Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: on September 11, 2005, 07:14:30 AM

Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: on September 11, 2005, 07:14:30 AM
No video capability, limited zoom range, no IS/AS, more expensive than cheap DSLRs, non-jointed screen. I think it is a VERY big gamble. I think it's market share will be rather small.


Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: jarnon on September 08, 2005, 03:56:34 PM
While Michael is playing with the new 5D from Canon, SONY comes out with the real MAGIC BULET – CYBRE SHOT DSC-R1.
From what published today, SONY reads every word that Michel wrote here on the DSC F828
As a proud owner of the old one, I’m happy to watch the new baby.
 Looking forward to Michael report.  
Jonathan
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Ray on September 11, 2005, 12:50:24 PM
No gamble at all provided the image quality is up to scratch and noise levels are as low as one would expect from an APS-C size sensor. How much is a good quality 15-75mm zoom worth with a maximum aperture of F2.8?
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: PerryB on September 14, 2005, 10:29:12 PM
The Sony R1 looks like a very interesting camera.  

The Imagine Resources prototype review rated it’s image quality very high.

To quote from their conclusion:  “The Sony DSC-R1 is a compelling entry in the high-end "enthusiast" category. It offers an absolutely unique focal length range, with very high optical quality, attractive color, and very appealing tonality in its images. - We just liked looking at the R1's images.”

Depending on what’s important to each individual, it will be very attractive to some and not at all to others.

A SLR through the lens view or a LCD / EVF view of what the sensor is seeing view?
IS to manage camera movement, or a sharp F2.8 lens which would allow a high shutter speed to handle both camera and subject movement?
Is SLR Sensor dust a concern?

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Perry
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: LeifG on September 15, 2005, 04:02:21 AM
Quote
No gamble at all provided the image quality is up to scratch and noise levels are as low as one would expect from an APS-C size sensor. How much is a good quality 15-75mm zoom worth with a maximum aperture of F2.8?
Yes indeed. Initial reports suggest that the lens alone is as good as a 35mm lens costing as much as the camera. Some people might like the idea of an all in one digicam with a quality lens and presumably no possibility of dust ingress. I wonder what the aperture range is? Start up time seems slow. We shall see.

I've seen so many gadget freaks around esp. in London that the thing is bound to sell given the specs. and price.

Leif
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on September 15, 2005, 07:33:04 AM
Give me a cheaper XT (black  :: ) with a 50mm and a 24mm and I would be far happier than with that Sony for lightweight street work.
Anyone ever tried to use a EVF for landscape work where the sky is 3 stops brighter than the foreground?
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on September 15, 2005, 12:25:14 PM
Yes, and it redefines the meaning of "sucks".
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Brian Gilkes on September 15, 2005, 05:04:14 PM
The Sony is very welcome. Bring on Epson etc too, to keep snapping at Canon and Nikon's heels.
They always hold stuff back of course.There is no reason IS and a variable angle screen could not have been included. It should be quiet, and with that lens could be a very usable camera. I wouldn't care about limited zoom range. Cartier-Bresson seemed to manage OK with a 50mm (mainly).Sensor dust is a pain. Try cleaning up 300 dusty crockery shots.
Cheers
Brian
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Digi-T on September 16, 2005, 04:12:06 AM
Quote
Give me a cheaper XT (black  :: ) with a 50mm and a 24mm and I would be far happier than with that Sony for lightweight street work.
Anyone ever tried to use a EVF for landscape work where the sky is 3 stops brighter than the foreground?
Yes, and the shots look beautiful to me. Whichever type of viewfinder you use you still need to be able to understand the exposure reading and apply it the scene you are viewing. It is still photography whether you use an EVF or OVF.

T
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BJL on September 16, 2005, 05:38:42 PM
I am for now in the camp of preferring OVF's over any EVF so far ... except maybe the high end EVFs already available in extremely expensive digital cinematic movie cameras.

But from recent reading, EVF's offer a lens quality ans cost advantage, if they can ever be made to work well enough.  This is becasue eliminating the reflex system (mirror or prism) allows lenses of extremely short "back focus distance", where the rear lens elements get very close to the sensor. Apparently this greatly eases the design of lenses that work well with electronic sensors, by being "near telecentric" with light striking the sensor nearly perpendicular even near the corners of the frame. (Sensors with micro-lenses prefer near-telecentric, and it can be done much cheaper, better and faster with very short back-focus distance.

Many fixed lens digicams already use such designs, but Sony is the first to talk about it in their R1 promotional material.


By the way, that is also an argument for a new breed of digital rangefinders, but using normal to wide angle lens designs very different from the near-symmetric lenses so traditional with rangefinders.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Ray on September 16, 2005, 06:27:38 PM
Quote
Anyone ever tried to use a EVF for landscape work where the sky is 3 stops brighter than the foreground?
Pom,
This is where the skill of the photographer comes into play. Remember the Sony DSC-R1 has a sensor almost as big as the 10D's and (presumably) comparable low noise capability. It can take a lot of underexposure (or exposing for the highlights) whilst still maintaining acceptable noise levels.

