Sony DSC-R1 or not?

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:54:23 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molonREMOVE.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <8s4hv1tds1022dfqa2se058c0pfaobl5qt.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
>BigBill@there.com says...
>
>> Do you even have the concept of available light?
>> "Best Results", if meaning ISO 100, far too often means no photos at
>> all.
>
>Use a tripod or a brighter lens (or IS). Doesn't obviously work always,
>and in case you have to shoot low light action scenes you might indeed
>have to go up with the ISO. In any case I shoot 99% of my stuff at the
>lowest ISO.

Alfred, I really don't give a damn about how you shoot most of your
stuff.
Your posts make you look like a snob who thinks everyone should do as
you do, with what you have in both equipment and experience.
Try seeing the rest of the world instead of trying to make the rest of
the world see you.
Get off that high horse, and understand that we aren't you, and we
very often either can't or don't want to do it the way you do it.

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

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:54:09 +0000, Prometheus <Prometheus.DeleteThis@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>In article <v6khv1h593dr2s62nu3eg7f7n0e0tr67rd.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, Rich
><none.DeleteThis@none.com> writes
>>On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:39:29 +0000, Prometheus <Prometheus.DeleteThis@127.0.0.1>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <qadev1lhad9bfvlhsivs095dmab6br30h3.DeleteThis@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
>
>And you think the Sony is comparable to a Canon 15 - 75mm L lens! Not
>that I am suggesting that the lenses I mentioned are as good as the
>Sony, but with the 350D I can always fit longer, wider, closer, better
>unlike the Sony which is stuck with just one middling lens.

I figure you'll need an L-lens to beat it.
Hardly middling. In it's zoom range, it's probably better than
anything you can get on the aftermarket.
-Rich
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

In article <tmlkv19cb88acq3luh3r9lmdlssmhvmjuq.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, Rich wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:54:09 +0000, Prometheus <Prometheus.TakeThisOut@127.0.0.1>
>>In article <v6khv1h593dr2s62nu3eg7f7n0e0tr67rd.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, Rich
>><none.TakeThisOut@none.com> writes
>>>On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:39:29 +0000, Prometheus <Prometheus.TakeThisOut@127.0.0.1>
>>>>In article <qadev1lhad9bfvlhsivs095dmab6br30h3.TakeThisOut@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
>>And you think the Sony is comparable to a Canon 15 - 75mm L lens! Not
>>that I am suggesting that the lenses I mentioned are as good as the
>>Sony, but with the 350D I can always fit longer, wider, closer, better
>>unlike the Sony which is stuck with just one middling lens.
> I figure you'll need an L-lens to beat it.
> Hardly middling. In it's zoom range, it's probably better than
> anything you can get on the aftermarket.

Do you have any evidence to back up those claims?
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:18:19 GMT, Paul Murray <paul.TakeThisOut@murray.net> wrote:

>In article <tmlkv19cb88acq3luh3r9lmdlssmhvmjuq.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, Rich wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:54:09 +0000, Prometheus <Prometheus.TakeThisOut@127.0.0.1>
>>>In article <v6khv1h593dr2s62nu3eg7f7n0e0tr67rd.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, Rich
>>><none.TakeThisOut@none.com> writes
>>>>On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:39:29 +0000, Prometheus <Prometheus.TakeThisOut@127.0.0.1>
>>>>>In article <qadev1lhad9bfvlhsivs095dmab6br30h3.TakeThisOut@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
>>>And you think the Sony is comparable to a Canon 15 - 75mm L lens! Not
>>>that I am suggesting that the lenses I mentioned are as good as the
>>>Sony, but with the 350D I can always fit longer, wider, closer, better
>>>unlike the Sony which is stuck with just one middling lens.
>> I figure you'll need an L-lens to beat it.
>> Hardly middling. In it's zoom range, it's probably better than
>> anything you can get on the aftermarket.
>
>Do you have any evidence to back up those claims?

Not solid comparison evidence, as I don't believe anyone has
directly compared the R1 with a DSLR coupled to a Tamron, Sigma,
etc, zoom lens. But, its performance is definitely top notch (the
R1).
-Rich
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

In article <43fbc0cf$1@clear.net.nz>, "Jim F B" <jimfb.RemoveThis@jimfb.com>
wrote:

> Can anyone comment on the likely quality of these wide and tele
> conversion lenses? Would they be as good as having DSLR lenses?
> With the 1.7x tele conversion lense placed "on top" of the standard 24mm -
> 120mm lense, what would the maximum optical mm be? Is it simply 120mm x 1.7
> = 204mm?

First I have the R1 and enjoy it.

That said a conversion add-on lens will not be as good as a separate
interchangeable lens and will degrade the built-in Sony lens any where
from a little to a lot depending on the quality of the add-on lens.

It will increase the focal length 1.7 times so just multiply 120 x 1.7.
That would be the new effective maximum focal length. 24 x 1.7 would be
the minimum effective focal length with it on.

