New Sony SLR hybrid

Well its the New York times!

--
_________________________
Patrick/G
____________
tecserv_1
__________________

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On 8 Dec 2005 07:14:31 -0800, wrote:

Sony just came out with a hybrid SLR.
It's the Sony R1
I guess it's not really an SLR but offers some advantages of an SLR.
Like:
1) no shutter lag
2)Sensor 10 times bigger than a compact digcam (supposedly, overheating
problems have been solved)


You can use the LCD screen to compose your shot (Live preview screen)
You blur the background (or foreground) while keeping the subject in
sharp focus, something that's difficult to do with compact cameras.
Wide angle lens (24mm) is not common on digital SLRs. (So I heard)

Cons:
The review in today's NY Times mentions that it's "big, black and heavy
but comfortable"."
Can't interchange lenses
It has a rotating screen but not well made.
Viewfinder is also electronic. I would think that they would have an
optical viewfinder instead of2 electronic LCDs.
There are other good and bad points but too many to get into now. Check
out today's NY Times.
The list price is $1,000.

Damn! That's expensive for a newspaper!

Ihor

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

Honestly way to much money for a camera that can't stand up to any
DSLR....Why bother with it...Will its 10mp...Hold its own against a 6 mp
DSLR? NOPE....I realize Sony builds nice camera's, but its hype...I
know-many will say I'm full of crap...I'll take a couple hundred more and
pick up a new D-200/or D-20....

--
_________________________
Patrick/G
____________
tecserv_1
__________________

wrote in message
oups.com...
Sony just came out with a hybrid SLR.
It's the Sony R1
I guess it's not really an SLR but offers some advantages of an SLR.
Like:
1) no shutter lag
2)Sensor 10 times bigger than a compact digcam (supposedly, overheating
problems have been solved)


You can use the LCD screen to compose your shot (Live preview screen)
You blur the background (or foreground) while keeping the subject in
sharp focus, something that's difficult to do with compact cameras.
Wide angle lens (24mm) is not common on digital SLRs. (So I heard)

Cons:
The review in today's NY Times mentions that it's "big, black and heavy
but comfortable"."
Can't interchange lenses
It has a rotating screen but not well made.
Viewfinder is also electronic. I would think that they would have an
optical viewfinder instead of2 electronic LCDs.
There are other good and bad points but too many to get into now. Check
out today's NY Times.
The list price is $1,000.

Ihor

Dpreview states the lens itself is worth 1000$. It has its market.

Its of little use, lens worth $1000.00? Do if you break it...You pay a
grand...? Nope-its hype...For that price non-interchangeable! The new Pentax
DSLR is running at what-$700.00? maybe 8?

--
_________________________
Patrick/G
____________
tecserv_1
__________________

"m Ransley" wrote in message
...
Dpreview states the lens itself is worth 1000$. It has its market.

"pboch" wrote in
:

Its of little use, lens worth $1000.00? Do if you break it...You pay a
grand...? Nope-its hype...For that price non-interchangeable! The new
Pentax DSLR is running at what-$700.00? maybe 8?


....And a comparable zoom lens isn't even made for the Pentax (if you
could afford it). Don't compare apples and oranges. Add in the price of
an equal-quality lens to see whether the R1 makes any contribution. OK?

Face it. Interchangeable lenses really are an artifact of the days when
it was impossible to design a truly good zoom lens. Aspherics were
impossible, coatings stank, and exotic dispersive-index glass was just
out of the question.

Any zoom design above about 2X was definitely inferior to a good fixed-
focal-length lens in resolution, contrast, and light-gathering power
(circa 1960). [That's why we old farts harp about how fine our "prime"
lenses are.]

The need for a huge gap between lens and film (for the flopping mirror)
meant that good telecentric design was out of the question.
Unfortunately silicon sensors work best with telecentric lenses, as
those dramatically reduce corner problems like dimming and lateral
chromatic aberration (purple fringing). Film accepts light from a much
wider range of angles than does silicon. [Just look up the index of
refraction of silicon and figure what the surface reflection problems
are.] Add that the cells must be separated, therefore slightly recessed,
and you can easily see why off-axis rays are a problem even before the
addition of the Bayer filter and anti-aliasing stuff. Whether CCD or
CMOS, the sensor likes light perpendicular to the surface, while film
doesn't much care out to about 60 degrees off normal.