When in doubt, use AEB. Problem solved!  :D
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Tenner on September 16, 2005, 07:01:12 PM
Having recently researched and finally bought the F828 ( with which I'm rather pleased, so far ), my first reaction at the announcement was 'Here we go again !' - not out of frustration, buying the F828 and wishing I'd waited, but to see whether my theory would be proved ie that so many comments in forums ( and review sites) were mere regurgitations of chunks from a few journos' cynical reviews. Only two or three pro users ( that I'd found, that is - there are no doubt others ) had written favourable reports after actually using the F828 for a while. Michael's Report impressed and brought me to this site, as did http://www.photo.net/equipment/sony/f828/ (http://www.photo.net/equipment/sony/f828/) and a member http://www.lin-evans.net/ (http://www.lin-evans.net/)
After viewing Sony's punchy on-line advert video, I was left wondering how this ( R1 ) would be received and reviewed - a case of "Watch this space" I suppose. However, there's a consensus forming - the sample shots are impressive.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: aaykay on December 17, 2005, 12:54:17 PM
My take on the R1 (as a serious amateur) is as follows:

It comes with a Zeiss vario-sonnar *T lens with an effective focal length of 24-120 (f2.8) (after the 1.6x crop factor is introduced), which is really intriguing to me.   Along with the APS-C sized sensor, the camera is really intriguing.

After the 1.6x crop factor is introduced, how may of the APS-C class lenses are available with the 24-120mm effective focal length with f2.8-4.0 ?  I am only talking of the Canon "L" level of glass (and not cheaper glass), since the Zeiss glass should not be compared with inferior glass.  How much would that cost ?  The whole R1 costs $999 MSRP (Lens, body everything).

The 24-70 f2.8 L Canon lens sounds interesting ($1200 ??).  But when one adds that to the 20D body ($1500) with a 1.6x crop factor, the effective focal length becomes useless for my purposes.  To retain the 24-70 effective FL on the "L" glass, we have to move up to the FF 5D.  

I am mulling over the R1 purchase as an all-purpose camera....or go the whole hog and spring for the 5D with the 24-70 f2.8.   The 24-105 f4.0 seems to have developed a bad rap from what I read in the internet....especially folks who have sold the 24-70 and sprung for the 24-105.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Tim Gray on December 17, 2005, 01:55:15 PM
I always have a knapsack cum briefcase with me and I bought the R1 as a lighter carry around (actually I also have a small Manfrotto tripod easily in the bag as well) - lighter than the 1DMKII in any event.   I'm completely happy with the camera, both from a useability perspective as well as the quality of the images it produces.  If the R1 had IS and a bit of a RAW buffer - it would be superb  - I assume that will be next years model.



I also bought the 24-105 a couple of weeks ago and so far am happy but haven't had the opportunity to really challange it.  It will likely replace the 24-70 as my most used lens (but I'm not selling the 24-70 either).
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: aaykay on December 17, 2005, 02:10:39 PM
Quote
I'm completely happy with the camera, both from a useability perspective as well as the quality of the images it produces.  If the R1 had IS and a bit of a RAW buffer - it would be superb  - I assume that will be next years model.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great hearing from an R1 owner.  How good is the R1 in capturing candid moments.  How big a lag while focusing etc., and between shots ?  Relative to a dSLR ?  Due to the smaller buffer, is there a significant "forced lag" between shots, when the captured image is being written to the memory card ?  This "forced lag" was particularly noticeable when using the DSC V1 in the past.  I assume that it does not capture and write to the memory card/stick simultaneously, unlike a dSLR.  How about "available light" shots ?  TIA.

Would love to hear about a more detailed review of the new 24-105 f4.0, even though a lot of people who sold the 24-70 and have now purchased the 24-105 say that the new one does not measure up to the old one, in terms of pure optical output.  I wonder if that is because they judged the usage of the 24-70 on a non-FF camera and are now using/judging the 24-105 on a more demanding FF camera (5D) ??
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Tim Gray on December 17, 2005, 03:10:45 PM
Quote
Great hearing from an R1 owner.  How good is the R1 in capturing candid moments.  How big a lag while focusing etc., and between shots ?  Relative to a dSLR ?  Due to the smaller buffer, is there a significant "forced lag" between shots, when the captured image is being written to the memory card ?  This "forced lag" was particularly noticeable when using the DSC V1 in the past.  I assume that it does not capture and write to the memory card/stick simultaneously, unlike a dSLR.  How about "available light" shots ?  TIA.

Would love to hear about a more detailed review of the new 24-105 f4.0, even though a lot of people who sold the 24-70 and have now purchased the 24-105 say that the new one does not measure up to the old one, in terms of pure optical output.  I wonder if that is because they judged the usage of the 24-70 on a non-FF camera and are now using/judging the 24-105 on a more demanding FF camera (5D) ??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm primarily landscape focused - and wouldn't recommend this for sports or action.  I'd suggest checking out the DPR reivew of this camera for some objective assessments.  I'm used to the 1DMKII so of course the af seem slows... duh!  I don't notice the shutter lag once focus is locked (but note that the fake shutter click happens after the  "shutter" closes, not when it opens, so a slow shutter speed will give you a noticeable gap between the time the release is pressed and you hear the click - but this is not indicative of shutter lag.  

One of the reasons I like this camera is it gives me completely useable shots at the ISO I use as default on the MKII - 400, so I'm not always feeling limited by the slower shutter speed I'd have to use if 100 was as much as I could use comfortably. DPR has a comprehensive analysis of noise and appropriate comparisons.  

