| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2003 11:40:46 AM · #1 |
DCressource have posted the first review on the DSC-F828
What do you guys think??
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 11:46:53 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 11:55:37 AM · #3 |
Looks like they didn't tackle the noise issues. The iso 800 shot on that link is worse than iso 3200 on my canon...
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 11:58:37 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Looks like they didn't tackle the noise issues. The iso 800 shot on that link is worse than iso 3200 on my canon... |
Yep, ya cram 8 million pixels into a tiny sensor, you've got serious noise to deal with!
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 12:01:12 PM · #5 |
| ISO 200 and up looks horrible,much worse than 5050 ! |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 12:56:38 PM · #6 |
| Less desire to upgrade to F828 now. I would like to see a comparison to F7x7 image. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 02:49:01 PM · #7 |
| I wouldn't spend a grand [esp. in US funds] on anything other than a canon. [and I've done tons of research!] |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 03:20:30 PM · #8 |
You must live in a tiny house...
Message edited by author 2003-12-30 15:20:51. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 03:52:06 PM · #9 |
everyone seems to discount the f828 as soon as they see the noise.. the problem is that the f828 has been compared to the 300D/10D on almost every site.. why not compare it to something in the same category? the f828 isn't a DSLR and it's not trying to be.. lets compare it to the f717, or other prosumer non-dslr's, and we'll see just how "noisy" it is... I'm still waititng for that kind of review.. I KNOW it cant beat the 10D's smooth CMOS sensor (no CCD camera CAN..), but lets see it against other CCD cameras, like the A1 and whatnot..
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 04:17:17 PM · #10 |
| I think the article also makes a good point in stating that to get comparable lens quality and ability for a DSLR you'll have to spend beacoup dollars for a couple extra lenses. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 04:40:19 PM · #11 |
400 ISO Sony F828
400 ISO Canon G3
Message edited by author 2003-12-30 16:58:30. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 05:59:12 PM · #12 |
In the images from the review it looks like the photographer left the aperture and shutter speeds the same and simply changed the ISO. The photo at 400 ISO looks way over-exposed so, of course, the noise is going to be more pronounced. I'm sure it would look much better if it were properly exposed. Now I'm not saying it is exactly on par with the better DLRS but the noise looks to be more manageable then some people are saying.
I'm curious as to what it is about a CMOS sensor that can achieve less noise levels than a CCD. Is this really true?
T |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 06:05:19 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by timj351:
In the images from the review it looks like the photographer left the aperture and shutter speeds the same and simply changed the ISO. The photo at 400 ISO looks way over-exposed so, of course, the noise is going to be more pronounced. I'm sure it would look much better if it were properly exposed. Now I'm not saying it is exactly on par with the better DLRS but the noise looks to be more manageable then some people are saying.
I'm curious as to what it is about a CMOS sensor that can achieve less noise levels than a CCD. Is this really true?
T |
I don't know the answer, but I know that i have to shoot at iso 1600 or iso 3200 when I want pronounced grain in my photos. I can't get it at 800 or less.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 06:37:40 PM · #14 |
Oh sure, rub it in :-) I'll just have to "make do" with my lowly F707 and Noise Ninja for a while longer.
T |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 06:42:19 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by timj351:
I'm curious as to what it is about a CMOS sensor that can achieve less noise levels than a CCD. Is this really true? |
I think I agree with what kirbic says:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yep, ya cram 8 million pixels into a tiny sensor, you've got serious noise to deal with! |
I think a lot of it has to do with resolution and sensor size, rather than sensor material.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 07:14:04 PM · #16 |
in the case of the f828.. after seeing MANY full size pics from it on the dpreview forum (and other places), i'm not all that concerned about the noise.. but the Chromatic Abherration is definatly coming from the lense, and not "light spilling" to adjacent sensors as some have suggested.. The CA is very directional, meaning it's always pointing away from the center.. this can only mean that it's a somewhat faulty lense design, which saddens me a bit, since it's not something easily fixable.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 07:15:12 PM · #17 |
Talking about megapixel, the 828 got 4:3 image ratio while the 300d have a 3:2 image ratio. It's a fact that most of the print are 3:2 image ratio and it's the image ratio that have the most different size you can print. If you convert the 8Mp picture of the 828 to 3:2 to print a 4x6 a 8x12 a 10x15, 16x24 or 20x30 that leaves you with 7.1MP while the 300d stay with 6.3Mp. it's only a .8MP difference, not 2MP
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 07:33:42 PM · #18 |
ah.. but if you print a *very* common 8x10, the canon becomes a 5.24mp, and the sony a 7.49mp, a 2.25mp difference :)
(if you want the math:
Canon:
Original size:
3072*2048 6.29mp
1.25 aspect ratio (for 8x10)
2560*2048 5.24mp
Sony
Original size:
3264*2448 7.99mp
1.25 aspect ratio (for 8x10)
3060*2448 7.49mp
7.49-5.24=2.25
So it all really depends on what you do most often. In my case, i almost always go for the 8x10.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2003 10:34:39 PM · #19 |
| In the reviews I've read so far, the A1 got very good marks on Chromatic Aberration. |
|
|
|
12/30/2003 10:50:08 PM · #20 |
| I'm trading my 717 for a Kodak box camera or a Brownie: no noise, no chromatic aberration. |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 12:22:27 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by timj351:
I'm curious as to what it is about a CMOS sensor that can achieve less noise levels than a CCD. Is this really true?
T |
//electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-camera3.htm The difference between CCD and CMOS sensors.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yep, ya cram 8 million pixels into a tiny sensor, you've got serious noise to deal with! |
I'm beginning to wonder. The larger the MP size on a CCD camera, the greater the noise? If thats the case, I wonder at what point does the MP size of a CCD camera make the picture worse[noise-wise], when increased. ...if that made any sense?
Also, what's chromatic aberration? |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 01:01:56 AM · #22 |
Chromatic Aberation is a bad thing. Read about it here:dpreview on CA
and here:Looking at Digital Camera Color Errors |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 01:14:42 AM · #23 |
Well, according to this article anyway, it is the CCD that is supposed to yield lower noise and higher quality than the CMOS. This being said, it is clear that a lot of other factors are involved.
T |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 03:50:10 AM · #24 |
| This Camera is such an exponentially huge improvement over anything I owned before that I don’t have much to complain about yet. Being colorblind, chromatic aberration is a lifestyle, not a defectâ€Â¦ |
|
|
|
12/31/2003 11:19:50 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by jjbeguin:
This Camera is such an exponentially huge improvement over anything I owned before that I don’t have much to complain about yet. Being colorblind, chromatic aberration is a lifestyle, not a defectâ€Â¦ |
Post some samples,I'm waiting to see :-) , and congrats to a new camera !
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 06:02:51 AM EDT.