Same with the wide angle. 24 x 0.7.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:26:31 +1300, "Jim F B" <jimfb.TakeThisOut@jimfb.com> wrote:

>In addition, I don't like the way that a low quality kit lense is sometimes
>supplied when you first buy a DSLR. I wonder how many DSLR owners bought
>their cameras without realizing they had purchased an inferior lense and
>then find they have to spend a lot more money to get the quality of pictures
>they had expected? This type of marketing is a little deceptive, isn't it?
>This situation certainly doesn't arise with Sony's R1, you get a top class
>lense as part of the initial price.

I don't see this as a marketing problem. If a buyer doesn't know that
lenses can be changed, and that there is a large variety of lenses
available, that's not a marketing failure, but a failure on the part
of the buyer.
A very quick look at the websites of DSLR makers will show that
different lenses are available from the makers; very little research
into DSLRs in general (read *one* photo magazine) will also show that
third party lenses are available.
With this info, it very quickly becomes obvious that different lenses,
with different qualities and capabilities, are available. Marketing is
very obvious: buy more lenses to increase the capabilities of your
camera!
Aren't all DSLRs offered without the kit lenses? I think they are.
This fact alone should be a hint that that kit lens won't be the right
one for everyone.
And, on a purchase that's on the high side of cost in the camera
realm, a little research would be in order. I understand there are
some who won't do the research, but is that the fault of the camera
marketers?
I think that, at some point, the consumer has a responsibility to
assume responsibility, especially given the fact that marketing, in
this case, is doing a lot to educate that consumer.

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

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:26:31 +1300, Jim F B wrote:

> I think there are advantages and disadvantages of both the R1 and the 350D.
> I certainly don't like the potential dust on the sensor problem of many
> DSLR's (as discussed in this newsgroup in depth recently). I would be far
> more inclined to buy a DSLR if the engineers could prevent dust getting to
> the sensor when lenses are changed etc. I know a lot of DSLR users don't see
> this as a major problem, but nevertheless it does exist and is a factor to
> be taken into account before buying a DSLR. I predict that all DSLRs will be
> free of this problem within 5 years when engineers will have worked out how
> to solve this problem. There is no similar dust problem with the R1 because
> it has a permanently mounted lense.
>
> In addition, I don't like the way that a low quality kit lense is sometimes
> supplied when you first buy a DSLR. I wonder how many DSLR owners bought
> their cameras without realizing they had purchased an inferior lense and
> then find they have to spend a lot more money to get the quality of pictures
> they had expected? This type of marketing is a little deceptive, isn't it?
> This situation certainly doesn't arise with Sony's R1, you get a top class
> lense as part of the initial price.
I wear glasses. They are affected by dust very much more than any camera
is but I don't stop wearing them because of this, I clean them when
necessary; so it is with my camera.

--
Neil
Delete l to reply
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

In article <43fc2e45$1@clear.net.nz>, Jim F B <jimfb DeleteThis @jimfb.com> writes
>In addition, I don't like the way that a low quality kit lense is
>sometimes supplied when you first buy a DSLR. I wonder how many DSLR
>owners bought their cameras without realizing they had purchased an
>inferior lense and then find they have to spend a lot more money to get
>the quality of pictures they had expected? This type of marketing is a
>little deceptive, isn't it? This situation certainly doesn't arise with
>Sony's R1, you get a top class lense as part of the initial price.

I suspect that very few purchasers of DSLR cameras are unaware that they
can change the lens; they probably do not all know that the kit lens is
not the best optically. I bought a 350D with the kit lens because it was
only slightly more expensive and would give me a reasonable performance
'out of the box' whilst I save for better lenses with a wider range, and
something faster, not to mention macro. I could see no point paying 50%
more to get one fixed and far too short lens, all-be-it a good lens,
making it do what I want would cost more than the 350D with extra lenses
and probably not be as good.
--
Ian G8ILZ
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:40:52 -0500, Rich <none.TakeThisOut@none.com> wrote:

>>The R1 certainly seems to be the best P&S camera. But it's firmly stuck with
>>the P&S limitations.
>>
>>David J. Littleboy
>>Tokyo, Japan
>>
>
>Like no dust to clean off the sensor and no images to fuss around with
>the Photoshop clone control. I see the R1 as prime lens/SLR users
>used to see themselves; As having enough discipline to use what they
>have, and not have to rely on having a 10x zoom or interchangeable
>lens capability.
>-Rich

First, those obviously aren't the "limitations" David was speaking of.
But you knew that, and are only being childish.

Second, the idea of prime lens users having the "discipline" to use
what they have is strange. What they have is a desire to do things the
way they have chosen to do. The fact that others choose to *not* do
things that way in no fashion indicates a lack of discipline.
Did you know that?

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

"Used to" as in SLR as opposed to DSLR users. SLRs all generally came
with
50mm prime lenses and not every photog immediately outfitted themselves
with a battery of lenses, some tried to use what they initially got.
Yes, I know film camera users still exist.
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not? 

In article <ogtpv1h897rtuse4n8vih5hslu1e3esmjm.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
Rich <none.RemoveThis@none.com> wrote:

>I see the R1 as prime lens/SLR users
>used to see themselves; As having enough discipline to use what they
>have, and not have to rely on having a 10x zoom or interchangeable
>lens capability.

*used* to? We're still around, you know.
 >> Stay informed about: Sony DSC-R1 or not?