Sony DSC T1?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, May 26, 2004.

  1. I just saw someone with the (new-ish) Sony DSC T1 - a tiny 5-megapixel
    camera from Sony with a Zeiss lens. As many people here know, the
    single most important factor in the quality of a camera is the lens,
    so I'm wondering if this camera is more than just a toy, but perhaps a
    camera that is small and also takes good pictures. But I've seen very
    little discussion of it.

    The camera really is small enough that I could take it anywhere. How
    does it's quality compare with the Canon S30 I bought a few years ago
    (and still love)?

    Many thanks.

    -Joel
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, May 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <YV2tc.54384$>,
    (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:

    > I just saw someone with the (new-ish) Sony DSC T1 - a tiny 5-megapixel
    > camera from Sony with a Zeiss lens. As many people here know, the
    > single most important factor in the quality of a camera is the lens,
    > so I'm wondering if this camera is more than just a toy, but perhaps a
    > camera that is small and also takes good pictures. But I've seen very
    > little discussion of it.
    >
    > The camera really is small enough that I could take it anywhere. How
    > does it's quality compare with the Canon S30 I bought a few years ago
    > (and still love)?
    >
    > Many thanks.
    >
    > -Joel


    I have the T1 and the 828. Both take great pictures. The only limitation
    to the T1 is there is no viewfinder. But the CCD is very large. You will
    want a second battery and the travel charger if you do a lot of shooting
    with it. The most time that I have been able to get out of the battery
    is about 95 minutes on a charge.

    It is ready almost instantly, writes very quickly, shoots movies and
    fits easily in a shirt pocket so it is easy to take anywhere. The 828 is
    a bit large to have with me all the time.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, May 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    Bill Guest

    I bought T-1 during my trip in Japan. I would suggest you avoid this camera.
    It is totally unusable indoor. Let me say it again totally unusable! The
    flash range is very short, like 4 feet. Red eyes are horrible. The images
    are very very noisy. The memory stick is very expensive. I am thinking about
    selling it on eBay. The only good thing about it is the size.

    I would strongly suggest you tryCanon S410 or S500. It has more functions
    and take great pcitures.


    "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D
    :YV2tc.54384$...
    >
    > I just saw someone with the (new-ish) Sony DSC T1 - a tiny 5-megapixel
    > camera from Sony with a Zeiss lens. As many people here know, the
    > single most important factor in the quality of a camera is the lens,
    > so I'm wondering if this camera is more than just a toy, but perhaps a
    > camera that is small and also takes good pictures. But I've seen very
    > little discussion of it.
    >
    > The camera really is small enough that I could take it anywhere. How
    > does it's quality compare with the Canon S30 I bought a few years ago
    > (and still love)?
    >
    > Many thanks.
    >
    > -Joel
    >
    Bill, May 26, 2004
    #3
  4. >I have the T1 and the 828. Both take great pictures. The only limitation
    >to the T1 is there is no viewfinder. But the CCD is very large. You will
    >want a second battery and the travel charger if you do a lot of shooting
    >with it. The most time that I have been able to get out of the battery
    >is about 95 minutes on a charge.


    What about the image quality?
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, May 26, 2004
    #4
  5. "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <> wrote in message
    news:YV2tc.54384$...
    >
    > I just saw someone with the (new-ish) Sony DSC T1 - a tiny 5-megapixel
    > camera from Sony with a Zeiss lens. As many people here know, the
    > single most important factor in the quality of a camera is the lens,
    > so I'm wondering if this camera is more than just a toy, but perhaps a
    > camera that is small and also takes good pictures. But I've seen very
    > little discussion of it.


    .... and who owns the name "Zeiss" today?

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, May 26, 2004
    #5
  6. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <l64tc.54433$>,
    (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:

    > >I have the T1 and the 828. Both take great pictures. The only limitation
    > >to the T1 is there is no viewfinder. But the CCD is very large. You will
    > >want a second battery and the travel charger if you do a lot of shooting
    > >with it. The most time that I have been able to get out of the battery
    > >is about 95 minutes on a charge.

    >
    > What about the image quality?


    "take great pictures"

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, May 26, 2004
    #6
  7. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <_D4tc.3285$>,
    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote:

    > "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <> wrote in message
    > news:YV2tc.54384$...
    > >
    > > I just saw someone with the (new-ish) Sony DSC T1 - a tiny 5-megapixel
    > > camera from Sony with a Zeiss lens. As many people here know, the
    > > single most important factor in the quality of a camera is the lens,
    > > so I'm wondering if this camera is more than just a toy, but perhaps a
    > > camera that is small and also takes good pictures. But I've seen very
    > > little discussion of it.

    >
    > ... and who owns the name "Zeiss" today?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    The Zeiss Foundation who has owned for about a century.

    Do you mean who has licensed the Zeiss name?

    The it is Sony, Kyorcera, Rollei and others.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, May 26, 2004
    #7
  8. "Bob Salomon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > > ... and who owns the name "Zeiss" today?
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > David

    >
    > The Zeiss Foundation who has owned for about a century.
    >
    > Do you mean who has licensed the Zeiss name?
    >
    > The it is Sony, Kyorcera, Rollei and others.