Today we can design superb, fast zoom lenses at 3X and that means 5X if
the camera uses a focus-by-wire drive that is made part of the zoom
process.

Sony has made two major contributions with the DSC-R1. 1) They have made
the CMOS sensor cool enough to provide a live electronic preview. 2)
That meant they could move the lens to within a few mm of the sensor, to
get rid of the optical design problems caused by the ancient
mirror/beamsplitter gap needed for a conventional viewfinder.

I'm not personally aware of any interchangeable film lens that can
resolve to anywhere near the 10MP resolution of this sensor. If there is
one, I sure could not afford it, and probably could not lift it to carry
it in the field. Enough of such lenses to cover the 5X zoom range with
reasonable steps would not make whole the rig any lighter or cheaper.

The sensor may never need to be cleaned (a very big plus in my desert,
dusty photography) but there is still a price to pay.

Interchangeable lenses let you start with the cheap crap usually
provided as a "kit" lens and move up when you want better light
gathering or resolution. The price curve is pretty steep there.

With a design like the R1, you better damned well love the lens from the
start, because that is all you get until next year's upgrade. That is a
concept that derives from the computer industry. I used to buy a body
and expect it to last for many years. Now I have come to expect quick
changes in the designs and early obsolescence of the poorer ones. The
product lifetime of cameras is getting to be as short as removable
memory for computers. :-)

The DSC-R1 has shown pretty good lens performance, but I would have
liked it to be a bit faster across the whole zoom range, like the lenses
on their earlier DSC-D770/FP3. The higher ISO helps, and the larger
sensor can give the reduced depth of field I sometimes like, but an f#
of 2.0:1 would have been really nice. No clacking shutter/mirror sound
is also a huge plus for nature photography. Nice for weddings or
concerts, too. How about animal pics like at horse, dog, cat shows?

My suspicion is that Sony has found a sweet spot in the tradeoffs
between optics and sensor that some alert pros will jump on. Many others
will miss the boat, because the technology is moving too quickly and
they are too conservative to grasp what this new design does to their
photography.

JBD

J. B. Dalton wrote:

Its of little use, lens worth $1000.00? Do if you break it...You pay a
grand...? Nope-its hype...For that price non-interchangeable! The new
Pentax DSLR is running at what-$700.00? maybe 8?

...And a comparable zoom lens isn't even made for the Pentax (if you
could afford it). Don't compare apples and oranges. Add in the price of
an equal-quality lens to see whether the R1 makes any contribution. OK?

The Pentax 16-45/4 is probably better than that Sony lens, and faster
at the long end where it matters most. This is a 24-68 crop-equivalent
so it doesn't go as long, but you can easily change it in favor of any
Pentax-compatible telephoto lens, whereas with the Sony R1 you have to
buy the overpriced (and perhaps optically lousy) teleconverter.

Face it. Interchangeable lenses really are an artifact of the days when
it was impossible to design a truly good zoom lens.

Disagree. In order to have control over close-up photography, you need
a special-purpose macro lens. To take pictures of wildlife and birds
you need a very long (certainly longer than 120mm!) telephoto.

Aspherics were impossible, coatings stank, and exotic dispersive-index
glass was just out of the question.

APO glass has been around for decades. Aspherics do not improve quality,
they just make lenses smaller; usually they detract from edge sharpness.

Today we can design superb, fast zoom lenses at 3X ...

For example? The Canon 24-105/4 is the only one that comes to mind.
Most other zooms have fair to poor wide-angle sharpness with DSLR.

The sensor may never need to be cleaned (a very big plus in my desert,
dusty photography) but there is still a price to pay.

True, this is the main advantage of non-interchangeable lenses.

My suspicion is that Sony has found a sweet spot in the tradeoffs
between optics and sensor that some alert pros will jump on.

Report back in a year to see how sales went.

In article , Bill Tuthill wrote:

Aspherics do not improve quality,
they just make lenses smaller; usually they detract from edge sharpness.

The reason for aspheric lenses is that they allow lenses to be corrected
for more then one point. Thus edges are better then with non aspherics.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Bill Tuthill wrote in :

J. B. Dalton wrote:

Its of little use, lens worth $1000.00? Do if you break it...You pay
a grand...? Nope-its hype...For that price non-interchangeable! The
new Pentax DSLR is running at what-$700.00? maybe 8?

...And a comparable zoom lens isn't even made for the Pentax (if you
could afford it). Don't compare apples and oranges. Add in the price
of an equal-quality lens to see whether the R1 makes any
contribution. OK?

