Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Holly Cow Batman - Sony dscr1  (Read 4847 times)
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« on: September 08, 2005, 08:29:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Upon reflection, I just now realized how much Nikon is making on the D2x. No doubt, Canon is doing the same. As the same time they are killing everybody else. If KM, Oly,Pentax, et al, don't get access to some of this technology, they're relegated to duty (and death) in the discount bin>

Virtually the same chip,  in a $1100 camera.

I forsee this as the leak in the dike, when the dike breaks, we'll all see pretty significant price drops.

I can now believe a $1500-1800 semi-pro, 12+ mplxl APC/DX is easily within reach.

I'll bet the D2x and Canon equivalent (TBA) are below $3000 within 6-12 months.

Maybe then, Nikon will give the world a FF (or near FF), D3x.

Its getting real interesting.

I see my backpack (hiking) camera changing if this thing (and the soon to follow offshoots from the others) does image quality as well as the D2x. My back thanks you Sony

Wooo-weee

bob
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2005, 11:02:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, I wouldn't call it 'wild" speculation. The chip sizes are very close with the pixel dimensions being identical.
I disagree.

The new chip clearly is different in at least some significant respects, such as the live preview feed to the electronic viewfinder or LCD flip-up monitor.

A smaller sensor, such as this one, requires a different production line in the factory, and it should also provide a higher yield from the silicon wafers than the DX sensors.

This new sensor also provides less sensitivity adjustments (ISO 160 to 3200) than the D2X, and we still don't know anything about noise levels, dynamic range or image quality.

Quote
A rule of thumb is the direct manufacturing cost is roughly 1/4 th of selling price. So this camera costs Sony $250 to manufacture. Can the chip be 1/4 (or a 1/3rd??) of the cost of manufacture.
Yes, it can.

Quote
Anyway, the $2000 dollar premimum of the D2x over the D2hs doesn't seem warrented other than the demand was there to charge the high price.
You don't think that a 13 Mpx chip in the same format would warrant a significantly more expensive infrastructure within the camera, nevermind a significantly more expensive chip?

It's pushing over three times the amount of data.


Quote
One thing, mass production of this chip and variants should allow the cost of cameras to drop dramatically,
The price Sony has set for this camera is most likely the price that's representative for mass production. It's typical marketing tactics from Sony; price the product according to how well you expect it to sell.
Logged

Jan
blubo2
Guest
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2005, 04:21:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"Because of the sensor’s live preview capability, there is no need for the camera to have a traditional “mirror and prism” construction common to digital SLRs. This allows a lens-to-sensor distance of as little as 2 mm, optimizing image quality and color accuracy. "


Wouldn't this cause all sorts of bad issues due to the short distance from sensor to lens back element. Corner issues etc ??

In theory, this should be a very good thing:  no need for retrofocus lens designs.  Mirror-box cameras typically require retrofocus designs for wide-angle lenses, since a conventional wide-angle lens design cannot get close enough to the sensor/film plane due to the obstruction of the mirror box.  All else being equal, retrofocus designs increase design complexity and result in increased distortion, flare, etc.  That's why rangefinders (Leica, Mamiya 6/7, etc.) and LF are such good wide-angle cameras:  their wide-angle lenses do not need design modifications to accommodate a mirror box.

My main concern with eliminating the mirror box in higher-end digital cameras is whether the electronic viewfinder provides sufficient resolution for critical focusing.

Eric
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2005, 02:06:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Upon reflection, I just now realized how much Nikon is making on the D2x.

bob

Pixel count and sensor size are just part of the equation. The D2x has an F5/F6 class high speed shutter. It also has high speed electronics to support the high speed shutter, and lots of buffer memory to handle the high frame the without stalling. I'm sure part of the cost covers R&D and as they sell, so these costs get paid off, and the price can reduce. Then again, would any company sell a camera for £2500 (assuming at a profit) if they could also sell all they can make for £3000?

That's why the D200 or equivalent can be about £1500 or less.

Also don't forget that Sony make the sensor in the D2x and hence they can probably make a camera with their sensor for less money (less people taking a cut).

Leif
Logged
LeifG
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2005, 08:30:47 AM »
ReplyReply

The interesting point mentioned in the imaging resource review is that there is no mirror box, and hence the lens can extend almost to the sensor. This gives the designer more freedom to reduce aberrations, especially for wide angle lenses, and is one reason why rangefinders lenses are so good. According to the IR review, an equivalent quality lens for a 35mm (APS) DSLR would cost $1000 i.e. as much as the Sony digicam.

At the price point I could see a lot of people buying one as a 'toy' and if it is as good as suggested, then it could take serious pictures. I'm not sure if it has RAW support. If not, then that would be a serious limitation for many.

One issue that is not mentioned is dust. Is the zoom dust proof, and if not, what happens when dust is drawn into the lens, and onto the sensor? Presumably is stays there until a full service.

Leif
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1254


« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2005, 11:51:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with different parts of both Bob and Pom. I *really* like the idea of a single-unit, high-quality lens, high-function point-and-shoot; anybody who is interested in street photography would.

