Når kommer testen på sony 828?

[Åkken Bom]

Føler meg ikke helt trygg på denne testen. Han skriver at utsnittene vises i 100 % størrelse, men da skullle jo Sony-bildene vært en del større. I så fall vil støyen bli mindre åpenbar når bildene skaleres ned.

Med sine 8Mill pixler skulle jo tvert om bildet fra sony vært større enn det fra 10D men jeg går ut fra at billedstørrelsen er noenlunde lik på dem.

Men om jeg nå tar feil er det da uansett litt dumt med 8mill pixler når man ikke kan skrive ut filene like store som 300D's 6.3mill pixler

Endret 28. desember 2003 av Åkken Bom

[Arild Flatland]

Føler meg ikke helt trygg på denne testen. Han skriver at utsnittene vises i 100 % størrelse, men da skullle jo Sony-bildene vært en del større. I så fall vil støyen bli mindre åpenbar når bildene skaleres ned.

Artikkelforfatteren forklarer dette i teksten rett over bildene som ble lagt inn i tråden her. Klipper følgende fra artikkelen:

 

"I had to alter focal lengths used on the Canon to match that on the Sony, because of course the Canon 10D has a 1.5X cropping factor over standard 35mm focal lengths and the Sony is 8MP resolution Vs. the Canon's 6MP"

 

En annen ting er at disse bildene er blitt brukt for å teste linsen på Sony-kameraet, og Canon-bildene er tatt med ekstremt dyre linser. Se dette sitatet fra artikkelen:

 

"It took two large and very expensive Canon L series lenses to match the coverage and aperture of the Zeiss lens on the F828, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L."

 

Skulle denne testen vært reell burde man vel testet med Canons 18-55 linse på en 300D (som er det utstyret jeg har) for å se hvordan dette matcher 828. Så kunne man benyttet superlinser for å vise hvor bra ting kan bli med Canon 300D / 10D.

 

Uten at jeg vil ta stilling til "krigen" om støy kan det jo være interessant å ta med artikkelforfatterens konklusjon angående støy:

 

"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.

 

Unfortunately there are some folks who see a bit of noise texture in a 100% crop and somehow jump to the conclusion that the image is crap. It shouldn't be necessary to point this out, but if the entire image were shown it would be equivalent to an on-screen image almost 3 feet high by 4 feet wide. Of course you're going to see some noise and other artifacts. But the important thing to keep in mind is how does it look in a typical sized print — say up to 11X17" image size on paper? (Look at 42" Plasma HD TV from 6 inches away and you'll see dots. Watch the football game from 9 feet away and you'll enjoy the show).

 

The answer is, as I've stated several times in the above review — at ISO 64, and to a slightly lower extent ISO 100 — noise levels on prints are excellent. Almost indistinguishable from images shot with a Canon 10D and 70-200mm f/2.8L lens. Does it matter that on-screen, at actual-pixel magnification, there are more flaws on the Sony image that in the 10D image? Not one bit. If it can't be seen on a print it's relevance to the creative artist is essentially non-existant. To what some have called the "pixel-paparazzi" though, it is a call to arms. So be it. But readers who chance upon these on-line discussions (and the Sony Forum on DP Review is a hornet's nest) should take a pause after reading some of the vitriol.

 

Long-time readers will recall that there was a similar hubbub three years ago when I published the first review of the Canon D30, claiming that on modest sized prints it surpassed 35mm scanned film. "No way", cried the film faithful. But, within a year though there was almost universal agreement that the low noise of Canon's first DSLR was a major factor in its imaging capabilities, regardless of pixel count.

 

Then, just a bit over a year ago I published the first review of the 11 MP Canon 1Ds and found that it surpassed medium format scanned film. Again there was an outcry. "How can this be"? Yet, it wasn't more than a few months later that mainstream magazines around the world and countless pro photographers agreed that indeed images from the Canon 1Ds were the equal if not superior to scanned medium format film.

 

So, now I make the claim that on prints up to 11X17" the Sony F828 produces images that are the equal of those from a 6MP DSLR and a high quality zoom lens. Disagree? Go do the test for yourself if you can. Do an honest appraisal of well-shot, well-printed images. When you do, if your findings are different than mine — fine. Let me know and we can discuss it. But the rabid "Oh no, it can't be" Cassandras should, in the meantime, make the test for themselves rather than spouting their diatribes based on the way they think things should be, rather than on empirical tests."

 

En annen ting er jo at Canon 300D lever ganske lykkelig også med ISO 800...

Endret 28. desember 2003 av Arild Flatland

[poesi]

Steve's Digicam har testen av F828 klar nå: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f828.html.

 

Nå venter vi bare på Akameras test, samt testen fra en av de mest anerkjente og grundige testerne av digitale kamera - Phil Askey i dpreview.com.... Fikk du et eksemplar av F828 i går, mlwirak?

[mlwirak]

Nei, dessverre. Og representanten fra Sony var ikke på kontoret, så jeg vet ikke hva forsinkelsen skyldes.

 

Får håpe at jeg får det på fredag.