really strange looking noise.

    Are we talking the new Sony 8MP here?? Surely there are better
    examples.
    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
     
    Mark Herring, Jan 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Marc

    Michael Guest

    How about noise.
     
    Michael, Jan 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Marc

    Mark M Guest

    Mark M, Jan 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Marc

    TrueBlue Guest

    TrueBlue, Jan 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Marc

    Alan D-W Guest

    Alan D-W, Jan 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Marc

    Rosario Guest

    ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Only 400 ISO !!!!!!!!

    Filename : Dsc00391.jpg
    JFIF_APP1 : Exif
    Main Information
    ImageDescription :
    Make : SONY
    Model : DSC-F828
    DateTime : 2003:01:13 06:20:39
    Sub Information
    ExposureTime : 1/640Sec
    FNumber : F3,2
    ExposureProgram : Manual
    ISOSpeedRatings : 400
    ExifVersion : 0220
    DateTimeOriginal : 2003:01:13 06:20:39
    DateTimeDigitized : 2003:01:13 06:20:39
    CompressedBitsPerPixel : 8/1 (bit/pixel)
    ExposureBiasValue : EV0,0
    MaxApertureValue : F2,0
    MeteringMode : Division
    LightSource : Flash
    Flash : Fired
    FocalLength : 7,10(mm)
    ExifImageWidth : 3264
    ExifImageHeight : 2448
    ExposureMode : Manual
    WhiteBalance : Manual
    SceneCaptureType : Standard
    Contrast : Normal
    Saturation : Normal
    Sharpness : Hard
    Vendor Original Information


    ???????????????????
     
    Rosario, Jan 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Marc

    Mark B. Guest

    Mark B., Jan 2, 2004
    #8
  9. Marc

    Marc Guest


    well yes, I was - but I'm also a bit worried.

    I've got an 828 on order, UK delivery later this month.

    To be honest, I feel like a ping-pong ball - batted from one opinion to
    another.

    Phil's Digicams liked it - but, as someone said in another forum, Phil is a
    bit like Will Rogers, who said that he had 'yet to find a man he didn't
    like', Phil appears yet to find a camera that he doesn't like...

    'Luminous Landscape' was more objective - and they also seemed to like it
    despite acknowledging the flaws. They said that noise was only a problem in
    huge enlargements, and that it wasn't an issue in everyday shots.

    However, these people are professional photographers - and could probably
    squeeze a good image out of a rough wooden box with a pin-hole in it. I, on
    the other hand, am an amateur amongst amateurs, and I fear that my efforts
    will resemble the posted link!

    Considering that most of the settings seemed to be 'auto', it seemed an
    appallingly bad photo to me.

    I really don't know what to do for the best.
     
    Marc, Jan 2, 2004
    #9
  10. Marc

    Larry Lynch Guest

    This may well be a photo that couldn't be taken by
    conventional means (difficult or impossible to do with
    film) but it sure is a bad example to use for the
    capabilities of the camera without any explaination.
     
    Larry Lynch, Jan 2, 2004
    #10
  11. Marc

    Larry Lynch Guest

    Wait 'till you get the camera....

    I had the same problem when I got my 717... before I had
    the chance to use it, everybody was showing BAD PICTURES
    and slammin' the hell out of the 717. It turned ot to be
    the best camera investment I ever made. I just didn't
    need the things the 717 doesnt do well. (High ISO for
    instance)

    If I didn't own a 717 and the 5mp Sony Mavicam I'de be
    ordering (or would have already ordered) the 828.

    If it is ANY improvement over the 717 (and I think the
    7x zoom and RAW mode take care of that) then its one
    helluva P&S camera. (even if it is a little pricey) I
    just dont think its priced right as move UPWARD from the
    717 for me. I consider the 828 to be more of a LATERAL
    move from the 717, for my purposes, which for the most
    part involve shooting indoor/outdoor with good light at
    ISO 100.
     
    Larry Lynch, Jan 2, 2004
    #11
  12. Marc

    Frank H Guest

    I thouhgt it was more like Pollocks
     
    Frank H, Jan 2, 2004
    #12
  13. Marc

    Ron Ginter Guest

    Looking at the exif data, we see manual exposure, shutter at 1/640 and
    aperture of f3.2 with ISO 400, AND "flash fired". This all makes me
    suspect that either the photographer was very inept, or was trying to make
    the camera look bad. I just noticed the sharpness was set to "hard", which
    probably was done to accentuate the noise, leading me to believe the second
    possibility.

    ....Ron
     
    Ron Ginter, Jan 2, 2004
    #13
  14. Looking at the exif data, we see manual exposure, shutter at 1/640 and
    Agreed

    Someone is taking the Michael, as we say!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 2, 2004
    #14
  15. Marc

    Mark M Guest

    Yes.
    The sarcasm was noted.
    I just get tired of this tactic.
    (And I'm no Sony fan...)
     
    Mark M, Jan 2, 2004
    #15
  16. Marc

    Marc Guest


    What can I say?

    I'm sorry that my sarcasm has offended you.

    You'll have to excuse me now, I'm going to go and rip my stomach open with a
    rusty knife as a penance for upsetting you........
     
    Marc, Jan 2, 2004
    #16
  17. Marc

    Kenny Guest

    If I were you I'd wait until the problems are solved. The noise can be
    fixed but the CA/PF is worse than a lot of really cheap and nasty
    digicams. It appears to be a lens issue which isn't something that is
    easily fixed.

    Sony has not delivered on its claims with the 828. No wonder they
    wouldn't allow pre-launch reviews or only had 'locked down' models at
    the trade shows. Not with a 10ft......

    Kenny
     
    Kenny, Jan 3, 2004
    #17
  18. Marc

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Why do you need the flash with an exposure time of 1/640s ? There is no
    backlight, so even fill-in wouldn't be necessary. The idiot who took the
    photo must have fixed the exposure time to 1/640s to make the resulting
    image look bad.
     
    Alfred Molon, Jan 6, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.