This camera is getting there...except that it's way too big and too heavy. For the weight and size, you'd be better off with a Rebel. To appreciate it, you have to look at the size in all three dimensions -- it's 5.5 inches by 6.6 inches by 3.8 inches -- in other words, it's almost a cube, and it can't be broken down from that cube shape. You couldn't really carry it comfortably in a briefcase; you're back to a camera case. You could more easily carry an XT, with the lens detached.

Also, with a camera this large, you're putting a big noticable blob up to your face. Again, might well be an XT.

However, I'm sure some competitor -- Canon, possibly Nikon -- will cut the size down. One of the nice things about the Nikon cameras that twist open is that the form factor for carrying the camera is very flat, until you're actually shooting...

Anyway, I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again: small (700 grams with lens), flat, high-quality lens, 8mp+ sensor, wide to short-telephoto (this Sony lens would be fine, if it would fit in a smaller camera), vibration reduction, optical viewfinder, back-mounted twist LCD screen.

If I don't get it soon, I may have to fly over to Japan and kick some ass.

JC
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2005, 02:46:06 PM »
ReplyReply

This _might_ be interesting to me as a carry around.  

My current walk around is an Olympus 7070 - I can't stand the LCD/optic viewfinder - the LCD is invisible in moderately bright light and the optic isn't accurate enough to frame with.  The lack of high ISO is a royal pain given what I'm used to, but I like the zoom range - 27-110, and I like the live preview.

Within reason I'm not too concerned about the size, I always have a knapsack with me - but the weight is important.  My "standard" config is a 1DMKII and the 24-70L = 2.5 kgs and I can't deal with that on a "always with me basis".  

The R1 is less than half that (plus), but 2x the 7070 (minus), no dust (plus), live preview (plus) no "IS" (slight minus - it's only 120mm).  I don't expect to get the 16 - 400 range out of a carry around that I do from the 3 or 4 lenses I use with the MKII.

The alternative might be a Rebel 350 with the new 24-105 = 1.2.kg, heavier, and twice the price and not very wide on the Rebel - but the lens is usable on the MKII - but I've got that range already covered with 2.8 L's.

I've downloaded a 1600 iso shot that looks pretty OK.  Shutter lag sounds OK and if I need 8 fps I'll use the MKII.  I'll definitely check it out when it hits the stores - probably bottom line will be how much worse the lens is than the 24-105, and how much of a pita the EVF is.
Logged
Julian Love
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2005, 04:58:48 PM »
ReplyReply

This camera might well interest me as a backpacking and ski-touring camera. I need something small and light but with good image quality. Rocket-fast AF and high FPS are not important to me, but high MP and a good lens are.

Julian
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2005, 02:37:09 AM »
ReplyReply

check out this link  

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/

Just over a $1000 list, I wonder how good the Zeiss lens is??

Bob
Logged
Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2005, 06:31:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting. I wonder how quiet it is. If the noise is low, both soundwise and pixel wise this could be useful at pub, theatre etc. The lens is a bit small, but there is a new direction here.It comes from Sony too, nort Canon, Nikon etc. Forget Kodak. Epson couldhave something up their sleeve too..........
Brian
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2005, 09:27:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Upon reflection, I just now realized how much Nikon is making on the D2x. No doubt, Canon is doing the same. As the same time they are killing everybody else. If KM, Oly,Pentax, et al, don't get access to some of this technology, they're relegated to duty (and death) in the discount bin>

Virtually the same chip,  in a $1100 camera.
Do you have any documentation for this claim, or is it just wild speculation on your part?

Remember, the chip (21.5 x 14.4 mm) is smaller than that in the older EOS 350 XT, a 22.2 x 14.8 mm chip with 8 Mpx.

And the street price of the XT is certainly lower than the Sony.
Logged

Jan
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1254


« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2005, 10:33:29 AM »
ReplyReply

This is the continuation of a development that will push our current DSLRs further and further in the direction of full-fledged medium format cameras, capable of doing really exquisite high-end fashion and art work, while these smaller cameras willl eventually take over the functions formerly served by film 35mm cameras. I have had several digital point-and-shoots to augment my DSLRs, and for most shooting, I'm been amazed at their capabilities. I use a Canon Powershot Pro1 and a Pentax Optio 750z, and shoot both of them more than I use my D2x. Neither would replace the D2x, however.

Notice that this camera, while impressive, is actually larger and heavier than the Canon Rebel which has interchangeable lenses. Notice also that it has only an electronic viewfinder.

But it's getting close to the perfect camera of its type, especially with that 22mm equivalent at the wide end. IMHO, to be perfect, it would need:

To be smaller (no bigger than the Pro 1, which is notably smaller than the Rebel); to have image stabilization, which it may have (I didn't see it in the specs); to have an optical viewfinder; to have a clip-on lens adapter which would take it out to (say) 300mm.

The sensor is not such a big deal, I don't think. You don't need that many pixels -- this isn't an art or high-end-fashion camera. I mean, 10mp is fine, but 7 or 8 would be okay too -- I'd take smaller and lighter in exchange for the additional megapixels.

My experience with the Pro 1 is that virtually nobody who is not a serious amateur or a pro needs much more, other than refinement. In fact, this camera would be more than enough for 95% of news photography.

I'd be really interested in hearing what this Zeiss lens will do...

JC
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2005, 11:40:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Notice that this camera, while impressive, is actually larger and heavier than the Canon Rebel which has interchangeable lenses. Notice also that it has only an electronic viewfinder.
Well, it's larger and heavier than the Rebel/Rebel XT as long as they don't have a decent lens attached. The instant you do, however ...


Quote
But it's getting close to the perfect camera of its type, especially with that 22mm equivalent at the wide end. IMHO, to be perfect, it would need:

To be smaller (no bigger than the Pro 1, which is notably smaller than the Rebel); to have image stabilization, which it may have (I didn't see it in the specs); to have an optical viewfinder; to have a clip-on lens adapter which would take it out to (say) 300mm.
It has a clip-on telephoto adapter, wide angle adapter, macro adapter, ...
Logged

Jan
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2005, 01:47:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I got this off of the press release

"Because of the sensor’s live preview capability, there is no need for the camera to have a traditional “mirror and prism” construction common to digital SLRs. This allows a lens-to-sensor distance of as little as 2 mm, optimizing image quality and color accuracy. "


Wouldn't this cause all sorts of bad issues due to the short distance from sensor to lens back element. Corner issues etc ??

Bob
Logged
blubo2
Guest
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2005, 04:14:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"Because of the sensor’s live preview capability, there is no need for the camera to have a traditional “mirror and prism” construction common to digital SLRs. This allows a lens-to-sensor distance of as little as 2 mm, optimizing image quality and color accuracy. "


Wouldn't this cause all sorts of bad issues due to the short distance from sensor to lens back element. Corner issues etc ??

In theory, this should be a very good thing:  no need for retrofocus lens designs.  Mirror-box cameras typically require retrofocus designs for wide-angle lenses, since a conventional wide-angle lens design cannot get close enough to the sensor/film plane due to the obstruction of the mirror box.  All else being equal, retrofocus designs increase design complexity and result in increased distortion, flare, etc.  That's why rangefinders (Leica, Mamiya 6/7, etc.) and LF are such good wide-angle cameras:  their wide-angle lenses do not need design modifications to accommodate a mirror box.

My main concern with eliminating the mirror box in higher-end digital cameras is whether the electronic viewfinder provides sufficient resolution for critical focusing.

Eric
Logged
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2005, 04:26:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess the gerbils are back on strike!!!
Logged
blubo2
Guest
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2005, 10:32:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Yikes!  When I submitted my original post, the message board failed to respond and timed out; and when I refreshed the thread from another window, my message had not been posted.  So I retried several times before giving up.  Moral of the story is to wait a couple hours or so before retrying a post!
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2005, 02:58:14 AM »
ReplyReply

One aspect which is often ignored is the validation.

We take for granted that cameras like the 1Ds2 or D2x work flawlessly as part of the very broad Canon and Nikon systems, they work when it snows, between -20 and +40c, they keep working after we drop them...

Ensuring these things takes a complex process of validation with impacts on the design etc...

I am not saying that it explains 100% of the price gap, but it does contribute to these flag ship models costing significantly more to design.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 446


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2005, 07:31:35 AM »
ReplyReply

This camera may start a large sensor high-end digicam trend.

If a manufacturer released such a product with a 20-70 high quality zoom along with a companion model with a similar high-quality 70-200 zoom, that 2 camera combo would fill a lot of photogrphers' requirements. There may be enough shooters out there who don't mind EVF and who do not need a lot of what the top-end systems offer, but who do want good glass and access to focal lengths from 20 to 200. It all comes down to price though and if D-SLR's and accompanying lenses are similar in cost to the two camera offering, it may not worth doing.

What made me think of this is my Oly Stylus Epic with 35 mm lens. Nice camera, great lens, terrific for travelling light. But if they had made two other models, one with a 24 mm lens and a third with a 45 or 50 mm lens, the 3-pack might have taken up less room than a Rebel with lenses, and almost certainly would have weighed less. But I guess there was not enough of a market for non-zoom P&S's.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710


« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2005, 09:21:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't get who would buy this. At a similar price point to a 20D, I can't see any pro's choosing this over an SLR, the lack of hotshoe and interchangeable lenses would be serious no go for me.

For p&s shooters 11 megapixels is far more than they need, anyone want to suggest how many people buying this camera will *ever* use it with a tripod and cable release? I need every bit of my knowledge to squeeze the 11 megapixels provided by the 1Ds and handholding at 1/60th isn't it!

As a pro travel camera where no flash in needed? I'd prefer the tiny XT with a couple of fast primes at a similar price. Far far more versatile.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad