Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1  (Read 17746 times)
Guest
« on: September 11, 2005, 06:14:30 AM »
ReplyReply

No video capability, limited zoom range, no IS/AS, more expensive than cheap DSLRs, non-jointed screen. I think it is a VERY big gamble. I think it's market share will be rather small.


Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Logged
jarnon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2005, 02:56:34 PM »
ReplyReply

While Michael is playing with the new 5D from Canon, SONY comes out with the real MAGIC BULET – CYBRE SHOT DSC-R1.
From what published today, SONY reads every word that Michel wrote here on the DSC F828
As a proud owner of the old one, I’m happy to watch the new baby.
 Looking forward to Michael report.  
Jonathan
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2005, 11:50:24 AM »
ReplyReply

No gamble at all provided the image quality is up to scratch and noise levels are as low as one would expect from an APS-C size sensor. How much is a good quality 15-75mm zoom worth with a maximum aperture of F2.8?
Logged
PerryB
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2005, 09:29:12 PM »
ReplyReply

The Sony R1 looks like a very interesting camera.  

The Imagine Resources prototype review rated it’s image quality very high.

To quote from their conclusion:  “The Sony DSC-R1 is a compelling entry in the high-end "enthusiast" category. It offers an absolutely unique focal length range, with very high optical quality, attractive color, and very appealing tonality in its images. - We just liked looking at the R1's images.”

Depending on what’s important to each individual, it will be very attractive to some and not at all to others.

A SLR through the lens view or a LCD / EVF view of what the sensor is seeing view?
IS to manage camera movement, or a sharp F2.8 lens which would allow a high shutter speed to handle both camera and subject movement?
Is SLR Sensor dust a concern?

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Perry
Logged
LeifG
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2005, 03:02:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No gamble at all provided the image quality is up to scratch and noise levels are as low as one would expect from an APS-C size sensor. How much is a good quality 15-75mm zoom worth with a maximum aperture of F2.8?
Yes indeed. Initial reports suggest that the lens alone is as good as a 35mm lens costing as much as the camera. Some people might like the idea of an all in one digicam with a quality lens and presumably no possibility of dust ingress. I wonder what the aperture range is? Start up time seems slow. We shall see.

I've seen so many gadget freaks around esp. in London that the thing is bound to sell given the specs. and price.

Leif
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2005, 06:33:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Give me a cheaper XT (black  :: ) with a 50mm and a 24mm and I would be far happier than with that Sony for lightweight street work.
Anyone ever tried to use a EVF for landscape work where the sky is 3 stops brighter than the foreground?
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2005, 11:25:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, and it redefines the meaning of "sucks".
Logged

Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2005, 04:04:14 PM »
ReplyReply

The Sony is very welcome. Bring on Epson etc too, to keep snapping at Canon and Nikon's heels.
They always hold stuff back of course.There is no reason IS and a variable angle screen could not have been included. It should be quiet, and with that lens could be a very usable camera. I wouldn't care about limited zoom range. Cartier-Bresson seemed to manage OK with a 50mm (mainly).Sensor dust is a pain. Try cleaning up 300 dusty crockery shots.
Cheers
Brian
Logged
Digi-T
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2005, 03:12:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Give me a cheaper XT (black  :: ) with a 50mm and a 24mm and I would be far happier than with that Sony for lightweight street work.
Anyone ever tried to use a EVF for landscape work where the sky is 3 stops brighter than the foreground?
Yes, and the shots look beautiful to me. Whichever type of viewfinder you use you still need to be able to understand the exposure reading and apply it the scene you are viewing. It is still photography whether you use an EVF or OVF.

T
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5083


« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2005, 04:38:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I am for now in the camp of preferring OVF's over any EVF so far ... except maybe the high end EVFs already available in extremely expensive digital cinematic movie cameras.