    Thanks, Bob. I was wondering if it was the same as the Leica <=>
    Panasonic deal where, as far as I can tell, the name is now just that,
    nothing more.

    Essentially it relates to design and build quality. Is there any reason
    to _assume_ that a lens is better simply because it has that name? Or
    will Zeiss build lenses down to anyone's cost, specification and quality
    criteria? And are the licencees required to build lenses up to a certain
    minimum specification and quality level?

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, May 26, 2004
    #8
  9. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <a35tc.3328$%%>,
    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote:

    > "Bob Salomon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > []
    > > > ... and who owns the name "Zeiss" today?
    > > >
    > > > Cheers,
    > > > David

    > >
    > > The Zeiss Foundation who has owned for about a century.
    > >
    > > Do you mean who has licensed the Zeiss name?
    > >
    > > The it is Sony, Kyorcera, Rollei and others.

    >
    > Thanks, Bob. I was wondering if it was the same as the Leica <=>
    > Panasonic deal where, as far as I can tell, the name is now just that,
    > nothing more.
    >
    > Essentially it relates to design and build quality. Is there any reason
    > to _assume_ that a lens is better simply because it has that name? Or
    > will Zeiss build lenses down to anyone's cost, specification and quality
    > criteria? And are the licencees required to build lenses up to a certain
    > minimum specification and quality level?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    Having come from Rollei as their distributor from 1986 to 98 and having
    worked at Rollei of America in the early 70's we have a pretty good idea
    what the name on the lens means.

    At least as far as Rollei was concerned the lens was designed by Zeiss
    and ground, polished, coated by Rollei in Braunschweig rather then by
    Zeiss in Oberkochen, and then inspected to meet Zeiss's QC standards.

    I have no reason to believe, and have seen no reason to believe, that
    other manufacturer's who manufacture under the Zeiss license would be
    able to eliminate the steps that Rollei had/has to meet.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, May 26, 2004
    #9
  10. "Bob Salomon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > Having come from Rollei as their distributor from 1986 to 98 and having
    > worked at Rollei of America in the early 70's we have a pretty good idea
    > what the name on the lens means.
    >
    > At least as far as Rollei was concerned the lens was designed by Zeiss
    > and ground, polished, coated by Rollei in Braunschweig rather then by
    > Zeiss in Oberkochen, and then inspected to meet Zeiss's QC standards.
    >
    > I have no reason to believe, and have seen no reason to believe, that
    > other manufacturer's who manufacture under the Zeiss license would be
    > able to eliminate the steps that Rollei had/has to meet.


    Thanks for that, Bob.

    However, it still doesn't really answer the question for me. Example:

    - if it was Zeiss's own lens, they might say maximum centering errors
    0.1mm.

    - when manufacturing for Rollei, they might agree that 0.15mm was an
    acceptable error.

    - so you can QC the lens and agree that a lens with an error less than
    0.15mm is OK.

    The nagging doubt in my mind is the involvment of the third-party. They
    are calling the shots and paying the money. If they decide that 0.15mm is
    "good enough", and Zeiss say: "Oh well, yes, OK then", it might well meet
    the agreed quality level, but that might not be as high as Zeiss's own
    level.

    I'm probably fussing too much here, but one hears so much of "Oh, it has a
    Zeiss lens, so it _must_ be good", without people realising that everyone,
    Zeiss included, designs to a price/performance specification. I.e. buying
    by brand name alone.

    Thanks for your insight, though.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, May 26, 2004
    #10
  11. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <0D6tc.3484$>,
    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote:

    > - when manufacturing for Rollei, they might agree that 0.15mm was an
    > acceptable error.


    The tolerances and requirements to produce the lens were identical. It
    made no difference which factory made the lens. The resulting lenses met
    exactly the same specifications. And performed at least identically.
    Since Rollei had a more advanced version of T* coating in some cases the
    Rollei made lens would be superior.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, May 26, 2004
    #11
  12. "Bob Salomon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <0D6tc.3484$>,
    > "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote:
    >
    > > - when manufacturing for Rollei, they might agree that 0.15mm was an
    > > acceptable error.

    >
    > The tolerances and requirements to produce the lens were identical. It
    > made no difference which factory made the lens. The resulting lenses met
    > exactly the same specifications. And performed at least identically.
    > Since Rollei had a more advanced version of T* coating in some cases the
    > Rollei made lens would be superior.
    >
    > --


    OK, when an existing design is being produced, that's fine.

    But people today are talking about completely new designs with the Zeiss
    label, and the lens being embedded to the camera body, not a third party
    reproducing existing Zeiss designs. It is the camera manufacturer who is
    drawing up the specifications.

    If the Zeiss lens was being sold separately, from Germany I might trust it
    more, but as it is I tend to see it more as a branding exercise.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, May 27, 2004
    #12
  13. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <ZZftc.3843$>,
    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote:

    > "Bob Salomon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <0D6tc.3484$>,
    > > "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote:
    > >
    > > > - when manufacturing for Rollei, they might agree that 0.15mm was an
    > > > acceptable error.