I can shoot 2 RAW in succession then it's several seconds till the buffer clears.  A tip shooting raw and using the live histo - the histo is based on jpg and you can get a good 1 stop more out of using raw - I dial the exposure compensation to the point where the zebra's go away and then add one stop back (obviously taking specular highlights etc into consideration....)

As for the 24-105, I like it because it's lighter than the 24-70, bigger range and has IS.  If low light, non tripod, is a requirement I'll use the 24-70.  As for the normal objections you hear:  use a touch of capture sharpening, and it's absolutely on a par with the 24-70, any vignetting and/or distortion is so easy to deal with it's a total non issue.    Properly processed (assuming the flare issues have been dealt with) I believe that it would be very, very, very difficult to spot the difference in a shot with this vs the 24-70 at whatever size you want to print.

I recall Michaels remark:  "most lenses are better than most photographers".  I've felt limited by lenses before, and upgraded - notably my first long zoom, the old 70-300 IS way way soft.  But I'd be very surprised if I ultimately felt limited by the quality of this lens.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2005, 07:44:53 PM
Quote
After the 1.6x crop factor is introduced, how may of the APS-C class lenses are available with the 24-120mm effective focal length with f2.8-4.0 ?  I am only talking of the Canon "L" level of glass (and not cheaper glass), since the Zeiss glass should not be compared with inferior glass.  How much would that cost ?  The whole R1 costs $999 MSRP (Lens, body everything).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you have not yet invested in Canon lenses, then the Nikon D200 + 17-55 f2.8 is the only thing in town that can compete with the Sony under 5000 US$. It will still cost about 3000 US$, meaning 3 times more.

Regards,
Bernard
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: aaykay on December 17, 2005, 08:05:23 PM
Quote
I'm primarily landscape focused - and wouldn't recommend this for sports or action.  I'd suggest checking out the DPR reivew of this camera for some objective assessments. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the advice.  I checked out the DPR review, which was mostly positive.  I really wish Sony had introduced a larger buffer/cache and smarter algorithm for writing to the storage media.  But considering what we get for the money, the Sony is a great buy.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: aaykay on December 17, 2005, 08:34:02 PM
Quote
If you have not yet invested in Canon lenses, then the Nikon D200 + 17-55 f2.8 is the only thing in town that can compete with the Sony under 5000 US$. It will still cost about 3000 US$, meaning 3 times more.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53792\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the heads-up.  Since I have not yet invested in any manufacturer's lenses, I am looking at the D200 too, in addition to the 5D - and the Sony.   Still waiting on the reviews/tests on the Nikon.  With the Sony and the 5D, I don't have to do any 1.6x or 1.5x conversion - a big plus in my mind.  The 5D is pricey - due to the FF  -  and needs a dedicated external flash - a big minus for me.  There can be no compromises in the lenses with the 5D, due to the FF.

The Sony is cheap enough to tide me over for a couple of years, by which time the market should indicate the direction the technology is moving towards......FF vs crops. Then maybe invest in a specific manufacturer's lenses.  Or maybe invest in a cheap body (350D?) and maybe a couple of all-purpose high quality lens (24-70 F2.8 etc).  If I need to change direction, I could always sell the lenses and discard the cheap body.  I like Canon due to the level of control they have towards the manufacture/design of sensors and availability of both crops and FF options in their product range.   The D200 is very tempting however - again from a value-for-money perspective, more intuitive user interfaces and also ruggedness in build, even though it has a 1.5x crop factor.  The problem is that when we move towards a specific manufacturer, for all intents and purposes, we tend to stick with them for the long term - so I want to be cautious at this juncture.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BJL on December 19, 2005, 01:48:55 PM
Quote
After the 1.6x crop factor is introduced, how may of the APS-C class lenses are available with the 24-120mm effective focal length with f2.8-4.0 ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Firstly, the actual R-1 lens spec's are f=14.3-71.5mm, f/2.8-4.8 (not 4.0).

Secondly, converting to "equivalent focal lengths" really only makes sense of you also convert to "equivalent apertures": the aperture ratios that give same light gathering speed (to compensate for the expected difference ISO speed limits of different sensor sizes), and same DOF wide open. The rough rule is simple: multiply f-stops by the same "format factor" as the focal lengths. That is, compare at equal (effective) aperture diameter, or entrance pupil size.

The R1 has a format factor of 5/3 (1.67x), giving
35mm equivalents of 24-120mm, f/4.7-8
DX equivalents of 16-80mm, f/3.1-5.3
Canon EF-S equivalents of 15-75mm, f/2.9-5
FourThirds equivalents of 12-60mm, f/2.4-4

The 5x zoom range is a bit wider than anything in the DSLR mainstream except the Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 EF-S, with a slight "brightness" (effective aperture) advantage for the R1 lens to be balanced against the Canon's greater telephoto reach and IS (see below for why I consider the Canon lens sightly "brighter".a.k.a. "faster".)

Amongst DSLR lenses with slightly lower 4x zoom range, the tele end of the R1's lens falls just short for brightness compared to the Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 DX or Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5, at least at the telephoto end where lens brightness is most important.

In fact all four lenses have similar light gathering speed at the telephoto end, judged by effective aperture diameter (focal length divided by aperture ratio), with the R1 lens the "dimmest" by a small margin:
15.6mm Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5
15.4mm Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
15.2mm Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6
14.9mm Sony/Zeiss 14.3-71.5mm, f/2.8-4.8

The slightly wider coverage than the others appeals to me a lot, and the 5x zoom range is a nice little edge. Then again, both of these are far more important on a camera like this that does not allow one to swap to a wider or longer telephoto lens.

Going from the prices of those other three lenses, I can accept that this lens alone might be worth around $500, so you effectively get the body for an impressively low $500. If the lens's optical qualities like low distortion are as good as I have read in some places, maybe it is worth more than that.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Kenneth Sky on December 19, 2005, 02:48:08 PM
Re: 35 mm equivalence:
I thought the focal length is multiplied but the f stop stays the same
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Kenneth Sky on December 19, 2005, 03:18:54 PM
Spent some time this weekend with R-1 at the store. Must say the EVF is the most limiting factor. Also, the write speed limits the shot to shot speed, especially in RAW. I'm not impressed with the plastic finish but that's personal taste.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BJL on December 19, 2005, 06:15:44 PM
Quote
Re: 35 mm equivalence:
I thought the focal length is multiplied but the f stop stays the same
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For equal FOV and equal shutter speed at equal ISO yes, but resulting in more DOF and probably more shadow noise and/or less resolution with the smaller format, so that is a rather unimportant comparison.
Firstly, DOF will be different at the same f-stop due to the combined effect of the change in focal length and related change in degree of enlargement needed to get equal sized images of the subject on the prints: the smaller format and focal length gets equal DOF with a proportionately smaller f-stop.
Secondly, a smaller format is typically limited to a lower ISO speeds to get acceptable combination of resolution and low noise levels on the final prints, thus requiring lower f-stops to get comparable handling of high shutter speed/low light situations. That is why comparing to a lens of equivalent focal length and same f-stop is like imagining that one could replace a 400/2.8 lens by cheaper, lighter f/2.8 lens of shorter focal lengths and then cropping to the desired FOV. That fails because either (a) the crop gives inferior print resolution, or ( if higher resolution film/sensor is used to sustain the crop, its ISO speed is lower, so f/2.8 no longer gives as much speed.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BJL on December 19, 2005, 06:25:17 PM
Quote
With the Sony and the 5D, I don't have to do any 1.6x or 1.5x conversion
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you wish to think of FOV in 35mm terms, you need to convert with the R1 just as much as with DX, EF-S or 4/3: the factor is 5/3, or about 1.7x.

If instead you just work with the actual format and focal lengths you have, no conversion is needed with any DSLR. Usually, I just zoom until the framing is right in the VF; I do not compute the needed focal length and then dial it in! At most I bear in mind that the transition between my 14-54 and 50-200 4/3 format lenses is at about "twice normal", to guide my choice of lens.

Likewise, I am fairly sure that photographers using MF do not multiply focal lengths by "crop factors" of about 0.6x for the sake of putting things in 35mm terms. Nor have I ever heard those familiar with MF talk about having to apply a roughly 1.7x "crop factor" when they use the smaller "cropped" 35mm format.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: aaykay on December 19, 2005, 09:15:02 PM
Quote
Firstly, the actual R-1 lens spec's are f=14.3-71.5mm, f/2.8-4.8 (not 4.0).

The rough rule is simple: multiply f-stops by the same "format factor" as the focal lengths. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So going by this principle, the 16-35 f2.8L Canon Lens becomes effectively a 26-56 f4.48, when mounted on the 20D ??  And the 24-70 f2.8L becomes a 38-112 f4.48 lens, when mounted on the 20D ?  

Also, how does a  Zeiss Vario-Sonnar *T 14.3-71.5mm, f/2.8-4.8 lens cost only $500 ? Out of curiosity, how did you arrive at that pricepoint ?  From what I know, the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar *T glasses are, if anything, superior to the "L" glasses from Canon.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BJL on December 20, 2005, 01:39:01 PM
Quote
... how does a  Zeiss Vario-Sonnar *T 14.3-71.5mm, f/2.8-4.8 lens cost only $500 ? Out of curiosity, how did you arrive at that pricepoint ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I went solely on the prices of those other lenses of similar FOV and aperture size, which therefore have front elements of similar size and design, suggesting similar materials cost and design complexity. About $340 for the Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, $430 for the Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5, $530 for the Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6IS , but with IS adding maybe about $100 to the cost, so call it $430.

These prices are all lower than I recalled, so maybe $430 is a more reasonable estimate for the Sony lens.

When it comes to digicam zoom lenses, I have seen no evidence that lenses like this one, manufactured by Sony and bearing the name Zeiss, are of higher quality or cost that those from excellent lens makers like Canon, Nikon and Olympus. Same for digicam lenses made by Panasonic and branded Leica. Such lenses are in a very different category than those actually designed and made by Zeiss or Leica.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: aaykay on December 20, 2005, 07:19:40 PM
Quote
I went solely on the prices of those other lenses of similar FOV and aperture size, which therefore have front elements of similar size and design, suggesting similar materials cost and design complexity. About $340 for the Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, $430 for the Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5, $530 for the Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6IS , but with IS adding maybe about $100 to the cost, so call it $430.

These prices are all lower than I recalled, so maybe $430 is a more reasonable estimate for the Sony lens.

When it comes to digicam zoom lenses, I have seen no evidence that lenses like this one, manufactured by Sony and bearing the name Zeiss, are of higher quality or cost that those from excellent lens makers like Canon, Nikon and Olympus. Same for digicam lenses made by Panasonic and branded Leica. Such lenses are in a very different category than those actually designed and made by Zeiss or Leica.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=53989\")

Okay, so that was the reason for comparing the Carl Zeiss Vario-sonnar *T lens with inferior glass and arriving at the figure you did.  I mistakenly assumed that you based the above subjective opinions on real data/information. Well, people like Dave Etchells from imaging resource, who have done objective tests on the Zeiss glass (Sony R1), disagrees with your assessment on the quality of the Zeiss/Sony glass and have directly compared the Zeiss glass to the Canon 24-70 F2.8L etc (not the el-cheapo glass you used to arrive at the number you did):, as per the below link

[a href=\"http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A6.HTM]http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A6.HTM[/url]

Some other interesting links showing the Sony/Zeiss link are:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0103/01031301sonycarlzeiss.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0103/01031301sonycarlzeiss.asp)

http://www.sony.ie/view/ShowArticle.action...&site=odw_en_IE (http://www.sony.ie/view/ShowArticle.action?section=odw_Magazine&articlesection=3&article=1123689744997&site=odw_en_IE)

So Sony manufactures the Zeiss designed lenses, in Japan, using Zeiss mandated methods, using Zeiss's proprietary glass composition and applies the proprietary Zeiss "T" coating on it and inspects every single one manually, using Zeiss defined objective parameters.  Zeiss allows such glass, to carry the Zeiss name with the *T symbol.  I think the Canon "L" lenses should be placed a notch below the Zeiss glass, IMO, without objective evidence to the contrary.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BJL on December 21, 2005, 02:16:46 PM
Quote
Okay, so that was the reason for comparing the Carl Zeiss Vario-sonnar *T lens with inferior glass and arriving at the figure you did ... Well, people like Dave Etchells from imaging resource, who have done objective tests on the Zeiss glass (Sony R1), disagrees with your assessment on the quality of the Zeiss/Sony glass and have directly compared the Zeiss glass to the Canon 24-70 F2.8L etc (not the el-cheapo glass you used to arrive at the number you did)

I think the Canon "L" lenses should be placed a notch below the Zeiss glass, IMO, without objective evidence to the contrary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54013\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you find a relevant comparison, like to one of the three lenses I quoted? As the happy owner of the "el cheapo" Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital, I would be interested in that comparison in particular.


Then again, the use of insulting epithets like "inferior glass" and "el-cheapo glass" and other comments suggest that you are more interested in German brand name lens snobbery and insults than in facts, so I am signing off.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Graham Welland on December 22, 2005, 01:44:27 PM
Lots of pixel peeping and theorizing here about the R-1 - do you folks ever actually take photos?

Here are some observations from actually owning and using one rather than pouring over stats/tests/lens MTF comparisons/navel gazing:

EVF - it sucks less than any other EVF I've used so far. Obviously an optical finder is preferable for many reasons that I think we all know but, for my landscape/travel type of shooting, I've found it very usable. I manually set the LCD/viewfinder setting and so don't run into the shut-off when shielding the viewfinder. I often mount on a tripod with the LCD in WLF mode and or even tilt up slightly - very usable. I haven't run into extreme contrast EVF blooming yet - that's normally the weakness of EVF's for me.

Lens performance - it's sharp! The manual zoom is pretty smooth and well weighted. Manual focus works ok and feels superior to some of my Mamiya 645AF lenses in manual focus mode. (lifeless & unweighted).

Auto Focus: It's slow. I set mine to manual focus mode and press the AF button to auto-focus - just like I do with my DSLR.

Raw - there's a slight delay with writing raw but I haven't run into buffering issues. For sports/burst mode I could see this as being a deal breaker. For considered landscape/travel shots I've never run into a scenario where I'm blocked by the raw write buffer or lack of.

Build quality - it puts any similar priced DSLR to shame. This is a solid, well made, quality constructed camera.

Form factor - I kind of liked the swivel body of the F828 (hated the CA/fringing) but the camera shape is easy to hold and mount on a tripod. I do find the shape a challenge to find a suitable camera bag configuration for since it is very much a lens/right side body and so needs some bag configuration to have it rest securely. This is kind of trivial but something that you notice comapred to a regular DSLR/bag setup. (for me at least).

Image quality - so far, I've not found any issues with CA/off centre softness, etc, etc. Colour rendition is excellent, contrast & 3d depth of images excellent. Basically I find very little difference in performance to my 20D images and side by side with D2X images they hold up very well.

Overall: Is it better than a comparable DSLR? Depends on what 'better' means. A kit DSLR at this price is possibly more versatile longer term. I bought mine as a simple, high quality, well constructed single zoom digital camera for travel use instead of lugging my D2X around. Previously I used a Leica Digilux 2 and this camera has superior image quality at the expense of being bigger/bulkier. The one thing I'd like it to have is image stabilisation.

Would I buy one for sports/action use. No. For every other situation where speed isn't important I find it to be excellent. Your mileage may vary - go try one and decide yourself.

p.s. The wide angle/telephoto lenses and accessories are a joke. Bigger and heavier than the camera itself. The don't mount on the camera lens itself but to a second frame assembly - I would be worried about the exposed glass between the R1 lens and the accessory lens - in my part of the world I could forsee this attracting condensation or dust in the image path. These are certain to fall into the collector's item category in the future because I can't see anyone buying them.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: HiltonP on December 23, 2005, 03:46:34 AM
I find Sony's approach to the R1 interesting . . or maybe more "confusing".