But from recent reading, EVF's offer a lens quality ans cost advantage, if they can ever be made to work well enough.  This is becasue eliminating the reflex system (mirror or prism) allows lenses of extremely short "back focus distance", where the rear lens elements get very close to the sensor. Apparently this greatly eases the design of lenses that work well with electronic sensors, by being "near telecentric" with light striking the sensor nearly perpendicular even near the corners of the frame. (Sensors with micro-lenses prefer near-telecentric, and it can be done much cheaper, better and faster with very short back-focus distance.

Many fixed lens digicams already use such designs, but Sony is the first to talk about it in their R1 promotional material.


By the way, that is also an argument for a new breed of digital rangefinders, but using normal to wide angle lens designs very different from the near-symmetric lenses so traditional with rangefinders.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2005, 05:27:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Anyone ever tried to use a EVF for landscape work where the sky is 3 stops brighter than the foreground?
Pom,
This is where the skill of the photographer comes into play. Remember the Sony DSC-R1 has a sensor almost as big as the 10D's and (presumably) comparable low noise capability. It can take a lot of underexposure (or exposing for the highlights) whilst still maintaining acceptable noise levels.

When in doubt, use AEB. Problem solved!  Cheesy
Logged
Tenner
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2005, 06:01:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Having recently researched and finally bought the F828 ( with which I'm rather pleased, so far ), my first reaction at the announcement was 'Here we go again !' - not out of frustration, buying the F828 and wishing I'd waited, but to see whether my theory would be proved ie that so many comments in forums ( and review sites) were mere regurgitations of chunks from a few journos' cynical reviews. Only two or three pro users ( that I'd found, that is - there are no doubt others ) had written favourable reports after actually using the F828 for a while. Michael's Report impressed and brought me to this site, as did http://www.photo.net/equipment/sony/f828/ and a member http://www.lin-evans.net/
After viewing Sony's punchy on-line advert video, I was left wondering how this ( R1 ) would be received and reviewed - a case of "Watch this space" I suppose. However, there's a consensus forming - the sample shots are impressive.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2005, 11:54:17 AM »
ReplyReply

My take on the R1 (as a serious amateur) is as follows:

It comes with a Zeiss vario-sonnar *T lens with an effective focal length of 24-120 (f2.Cool (after the 1.6x crop factor is introduced), which is really intriguing to me.   Along with the APS-C sized sensor, the camera is really intriguing.

After the 1.6x crop factor is introduced, how may of the APS-C class lenses are available with the 24-120mm effective focal length with f2.8-4.0 ?  I am only talking of the Canon "L" level of glass (and not cheaper glass), since the Zeiss glass should not be compared with inferior glass.  How much would that cost ?  The whole R1 costs $999 MSRP (Lens, body everything).

The 24-70 f2.8 L Canon lens sounds interesting ($1200 ??).  But when one adds that to the 20D body ($1500) with a 1.6x crop factor, the effective focal length becomes useless for my purposes.  To retain the 24-70 effective FL on the "L" glass, we have to move up to the FF 5D.  

I am mulling over the R1 purchase as an all-purpose camera....or go the whole hog and spring for the 5D with the 24-70 f2.8.   The 24-105 f4.0 seems to have developed a bad rap from what I read in the internet....especially folks who have sold the 24-70 and sprung for the 24-105.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 01:11:52 PM by aaykay » Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2005, 12:55:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I always have a knapsack cum briefcase with me and I bought the R1 as a lighter carry around (actually I also have a small Manfrotto tripod easily in the bag as well) - lighter than the 1DMKII in any event.   I'm completely happy with the camera, both from a useability perspective as well as the quality of the images it produces.  If the R1 had IS and a bit of a RAW buffer - it would be superb  - I assume that will be next years model.



I also bought the 24-105 a couple of weeks ago and so far am happy but haven't had the opportunity to really challange it.  It will likely replace the 24-70 as my most used lens (but I'm not selling the 24-70 either).
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2005, 01:10:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm completely happy with the camera, both from a useability perspective as well as the quality of the images it produces.  If the R1 had IS and a bit of a RAW buffer - it would be superb  - I assume that will be next years model.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great hearing from an R1 owner.  How good is the R1 in capturing candid moments.  How big a lag while focusing etc., and between shots ?  Relative to a dSLR ?  Due to the smaller buffer, is there a significant "forced lag" between shots, when the captured image is being written to the memory card ?  This "forced lag" was particularly noticeable when using the DSC V1 in the past.  I assume that it does not capture and write to the memory card/stick simultaneously, unlike a dSLR.  How about "available light" shots ?  TIA.