    > >
    > > The tolerances and requirements to produce the lens were identical. It
    > > made no difference which factory made the lens. The resulting lenses met
    > > exactly the same specifications. And performed at least identically.
    > > Since Rollei had a more advanced version of T* coating in some cases the
    > > Rollei made lens would be superior.
    > >
    > > --

    >
    > OK, when an existing design is being produced, that's fine.
    >
    > But people today are talking about completely new designs with the Zeiss
    > label, and the lens being embedded to the camera body, not a third party
    > reproducing existing Zeiss designs. It is the camera manufacturer who is
    > drawing up the specifications.
    >
    > If the Zeiss lens was being sold separately, from Germany I might trust it
    > more, but as it is I tend to see it more as a branding exercise.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    Go try it and stop theoriazing about it.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, May 27, 2004
    #13
  14. "Bob Salomon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > Go try it and stop theoriazing about it.
    >


    No, I am not into buying brand-name products as such, particularly when
    they do not meet my requirements.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, May 27, 2004
    #14
  15. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    Bill Guest

    Camera is okay, no view finder. Whatever you do, don't buy from Sony
    direct. Their company, Sony Styles are a bunch of incompetent crooks.


    "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <> wrote in message
    news:YV2tc.54384$...
    >
    > I just saw someone with the (new-ish) Sony DSC T1 - a tiny 5-megapixel
    > camera from Sony with a Zeiss lens. As many people here know, the
    > single most important factor in the quality of a camera is the lens,
    > so I'm wondering if this camera is more than just a toy, but perhaps a
    > camera that is small and also takes good pictures. But I've seen very
    > little discussion of it.
    >
    > The camera really is small enough that I could take it anywhere. How
    > does it's quality compare with the Canon S30 I bought a few years ago
    > (and still love)?
    >
    > Many thanks.
    >
    > -Joel
    >
    Bill, May 27, 2004
    #15
  16. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <YHltc.12543$>,
    "Bill" <> wrote:

    > Sony Styles are a bunch of incompetent crooks.


    They may be slow, they may be incompetent but they are not "crooks".

    I have had 3 experiences with them. One totally incompetent and two (the
    most recent ones) extremely competent. Even though their web site was
    not functioning properly the fellow on the phone for the last 2 orders
    got everything right and shipped as promised.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, May 27, 2004
    #16
  17. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    David Chien Guest

    >>Sony Styles are a bunch of incompetent crooks.
    > They may be slow, they may be incompetent but they are not "crooks".


    They certainly will deliver a product (www.sonystyle.com), however,
    they will 'steal' your hard earned money since you'll be paying full
    price of $499.

    On the other hand, if you have been reading www.fatwallet.com/forums/
    -> hot deals daily like a smart buyer should, you would have had a new
    T1 in your hands today for $374 (recent Dell.com deal; equally reliable
    dealer;
    http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/mes...hreadid=313760&highlight_key=y&keyword1=dell).

    Oh, well, suppose you don't need the $125 difference, right? Go
    ahead and buy from www.sonystyle.com!

    ---

    Of course, if you don't like the fact that a short 2-3mm upwards
    movement of the T1 cover during use will completely shut down the
    camera, then you may want to wait for the T11 model already out in
    Japan, which gets rid of the awkward sliding cover and shaves off
    another 5mm of the thickness.

    http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/camera/dsc/products/index.cfm?PD=17018&KM=DSC-T11
    David Chien, May 27, 2004
    #17
  18. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <c95a17$37f$>,
    David Chien <> wrote:

    > >>Sony Styles are a bunch of incompetent crooks.

    > > They may be slow, they may be incompetent but they are not "crooks".

    >
    > They certainly will deliver a product (www.sonystyle.com), however,
    > they will 'steal' your hard earned money since you'll be paying full
    > price of $499.
    >

    When you buy your Sony camera, in my case 717, 828 and T1, there is a
    coupon that gives you 20% off on accessories purchased at Sony Style for
    the camera.

    When I went to buy the T1 battery from Good Guys and Comp USA I found
    that they were all at list.

    At least I was able to save on the price of the battery, the Travel
    Charger, The Travel USB cord and the 32x flash for the 828.


    > http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/camera/dsc/products/index.cfm?PD=17018&KM=DSC-T11


    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, May 27, 2004
    #18
    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. -Gene-

    Sony DSC F828 vs. DSC F848

    -Gene-, Oct 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,219
    Bob Niland
    Oct 28, 2003
  2. digcam

    Sony DSC-V1 vs Sony DSC-F717

    digcam, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    553
    Unclaimed Mysteries
    Oct 31, 2003
  3. luke

    Sony DSC P10 (or the DSC P5, DSC P9 or DSC P12)

    luke, Dec 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    568
  4. Ohaya

    Is it just me? Sony DSC-P72 vs. DSC-P92

    Ohaya, Jan 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    426
    Ohaya
    Jan 10, 2004
  5. Jim Spen

    LCD Font As Small on a Sony DSC-V1 as a DSC-P10

    Jim Spen, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    448
    Stephen G. Giannoni
    Apr 4, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page