Sony Cybershot DSC-R1 Replacement?

Watcher <dev/null> wrote in news:45e45eca$0$27979$88260bb3
@news.teranews.com:

> ajblane DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>> Does anyone know if a new version of this camera is on the horizon?
>>
> The Alpha A100.
>
> The R1 is trash, has the worst view finder, and a re-badged Sony lens.
> Hint Zeiss sells it's trademark, they don't make the lenses for Sony.
>

Respectfully disagree. My R1 imagery is head and shoulders above my A-
100's, because a lens very close to the sensor can easily do better than
the best lens I can put on the A-100. It can be more telecentric and
gives better resolution as well as uniformity out to the corners.

The A-100 suffers from the old film 35mm problem of having to leave room
for a flopping mirror, which was less a handicap with film than with
silicon. Silicon prefers head-on incidence and dies at off angles.
Lenses for the A-100 tend to be bigger and heavier, as a result.

The articulated LCD is pretty good, even if the eye-level viewfinder is
less than perfect. I particularly like having it face up, so you can use
the camera at low elevations (waist level or on the ground) and still
frame the picture just like many of the old MF cameras. Great for
flowers, etc.

That said, my R1 sits on the shelf for two simple reasons. It lacks
image stabilization, and the zoom range is too short. I'm not keen about
the memory stick, with no options, but it works OK.

I'm taking about 90% of my outdoor stuff with my H5, and only bring out
the big, klutzy A-100 for really serious stuff.

Just my US$0.02.

JB
 >> Stay informed about: Sony Cybershot DSC-R1 Replacement? 

>>
>> I guess it's a mistake because of all the reasons you just mentioned.
>> It's
>> expensive, slow, limited, and lacks many of the features you'd want in a
>> high-end point and shoot camera, like movie, nightshot/nightframe, etc.
>> Why
>> would anyone buy it in lieu of the Nikon D40, for example? Or any other
>> decent SLR?
>
> Well, for the lens. But actually you're right, I wouldn't buy it over
> the D40. Good points.

And I believe that's why it's gone. Poor sales. Anyone who wasn't enamoured
with the Sony name, or didn't absolutely had to have silent shooting
wouldn't bother. SLRs are much better, and offer a path for growth,
something the Sony can't.

>
>
>> As I've mentioned before, a "swiss army knife" camera like the 828 would
>> have been nice if they had improved the IQ and fringing. It was a really
>> nice cam that was flawed.
>>
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Sony Cybershot DSC-R1 Replacement? 

"J. B. Dalton" <who DeleteThis @where.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98E4DEAAAEF15whuntleyverizonnet@140.99.99.130...
>
> That said, my R1 sits on the shelf for two simple reasons. It lacks
> image stabilization, and the zoom range is too short. I'm not keen about
> the memory stick, with no options, but it works OK.

And what better reason for it's demise than that? You have one, and never
use it. Game over...

>
> I'm taking about 90% of my outdoor stuff with my H5, and only bring out
> the big, klutzy A-100 for really serious stuff.
>
> Just my US$0.02.
>
> JB
 >> Stay informed about: Sony Cybershot DSC-R1 Replacement?