Would love to hear about a more detailed review of the new 24-105 f4.0, even though a lot of people who sold the 24-70 and have now purchased the 24-105 say that the new one does not measure up to the old one, in terms of pure optical output.  I wonder if that is because they judged the usage of the 24-70 on a non-FF camera and are now using/judging the 24-105 on a more demanding FF camera (5D) ??
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 01:22:17 PM by aaykay » Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2005, 02:10:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Great hearing from an R1 owner.  How good is the R1 in capturing candid moments.  How big a lag while focusing etc., and between shots ?  Relative to a dSLR ?  Due to the smaller buffer, is there a significant "forced lag" between shots, when the captured image is being written to the memory card ?  This "forced lag" was particularly noticeable when using the DSC V1 in the past.  I assume that it does not capture and write to the memory card/stick simultaneously, unlike a dSLR.  How about "available light" shots ?  TIA.

Would love to hear about a more detailed review of the new 24-105 f4.0, even though a lot of people who sold the 24-70 and have now purchased the 24-105 say that the new one does not measure up to the old one, in terms of pure optical output.  I wonder if that is because they judged the usage of the 24-70 on a non-FF camera and are now using/judging the 24-105 on a more demanding FF camera (5D) ??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm primarily landscape focused - and wouldn't recommend this for sports or action.  I'd suggest checking out the DPR reivew of this camera for some objective assessments.  I'm used to the 1DMKII so of course the af seem slows... duh!  I don't notice the shutter lag once focus is locked (but note that the fake shutter click happens after the  "shutter" closes, not when it opens, so a slow shutter speed will give you a noticeable gap between the time the release is pressed and you hear the click - but this is not indicative of shutter lag.  

One of the reasons I like this camera is it gives me completely useable shots at the ISO I use as default on the MKII - 400, so I'm not always feeling limited by the slower shutter speed I'd have to use if 100 was as much as I could use comfortably. DPR has a comprehensive analysis of noise and appropriate comparisons.  

I can shoot 2 RAW in succession then it's several seconds till the buffer clears.  A tip shooting raw and using the live histo - the histo is based on jpg and you can get a good 1 stop more out of using raw - I dial the exposure compensation to the point where the zebra's go away and then add one stop back (obviously taking specular highlights etc into consideration....)

As for the 24-105, I like it because it's lighter than the 24-70, bigger range and has IS.  If low light, non tripod, is a requirement I'll use the 24-70.  As for the normal objections you hear:  use a touch of capture sharpening, and it's absolutely on a par with the 24-70, any vignetting and/or distortion is so easy to deal with it's a total non issue.    Properly processed (assuming the flare issues have been dealt with) I believe that it would be very, very, very difficult to spot the difference in a shot with this vs the 24-70 at whatever size you want to print.

I recall Michaels remark:  "most lenses are better than most photographers".  I've felt limited by lenses before, and upgraded - notably my first long zoom, the old 70-300 IS way way soft.  But I'd be very surprised if I ultimately felt limited by the quality of this lens.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 02:13:25 PM by Tim Gray » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2005, 06:44:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
After the 1.6x crop factor is introduced, how may of the APS-C class lenses are available with the 24-120mm effective focal length with f2.8-4.0 ?  I am only talking of the Canon "L" level of glass (and not cheaper glass), since the Zeiss glass should not be compared with inferior glass.  How much would that cost ?  The whole R1 costs $999 MSRP (Lens, body everything).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you have not yet invested in Canon lenses, then the Nikon D200 + 17-55 f2.8 is the only thing in town that can compete with the Sony under 5000 US$. It will still cost about 3000 US$, meaning 3 times more.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2005, 07:05:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm primarily landscape focused - and wouldn't recommend this for sports or action.  I'd suggest checking out the DPR reivew of this camera for some objective assessments. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the advice.  I checked out the DPR review, which was mostly positive.  I really wish Sony had introduced a larger buffer/cache and smarter algorithm for writing to the storage media.  But considering what we get for the money, the Sony is a great buy.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2005, 07:34:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you have not yet invested in Canon lenses, then the Nikon D200 + 17-55 f2.8 is the only thing in town that can compete with the Sony under 5000 US$. It will still cost about 3000 US$, meaning 3 times more.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53792\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the heads-up.  Since I have not yet invested in any manufacturer's lenses, I am looking at the D200 too, in addition to the 5D - and the Sony.   Still waiting on the reviews/tests on the Nikon.  With the Sony and the 5D, I don't have to do any 1.6x or 1.5x conversion - a big plus in my mind.  The 5D is pricey - due to the FF  -  and needs a dedicated external flash - a big minus for me.  There can be no compromises in the lenses with the 5D, due to the FF.

The Sony is cheap enough to tide me over for a couple of years, by which time the market should indicate the direction the technology is moving towards......FF vs crops. Then maybe invest in a specific manufacturer's lenses.  Or maybe invest in a cheap body (350D?) and maybe a couple of all-purpose high quality lens (24-70 F2.8 etc).  If I need to change direction, I could always sell the lenses and discard the cheap body.  I like Canon due to the level of control they have towards the manufacture/design of sensors and availability of both crops and FF options in their product range.   The D200 is very tempting however - again from a value-for-money perspective, more intuitive user interfaces and also ruggedness in build, even though it has a 1.5x crop factor.  The problem is that when we move towards a specific manufacturer, for all intents and purposes, we tend to stick with them for the long term - so I want to be cautious at this juncture.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 07:41:29 PM by aaykay » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5083


« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2005, 12:48:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
After the 1.6x crop factor is introduced, how may of the APS-C class lenses are available with the 24-120mm effective focal length with f2.8-4.0 ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Firstly, the actual R-1 lens spec's are f=14.3-71.5mm, f/2.8-4.8 (not 4.0).

Secondly, converting to "equivalent focal lengths" really only makes sense of you also convert to "equivalent apertures": the aperture ratios that give same light gathering speed (to compensate for the expected difference ISO speed limits of different sensor sizes), and same DOF wide open. The rough rule is simple: multiply f-stops by the same "format factor" as the focal lengths. That is, compare at equal (effective) aperture diameter, or entrance pupil size.

The R1 has a format factor of 5/3 (1.67x), giving
35mm equivalents of 24-120mm, f/4.7-8
DX equivalents of 16-80mm, f/3.1-5.3
Canon EF-S equivalents of 15-75mm, f/2.9-5
FourThirds equivalents of 12-60mm, f/2.4-4

The 5x zoom range is a bit wider than anything in the DSLR mainstream except the Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 EF-S, with a slight "brightness" (effective aperture) advantage for the R1 lens to be balanced against the Canon's greater telephoto reach and IS (see below for why I consider the Canon lens sightly "brighter".a.k.a. "faster".)

Amongst DSLR lenses with slightly lower 4x zoom range, the tele end of the R1's lens falls just short for brightness compared to the Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 DX or Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5, at least at the telephoto end where lens brightness is most important.

In fact all four lenses have similar light gathering speed at the telephoto end, judged by effective aperture diameter (focal length divided by aperture ratio), with the R1 lens the "dimmest" by a small margin:
15.6mm Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5
15.4mm Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
15.2mm Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6
14.9mm Sony/Zeiss 14.3-71.5mm, f/2.8-4.8

The slightly wider coverage than the others appeals to me a lot, and the 5x zoom range is a nice little edge. Then again, both of these are far more important on a camera like this that does not allow one to swap to a wider or longer telephoto lens.

Going from the prices of those other three lenses, I can accept that this lens alone might be worth around $500, so you effectively get the body for an impressively low $500. If the lens's optical qualities like low distortion are as good as I have read in some places, maybe it is worth more than that.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad