Sony DSC-R1 or not?

In article <AYOdnVfbjNuKwmrenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d.TakeThisOut@magma.ca>,
unavailable.TakeThisOut@thistime.net says...
>
> "Larry Lynch" <larrylynch3rd.TakeThisOut@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
>
> snip
>
>
> >
> > A place called bestpricecamera has the R-1 for $649 US.. doesnt seem to
> > be a scam.. thier reputation is clean.
> >
> > Larry Lynch
> > Mystic, CT
>
>
> Of course it's a scam, you don't get 40% off for nothing
>
>
>

Well, not to argue, but the 19" LCD monitor I ordered from them showed
up on time, so did the E-300 kit I bought several months ago.

Everything else on thier site is pretty much the usuall retail (within
10% of everybody else)..

But they have (for 2 weeks now) had the R-1 for 649...

Larry Lynch
Mystic, CT
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

"carver (remove)" <33 RemoveThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qadev1lhad9bfvlhsivs095dmab6br30h3@4ax.com...
> I'm ready to upgrade to a higher end camera and have been looking at
> options for some time now. I have looked at hundreds of sample
> photos, reviews and specifications.
>
> I take a lot of photos indoors under natural light, so useable photos
> at high iso's it a major criteria. A secondary criteria is a decent
> zoom capability.

The R1 does not meet your primary criteria. The images are just so-so at
high ISO, while a camera like the 20D is very good at 1600, and good at
3200.
>
> I really don't want to go to a DSLR and so far the DSC-R1 seems like
> the best (if not cheapest) choice. Noise levels at iso 1600 aren't
> too bad and the camera seems to have a lot of options for maximum
> flexibility.

Noise levels are much higher that leading DSLRs. If you're willing to carry
a camera the size of the R1, why wouldn't you want a DSLR?

>
> The question is - does anyone out there have suggestions for an
> alternate that meets or exceeds the specs of the DSC-R1?

Canon Rebel XT with a good zoom. Lower noise, faster focus, lots more
flexibility.

>
> Thanks in advance,
> Bill
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

In article <qadev1lhad9bfvlhsivs095dmab6br30h3 RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
carver33 RemoveThis @bellsouth.net.invalid writes
>I'm ready to upgrade to a higher end camera and have been looking at
>options for some time now. I have looked at hundreds of sample
>photos, reviews and specifications.
>
>I take a lot of photos indoors under natural light, so useable photos
>at high iso's it a major criteria. A secondary criteria is a decent
>zoom capability.
>
>I really don't want to go to a DSLR and so far the DSC-R1 seems like
>the best (if not cheapest) choice. Noise levels at iso 1600 aren't
>too bad and the camera seems to have a lot of options for maximum
>flexibility.
>
>The question is - does anyone out there have suggestions for an
>alternate that meets or exceeds the specs of the DSC-R1?

I bought a Canon 350D with 18-55mm kit lens because it was 240 GBP less
than the DSC-R1; the lens on the Sony does cover a slightly wider range
of 15-75mm, but if I add the Canon 55-200mm lens it still costs me less
AND gives me a longer focal length. One good point about the Sony DSC-R1
is that it goes wider than most of the fake SLR cameras however, unless
you need wide and will never ever, ever need longer, save money and buy
the Canon 350D, you can add any other lenses you require over the next
few years. I know you can get adapters to widen and lengthen the Sony
DSC-R1, but these could cost as much as a lens for the 350D and probably
not be as good.

N.B. All focal lengths quoted are true not pretend. Since both the Canon
350D and the Sony DSC-1 use similar sized sensors there is no need to
use the crop factor to compere them.

--
Ian G8ILZ
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

To those who cannot consider a camera "serious" unless it has
interchangeable lenses cameras like the DSC-R1 will always be an anathema.
All dinosaurs eventually disappear, whether from intelligent design or
evolution.
If the DSC-R1 meets your needs you will not be disappointed in image
quality.
The lens is excellent, better than the optics most amateur SLR users have on
their cameras, but it is fixed to the camera and the zoom range is what it
is.
Like its predecessor, the 828, the DSC-R1 is slower to use than a dSLR and
is dependent on the EVF. The EVF impacts on critical focusing. However
anyone who says critical manual focusing in dim light with a Nikon D70 is
physically possible would also have you believe in WMDs.
The Sony RAW format is recognized by Adobe but not other independent
programs like RAW Shooter.
The EVF form factor is evolving. Eventually all "serious" cameras will
incorporate EVF and direct TTL viewing, hopefully via a "heads up" virtual
projection system (this is really, really old technology that has not yet
been applied to digital cameras) onto a true pentaprism optical display.
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:01:49 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molonREMOVE DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <OISdnWdbDrVFB2reRVn-gg DeleteThis @comcast.com>, "Kinon O'cann"
><Yes.it's.me.Bowser> says...
>
>> The R1 does not meet your primary criteria. The images are just so-so at
>> high ISO, while a camera like the 20D is very good at 1600, and good at
>> 3200.
>
>All this talk about ISO 1600 or 3200... Do you high ISO fans realise
>that at ISO 3200 the dynamic range of a camera is just 1/32nd of the
>dynamic range at ISO 100 ? For best results shoot at ISO 100 (or the
>lowest ISO of your camera).

Do you even have the concept of available light?
"Best Results", if meaning ISO 100, far too often means no photos at
all.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:34:18 GMT, "bmoag" <aetoo.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The EVF form factor is evolving. Eventually all "serious" cameras will
>incorporate EVF and direct TTL viewing, hopefully via a "heads up" virtual
>projection system (this is really, really old technology that has not yet
>been applied to digital cameras) onto a true pentaprism optical display.

A HUD needs something to project onto.
If you want something larger than the LCD, where does it go?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 08:31:20 +1300, "Jim F B" <jimfb RemoveThis @jimfb.com> wrote:

>In the recent thread on this newgroup: "DUST: Does this rule out buying
>DSLR's?", some posts compared the attributes of the Sony DSC-R1 with those
>of some DSLRs. The Sony R1 has an excellent lense covering 14.3mm to 71.5mm
>(24 - 120mm in 35mm terms). But some DSLRs are offered with a 18mm -55mm
>lense (27.5mm - 84mm in 35mm terms). I will use the 35mm equivalents from
>here on.
....

Your post is very good, if one assumes that you're trying to match the
R1's characteristics with another camera.
But that only works one way: in matching the R1.
If instead, one tries to make the R1 match, for example, *my* camera's
capabilities, it fails absolutely.
This isn't to disparage the R1, but to point out that the R1 isn't a
standard for others to match, only an example of what's available.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

"carver (remove)" <33.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qadev1lhad9bfvlhsivs095dmab6br30h3@4ax.com...
> I'm ready to upgrade to a higher end camera and have been looking at
> options for some time now. I have looked at hundreds of sample
> photos, reviews and specifications.
>
> I take a lot of photos indoors under natural light, so useable photos
> at high iso's it a major criteria. A secondary criteria is a decent
> zoom capability.
>
Rather short zoom range on the R1 14.3mm~71.5mm f:2.8-4.8 (equivelent to
24~120) or a 5:1 range


> I really don't want to go to a DSLR and so far the DSC-R1 seems like
> the best (if not cheapest) choice. Noise levels at iso 1600 aren't
> too bad and the camera seems to have a lot of options for maximum
> flexibility.
>
Smaller sensor (FOV 1.7x) compared to dSLR cameras, only the 4/3 Olympus
have a smaller sensor. Fixed lens limits capabily. The cost of a high
quality supplementary lens will be as expensive as a interchangable SLR
lens. Look at the cost of the Lumix FZ-10/15/20 tele and w/a converters
versus SLR lenses

> The question is - does anyone out there have suggestions for an
> alternate that meets or exceeds the specs of the DSC-R1?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Bill
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

Larry Lynch wrote:

> Well, not to argue, but the 19" LCD monitor I ordered from them showed
> up on time, so did the E-300 kit I bought several months ago.
>
> Everything else on thier site is pretty much the usuall retail (within
> 10% of everybody else)..
>
> But they have (for 2 weeks now) had the R-1 for 649...

dang. If they'd been around a few months back, I'd have gone for that.


--
ant
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <OISdnWdbDrVFB2reRVn-gg.DeleteThis@comcast.com>, "Kinon O'cann"
> <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> says...
>
>
>>The R1 does not meet your primary criteria. The images are just so-so at
>>high ISO, while a camera like the 20D is very good at 1600, and good at
>>3200.
>
>
> All this talk about ISO 1600 or 3200... Do you high ISO fans realise
> that at ISO 3200 the dynamic range of a camera is just 1/32nd of the
> dynamic range at ISO 100 ? For best results shoot at ISO 100 (or the
> lowest ISO of your camera).

YES! Right on, Alfred. We sometimes fail to realize that digital sensors
do not really have different sensitivities, according to what ISO you
are setting. All we are doing when we set a higher ISO is reducing the
exposure toward the bottom of the sensor's range, thus requiring greater
and greater amplification of the image to recover the data. That is why
there is greater noise in higher ISO shots. You should NEVER go above
the camera's nominal ISO unless absolutely necessary, because you want
to use as much of the sensor's dynamic range as possible.

Gary Eickmeier
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

bmoag wrote:

> The EVF form factor is evolving. Eventually all "serious" cameras will
> incorporate EVF and direct TTL viewing, hopefully via a "heads up" virtual
> projection system (this is really, really old technology that has not yet
> been applied to digital cameras) onto a true pentaprism optical display.

Interesting comment. All the EVF really needs is higher resolution. Is
this "heads up" system a high res format? Might it add too much to the
cost? Video cameras seem to do all right as far as our ability to focus
and see color and exposure. How much resolution do we need in a finder?

Gary Eickmeier
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:39:29 +0000, Prometheus <Prometheus.RemoveThis@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>In article <qadev1lhad9bfvlhsivs095dmab6br30h3.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
>carver33@bellsouth.net.invalid writes
>>I'm ready to upgrade to a higher end camera and have been looking at
>>options for some time now. I have looked at hundreds of sample
>>photos, reviews and specifications.
>>
>>I take a lot of photos indoors under natural light, so useable photos
>>at high iso's it a major criteria. A secondary criteria is a decent
>>zoom capability.
>>
>>I really don't want to go to a DSLR and so far the DSC-R1 seems like
>>the best (if not cheapest) choice. Noise levels at iso 1600 aren't
>>too bad and the camera seems to have a lot of options for maximum
>>flexibility.
>>
>>The question is - does anyone out there have suggestions for an
>>alternate that meets or exceeds the specs of the DSC-R1?
>
>I bought a Canon 350D with 18-55mm kit lens because it was 240 GBP less
>than the DSC-R1; the lens on the Sony does cover a slightly wider range
>of 15-75mm, but if I add the Canon 55-200mm lens it still costs me less
>AND gives me a longer focal length.

Those Canon lenses are nowhere near as good as the one on the Sony.
If you insist on matching it with a DSLR, at least give it the L-lens
its going to need to match the Sony and mention the price.
-Rich
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

In article <PQ%Jf.5201$_c.3825@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei.DeleteThis@tampabay.rr.com> writes
>
>
>bmoag wrote:
>
>> The EVF form factor is evolving. Eventually all "serious" cameras
>>will incorporate EVF and direct TTL viewing, hopefully via a "heads
>>up" virtual projection system (this is really, really old technology
>>that has not yet been applied to digital cameras) onto a true
>>pentaprism optical display.
>
>Interesting comment. All the EVF really needs is higher resolution. Is
>this "heads up" system a high res format? Might it add too much to the
>cost? Video cameras seem to do all right as far as our ability to focus
>and see color and exposure. How much resolution do we need in a finder?

Video cameras are not 2000 lines high by 3000 wide.
--
Ian G8ILZ
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not?