Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony R1 article  (Read 4600 times)
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« on: November 22, 2005, 02:39:38 AM »
ReplyReply

A great article, Michael. I had an early prototype of R1 on test in early September, and I had serious objections regarding build quality - the one I used was built of cheapest plastics I ever saw on a camera, more-less toy grade. I'm glad they decided not to follow this path with a production camera.  What is your impression of the build - is it polycarbonate, or magnesium?
My other impression was very much in line with yours - the ability to use it from waist level, or not to have to wallow in the mud in order to take a macro shot at ground level, is priceless.
By the way, I also noticed its ability to lock focus in almost complete darkness. It took me by surprise as I expected the autofocus to suck compared to an SLR, but it somehow managed to lock focus on whitewater well beyond the sunset, where I needed about half a minute of exposure for the shot. There's no way any SLR could autofocus on this, but this baby seems to amplify the sensor signal to an insane degree, and manages to get enough contrast to lock. However, EVF proved to be less than useful for manual focus.
Also, my prototype suffered from veiling/ghosting in contrasty scenes, especially wide open; my Zuiko on E1 mopped the floor with it in those conditions; also, it was not very sharp at near-macro distances. However, in other conditions the lens gave me results of such clarity and detail, that I place it somewhere between 35mm and 645 film. I'd say it's a great landscape camera for those who prefer less weight and more substance.
Logged

Danijel
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2005, 06:17:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I've had mine for 4 days - I wanted an carry along P&S.  I had the Olympus 7070 but hated the lcd (couldn't see in bright light) and the optical viewfinder -(coverage and parallax was terrible).  I considered a rebel, but decided on a fixed lens, and am hoping the quality will be better than the efs lenses.

I decided on the R1 for several reasons-

the lcd and evf have overcom the major hate-on I had with the 7070.  

the higher ISO means I can shoot with pretty much the same ISO that I'm used to on my 1d2

build is fine - smooth zoom and good feel to the camera.

some shortcomings:

can't bracket (or burst) in RAW.  

I did like the histo display on the 7070 which added a stop either end to show what exactly was being clipped/blocked.

size of the raw + jpg (no option to not take a jpg)

no RSP support (yet).

other comments:

It's very nice to have the histo in pre-exposure mode.

If you'r bracketing in JPG mode, it will automatically fire off all three shots.

I was also surprised as to how well it af'd in low light (in the context of all the negative comments on DPR).

Lens sharpness is acceptable.  I use Focus Magic in my workflow - the 1d2 consistently indicates a 1 px adjustment.  The R1 averages 3 with an occasional 1 and a 5 or 6 every now and then  (may be my technique).

This is my 4th P&S (or DFL) and is the first one I've been happy with.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2005, 06:22:30 AM by Tim Gray » Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2005, 06:39:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I found the one paragraph conclusion, right at the end, to be the cleverest bit of the entire article, MR really thinks straight.
Logged

Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 418


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2005, 06:14:28 PM »
ReplyReply

When one writes a "First Impressions Report",  we've come to expect a more definitive report. However, if Michael is true to his more recent form, I doubt we will get a followup.Perhaps it's because we are spoiled but I prefer the more user-friendly reports on this site to the highly technical ones on other sites. At the end of the day, there are only two important features about a digital camera : how it handles and what are the results (prints). Please Michael, you've answered the first with this article. Now answer the second by letting us know how well the RAW files result in a finished print.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2005, 06:15:29 PM by Kenneth Sky » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2005, 07:48:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I shot a commercial job with the R1 and s a 5D simultaniously. In A3 sized prints I can't tell by simply looking at them which are which.

Image quality under normal shooting situations (by this I mean ones that don't advantage eiother a digicam or a DSLR unduely), is, as I pointed out in the artcile, of professional quality.

What more do you need to know?

Michael
Logged
voodoo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2005, 03:02:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello Michael

I've always been impressed the pixs you attached to your REVIEWS, the 4 on the Sony R1 Review in particular.

Could you kindly teach me how to make the pixs  

<Doorway. Toronto. November, 2005>,  
<< Santa Claus Parade. Toronto. November, 2005>> and
<<< Fall Colour. Toronto. November, 2005>>>

I also got notice that you made these 3 pixs crystal sharp. How did you tune them by mean of USM? To be honest, I've my PS7 in my computer, but I don't know what exactly the AMOUNT, RADIUS and THRESHOLD are. I usually used SHARPEN, SHARPEN EDGE, and SHARPEN MORE, but however I really like to learn more. From your pix, <Doorway. Toronto. November, 2005>, it shows AMOUNT 151%, RADIUS 0.3% and THRESHOLD 0 levels in my PS7. I simply know and set the USM to this level. Am I correct?

Cheers,
VOODOO  



Quote
I shot a commercial job with the R1 and s a 5D simultaniously. In A3 sized prints I can't tell by simply looking at them which are which.

Image quality under normal shooting situations (by this I mean ones that don't advantage eiother a digicam or a DSLR unduely), is, as I pointed out in the artcile, of professional quality.

What more do you need to know?

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2005, 08:50:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Sharpening is one of the hardest things to do well, yet contributes such a great deal to final image quality.

The truth of the matter is that the Unsharp MMask tool is a blunt instrument, like trying to cut a steak with chop sticks.

The new smart sharpen tool in Photoshop CS2 is better, but not that much.

I use and strongly recommen PhotoKit Sharpener. It's a $100 Photoshop plug-in, and is the best money you'll ever spend in terms of improving your output quality.

It divides sharpening into three stages, Input, Creative and Output. The first and last stages require little in the way of subjective judgements, while the middle one provides scope for some creative effects.

This is all covered in detail in the latest Video Journals tutorials.

Michael
Logged
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2005, 01:26:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I also follow this protocol. Life is way better now. PhotoKit Sharpener is a fine tool.

Quote
Sharpening is one of the hardest things to do well, yet contributes such a great deal to final image quality.

The truth of the matter is that the Unsharp MMask tool is a blunt instrument, like trying to cut a steak with chop sticks.

The new smart sharpen tool in Photoshop CS2 is better, but not that much.

I use and strongly recommen PhotoKit Sharpener. It's a $100 Photoshop plug-in, and is the best money you'll ever spend in terms of improving your output quality.

It divides sharpening into three stages, Input, Creative and Output. The first and last stages require little in the way of subjective judgements, while the middle one provides scope for some creative effects.

This is all covered in detail in the latest Video Journals tutorials.

Michael
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad