Yes, Sony Killed the DSLR, By Art of Photography. What do you think AFTER watching the video? (Page 4): That has no relevance with regard to why something was "rejected" years ago.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Just last night I bought my second "mirrorles... (show quote)

That has no relevance with regard to why something was "rejected" years ago.

Your own personal preferences and wants are insignificant when it comes to a manufacturer deciding what they should pursue.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

OldSchool-WI wrote:

________________________________
Do you only quote others? Why don't you speak from your own experience? I speak from experience and as I say have both the Sony DSC F717 and now two DSC F828s I don't have the defects you are confident exist. Maybe they didn't know how to take pictures? And you maybe believe too much in critics? So--who is right---someone who reads old garbage or someone who uses two breakthrough concept mirrorless L shaped Sony cameras????-------ew

P.S.----And I find 8 megapixels quite adequate for what I use the DSC F828 for. (3840x2160) and a 4 color sensor which improves on the Nikon and Canon 3 color. Also it is a CCD.The lens has he equiv. of the full range 28-200mm. A perfect carry around marvel.-----ew

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Grahame wrote:

That has no relevance with regard to why something was "rejected" years ago.

Your own personal preferences and wants are insignificant when it comes to a manufacturer deciding what they should pursue.

Now----I agree with that. In fact if the mass just happens to like what I like---I think there must be a mistake. Obviously the Sony company changed course due to lack of interest in mirrorless concept cameras and they discontinued that line with this model in 2005----

BebuLamar

What's wrong if the camera you chose is rejected by most people? You can get it for cheap. I would love that.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

BebuLamar wrote:

What's wrong if the camera you chose is rejected by most people? You can get it for cheap. I would love that.

Yes, That is just what I did last night with the DSC F828 on eBay--(I WAS ONLY BIDDER UNTIL FINAL MINUTES)---camera--connections cords--extra battery--charger--manual case--and a Sony programmable intensity flash----$78.--including $15 postage. Totally electronic--finder and panel. (130,000dots on panel) and the Zeiss 28-200 equiv lens. Just great.----ew

BebuLamar

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Yes, That is just what I did last night with the DSC F828 on eBay--(I WAS ONLY BIDDER UNTIL FINAL MINUTES)---camera--connections cords--extra battery--charger--manual case--and a Sony programmable intensity flash----$78.--including $15 postage. Totally electronic--finder and panel. (130,000dots on panel) and the Zeiss 28-200 equiv lens. Just great.----ew

Well you should keep it. You liked it don't you? I chose what I like and if others don't I would enjoy the cheap price. I don't sell what I like because the world rejected it.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

OldSchool-WI wrote:

________________________________
Do you only quote others? Why don't you speak from your own experience? I speak from experience and as I say have both the Sony DSC F717 and now two DSC F828s I don't have the defects you are confident exist. Maybe they didn't know how to take pictures? And you maybe believe too much in critics? So--who is right---someone who reads old garbage or someone who uses two breakthrough concept mirrorless L shaped Sony cameras????-------ew

The "old garbage" was written at the time your vaunted (in your mind) DSC-F828 was new to the market. The "old garbage" was written by Ken Rockwell and DPReview, both of which I trust more than you. Apparently the market had little trust in your camera as well since there was never a subsequent version. Today we would call such a camera a "bridge camera" with much better models such as the Canon SX50, and the Nikon P900, both of which not only survived...but were upgraded with new models.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

OldSchool-WI wrote:

I think there must be a mistake. Obviously the Sony company changed course due to lack of interest in mirrorless concept cameras and they discontinued that line with this model in 2005----

I would suggest the obvious mistake is with those that consider 'THEY' know why Sony discontinued a model/concept, unless of course they have inside knowledge by working within the company.

To assume something was discontinued solely due to "lack of interest in mirrorless concept cameras" suggests naivety. Manufactures will discontinue something for a number of reasons, ranging from poor performance to competitors products outperforming them. They also understand that poor products can ruin their reputation.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

BebuLamar wrote:

Well you should keep it. You liked it don't you? I chose what I like and if others don't I would enjoy the cheap price. I don't sell what I like because the world rejected it.

Possibly I was not clear. I bought a second DSC F282---because I liked the one I already owned and wanted to make sure I have one in case something goes wrong. It was a purchase---not a sale. I haven't sold anything I own---probably never that I can remember.-----ew

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

Grahame wrote:

I would suggest the obvious mistake is with those ... (show quote)

One of the early threads he started here in UHH was about online and print reviewers and whether or not we should trust them.

I think I now know why he started that thread. I believe he thinks they are responsible for killing his two favorite cameras...the two he has name dropped dozens of times...the Sigma Foveon based cameras and the Sony DSC-F828.

In some ways the Foveon was revolutionary. At low ISOs it produced breathtaking color, however, it reportedly suffered from noise above ISO 400 to the point that there were blotchy areas in those colors. Likewise the Sony also had problems with noise and aberrations due to the tiny 8mp sensor with very small photosites.

But he wants to blame the reviewers.

BebuLamar

flip1948 wrote:

One of the early threads he started here in UHH wa... (show quote)

If that is so. (well I think you're right but I think he would deny it) then the question is why he is upset. If reviewers killed his favorite cameras they only create a chance for him to have them cheap. He should thank them for that.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

flip1948 wrote:

One of the early threads he started here in UHH wa... (show quote)

_______________________
When you have no idea what you are talking about why don't you keep it to yourself?----I bring up the innovative Sony DSC F828 because it is mirrorless and excellent 20 years ago and nobody wanted mirrorless at that time---obviously. And I bring up the Foveon X3 sensor because it beats out the rest which are Bayer type sensors---pure and simple. It does not have any problem with ISO---read the book---Our World Tour and check out the conditions Mario Dirks captured his stunning work. I bring up critics since like all journalistic media---they have mixed loyalties and editors who pave the way and make demands based on advertising. And I wanted responses from UHH. I was looking for thoughtful responses and got a few between the snarky attackers and those like yourself----"playing amateur psychologist." NOW IS THAT PLAIN ENOUGH FOR EVEN YOU?-----ew

Grahame Loc: Fiji

OldSchool-WI wrote:

And I bring up the Foveon X3 sensor because it beats out the rest which are Bayer type sensors---pure and simple. It does not have any problem with ISO---read the book---Our World Tour and check out the conditions Mario Dirks captured his stunning work.

Why not simply show some of your examples, say ISO 800 and above, that demonstrate that "It does not have any problem with ISO".

As an expert, owner and user you surely have many images that can support what you say?

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Grahame wrote:

Why not simply show some of your examples, say ISO 800 and above, that demonstrate that "It does not have any problem with ISO".

As an expert, owner and user you surely have many images that can support what you say?

_____________________________
Do you mean to say you shoot at 800 and above just because you claim it? Everybody knows that 100 gives the best results in any sensor. 800 or 1600 are not as good as 100 or 200 and therefore I only have used such in emergencies. But they don't fringe or change colors. Show us some of your high iSOs. I don't push my shooting just to prove I can. Every camera does its best at 100-200 or even at 400 when needed.-----ew

Grahame Loc: Fiji

OldSchool-WI wrote:

_____________________________
Do you mean to say you shoot at 800 and above just because you claim it? Everybody knows that 100 gives the best results in any sensor. 800 or 1600 are not as good as 100 or 200 and therefore I only have used such in emergencies. But they don't fringe or change colors. Show us some of your high iSOs.

So nothing to back up your comment then, not even any 'emergency' ones?

OldSchool-WI wrote:

It does not have any problem with ISO

I suppose that would be the case when you limit ISO range to something low that it can handle?

OldSchool-WI wrote:

I don't push my shooting just to prove I can.

Nor do I, only when it's necessary.

1/60s, f/2.8, ISO25600
1/60s, f/2.8, ISO25600...

(Download)