Sony DSC-T1

[gryffyn]

Michael has posted a nice review of this item with images. The T1 rocks in it's own market.  2.5" screen, 5mp, thin as 3 credit cards.  What a concept.  You can put it in your shirt pocket and forget about it. A friend is selling his Canon S45 to buy this T1 and he is a pro, he just wants it as an "always around" photo/video machine....  S

Which is exactly why I bought one!

Still hoping to hear from other users with some tips and sample pics though.

[Shivz]

T1 does have a 3X zoom lens by the way, but the zoom function happens inside the camera, vertically.

Also, A series Canons can't compare with the elegance, slickness, thinness and shear sexiness of the Sony T1.  That Cinemascope LCD is by itself a winner.

S

[BJL]

... it's quite reasonable to want to know what the trade-off is in terms of (a) image quality on the monitor at 100%, and ( image quality on equal size prints.

Ray,
   in reverse order,

 I completely agree that image quality at 100% on-screen is important, but only in the sense of displaying images so that they occupy 100% of the screen, even after moderate cropping.

   On the other hand, I cannot for the life of me understand why I should care how my images look when enlarged to the rather low resolution of about 100PPI [4p/mm], giving a total image size of about 18"x24" [45x50cm], cropped to less than a third of the total image area, and then viewed from a distance of about 15" [40cm]. That is where "one camera pixel per screen pixel" viewing takes us with a 5MP sensor.

Is that even vaguely similar to the way we would want to view our photos or display them to others, unless we are in the business of intelligence gathering, or have totally lost perspective of the artisitic objectives of our photography?

a) I would suggest that those print comparisons be restricted to equal and relevant print sizes. For most of us choosing an always available "mini-camera", adjunct to a DSLR or "big-lens digicam", the relevant sizes would not exceed standard inkjet formats; A4 for you, 8.5"x11" for me.

So only when I see evidence of significant deficiency in print image quality at up to such a size would I hold it against a particular mini-camera.

[gryffyn]

as far as getting more telephoto reach (a narrower field of view), that is the best argument for passing on the T1 in favour of something that allows the use of a telephoto supplementary lens.

That sounds more like a good reason to leave my T1 behind and use the DSLR instead.

Add-ons, and teleconverters don't make much sense to me on a pocket camera, since they contravene the reason for getting a pocket point 'n shoot in the first place.

[gryffyn]

Of course there are other options if you want a camera 'not to think about' which you can carry everywhere. The Minolta xg is lighter than the Sony T1, (143gms as opposed to 180gms) and has a bigger aperture (f2.8 to 3.6 as opposed to f3.5 to 4.4).

But keep in mind the XG has a much smaller LCD, doesn't have Zeiss optics and is only 3.2 mpixels instead of Sony's 5.  But it is a lot less expensive as a result.

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']3MP is enough?! What hapened to the Ray who is leary of these "miniature marvels" because of their limited capacity for "cropping (or use of the digital zoom)" ?[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Well, that's odd! I actually replied to your post about an hour ago, but it's disappeared. I guess this was about the time Michael decided to exclude non-registered users. Not that I was ever not registered. It's just that my newest computer never seemed to accept what I thought was my user name and password.

Anyway, my apparent change of heart regarding sub-miniature cameras is due mainly to the rapidly evolving technology and the fact that the Sony T1, with sufficient memory to shoot a meaningful amount of video, is quite an expensive package which is likely to be superseded in a fairly short period of time by a better model with, say Canon G5 image quality, F2 max aperture, optical viewfinder, tripod mount and possibly even RAW image capability, as well as reduced cycle time.

If the Minolta xg (with its improved lens) can produce comparable images up to A4 size, doesn't need much memory because there's no TIF and its video (being only 320x240) is a 'throw away' feature, then that might be the best short term option.[/font]

[gryffyn]

Based on Michael's review of this little 5mp pocket camera, I picked one up, since lugging around a DSLR everywhere you go means you don't have a camera with you a lot of the time.

Just wondering if anyone else has used this little device and if they have any pointers?

Michael:  Are you going to post any pics you've taken with the T1?  All I've seen on LL recently is from the Minolta Dimage A2. Are you using the T1 at all?  Planning an addendum to the review based on your usage any time soon?

Thx!

[Ray]

It's such a pity the image quality is not quite up to the level of the Canon S45. That's the only negative that has dissuaded me from getting a T1. Gotta draw my standards somewhere.

[Shivz]

Sony T1 Images

This link for T1 images is from the STF (Sony talk forum) over at Dpreview.  

I think to compare the T1 with Canon S model or even Sony's own upcoming W1 model with 2.5" screen is not correct. You can always get better images by going larger.  That's not the point, I think the absolute thinness, light weight and elegance of this machine, plus the 2.5" screen puts it in a rather unique category.

You'd know if you are carrying the S45 on you, or my Sony P5 for that matter, but you'd hardly feel the T1.  I have reservations about the size of the lens as well, but then again Sony is offering even an smaller size called T11 and a larger size with a real decent 3X lens called W1 with manual mode option (both with 2.5" screens).

I think these ultra sub-compact cams with Cinemascope LCDs make a wonderful companion to D-SLRs of today.  S

[Hilton]

I would have thought LL’ers would have been attracted to the Canon A-series (more specifically the A80) digicams for “casual” shooting?  

They offer an incredible level of manual intervention if desired, excellent battery life, CF compatability, and a respectable 4-megapixel photo. Not as “pocketable” as the Sony, but plenty small enough for coat / jacket / pants pockets.

P.S. . . . I’m not a Canon salesman!


Regards, HILTON

[gryffyn]

I would have thought LL?ers would have been attracted to the Canon A-series (more specifically the A80) digicams for ?casual? shooting?  

I think in this case, the form factor (ie. the extreme "pocketability"/size) coupled with the 5 mp trumps the manual settings, since "casual" shooting is probably more "point & shoot" in nature than wanting to fiddle with manual settings.

This was the case with me, and why I picked the T1 over other small digicams.  If I want to fiddle with settings, then I'll bring the D100! ;-)

However this is just MNSHO and YMMV!

[BJL]

To Hilton: it could well be that I would go for a Canon A -- or an Olympus, or Pentax or whatever fits my pockets and my needs; I was just responding to the discussion of the T1 and W1. The trade-offs between preferring CF, wanting that 2.5" LCD, etc. are not at all decided for me yet.

To gryffyn: thanks for the correction on the T1's zoom; I was mislead by the description at one site. I now note that the T1 has a shorter minimum focal length than the W1, 6.7mm instead of 7.9mm, but I do not know yet how the angular FOV compares: does the W1 use a larger format sensor than the 1/2.4" of the T1?

[Shivz]

Ray, That question is bugging me as well. I have a pocketable Sony P5 3.2mp (bought three years ago with thousands of images on the odometer and few hours of video) that is doing well, but aging.   Do I get the T1 with that incredibly tiny lens, or sacrifice ultra-sexiness for a bigger body, with "proper" 3X zoom and get the W1?  Tough call and the good thing is that I don't have to make it just yet. I'd like to see the W1 first.  

I hope Canon gets on the 2.5" LCD mini digicam market as well.  They make great consumer grade machines.  S

[gryffyn]

I don't think much about the T1. It's in my pocket a lot of the time, and I use it to take some enjoyable images at times and places when I otherwise wouldn't have had a camera with me.

My only real gripe is that it doesn't have even a rudimentary optical finder and therefore it needs to be held at arms length to frame. There are times and places when this makes it very obvious that you're taking a photograph, or maybe looking myopically at a cell phone's dialing pad, which is what I pretend.  

Michael

I find that shooting using an LCD is less noticeable to the subjects than holding a camera up to your eye.  For instance, you can shoot with the camera at waist level.  Maybe better bi-focal glasses are in order, to allow you to hold the camera a bit closer than at arm's length? <grins>

Any chance you'll be posting some of those T1 images on the site at some point?

[BJL]

... for 8x10 prints 3MP is probably all you need.  

3MP is enough?! What hapened to the Ray who is leary of these "miniature marvels" because of their limited capacity for "cropping (or use of the digital zoom)" ? O yes, there is a smiley face.

Mostly I agree: 3MP or at most 4MP, well done, should be plenty for snapshot purposes; beyond that, other priorities take over, like compactness, system speed (combined lens speed plus sensor ISO) and a good big LCD for composition.  A few years ago I bought the "last good 2MP digicam" (Olympus C-2040) because I preferred its lens and controls over what any 3MP alternative offered at a similar price, and its resolution was fine for the purpose that I got it for (screen display and up to 15cmx20cm/6"x8" prints).

[Graham Welland]

[font color=\'#000000\']Anyway, my apparent change of heart regarding sub-miniature cameras is due mainly to the rapidly evolving technology and the fact that the Sony T1, with sufficient memory to shoot a meaningful amount of video, is quite an expensive package which is likely to be superseded in a fairly short period of time by a better model with, say Canon G5 image quality, F2 max aperture, optical viewfinder, tripod mount and possibly even RAW image capability, as well as reduced cycle time.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Fear not ... as far as the T-1 is concerned Sony now have the T-11!

One thing you can always rely on in this space is terrific product change.[/font]

[Scott_H]

I don't know that it is neccesary for image quality to be comparable anway.  Some people are going to be willing to give up some features, and some image quality, for convenience.

I bought a Canon S-45, even though it is more difficult to use the lens is not as good (as fast anyway), and it has less resolution than my E-20 because I can carry the S-45 with me everywhere.  I bought it instead of a newer, smaller camera because I got it at about half the price.  It's still a good tool and it was a good value for me.

[BJL]

Ray,
   as far as getting more telephoto reach (a narrower field of view), that is the best argument for passing on the T1 in favour of something that allows the use of a telephoto supplementary lens. Having a bigger tele. range on the built-in lens is another option, but probably not much is possible in that direction for the "pocket camera" niche that I am considering. My scepticism about different degrees of digital zoom/cropping ability is because the res. differences I have seen between different sensors of the same pixel count are not more than about 10%, like increasing the maximum 35mm equivalent focal length from say 105mm to 115mm.

[BJL]

gryffyn,
    maybe you are right, if the DSLR is relatively compact (e.g. my E-1 as opposed to a 1Ds), but from my experience with my compact digicam and its two sup's), (a) I can carry the mini digicam without the tele. sup. on many occassions when it is not likely to be needed, and ( a compact digicam and tele sup is still a "two pocket camera system", smaller and lighter than a DSLR.

[Ray]

Of course there are other options if you want a camera 'not to think about' which you can carry everywhere. The Minolta xg is lighter than the Sony T1, (143gms as opposed to 180gms) and has a bigger aperture (f2.8 to 3.6 as opposed to f3.5 to 4.4).