They have access to all the toys in the store . . the larger sensor, good lenses, image stabilisation (used in the H1), blazingly fast AF (used in the F828 and more recent V3), options of CF or MS cards, etc, etc. Yet they choose to ham-string the R1 by leaving the fast AF, and IS, off.

Possibly there is a cost factor involved? How much would the inclusion of the AF and IS have bumped up the manufactured price of the camera?  I guess only Sony knows. Is Sony using the include-this-exclude-that design approach to place cameras into niche markets?  Again, only they know, but what it is doing is creating cameras which are Jacks-of-some-trades but no Masters-of-all. If they had included the fast AF and IS it would have put the R1 well ahead of the digicam pack, and probably ahead of many of the budget dSLR's. There would have been no purchase "maybe's", it would have been a no-brainer.

Sony appear to have done this on other models as well. The superb V3 is ham-strung with poor software in Auto mode. The H1 can only use MS media. It's almost as if each model has a little piece left out in order to limit it to some degree.

If we, as average people-in-the-street, can see these omisions then one has to assume that the Sony engineers and product developers (who are steeped in the industry) are doing this deliberately?  I understand that business is often about compromises, but the camera industry right now is extremely competitive, and I would have thought that Sony would want to put out the very best product possible in order to stay ahead. On the other hand maybe they know something about their clients which I don't! . . .

P.S. . . . I've used Sony as the example here, but there are other brands which appear to follow this principle as well.

P.P.S . . . I own many Sony products, which only adds to my frustration at their apparent design philosophy!
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Graham Welland on December 23, 2005, 11:34:49 AM
Quote
I find Sony's approach to the R1 interesting . . or maybe more "confusing".

They have access to all the toys in the store . . the larger sensor, good lenses, image stabilisation (used in the H1), blazingly fast AF (used in the F828 and more recent V3), options of CF or MS cards, etc, etc. Yet they choose to ham-string the R1 by leaving the fast AF, and IS, off.

Possibly there is a cost factor involved? How much would the inclusion of the AF and IS have bumped up the manufactured price of the camera?  I guess only Sony knows. Is Sony using the include-this-exclude-that design approach to place cameras into niche markets?  Again, only they know, but what it is doing is creating cameras which are Jacks-of-some-trades but no Masters-of-all. If they had included the fast AF and IS it would have put the R1 well ahead of the digicam pack, and probably ahead of many of the budget dSLR's. There would have been no purchase "maybe's", it would have been a no-brainer.

...

P.S. . . . I've used Sony as the example here, but there are other brands which appear to follow this principle as well.

P.P.S . . . I own many Sony products, which only adds to my frustration at their apparent design philosophy!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I couldn't agree more!

I was going to get the Ricoh GR digital as it seemed to build on the heritage and superb optics of the GR1 but then crippled it with poor software execution. I really like my Leica digicams yet they are ultimately compromised by Panasonic/Leicas image processing for noise.

I like my R-1 but they missed a great opportunity to kill in this market by not investing in fast raw support, fast AF and IS. Add these features and the choice between the R-1 and DSLR would be much simpler.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Let Biogons be Biogons on December 27, 2005, 03:17:09 PM
While I find the R1 very attractive and seriously considered buying one, I didn't after looking through the EVF.  It quickly gave me a headache and you really couldn't check focus with it (among other issues).

The R1 lens and sensor provide enormous performance for little money, and I still might get one.  I certainly applaud Sony's efforts, they show increadible potential and promise.  What might be more interesting is the successor to the R1 (whenever that might be) as they look to find solutions to the issue people have with the camera.

Personally a possible variation on the R1 might make a helluva camera.  Ditch the EVF (but keep the multi-position LCD on the top of the camera) and in its place put a coupled  split-image rangefinder that zooms with the lens (like the one in the Contax G2 does).  This would give all the advantages of the R1 plus allow you to see you subject clearly and immediately, be responsive to the moment, and potentially allow better manual focusing with the split-image.  While I realize this would probably cost a significant premium over the R1, it would also be alot more useful than the R1 in its current form.

Finally, if you make those lenses interchangable and offer a set of lenses to go with it (provided you could protect the sensor), Sony might just have a real winner.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BJL on December 28, 2005, 02:37:30 PM
Quote
While I find the R1 very attractive and seriously considered buying one, I didn't after looking through the EVF.
...
Finally, if you make those lenses interchangable and offer a set of lenses to go with it (provided you could protect the sensor), Sony might just have a real winner.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sony is indeed planning future cameras in which they remove the EVF and add interchangeable lenses: the DSLR's that they have said they will be making in a partnership with K.-Minolta.

However, do not expect a return to the rangefinder approach; the only digital rangefinders are going to be niche products like the rumored Leica digital M. See the letsgodigital web-site for the latest version of that rumor.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Let Biogons be Biogons on December 28, 2005, 04:53:41 PM
Quote
Sony is indeed planning future cameras in which they remove the EVF and add interchangeable lenses: the DSLR's that they have said they will be making in a partnership with K.-Minolta.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am aware of the collaboration with KM but those products will be quite different than the R1.  They will be DSLR's and the R1 is not.  The R1's lens arangement can't be used with a DSLR mirror being only a few millimeters from the sensor.  Moving it away from the sensor to accomodate a mirror they will have to re-design it and will turn it into just make it another DSLR lens -- without some of the things that make the R1's lens and its arrangement special.  Finally, it is not clear whether Zeiss will want to make lenses for KM bodies, or whether KM will allow Zeiss to make lenses for their bodies (won't transfer necessary tech on lens mount and communication etc.)