The Pentax 16-45/4 is probably better than that Sony lens, and faster
at the long end where it matters most. This is a 24-68
crop-equivalent so it doesn't go as long, but you can easily change it
in favor of any Pentax-compatible telephoto lens, whereas with the
Sony R1 you have to buy the overpriced (and perhaps optically lousy)
teleconverter.

Face it. Interchangeable lenses really are an artifact of the days
when it was impossible to design a truly good zoom lens.

Disagree. In order to have control over close-up photography, you
need a special-purpose macro lens. To take pictures of wildlife and
birds you need a very long (certainly longer than 120mm!) telephoto.

Aspherics were impossible, coatings stank, and exotic
dispersive-index glass was just out of the question.

APO glass has been around for decades. Aspherics do not improve
quality, they just make lenses smaller; usually they detract from edge
sharpness.

Today we can design superb, fast zoom lenses at 3X ...

For example? The Canon 24-105/4 is the only one that comes to mind.
Most other zooms have fair to poor wide-angle sharpness with DSLR.

The sensor may never need to be cleaned (a very big plus in my
desert, dusty photography) but there is still a price to pay.

True, this is the main advantage of non-interchangeable lenses.

My suspicion is that Sony has found a sweet spot in the tradeoffs
between optics and sensor that some alert pros will jump on.

Report back in a year to see how sales went.



You make some very good points, Bill. [You did miss my question about
the COST of the Pentax with those lenses you suggest. The Canon zoom
lists for $1800 and discounts to $1,249.00 on Amazon. :-) The Pentax f4
lens is rated as fairly crappy, and still adds $500 street price to the
body, so the base is more like $1500, and you still need that
telephoto!.]

If Sony is as sad as with their DKC-FP3 (D770 with firewire) that was
sold only through pro channels, we won't see any R1s a year from now.
Maybe their less-exclusive marketing attitude will help them a bit,
here.

Also their design may have flaws only revealed by the market and they
will bring out a quick replacement, as they did with the DSC-D700. Maybe
we need to wait for that. Again, it reinforces your argument that the R1
(as is) might be a short-lived design.

Any revolutionary change in the basic structure of the camera
architecture has perils for the buyer. Sony seems to have gotten smart
enough to sidestep most of those early design flaws, but we will just
have to wait and see what happens. After all, the DSC-D700 became the
DSC-D770 rather quickly. Likewise, the DSC-F717 was rapidly replaced by
the DSC-F828.

As a retired electro-optical engineer, it seems to me that the R1 is a
nice utilization of the technologies that deserves a serious look. It
has the low noise of the DSLR, with live preview and histograms, and a
single lens that certainly is as good as (better than?) a whole kit of
film-design lenses operating at the wrong sensor size at too-long
standoff distance.

[Bet a nickle that they take that swivel LCD off the top with the next
round, tho.]

JBD

J. B. Dalton wrote:

You make some very good points, Bill. You did miss my question about
the COST of the Pentax with those lenses you suggest. The Canon zoom
lists for $1800 and discounts to $1,249.00 on Amazon. :-) The Pentax f4
lens is rated as fairly crappy, and still adds $500 street price to the
body, so the base is more like $1500, and you still need that telephoto!.

Where did you see the Pentax 16-45/4 rated as fairly crappy? Are you sure
you didn't get it mixed up with the less-expensive 18-55/3.5-5.6 DA?
The Pentax *ist-DL with 16-45/4 lens costs $1040 total. You are correct
about the telephoto! Pentax doesn't have much that matches filters or
complements focal lengths for the 16-45/4 (only the 85/1.4 and 300/4.5).

Also their design may have flaws only revealed by the market and they
will bring out a quick replacement, as they did with the DSC-D700. Maybe
we need to wait for that. Again, it reinforces your argument that the R1
(as is) might be a short-lived design.

All digital cameras are short-lived designs, aren't they? The hard part
is predicting the production run.

Any revolutionary change in the basic structure of the camera
architecture has perils for the buyer. Sony seems to have gotten smart
enough to sidestep most of those early design flaws, but we will just
have to wait and see what happens.

They f*cked up with RAW mode, and buffer size, in my opinion.
Guess I'll have to try one. However I have never liked EVF before.

[Bet a nickle that they take that swivel LCD off the top with the next
round, tho.]

Due to reliability problems, or cost? Most customers like swivel LCD.