New Sony SLR hybrid

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ihop@comcast.net, Dec 8, 2005.

  1. Guest

    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
    , Dec 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill Funk Guest

    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
    Bill Funk, Dec 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:35:43 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

    > 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

    That's not for the newspaper - it's for the list.
    --
    Neil
    Delete delete to reply.
    Neil Ellwood, Dec 8, 2005
    #3
  4. m Ransley Guest

    Read dpreview if you want to learn, you really missed what it is about,
    but its not a camera for me.
    m Ransley, Dec 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Bill Tuthill Guest

    wrote:
    > Sony just came out with a hybrid SLR. It's the Sony R1...
    > 1) no shutter lag


    Bull-oney.

    The Imaging-resource.com review says it has (wide to telephoto)
    ..76 to .77 second lag when using the "framing" viewfinder mode,
    ..48 to .74 second lag when using the "preview" viewfinder mode,
    and slightly faster using continuous autofocus.

    This is terrible! I suppose there are some old digicams with
    shutter lag this bad, but most newer ones have less.

    > ... Check out today's NY Times. > The list price is $1,000.


    That's awfully expensive for a newspaper! (Jokes are funnier the 2nd time)
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 8, 2005
    #5
  6. Am 8 Dec 2005 09:57:15 -0800 schrieb Bill Tuthill:

    > This is terrible! I suppose there are some old digicams with
    > shutter lag this bad, but most newer ones have less.


    No, it's really almost instant. The timings mentioned in imaging-res.
    review include focussing time.

    Regards,
    Andi
    Andreas Buchner, Dec 9, 2005
    #6
  7. Bill Tuthill Guest

    Andreas Buchner <> wrote:
    >
    >> This is terrible! I suppose there are some old digicams with
    >> shutter lag this bad, but most newer ones have less.

    >
    > No, it's really almost instant. The timings mentioned in imaging-res.
    > review include focussing time.


    So what now, you're planning to take pictures without focusing?

    A Canon D series camera with USM lens has AF shutter lag in the .1
    to .2 second range. That's four to eight times as fast.
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 9, 2005
    #7
  8. "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Andreas Buchner <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> This is terrible! I suppose there are some old digicams with
    > >> shutter lag this bad, but most newer ones have less.

    > >
    > > No, it's really almost instant. The timings mentioned in imaging-res.
    > > review include focussing time.

    >
    > So what now, you're planning to take pictures without focusing?
    >
    > A Canon D series camera with USM lens has AF shutter lag in the .1
    > to .2 second range. That's four to eight times as fast.
    >


    Can't you manually focus (mechanically with a focus ring on the lens) and
    then just take the picture without shutter lag?

    Gerrit
    Gerrit 't Hart, Dec 10, 2005
    #8
  9. Joe Guest

    On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:35:43 -0700, Bill Funk
    <> wrote:

    >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!


    And its a lousy newspaper to boot.


    >>
    >>Ihor
    Joe, Dec 10, 2005
    #9
  10. Bill Tuthill wrote:
    > Andreas Buchner <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> This is terrible! I suppose there are some old digicams with
    >>> shutter lag this bad, but most newer ones have less.

    >>
    >> No, it's really almost instant. The timings mentioned in imaging-res.
    >> review include focussing time.

    >
    > So what now, you're planning to take pictures without focusing?
    >
    > A Canon D series camera with USM lens has AF shutter lag in the .1
    > to .2 second range. That's four to eight times as fast.


    The way I work is to pre-focus, and keep my finger on the shutter release
    until the critical moment. The shutter lag had by doing this is almost
    negligible if you choose the right non-DSLR.

    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 10, 2005
    #10
  11. pboch Guest

    Well its the New York times!

    --
    _________________________
    Patrick/G
    ____________
    tecserv_1
    __________________

    "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    pboch, Dec 11, 2005
    #11
  12. pboch Guest

    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
    news:...
    > 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
    >
    pboch, Dec 11, 2005
    #12
  13. m Ransley Guest

    Dpreview states the lens itself is worth 1000$. It has its market.
    m Ransley, Dec 11, 2005
    #13
  14. pboch Guest

    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
    news:...
    > Dpreview states the lens itself is worth 1000$. It has its market.
    >
    pboch, Dec 13, 2005
    #14
  15. J. B. Dalton Guest

    "pboch" <> wrote in
    news:Nasnf.172444$:

    > 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, Dec 13, 2005
    #15
  16. Bill Tuthill Guest

    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.
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 13, 2005
    #16
  17. Bob Salomon Guest

    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.
    Bob Salomon, Dec 13, 2005
    #17
  18. J. B. Dalton Guest

    Bill Tuthill <> wrote in news::

    > 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, Dec 13, 2005
    #18
  19. Bill Tuthill Guest

    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.
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 14, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. George Preddy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,580
    Douglas
    May 24, 2004
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    705
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  3. Newsgroups
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    393
    ASAAR
    Jun 1, 2005
  4. SLR and SLR like cameras

    , Aug 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    387
    Prometheus
    Aug 31, 2005
  5. john d hamilton

    new hybrid batteries and overcharging

    john d hamilton, Oct 8, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    918
    Tim Forcer
    Oct 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page