Mike Johnston of Luminous Landscape talks about how he’s looking forward to the new Sony 8MP digital camera.
My main beef with digital SLRs is that too many compromises are made to integrate old lenses and traditional camera body styles. If you look at a high-end Nikon/Canon digital camera and the corresponding film cameras, they really almost identical to each other. If we are getting rid of the film, why not take the time/effort to build something new and better that takes into account the fact that there is no film? To me, the F828 is exciting for many reasons including the new CCD, the Compact Flash card slot, and the body style, which seems purpose-built for digital, not a carry-over from film.
But I have to report that I find myself much more strongly drawn to the new Sony F-828. Of all the digital cameras IÌve owned, used, held, or seen, the Sony F-717 (which I wrote about here) was, so far, the only one that IÌve placed in my personal pantheon of favorite cameras. It was nifty, fun, cool, and different.
Luminous Landscape SM–08-24
via Gizmodo
The size aspects of DSLRs are due to optical considerations, not film issues, and are not likely to change with the change to digital.
If you look closely, there isn’t that much different mechanically speaking between film and digital. Light rays focused by a lens hit a rectangular sensor to produce an image. The main difference is that digital does not have a canister and spool, and associated transport mechanism, and thus can be narrower. If you look carefully at DSLRs, you will see they are indeed narrower than their film cousins (this is specially true of Olympus).
With Foveon sensors, there are interesting possibilities to not correct optics for chromatic aberration and do it in software instead, but ordinary RGBG or RGBE sensors cannot do that.
The form factor of SLRs is actually conditioned by two things: the optical path used by the SLR system gives it its distinctive top with a pentaprism, the SLR mirror gives it its bulky center box, and the need to provide a good grip gives it a minimum width. At most, you can expect a camcorder-style hand grip on the sides like the old Yashica Samurai or Olympus IS.
If you dispense with through-the-lens (TTL) viewing, you need to either supply a Leica-style rangefinder (but that introduces parallax) or an electronic viewfinder (EVF).
Even the best EVFs are nowhere as precise as TTL for focusing and previewing depth of field, specially in areas like macro.
I would certainly welcome a digital Leica M, but that isn’t coming anytime soon, and even then, there is a reason why SLRs are predominant for amateur film photography – they are the most versatile design available.
The Sony DSC-F828 weighs 906 grams.
The body of the new Pentax *ist digital SLR weighs about 550 grams.
A Pentax FA28/2.8 lens weighs 185 grams, and I suspect that with its
5 lenses — of which one is aspherical — it delivers a better picture
quality than the Zeiss/Sony 7x zoom which probably contains about 15
lenses. With a prime lens, the Pentax *ist Digital would be more compact
and more lightweight than the Sony F828 !
On the tele end, the Zeiss/Sony lens is quite slow, close to f/2.8.
50mm f/1.4 lenses for SLRs are very affordable, and would also be much
more advantageous as far as depth of field control is concerned, e.g. for
portrait photography.
A 50mm would have on the Pentax *ist an angle of view equivalent to a
76mm short tele, very appropriate for portraits.
Depth of field at f/2.8 on the Sony’s 11-mm diagonal CCD is probably much
more extended than a f/1.4 lens’ on the Pentax’s 28-mm diagonal CCD.
The Sony, despite having a larger and better CCD than most of its competition,
is thus quite unappealing for people like me who hate the enormous DoF one
typically gets with digital camera’s tiny CCDs.
It remains to be seen whether Pentax will price the *ist Digital SLR body at a
reasonable level — hopefully not much more than US$1200. That would
make it very attractive to owners of Pentax SLRs, as the *ist is compatible
with a large number of K-mount Pentax lenses.
I think they can do whatever they like to the body design as long as they keep compatability with Nikon or Canon lenses.
The lenses are the real investment – A photographer may spend may times what he does on camera bodies on lenses and expect them to last upwards of ten years – to draw in the old film crowd, they need to provide this kind of transition, I think.
For me, a Nikon user, knowing that I won’t throw away my next lens when I throw away the camera is key – I’m spending quite a bit on lenses that I can then use on any Nikon SLR, digital or film.
Jim, look carefully at how the camera companies are promising backwards compatibility but arent really providing it. That new Canon EOS Kiss Digital? Has a proprietary lens mount, not a standard EOS mount, although EOS lenses will be able to be used via an adapter.
I guess my point is to be wary of “lens lock-in” where you spend so much on glass that you can’t see the forest for the trees. I certainly did that
Gen, you are mistaken, the 300D has a perfectly standard EF mount and is fully compatible with all Canon EF lenses without the need for an adapter.
What it does have is a special low-profile SLR mirror that allows more space for protruding rear lens elements than other EOS bodies, and they designed a special EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens that will only mount on the 300D (and is only sold as part of a kit with the 300D). That lens gives a 28-90mm equivalent for $100, probably because they figured the target market for the 300D could not afford a $900 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L.
Fazal, thanks for the correction. Still my point is that the SLR manufacturers are shoehorning us into continuing aspects of the 35mm paradigm. Maybe I have to get a DSLR to see what the fuss is about.
Facts often forgotten is that the Luminance noise is about the same for cameras with different sensor sizes!!! I.e. canon 10D gives the same luminance noise as the Sony camera (using the smaller sensor) if the depth of sharpness is identical for two lenses with the same lens angle. However (with the same shutter speed) the Canon lens then must be closed down about three stops resulting in an ISO-value approximately eight times larger giving the same Luminance noise.
We really are not comparing like with like here.
I’m currently upgrading from a Fuji 6900, a brilliant and beautifully made small camera which has allowed me to put digi pix of A4 and on one occasion almost A3 (yes!!!) into the magazine FOOD & WINE Magazine (Ireland) that I edit – the proviso being that I have to be very careful with framing so I don’t have to crop.
The Minolta A1 currently sells for under 1200 euro, the 828 they reckon will come in at (street price) around the same money. In order to do what I do, I won’t need an enormous battery of lenses, 28-105 would cover 99% of what I shoot. The Sony and the A1 offer me f2/2.8 respective lenses from qual makers, plus a plethora of usable features, all wrapped up in a durable magnesium alloy body. In comparison, the D300 is a bag of awful-looking plastic crud, brings the attendant problem of dust on the sensor(read some of the forums concerning the EOS 10D) and a lot more moolah to get a lens of equivalent spec/quality.
Full time pros will surely opt for the EOS 10D if they can’t afford the EOS 1D rather than the wobbly D300. But unless you already own a battery of Canon lenses, or are going to collect them, surely you’d be better of with an A1 or 828?
Only question is “Which?”
SONY HAS FINALLY WON MANY HEARTS THAT WERE ONCE CLOSE TO FILMS. OLD GUYS, BEFORE THEY KICK THE BUCKET, MUST CHANGE WITH TIME. DIGITAL IS HERE TO SATY. THE DAY WILL SOON COME WHERE 35MM WILL BE THE TOY FOR THE DULL PURISTS. I AM MARRIED TO THE SONY F828 WHICH HAS YET TO BE LAUNCHED.
You are only a tiny tot, Simba. Films are the basis of photography. Put them away and you have taken the crux of photography away. Yet, I can’t live without a digicam.
The Canon 300D and the Sony DSC 828 are on my shortlist but which will give me the best quality for prints up to A4? How does the Zeiss lens compare to the EF-S lens? I’m a fan of Contax optics but is this really of the same standard?
And what about camera durability?
If I can toss in my two cents on the size and dimensions of digital versus film cameras:
One thing that seems to be missing here is the “look” of the camera. I’ve read forum postings, some from pro photographers, that complain about various new digital camera’s appearances. The Sony 828 has been called ugly in more than a few posts, and the 717 has been called the same. Plus (omigawd!), the 717 wasn’t black! Horrors!
My point is that, even though the manufacturers could go in all sorts of directions regarding the overall design, I think they realize that a large portion of their high-end buyers want the thing to LOOK like a standard BBC (Big Black Camera).
Sony Body Ugly?
I have a Sony F707 – It has taken 21,000 pictures in the last 3 years. It is used in the construction environment for contract recording.
I also use a batch of Contax’s. I have been in photography for 35 years.
The Sony body is – by comparison to SLRs and Twin lens reflex bodys the most versitile of them all.
With a swinging/ rotating back you can operate the camera as a twin lens reflex or as a normal SLR (without viewfinder). I do not conside ‘what it looks like’ as relevant. The proof of the pudding is that for raportage photography it cant be beaten. As you are ‘not pointing the camera’ at your subject(s) but apparently looking at your feet – you can capture incredibly natural photographs. As soon as you point a camera you become immediately aware that your subject becomes ‘camera aware’ and you loose that natural feel of the person.
RE: Sony f828.
I have used Minolta slr’s for thirty years and have a pile of their lenses and third party products as well and will not part with any of it, using a Polaroid 2700dpi scanner to digitize. I can say that I spend as much time scanning the negatives as taking pictures and it is a terrible boring experience but the quality of the scans has up till now been worth it and far better than the semi soft 6 megapixel images I see. Recently I saw a show of mural sized images whose close up resolution was a jumble of jaggies and soft edges. It made me want to wipe my eyes as if they were the problem and not the images. I am hoping (against hope) that the new Sony will be somewhat superior to the Canon which took the above set of prints with its 6 megapixel resolution. I am getting the Sony in the hopes that it will make some difference though when making murals I will have to stick to the Minolta film camera and kit. In a few years this will not be an issue as digital cameras will be equal to and superior even to 35mm film scanned as I have been doing. I will welcome putting the scanner to sleep forever when that day comes!
Lets face it, user wont pick the old BBC over the hype sony design.
If you want it big and black, go for tobleron chocolates.
It’s more delicious
And for the pict and stuff, normal people would rather have their pict to be vivid, not just natural
That’s what sony has been giving.
I’ve owned ~20 digital cameras so far, and have not factored the “looks” of the camera when deciding on what to buy. I’v own a canon 10d and the grip of that camera is amazing it just feels right. I also owned the sony 717 and it was quite awkward to hold specialy in portrait mode… any way the sony is not out yet. We cannot compare…. but the release date has been pushed back several times….and the price adjusted lower, I’m beginning to think it wont be such a great camera. It missed the Xmass sales season something might be wrong.
Anyway c’ya!
I would imagine the Sony delay was due to Minolta’s image stabilised lens surprise. I have a 717 and was waiting for the 818. But now I shall wait longer still. The Minolta has noise at all iso’s. The Sony is not stabilised and I like sharp,clear, pix so they are both out. Possibly there will be, and should be, a stabilised upgrade to the Sony. The 717 was the best. The 818 is not stabilised and this is now the future of digicams. You can bet the 819 will be stabilised. Why stabilised? It is not always sunny!
I have had the Sony F505 ofr nearly 4 years. At the time it was the latest thing even though it is only 2 megapixels. It produces great 6 x 4 pictures BUT it has defects – the LCD disappears in strong sunlight and there is no EVF, there is sunstantial shutter lag resulting in missed shots, and it has no anti-red eye. The F828 looks as if it may answer these problems. The only other options seem to be the Minolta A1 although reports say the image quality is not as good and the Canon 300D. Has anyone any experience of these last two cameras.
I still think the Sony F828 is going to be hard to beat at the suggested new prices. The Pentax *ist D might be lighter but look at the price! The Canon EOS 300D is in a similiar price bracket but does not have the same flexibility as it is really a cut down 10D and the 10d is far more expensive. I am not worried about various different lenses as I would prefer to keep dust out of the CCD and if it is sealed by the manufacturer that is great. A 28mm-200mm focal length equivalent is fine.
I live in UK and dates on my earlier messages are often later than I typed them. Today is 29th December 2003 and Sony, true to their word, have the F828 in the local shops – and I live in the sticks and not in London! Okay so it was the only one they had in the shop but at least I got my hands on the camera. It is not as heavy as it may seem and compared with film SLR’s it is quite light. The EFV is remarkably clear and the zoom ring easy to operate. Overall I liked it as I am a bit wary of having interchangeable lenses with a CCD due to the dust problem. I expect I will get one as it seems the only reasonable option at the moment unless I go for something a lot cheaper. I have not bought it yet as I do not rush into things and am awaiting more reviews about it but at the moment with its 8mp CCD and 4 colour filters it seems one of the better buys on the market. Has anyone any other alternatives in this price range (¨£770).
Hi i am a complete beginner to photography and i am only interested in portrait,i have read reviews on 300d and sony f828,but i am unable to decide which would be best for my purpose, any help would be much appreciated.My friend insists the 300d is better for portrait but i dont trust his judgement.Thanks