Ther reason why the rangefinder option works here is that you can keep the lens as it is (preserving its fine qualities), while give the user a real optical viewfinder amd potential one they can focus for themselves if they choose. it would be a different product than any potential Leica Digital M.  It would have an autofocus zoom lens, to start, and be much more reasonably priced.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BJL on December 28, 2005, 05:41:18 PM
So you are just living in the past. To repeat, there is not the slightest chance that any company like Sony is going to turn back the technological clock by almost a century and launch a new range-finder. The way forward for the extremely short back-focus, retro-focus lens design used in the R1 will be improving the EVF, not resorting to the technology of the 1930's.

Here is a speculation based on internet forum rumors: Panasonic releasing a camera with an EVF distinctly better than the one in the R1. and using interchangeable lenses in FourThirds mount. For now those will be "SLR compatible" lenses, so not with the extremely short back-focus of the R1's lens, but "EVF only" lenses could come later.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Let Biogons be Biogons on December 28, 2005, 09:12:55 PM
Quote
So you are just living in the past. To repeat, there is not the slightest chance that any company like Sony is going to turn back the technological clock by almost a century and launch a new range-finder. The way forward for the extremely short back-focus, retro-focus lens design used in the R1 will be improving the EVF, not resorting to the technology of the 1930's.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54544\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am aware that the yway forward will be an EVF.  The problem is they have a very long way to go.  EVF are virtually impossible to use for any serious work, especially where focus is critical or subjects are moving.  The EVF will almost never be as immediate as an optical viewfinder, and it will be many years before one is develop that could be used effectively.  An opticval viewfinder and a rangefinder, might be "old" technology, but it is technology that works, and a technology that many are familiar with (including many professionals).  In the several years between now and they finally develop a usable EVF, what are they going to do with cameras like the R1?  Let them fail to reach their potential markets because the viewfinder is unusable?  Or just give up on the camera type (regardless of how good it can be) and just do DSLR's?  An optical rangefinder could be a very effective mid-term, stop gap technology that could make these camera much more popular than they are.

Quote
Here is a speculation based on internet forum rumors: Panasonic releasing a camera with an EVF distinctly better than the one in the R1. and using interchangeable lenses in FourThirds mount. For now those will be "SLR compatible" lenses, so not with the extremely short back-focus of the R1's lens, but "EVF only" lenses could come later.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54544\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The EVF in the Sony was supposed to be really good as well, and proved disappointing (I was ready to buy one and I just could not use the viewfinder at all). Even if the rumours are true and the Panasonic's EVF is "better" it still probably won't be good enough to use effectively.  It also seems like a real waste to put an EVF in camera with a lens that accomodates a mirror box.  There is little size savings (maybe alittle from eliminating the prism) at a significant loss to the usability of the camera.  "EVF only" lenses would, of course, need their own new bodies as they would not be compatible with EVF bodies set up to use DSLR lenses.  So I guess I don;t see the poiint of doing it now with DSLR lenses and with what is almost certainly an imperfect, EVF technology of only limited use.

I gues we'll just have to wait and see how this all develops.  I sort of agree with you in that I don't think that Sony will go down the road I suggested.  That is unfortunate, as it is quite clear to me that the R1 would sell in much greater numbers today if it had an effective optical viewfinder.  

I would also say just because a technology is older and established does not necessaarily limit it's usefulness.  People to this day, still very effectively take stunning pictures with rangefinder cameras loaded with film.  And the most advanced DLSR's on the market still use a basic mirror box and prism for viewing-- a technology that is nearly 50 years old.  Use what works while you develop something better.
.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Bobtrips on December 28, 2005, 10:09:32 PM
Quote
I am aware that the yway forward will be an EVF.  The problem is they have a very long way to go.  EVF are virtually impossible to use for any serious work, especially where focus is critical or subjects are moving. 


Perhaps you might wish to acquaint yourself with the Genesis video camera and its 3 meg EVF.  Full sized 35 mm sensor, 12.4 megs, 50 fps.

Looks like a serious camera to me.

It's a joint project between Panavision and Sony....
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Let Biogons be Biogons on December 29, 2005, 07:12:18 AM
That is hugely expensive movie equipment.  It is so expensive you can't even buy one.  Movie producers have to apply to rent one.  It's only just been use for the first time to shoot the new movie, "Superman Returns".  But let us be aware that movie camera EVF's have different requirements than film camera EVF's.  And while EVF has been used in movie cameras for some time (and that never made then good for still digital cameras), film makers and cinematographers still complain about EVF's on professional digital movie cameras.  And movie camera makers like Arri are developing similar cameras that use optical viewfinders because of the inherent compromises of the EVF -- even the one on the Genesis.   Even still, it will be a long time before technology used on limted production professional movie cameras costing several hundred thousand dollars will filter down into your $1000 digi-cam.  

Quote
Perhaps you might wish to acquaint yourself with the Genesis video camera and its 3 meg EVF.  Full sized 35 mm sensor, 12.4 megs, 50 fps.

Looks like a serious camera to me.

It's a joint project between Panavision and Sony....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Bobtrips on December 29, 2005, 01:32:33 PM
Quote
Even still, it will be a long time before technology used on limted production professional movie cameras costing several hundred thousand dollars will filter down into your $1000 digi-cam.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


And how many years ago was it that a 6 meg dSLR cost $30,000?

Current EVFs are ~ .25 megs.  Two doublings brings us to the era of 1 meg EVFs which will be 'good enough' for critical focus and DOF judgment.   I'm guessing 3-4 years.  Maybe sooner if Sony is moving into the 4/3", exchangeable lens market.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Let Biogons be Biogons on December 29, 2005, 01:44:09 PM
Quote
And how many years ago was it that a 6 meg dSLR cost $30,000?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

7 or 8 years, or something like that.  Certainly more than 5 years.

Quote
Current EVFs are ~ .25 megs.  Two doublings brings us to the era of 1 meg EVFs which will be 'good enough' for critical focus and DOF judgment.   I'm guessing 3-4 years.  Maybe sooner if Sony is moving into the 4/3", exchangeable lens market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps.  I was think more along the lines of 5 years -- close enough in this kind of rampant speculation.   5 years is something like an eternity in the digital world.  Sony tends to revise or replace digital camera models almost on a yearly basis, so we might have 4 model iterations of the R1 before a truly effective EVF is available.  IMHO, if they want these cameras to sell in significant numbers (competitive with DSLR's) over that 4-5 year period, that may have to offer an alternative viewfinder to the EVF -- and without significant changes to the lens and body relationship, that would mean some kind of external (to the imaging path) optical viewfinder, such as a rangefinder.  That is of course, only my opinion and suggestion, and Sony has shown itself foolish enough in the past not to follow my suggestions.
;-)
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BJL on December 29, 2005, 04:39:00 PM
Quote
... what are they going to do with cameras like the R1?  Let them fail to reach their potential markets because the viewfinder is unusable?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Current EVF's might be unusable to you, but clearly are found acceptable by the very large number of people who happily use fixed lens digital cameras with EVF's. So long as the R1 is selling largely to customers upgrading from compact digicam (what I call the "crossover market") the EVF with probably not hurt it too much.

On the other hand, us SLR optical TTL VF curmudgeons will of course take some more years to convert, if we ever do. I do want to give up my phase detection AF!
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: BJL on December 29, 2005, 04:43:55 PM
Quote
... 1 meg EVFs which will be 'good enough' for critical focus and DOF judgment.   I'm guessing 3-4 years.  Maybe sooner if Sony is moving into the 4/3", exchangeable lens market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would change "Sony" to Panasonic, who I expect to be first with an interchangeable lens EVF camera, building on their video camera EVF experience.
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: situgrrl on December 30, 2005, 12:00:41 PM
When I was looking for a camera 8 mths ago I was torn between the portability and price of a FLD such as the Canon Pro 1 and the versitility of a DSLR.  I was told that KM A2 had a 1mp screen but found it hateful.

Fast forward to the summer and my cameras was confiscated by the cops when I was arrested at the G8 summit - ever since, I've been begging and borrowing cameras.  One friend has a Panasonic (FZ 30?) with an EVF that I've found to be, whilst not ideal, quite usable in conjunction with a very well implemented mf system where a 100% crop allows you to focus.  It's a million miles from the previous prosumers in terms of quality.

On the other hand, I find manual focusing my E1 to be very difficult - a bigger PITA since the AF is so sloooow and sometimes fails to lock.

I often borrow a 350D and whilst it is better than my olympus, the MF is still terrible.

Why when a lense come with a focus ring, does the camera it's designed for not come with a split prism?  How else do you judge focus?  That little green light in my viewfinder with "focus" underneath it?  Great it's in "focus"...WHAT is in focus, I can't see! </rant>

Do EOS 1Ds and D2s get prisms?  I'd have looked at them if I didn't know I'd sell the clothes off my back to own one, I had an EOS 1 film camera before it was nicked.  

To the person who suggested an RF on the Sony - you are thinking on my wave length!  The other camera Scotland's finest are allowing to collect dust is my Canonet QL17 - the one thing I could rely on to get the pictures no matter what shit I'm being subjected to - provided it could be captured in a 40mm lense on Tri X.  The RD1 is an anachronistic mess - a piece of millenium electronics dressed up as a 1950's mechanics.  A wind-on lever?  I don't know why it doesn't use a proprietary storage tape shaped like a roll of kodak's finest...

Buying a camera is always a trade off:  If I were looking now, I'd take a long look at the sony - even with the evf.  The optical vf of the DSLRs I've seen aren't up to standard either...
Title: Sony Cyber Shot DSC R-1
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 30, 2005, 02:08:57 PM
Quote
Why when a lense come with a focus ring, does the camera it's designed for not come with a split prism?  How else do you judge focus?  That little green light in my viewfinder with "focus" underneath it?  Great it's in "focus"...WHAT is in focus, I can't see! </rant>
If you RT...M, you'll discover that if you manually select a focus point, say the center one, that the "in focus" indicator will be based on the selected focus point. And the higher-end cameras (5D, and all of the 1-series bodies) do have an available split-prism focus screen. The reason it's not the default is because it can negatively affect metering accuracy when spot metering with the center metering sensor under certain conditions. But that's not an issue when using evaluative or center-weighted metering, or spot metering with a non-center metering sensor (something you can do on the 1-series bodies). The 1-series bodies also have a larger, brighter viewfinder more suited to manual focusing even without a split-prism focus screen.