I love my Sony 828 but . . .

(since I do not see many recent postings to this group!)

.. . . the more I understand how the D70 is set up the better the images I
can pull out of it. In equivalently made images where the subject has
limited exposure latitude the 828 at jpeg settings comes up with images that
have, when enlarged on the computer monitor, superior detail (8mps vs 6mps
is undeniable) and probably better native color fidelity than the D70. But
Sony really screwed up in its RAW format routines (too slow to be usable in
part because the files are too frigging large). And in bright sunlight that
f*ing EVF . . . is hard to use.

Which is too bad because the lens on the 828 I think is one of the finest
pieces of glass I have ever held in my sweaty palms. Nikon lenses are what
they are but few are less than pretty good and I don't own any of those.

Fringing on the 828 (not that common in my experience) is no more of an
issue than moire is with the D70 (disappointingly frequent in my
experience): both are seen on the monitor more than they factor in the final
print. And jpeg processing is so bad in the D70 users should be given the
option of deleting that program from the camera's EPROM. The 828 would be
unusable without jpeg processing and the 828 RAW option is just a cruel joke
by Sony.

I recently spent an afternoon shooting California wildflowers out in the
boonies (unless you live near there you never heard of the place) with both
cameras. When spot on with regard to the exposure the 828 images have better
resolution and native color fidelity in the jpeg mode than Nikon D70 raw
files. But how often do you encounter "spot-on" conditions outside of a
studio? And if the object is an 8.5x11 print the resolution and color
differences are generally moot after a pass of the D70 raw files through
Photoshop; the 828 files usually also require a pass through PS. The D70 is
growing on me like a bad case of herpes: I am starting to reach for it
habitually like you would reach down to scratch an itch.

Despite all this when I look at the final prints (5x7 or 8.5x11) I cannot
remember what was made with which camera. Especially after a glass of wine.

All the garbage that fills these newsgroups about what is the "better"
camera means absolutely nothing. Only the final image counts, and that
depends far more on the photographer than the camera. And if I could only
have one camera and one lens I think I would still pick the 828.

Gotta go and scratch an itch.

birdman wrote:
[]
Despite all this when I look at the final prints (5x7 or 8.5x11) I
cannot remember what was made with which camera. Especially after a
glass of wine.
All the garbage that fills these newsgroups about what is the "better"
camera means absolutely nothing. Only the final image counts, and that
depends far more on the photographer than the camera. And if I could
only have one camera and one lens I think I would still pick the 828.
[]

Do you have a gallery or Web site of your pictures?

I would be disappointed if I had to post-process the majority of my
images, though. I hope that the camera exposure is correct, and take JPEG
exclusively.

Cheers,
David