Is the Sony F828 junk?

of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 27 matches.
senkonateCLOSED-B
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:39PM
I want to get a digital camera for work, but have had a few negative reviews from friends. Does anyone like the f828, or better yet, can anyone recommend a great camera in that price range?

Thanks, senkonate
zeiler1
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:57PM
When I bought, the Canon digital rebel was the same price as the Sony F828. I don't know about now though, but you could probably pick up a used rebel with a couple or three lenses for CHEAP now that the 20D is out.

I bought the rebel to replace my F505 and would never go back.

In my opinion, the rebel beats the F505 hands down and should be affordable in comparison with the 828.

Maybe I'm off to EBAY now to confirm some prices
sandoclr
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 11:07PM
Yes, it's junk. I had it last summer for 2 days before returning it. If you search these forums you'll find many reviews.
monokul
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 7:18AM
I’ll not be so strong in my words to say it’s junk. It depends what you want to do with it and how good as a photographer you are. I had a 828 but now it’s stolen from me so I have a Canon 300D (rebel) but don’t like it. I have a 20D and the picture is different. But for the Sony. What I hated was 1.the noise 2.the max aperture is F8 3.the color temperature settings. Otherwise it have better metering machine, sharper than the Canon, great macro, it’s small and light, you’ll never get dust on your sensor (matrix), you’ll picture what you see – no parallax. But it have strong purple fringing.
So tell me what you want to use it for? I can show you some professional work made with the Sony 828 and it’s good.
Atlantagreg
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 8:18AM
"Junk" is a rather harsh word, but it's a disappointment over what it COULD have been. I think the problem is that Sony was in a rush to be the FIRST maker to get an 8MP consumer camera out on the market (at the time) and they missed a few things on the 828.

There are three biggies about the 828: 1) Even in "fine" mode, the compression is a bit heavier than it should be, which can have an effect on fine detail. 2) The sensor is just too darn small (physically) for 8 million pixles - this introduces more noise at iso speeds of 200 and up... and 3) The purple fringing issue. Most digicams have it to some degree, but it's just too severe on the 828 under some conditions (not all pics, but when it shows up, it shows up big time).

Funny thing is, Sonys booboo helped the OTHER camera makers, most of whom use the Sony CCD in their 8MP models. By seeing Sonys problems, they were able to refine their models a bit more before releasing them, so the noise/fringing issues were not as bad on their models as they were on the Sony.

The 828 has been out quite a while (as has the Digital Rebel by Canon). I'm expecting BOTH of them to have replacements announced either at the PMA show this month, or, by summer. Unless you need to buy something right now, you might want to wait around a couple of weeks and see what comes up.
outlook
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 9:17AM
I recomend that you read this Review about SONY DSC 828 and CANNON SR 5000 and NIKON and get your own opinion based on characteristic and not with err un-based opinions.. OK

READ carefully

FULL description and comparition:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/

Little description:
http://www.dcmag.co.uk/news/article.asp?SP=496969680892640260534&v=4&UAN=385 Review article
sandoclr
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 9:21AM
I'm standing by my harsh words as junk. Sorry. Here is the very old thread about it. I had it for a few days and it got returned. You can read the progression of my thoughts in the thread. It had horrible noise at 64 ISO in the daylight. It's just not honestly worth the money. Especially, now that there are other options available. When I got the F828 it was the only 8 megapixel camera available. I'm also just a strong believer in that you have to have the ability to change lenses for ideal work.


(Edited on 2005-02-01 09:30:26 by sandoclr)
monokul
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 1:05PM
Well, I don’t want to lead a fight but to speak of something as a crap is stupid especially when you don’t know it well enough. If you can’t work with something and it does not satisfy your needs this does not mean that it will not do it for someone else. I’ve made with my 828 pictures for a magazine. I used studio lighting Visatec and a light meter so I created a perfect conditions for the camera knowing the problems it has. If you want a cheap camera for professional work you have to act as a professional. You can not expect the camera to do the job. As a proof of my words I provide a link with my photos made for magazines and published size A4 with perfect quality.sony's made
sandoclr
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 1:55PM
Yes, beautiful photos and work. If you read the old thread - I believe I stated it will work for some and not others. I do feel that there are way better options and I'm sticking to the the fact that I believe it's an inferior camera. My point is why pay that money for a camera with problems?
monokul
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 2:33PM
If this is all the money you have! But you are right that for serious work you need a serious camera. I work with Canon now. No doubt it's better considering the RAW format and the high ISO. Also the frames per sec. More comfortable, more power with the battery grip. Can't compare the cameras but when you're talking money! I spend 2 500 euros only for Body 20D and 17-40L lens + 650 euros for 550 Speedlite and battery grip it is 4 100$ and I'm not stopping. I want 24-70L and macro rings )) So no offence I respect everybody's opinion and I agree with you that it depends on what you need it for. No hard feelings )
gremlin
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 3:01PM
What sandoclr said. I had it for a test drive the same time when she had hers and honestly, I was really disappointed as well. Nice consumer camera with 8mp you don't really need, with lots of noise and other digital compact restrictions you don't want to read about. The only thing that really surprised me was fast autofocus. In your case, I would certainly test other (newer) models and brand names.
iceninephoto
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 4:18PM
Manufacturers of cameras use the word "megapixels" the way vacuum cleaner manufacturers use the word "amps".

Amps is the measure of current consumption of the vacuum, and has nothing to do with cleaning power or suction.

As for the 828, Sony used the "8 Megapixel" stat as the driving force behind the cameras' advertising. Megapixels has as much to do with quality as amps has to do with vacuum cleaner performance. More megapixels doesn't mean muich when the extra pixels are used to output noise and artifacts

In the words of Phil Askey, Sony may have put marketing ahead of quality with the 828.

The 8mP sensors are problematic. Sony quickly abandoned the 8mP imager in favor of their better behaved 7mP imager.

Having said that, the 828 can output great images if you very carefully expose, and are willing to run actions on images showing fringing.

Above ISO 64 the camera starts getting real noisy.

Vasko
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 5:20PM
Junk? Junk? Junk?????????

How could you call it junk.

If the camera is so delicate that you really have to know what you are doing to take a good shot with it then how can it be a good all around camera? IF you have to spend 45min in PS to clean up every picture then how can it be a good camera? Above ISO 64 it gets noisy? Nooooooooo it’s not junk It’s a piece of S#!T. I think that’s more appropriate.

But that’s only my opinion… I’m anti SONY. Their just like McDonalds. All about marketing but their product is crap.
monokul
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 10:32PM
Ha ha ha ha,
I would like to see how you expose color slide. You are so spoiled as a photographers that if somebody invent virus and kill all digital cameras you'll probably die starving!!! HA HA HA HA
hidesy
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Feb 1, 2005 10:49PM
LOL Monokul. If digital cameras went bye bye I'd be screwed. Never owned a film based camera... and don't really want to...

But yes, I'm spoiled

Edit... btw - I love some of those photos!

(Edited on 2005-02-01 10:59:31 by hidesy)
gremlin
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Feb 2, 2005 1:35AM
Lol at monokul! Ha ha. When digital virus like that happens, I'll just buy an old 8mm film camera and start making cheap porno movies.
MacphersonPhoto
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Feb 2, 2005 2:33AM

Lol at monokul! Ha ha. When digital virus like that happens, I'll just buy an old 8mm film camera and start making cheap porno movies.


I'm shocked, Mat! I thought you did that already.
vander
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Feb 2, 2005 2:40AM
Your confused Linda..he said "cheap" porno flicks.. He's creating high quality Laser Disc movies at the moment.
gremlin
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Feb 2, 2005 2:51AM
LMAO!! Ha ha! Stop please! It's genetic, it's not my fault, honestly, I found some of those.. more liberal old 8 mm tapes in the attic.
MacphersonPhoto
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Feb 2, 2005 3:03AM

Your confused Linda..he said "cheap" porno flicks.. He's creating high quality Laser Disc movies at the moment. :D


Of course, my mistake. But I'm not convinced he "found" those tapes in the attic. Sounds like a desperate excuse to me.
This thread has been locked.
of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 27 matches.
Not a member?Join