Sony Announced Hybrid Digital Camera

Anna Merikin writes to tell us that Sony has begun shipping a new digital camera, the R1. With the R1 Sony has married the big digital SLRs' sensor with the live preview display of the compact cams. But to do so, it is not an SLR although it is about the same size as one. The new architecture also allows wider-angle optics to be used, but it does not have interchangeable lenses.

Comments

No thanks.

[eriko]

Sorry, it's a Sony. Not interested.

Re:No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn straight. Slashdot, please don't advertise for Sony. Nobody wants anything from them.

Re:No thanks.

[Professor_UNIX]

I guess you need to buy a $1000 Sony digital camera before you get CompactFlash support instead of being locked into that god awful proprietary memorystick crap.

Re:No thanks.

[damsa]

They most likely use compact flash because you can get 4 gb hard drives for them. And that kind of storage is more in demand when your pics are of a higher resolution. Also, being that less expensive cameras tend to be on the smaller side, having a compact flash slot can take quite a bit of room let alone both a CF slot and a Memory stick slot.

Re:No thanks.

[eriko]

Wow, my first flamebait *and* troll. Cool.

Perhaps I should explain.

Hint: Sony, as a corporation, has adopted the position that they should be able to do whatever they wish to your updateable systems in order to protect their corporate interests.

My position on this is clear: That's fine. I will, quite simply, not buy *any* Sony product whatsoever until I see compelling evidence that this has changed.

This camera could give me free beer (as in FREE BEER! WOO!) and I still wouldn't buy it -- because that gives capital to a company who wants to control what my devices do, and will install, without permission, software to enable this.

So. You guys still buying Playstations can just shut up about the DRM issues. Sony certianly doesn't care about your opinions. You're still buying their stuff.

I won't. Period.

So, again.

No thanks. It's a Sony.

At least I'm still polite. Come next year (and the next rootkit DRM), it'll be "Fuck no, it's a Sony."

Re:No thanks.

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

yes, but another way to look at it is: Microsoft's OS allowed this DRM rootkit to be installed and function so easily. They also have a very long history of messing up their users' security - worms, virii, trojan horses, IE, Outlook... So why should you buy ANY MS products? And why continue to use them? We know from MS's practices they care far more about mindshare than money, so why let them have what they want?

If you're going to have a principle of not buying or using products from companies that don't care about your security then at least be consistent. If you'd done this in the first place you'd have never needed to worry about Sony's rootkit.

Re:No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's beyond ridiculous. You are slagging Microsoft for shipping, wait for it, a Turing machine.

Any computer that doesn't allow executable files to be launched is worthless. Blaming Microsoft for the Sony DRM debacle is exactly like blaming a woman in a short skirt for being "vulnerable" to rape. Your solution is what? Sew their labia shut in infancy?

Give me a break, and put the blame where it might actually do some good.

Re:No thanks.

[EvilCabbage]

"If you're going to have a principle of not buying or using products from companies that don't care about your security then at least be consistent. If you'd done this in the first place you'd have never needed to worry about Sony's rootkit."

I won't buy an Australian built Holden Commodore because they're one of the most stolen (and poorly built) cars in the country.
That doesn't mean I blame Holden Commodore drivers for getting their cars stolen. Theives and scumbags still need to be smacked down because they're exploiting other people.

Your argument is kind of like suggesting we shouldn't have glass windows at home, because they could be exploited with a brick. Aside from that, who said the OP used Windows as an operating system? I don't need to be exploited by Sonys work to know that it sucks, why should he?

Re:No thanks.

[StikyPad]

This camera could give me free beer (as in FREE BEER! WOO!) and I still wouldn't buy it

If by "still wouldn't buy it," you mean "would buy one for sure," then I'm with you 100%.

Re:No thanks.

[stickb0y]

Sigh. Not that I want to be a Sony apologist, and not that I think too highly of Sony Electronics, but...

Hint: Sony, as a corporation, has adopted the position that they should be able to do whatever they wish to your updateable systems in order to protect their corporate interests.

No, they haven't. Sony Music did. Sony, as a large corporation, has various divisions that don't communicate and operate very well together.

So. You guys still buying Playstations can just shut up about the DRM issues. Sony certianly doesn't care about your opinions. You're still buying their stuff.

The Playstation division is even further removed from the others.

Re:No thanks.

[modecx]

Nobody uses CF because of the 4GB disk drives... For one, they suck up a bunch more power--and that makes a big difference for compact cameras, particularly when you're using the LCD. Secondly, they don't have the burst write speed of some of the newer CF cards. Thirdly, there are some questions about their reliability--it's not such a big deal if you lose an iPod mini full of music, because you've already got it on your computer, right? If you, as a semi-serious hobbyist photographer, lose a gigabyte of photos, you're probably going to be upset.

And that's another reason why microdrives, and very large compact flash cards don't appeal to many photographers... If something happens to the card, you're sunk. It's about as easy to carry around a few 1-2GB cards, and it's quick and simple to swap them out. Even with pro-consumer cameras in RAW mode, more than a hundred shots will fit on a 2GB card. you can pick up on 2GB cards, save money relative to larger cards and microdrives, and switch cards every hundred or so shots--which is all too easy to do with an SLR!

Obviously, professional photographers using professional cameras (8+MP), shooting in RAW mode will consume huge amounts of storage (~15MB each for 8 megapixel, 30MB for each photo on a 16MP Canon 1Ds MkII!)... This is why 4GB won't represent a huge number of photos to professional photographers using such expensive equipment. And, if you've got over ten thousand in camera equipment in your bag, the $500 each your 4GB CF cards cost probably isn't going to scare you too badly.

Honestly, though, I'm very suprised Sorny went with CF, ever. I would have guessed they'd recall every memory stick unit ever to modify it to take super mega ultra pro memory sticks before they went with CF. It's gotta be gettin pretty cold in Lucifers' place tonight!

Re:No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Circle 9. ... [are] encased in ice to a different height, ranging from only the waist down to complete immersion. ...
...
* Central zone 4 (Judecca): Traitors to their lords and benefactors (Canto 34). This is the harshest section of Hell, containing Satan...

Seeing as if you believe Dante, he is perpetually completely encased in a lake of ice, it would always be pretty cold in Lucifers place every night.

Oh yeah, and something about cameras too...

Re:No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

i have to laugh when someone says "i will never buy a product from so-and-so again" or "i will never shop here again". trust me, you will. it may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but eventually you will.

Re:No thanks.

[drgonzo59]

I just wanted to point out that your analogy of Microsoft Windows being like real glass windows ( and thus MS should not be to blame for Sony's mishap) is not valid. If the real windows were full of holes and cracks you would go and buy a better window right away, because the faults would be evident. Now with an operating system, the every-day user has no idea how insecure and how vulnerable MS Windows is.

But to go back to the analogies, I will offer, what I think is a better one:
Say you buy a car. It looks fine and nothing seems wrong with it. But later on, while driving on the highway, all your controls, like steering and breaks, stop working and your car crashes. You loose your limbs, a couple of pets and some family members. As it turns out the manufacturer of the car built a wireless remote control option into the cars that can be used by police to stop cars remotely. Alas, one of "teh bad guys" reverse engineered the protocol and some other individual used that information and built a device that allows him to remotely disable the controls of all the cars made by that manufacturer and that is what he did to your car.

The big question then is "Who is at fault here?". Is the "mad haX0r" who reverse engineered the communication protocol at fault, is the individual who built the disabling device at fault, is the manufacturer of the car at fault? I think the answer is that in reality all three could be found guilty one way or another.

By analogy then Microsoft should be partially to blame for what happened with Sony for supporting and facilitating (willingly - through design, and unwillingly through lack of code quality control) the installation and operation of such root kits.

Re:No thanks.

[10Ghz]

No, they haven't. Sony Music did. Sony, as a large corporation, has various divisions that don't communicate and operate very well together.

It's still the same corporation. Whether it happens to be different division of that corporation makes no difference. Both divisions answer to same peolle, the board of directors of Sony Corporation. The money Sony Music earns goes to Sony Corporation, and vice versa. The money Sony Electronics makes can be used to benefit Sony Music.

Do people differentiate between different divisons of Microsoft? No. When they do something stupid with Office, people say "Microsoft is at it again". When they do something stupid with Windows, they say the same thing. They do not say "Microsoft's Office-division is at it again!" or "Microsoft Windows-division is at it again!". When MS pushes .doc-format in Office, people blame Microsoft, not just their office-division. When Microsoft screwes up security in Windows, people blame Microsoft, not just their Windows-division. But still, we should treat Sony differently? I don't buy it.

Saying "But it's not the same company, it's a different division!" is just an excuse. They are part of the same company. And you can clearly see the same bullshit attitude Sony Music has, all through the Sony Corporation. Why does Sony Electronics use some proprietary flash-RAM crap (memorystick) for example? Why can't they use compact flash or any other technology that has wider use, why do they stick to their own crap? What the hell is it with this ATRAC-crap Sony Electronics pushes? Sony as a whole is only interested at their bottom line, at the expense of the consumer.

Like the original poster said: Nice camera, but since it's by Sony, I wont be buying it. I'm drawing the line here. You fuck with me, and you can be damn sure that I'll do my business elsewhere. It's about time the corporations learn that world and people living there are not their private playground where they can do whatever they please. Sony Corporation has the power to replace the entire management of Sony Music. Untill I see them doing that, I wont be doing business with them. If they choose not to do that... Well, there are other companies willing to sell me their goods.

Sony Corporation: Go fuck yourself.

Re:No thanks.

[PokerAndroid]

Well said. I would go one step further though.

When I need them to survive (as in, they have a monopoly on food or a life saving drug) then I would buy their stuff again, but not before.

Why ever forgive a company? They got caught in what I consider a dishonest act and don't deserve a second chance. If you planted software on their computers for any reason, not to mention spying, they would try to cause you harm.

"Fuck no, it's a Sony." Rolls off the tongue nicely. Well done.

Re:No thanks.

[shmlco]

" If the real windows were full of holes and cracks..."

Actually, from my perspective the MS XP "window" in and as of itself does the job just fine. It's just that these days we have the misfortune to live in a bad neighborhood where bulletproof glass, iron bars, and security guards are in order.

Re:No thanks.

[91degrees]

Why ever forgive a company? They got caught in what I consider a dishonest act and don't deserve a second chance.

I might for pragmatic reasons. I want some of their stuff. But they'll have to convince me that they don't think I'm a thief first. I can do without until then.

Re:No thanks.

[anonymo]

ABS (Advanced Bullshit aka FUD).
SONY is SONY. Some examples:
SONY went to court against a small restaurant named "Sony's Place". The owner had the nickname "Sony" so she thought it's _her_ nickname. Nope she was have to change name _and_ pay for "damages".

SONY is a prominent member of *IAA.

SONY uses DRM on music CDs prohibiting fair use.

SONY encrypted the raw photo files just as Nikon did so you do not own your own pictures in raw format.
SONY is a bully. I have already one Panasonic (VHS), a JVC (8mm) and a SONY (D8) camcoder. Due to their arrogance the next one definitely won't be a SONY camcoder when flashmemory-camcoders will be a bit less expensive.

At last but not least:
SONY is the head - if you call it SONY Music, SONY-BMG or whatever it is still SONY. They're taking the money so they must take the shit too anyway.
The latest XCP incident was not the first and not the last example of SONY's treatment of consumers as criminals.

I suggest look for other resources when buying anything: your wallet is your only way to vote for better alternatives!

Re:No thanks.

[polaris20]

No, you need to spend $499. My V3 has both CF and MS, and I've had it over a year now.

Re:No thanks.

[kpwoodr]

So does this mean you got an Xbox 360 without the crash problem?

Re:No thanks.

[CastrTroy]

I am aware of MS's lack of care of responsibility for security, so I don't use their products either. The problem lies both in MS for not providing that security, and in Sony, for taking advantage of joe sixpack's lack of knowledge about the security of windows, or the existence of alternatives, and filling the already insecure OS with even more security problems. You can blame MS all you want, but it's a somewhat safe OS when there aren't people attacking it. Obviously there's always going to be people attacking it, but there has to be certain entities you are going to trust when using a computer. Most people wouldn't think twice about problems that may be encountered when inserting a cd from a major record label. And they shouldn't have to.

Re:No thanks.

[PortHaven]

"Unfortunately, that design also deprives you of a great joy and advantage of digital photography: framing your shots using the camera's screen."

Damn...Slashdot is now doing "advertising", I sure hope they got paid for this one.

First off, I agree with the first poster. I won't buy it cause it's SONY. (And IMHO SONY = crap quality + proprietary overpriced memory.)

Second, this is NOTHING NEW: "move along folks...nothing new to see here"

Olympus' E-10/E-20 fixed lens DSLR allowed for the using of the LCD screen to frame a shot. I know, I owned one and on more than one occasion held the unit upside down over my head to get above crowds at concerts. (Sure, it's not quite as big as the new batch of DSLRs but that's because those are 4 yr old models. So you're touting a 4 yr old feature as new.)

Canon's 20Da also allows you to do the same thing. This is a modified variant of their 20D with a focus on Astrophotography.

Re:No thanks.

[HTH NE1]

No, they haven't. Sony Music did. Sony, as a large corporation, has various divisions that don't communicate and operate very well together. The Playstation division is even further removed from the others.

Until those divisions become separate corporations that don't communicate, operate, or share profits at all, the whole must suffer.

As well as anything associated with BMG. And I'm not afraid of boycotting the individual artists (including concerts) that had this put on their CDs if they don't take action.

Re:No thanks.

[Dare nMc]

> They most likely use compact flash because you can get 4 gb hard drives for them.
having experience in this issue, several 256Mb cards is sufficient, if not preferable. The key is speed, I havent had luck finding high speed memory sticks (or even a rating on them, I looked all over for that a month ago.)where as you can get plenty of 40-80x CF cards (guessing thats based off a cd read rate)

The profesional photographer I deal with has a cf card reading hardrive to dump to as a backup quickly, but tends to keep his CF cards labeled... until he has what he wants on his PC, and burned to CD/DVD for us, the customer.

Re:No thanks.

[mkw87]

This camera could give me free beer (as in FREE BEER! WOO!) and I still wouldn't buy it

Let's not get carried away here....you could always buy the camera simply for the free beer and then never hook it up to your computer.

Re:No thanks.

[drgonzo59]

If the ability of anyone to remotely execute code on your machine without your permission means that Windows XP "does the job just fine" then you must have very low expectations of how a fine job should be done.

Re:No thanks.

[big_groo]

Wow, my first flamebait *and* troll.

Pffft. Amateur.

Re:No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear.

FUCK Sony.

Re:No thanks.

[StikyPad]

I'm not sure what's wrong with the mods, beer, but I still love you.

Re:No thanks.

[catisonh]

Do people differentiate between different divisons of Microsoft? No. When they do something stupid with Office, people say "Microsoft is at it again". When they do something stupid with Windows, they say the same thing. They do not say "Microsoft's Office-division is at it again!" or "Microsoft Windows-division is at it again!". When MS pushes .doc-format in Office, people blame Microsoft, not just their office-division. When Microsoft screwes up security in Windows, people blame Microsoft, not just their Windows-division. But still, we should treat Sony differently? I don't buy it.

But if Microsoft comes out with a crappy keyboard or mouse, should you stop buying Microsoft software? The point is that they are two different products. If you don't like Microsoft mice, then that doesn't mean you have to stop buying Office. Its the same for Sony.

If you don't like DRM music, don't buy it. It just seems silly to also stop buying completely different products. You can boycott products you don't like, and perhaps that sales drop will hurt that part of the company enough for them to do something about it. Sony is too broad a company for the camera people to care what happens in the music division.

Re:No thanks.

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

I bought my Sony DVD player about 2 weeks b4^H^H (too much chat) before the DRM Sh*t hit the fan... Unfortunately I cant find another resonably priced replacement with the same features i.e. 400 disc carousel(sp?).

At the same time. I havent whined about the Sony rootkit thing either. The last Sony CD I bought was Megadeth's Rust in Peace (Capitol Records) and that was in 1990something. What does this have to do with your post? Admittedly not much, but Sony is a REALLY BIG company. I can't say that that I will boycott all Sony products. (Columbia Tristar Pictures). So... Prevent DRM! Download mp3s, then burn it to audio CD then rip it back to mp3!

</ramble>

Re:No thanks.

[buck_wild]

If there were a '+1 Sane' moderation, I'd give you one.

If the Music division had 1/2 the profits that they normally did, I doubt the Home Audio/Video division would even notice, and may even carry the rest of the company profit-wise.

Re:No thanks.

[10Ghz]

But if Microsoft comes out with a crappy keyboard or mouse, should you stop buying Microsoft software?

There is a difference between a "bad product" and "product that harms the user". If Microsoft came with a keyboard that contained a keylogger that phoned home for example, I would steer clear of ALL their products, Office included. If Sony comes up with music-discs that open security-holes on my computer, makes the whole system unstable and calls home, I will steer clear of ALL their products. And like I said, this same bullshit-attitude seems to pollute entire Sony, hardware-division included.

You don't seem to understand one fundamental fact: Sony Corporation has the power to fix this situation. They should fire the management of Sony Music, and everyone else connected to this mess. If they do not do that, they are showing to have no remorse over the incident, and they don't therefore deserve my money.

In short: Sony Corporation has the needed powers over Sony Music to take appropriate steps. It's up to them that do they choose to do so.

Re:No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

... exactly like blaming a woman in a short skirt for being "vulnerable" to rape.

Not quite. It's more like blaming a woman in a microskirt and crotchless panties, laying on her back with legs akimo and a big sign saying "[expletive] me!" (yet claiming that said panties are the latest greatest advancement in security measures) for being "vulnerable" to rape.

Re:No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think its a matter of consistency.

If I were to secretly install software that created a back door or caused malicous actions to take place on the computers I installed them on, in Sony's case, over a half million machines, I would probably go to prison for a very, Very long time. So, if I do it, it's bad. Even if I had come up with a legitimate reason (in my eyes), it wouldn't matter. I'd still go to prison. BUT .. if Sony does it, it's ok? No, that's just wrong.

Microsoft builds operating systems to make money so they have to get them out as quickly as possible to make as much money as possible. They, as far as I know, don't get sneaky as far as purposely invading your privacy and potentially damaging you data. I don't think MS is even a part of this specific point.

Due to Sony's blatant disregard for its customers (which we all are or have been at some point), I am also banning all sony products from my dollars until the end of time, unless it is something that MUST be purchased to save my life.

I just wish there was a way to get the word out to the rest of the world (the normal folk) who didn't hear about the story from the proper perspective. I never heard a mention of it on my news channel and I even sent my news channel an email asking them to do more reports on it and I still never saw anything. If everyone knew the truth, I think we could really hurt Sony. It's not about getting even with them at this point, it's about revenge. They need to be financially hurt, if not bankrupted, for their actions.

The blurb is extremely vague and confused

[cytoman]

I had a hard time trying to understand from the blurb what the whole deal was. It's a shame the slashdot editors are not interested in doing their jobs.

Re:The blurb is extremely vague and confused

[Cheapy]

It's even more of a shame that the Slashdot editors even give a company who loves to compromise their customer's computers some advertisement.

And I'm not talking about Microsoft.

Re:The blurb is extremely vague and confused

[damsa]

Sony took their camera sensor normally meant for expensive professional DSLRs with interchangable lenses and stuck it in a less expensive fixed lensed system. Think of Chevy putting a Nascar engine in a minivan.

From Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's from Sony it must be a spy cam!

Seriously, sounds like a nice unit. But at 2.25 pounds it needs a tripod.

Re:From Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

When you download pics from the camera, it also installs the rootkit as an added bonus!

I dont hate Sony, but...

[Mooshi]

who cares?

Why Sony?

[Lxy]

Ignore the rootkit and the other reasons we don't like Sony. Why would you buy a digital camera from Sony?

Canon knows optics. Canon makes awesome cameras. Try a Powershot or a Rebel, absolutely blows away everything on the market. Fuji makes a nice line of cameras also. Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.

Also, why would you buy an SLR without interchangeable lenses? If you're geeky enough to properly use an SLR, you probably won't be happy being stuck with one lense.

Re:Why Sony?

[Rdickinson]

Carl Zeiss obviously suck at amking glass then eh?

I wont buy sony anymore, doesnt make their cameras poor, though I dont see the thought behind buying an SLR (ish) camera without the mirror or the switchable lenses...

Re:Why Sony?

[CyricZ]

Why would you buy a digital camera from Sony?

Not everyone is as into optics and cameras as you are. Sometimes people just want something that will take pictures or video, even if the quality isn't completely perfect. Not only that, they don't want to spend many pence on it.

Do you know what people do? They go down to their local electronics retailer, and buy cameras from Sony. They may not be the top of the line, but they'll work, and they may offer the best return for what is spent on them.

Re:Why Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zeiss has been a name that's rested on its laurels for many a year now. Anyone buying or promoting them over most other glass out there is the equivalent of a ricer who sticks "Type R" stickers on their car, no matter whether it's a Nissan, Chev, Ford or Hyundai.

Re:Why Sony?

[nite_warrior]

yeah... it sucks not to have interchangeabel lenses... if you just start on photografy is fine.. I've had my Fuji finepix S5000 for some more than a year... it was great to start and learn the concepts, but I've come to a point where I really want to get more control than leaving it all to the camera, and be able to focus better depending on what I'm takig picture of...

Re:Why Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.

Yeah, you know how bad those all those betacams suck and who could forget their HDC-F950. Lacking right?

Re:Why Sony?

[masklinn]

The mirror is only there to allow you to aim through the true lenses (instead of old school compact's independant aim). It's perfect until you manage to get rid of it through a live numeric feed (such as what compacts are currently using) which gets rid of a now redundant mechanical part.

Switchable lenses, on the other hand...

Re:Why Sony?

[Rdickinson]

To Quote dpreview of the R1:

"I'll start as I shall no doubt finish this little piece of editorial, the lens is worth the price of the DSC-R1 alone. That fact is not to be underestimated, it's a great lens which provides you with a very useful 24 - 120 mm zoom range (which will be sufficient for the majority of users). Doing the math it's pretty clear that you have to spend a fairly considerable sum on lenses for a D-SLR to get close to this range and the quality of the DSC-R1's lens. "

The cameeras problem is not its lens, its in its image processing:

"The second issue is image processing, take a RAW out of the DSC-R1 and run it through Adobe Camera RAW and you can see just what that lens / sensor combination is capable of, however you really need to be pretty dedicated to shoot RAW all the time, 20 MB per RAW file and around 9 seconds to write; I did note that some of our forums users are converting the Sony RAW files to Adobe DNG to save space. That's not to say JPEG's aren't good, they are very good, but you get a whole new appreciation for just how much crisper images could look converting in ACR."

And the fact that your still better off buying a dSLR.

Re:Why Sony?

[stuuf]

I've owned digital cameras from Fuji, Olympus and Canon. Not HP, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic etc. The way I look at it, there are two types of people who make digicams, camera makers who went digital and electronics makers who decided to start making cameras. The experienced camera makers know how to make good optics, and the others mostly know how to make inexpensive electronics. OK, Sony does make high quality but I'd rather buy from someone who's been making cameras for decades.

Re:Why Sony?

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

If I may add to this a bit, even Canon consumer cameras are the best. Easy to use, competitive pricing and excellent picture quality. I think it's pretty much undisputed at the moment that Canon make the best digital cameras bar none.[/canonadvert]

Anyway, People in general are lemmings, they buy what is advertised, what is "recommended" to them by salesmen. It's not true for all people granted, but it's a sad fact that a very large portion of people are like this. I find it sad that people are no longer customers or people, they're consumers.. they consume, they buy what they're told to buy and like the lemmings they are they jump off the cliffs.

And in order to inject some humour into this post they also occasionally blow up after ten seconds with an "Oh no!" just before they see oblivion.

Re:Why Sony?

[nite_warrior]

Not everyone is as into optics and cameras as you are.

if you are going to spend 1K on a camera... you have to know a little bit at least...

Anyways, sony lenses are not that bad. Personally, I will compare what are you getting on that camera compared to other at the same/similar price. For example you can get decent slr cameras for around the same price, and there is not where this camera fails.

The lenses are not so close... there is an adapter you can use and extra lenses/filters to match (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/). I still think, as most of sony products, it is too pricy for what you get.

Re:Why Sony?

[Lehk228]

Sony doesn't make quality, for over a decade Sony's consumer electronics have been only marginally, if at all, better than the no-name brand electronics and quite a bit behind the other big manufacturers.

Sony's PROFESSIONAL gear is like a whole other company though.

Re:Why Sony?

[pyite]

To touch on what someone else said, Sony uses Carl Zeiss glass and Carl Zeiss lenses are some of the best possible optics you'll find. They make optics for incredibly respected companies like Hasselblad and others. But, I agree, not being able to interchange is useless.

Re:Why Sony?

[KilobyteKnight]

Why would you buy a digital camera from Sony?

I wouldn't.

I would only recommend Canon or Nikon to people looking for cameras.

Sony has done nothing worth a headline here. This is pure PR - one of those planted "news" stories where some reporters got fed a story on a slow news day... maybe got sent a free camera with some marketing hype.

Move along... nothing to see here.

Re:Why Sony?

[winkydink]

Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.

Sony's 7mp sensor found on many point-n-shoots is considered superb by many. I use a DSC-P150 as my pocket camera and, under the right conditions, its pics outperform those of my Nikon D70s SLR.

Sony usually uses Carl Zeiss glass. Nothing shabby about that.

Re:Why Sony?

[chris_eineke]

And in order to inject some humour into this post they also occasionally blow up after ten seconds with an "Oh no!" just before they see oblivion.

Don't you mean they blow up after three seconds with an "Jihad!" just before they see 56 virgins?

Okay, I admit. That was disgusting. :P

Re:Why Sony?

[damsa]

I find that people who spend 1k on a camera don't know much about optics. People that spend 1k on a lense and 100 bucks on a camera, know a quite a bit about optics.

Re:Why Sony?

[damsa]

This camera uses CMOS not CCD.

Re:Why Sony?

[joshv]

Please, find me that mythical $100 digital camera body with interchangeable lenses :)

Re:Why Sony?

[damsa]

You do realize that the sensor used in those high end cameras sometimes contain Sony sensors. The Minolta cameras contain Sony sensors. Also Carl Zeiss makes lenses for Sony. Oh and Sony has been making video cameras for over 30 years and if you watch your local news, chances are it is using Sony Betacam tapes with a Sony camera.

Also, Panasonics are actually rebranded Leicas, and Leicas are a good thing.

Re:Why Sony?

[speleo]

Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.

Hmm, I wonder why Canon uses Sony CCD chips in their Powershot line?

Also, why would you buy an SLR without interchangeable lenses?

No dust on the imaging chip. I probably spend more time cleaning and doing the Photoshop clone thing to get rid of dust spots than I do taking pictures.

Re:Why Sony?

[jeriqo]

That's probably right.. I'm more into music, and Sony makes the "best" studio headphones available (MDR 7506), while they also make crappy $10 earphones.

Re:Why Sony?

[damsa]

Well you can find older Kodak bodies that take Nikon and Canon mounts on ebay for dirt cheap. But if you really cared about optical quality you would be shooting slides and scanning it one by one. That's the way we did it when I was a lad and by gum we liked it.

Re:Why Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because Carl Zeiss makes some damn fine lenses doesn't mean the ones going into the Sony cameras are any good. It's the same with any company that makes lenses -- Canon, Nikon, Sigma... some lenses are really, really good, and some just aren't.

Re:Why Sony?

[Rdickinson]

Second hand early dSLR cant be that much more?

I know a lot of people who use an order of magniture more expensive lenses on cheaper cameras.

Re:Why Sony?

[MooUK]

I find it sad that people are no longer customers or people, they're consumers.. they consume, they buy what they're told to buy and like the lemmings they are they jump off the cliffs.

This is what makes my marketing lectures both entertaining and thoroughly depressing at the same time - they hilight the behaviour of the sheeple.

Re:Why Sony?

[johansalk]

I would like to politely disagree with your opinion that Canon consumer cameras are the best. I may not object so much had the claim been made for Canon DSLRs, but surely not for their non-DSRL range. In my experience, and it's a long experience, Canon and Nikon use their reputation and brand name in the top-of-the-range and professional markets to sell consumer equipment that is inferior to that offered by other makers. People will buy anything Canon or Nikon, so they feel entitled to take a nice fat profit out of it. If you want a consumer line with unquistionable quality then both Fuji and Olympus stand out as great examples.

Re:Why Sony?

[masklinn]

These "sometime people" use compacts though, because they're cheaper, easier to use and much lighter. Blowing $1000 on a camera is not what "sometimes people" do, even a state-of-the-art compact camera (think Panasonic FX9, 6MPix, optic stabilizer, $330) is a lot for "sometimes peoples", and much more than enough for them to take useable pictures (videos don't even come into the talk, the R1 is not able to take videos...)

They may not be the top of the line, but they'll work, and they may offer the best return for what is spent on them.

That may be true in your alternate reality, but in the real world "looks good" is pretty much the only positive thing you can say about Sony devices, and that only works as long as they ain't competing with Apple...

Re:Why Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Sony pocketcam takes better photos than your D70? Says a fair bit about the photographer....

Re:Why Sony?

[dbIII]

Canon knows optics.

Sony may not know optics, but Zeis who make some of their lenses certainly do. That said I bought a nice Canon digital camera (with a Leica lens - they certainly know more about optics than Canon) for someone else yesterday, but own an older Sony which I really just use like a polaroid.

Also, why would you buy an SLR without interchangeable lenses?

My 35mm camera normally has a 35-70mm zoom on it, which most recent single lens digital cameras can emulate well. A lot of people just use one lens, even if they have several.

Re:Why Sony?

[johansalk]

A reason why you'd want an SLR-like camera without interchangeable lenses is that you know quite well what optical range you need and don't want to deal with the mess that is sensor dust. Think of it as the right tool for the job. I personally would not want an SLR, and if I did it would only be an Olympus as they have self-cleaning sensors. I have no tolerance for sensor dirt, and if you go on rec.photo.digital you'll see plenty of posts indicating clearly that it's a bitch of a problem and cleaning sensors does not always produce optimal results. Sensor dirt on pictures is a real obnoxious affair, especially a problem if you tshoot outdoors.

Re:Why Sony?

[masklinn]

Studio headphones (and headphones overall) is a highly debated area, yet from what I saw Sony rarely if ever gets branded as "the best". Sennheiser yes (though some people consider that it's "legacy love"), Beyerdynamic yes, AKG yes (you should check the K-271 for studio headphones btw), Koss gets a vote for those who care more about lots of bass than "truth" of restitution, but Sony...

Re:Why Sony?

[Threni]

> This is pure PR - one of those planted "news" stories where some reporters got
> fed a story on a slow news day.

Yeah, right - because every *other* story is fearlessly tracked down by journalists with the public's interest at heart...they go through bins, they tap people's phones, they have thousands of contacts who are constantly listening out for them...

Re:Why Sony?

[gorav]

+ Sony's consumer cameras are known to take better indoor photos than competing Canons. My main Canon pocket camera at the moment (Ixus 50/SD400) takes mediocre indoor photos. + R1 is designed for people who don't want to experiment with lenses and accessories, but want a great lens and great photo quality. There is nothing outside DSLRs that comes even close to the sensor size and lens quality combination that the R1 currently offers. + The market is NOT dominated by Canon for quality. Aside from the R1, there plenty of offerings that excel in specific areas, like Panasonic with their tiny image stabiling cameras, or Kodak/HP with their great consumer level Camera/Printer compatibility advantages, or Casio with their slim camera niche. Canon's historic competitor Nikon also offers a great range models with similar performance. Read the reviews on dpreview.com and dcresource.com on the R1 and other cameras before making sweeping assumptions.

Re:Why Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would tend to agree with your statement, except Sony went with the respected Carl Zeiss lenses here. I mean, they are one of the most respected name in... oh wait, what was that? Carl Zeiss is now putting their lens on Nokia Camera Phones. If you want a good Zeiss, you're probably still going to have to go with a Hasselblad. Mmm... Hasselblad. 37 X 49 mm 22 megapixel CCD. 40 gigs of storage. Comes with an 80mm lens, but of course you can swap in for another. Two inch color preview screen. There's even a histograph display built in. DROOL. Might even be able to get good looking pictures of slashdotters with this thing.

Re:Why Sony?

[KangKong]

What I have heard is that Zeiss is NOT making the lens, simply designing the best lens given the limitation Sony has given them. Sony then makes the lens based on that design.
Main drawbacks of the camera is obviously the fixed lens and not being an SLR, 24mm is not that wide of a wide angle and 120mm is not that much of a tele. Since the light hits the sensor instead of reflecting up to the eyepiece without touching the sensor it shows the scene as the camera interprets it not as with a SLR an untouched view of the scene through the lens.
Basicly you get the laggyness and limited resolution of the lcd in exchange for a picture of what the image might look as.
I got an SLR for those reasons, what I see in the eyepiece is the scene which I can interpret and the nonlaggyness of an LCD. Try finding out if an 10Mpixel image is sharp by looking at a 200k resolution LCD.

Re:Why Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

sony actually makes the CCD thats in a bunch of canon cameras

Re:Why Sony?

[totoanihilation]

If I may add to this a bit, even Canon consumer cameras are the best. Easy to use, competitive pricing and excellent picture quality. I think it's pretty much undisputed at the moment that Canon make the best digital cameras bar none.[/canonadvert]

Disclaimer: I deal with digital cameras for a living.
I find that while canon does good cameras with great image quality, they are still highly overpriced, and excruciatingly SLOW (in the compacts). IMHO, 3 seconds for the camera to react to my pressing a button (the shutter button on the A520, A410) is absolutely shameful.

As for the Rebel, I find the post-processing the camera does to be terrible, specially in high-iso. Obviously, it works great to impress the guys at DPReview who take pictures of a uniform gray chart. But when it comes to picking out details, I find the Nikon dSLR's to give much more natural results, even though they give visible grain.

So, my point is, Canon makes decent cameras, but they're not the best at everything, not by a long shot. Other brands are out there to stimulate competition, as they all have their strong points. Sony have the fastest compact cameras, bar-none. Sure the image isn't as good as a Nikon or Canon, but it's certainly good enough, and it's much better being able to capture the picture _when_ you want it, than to have a great looking picture of something you didn't want because of shutter lag.

Well... Enough rambling. That was my 2 canadian cents worth ;)

Re:Why Sony?

[Metrathon]

It seems that the lens is much better than the kit lens that ships with the low-end Canon and Nikon DSLRs, so maybe this is the only lens most users would need.

I would wager that a good majority of Canon 300D, 350D or Nikon 70 users are only using the lens they got when they bought it with the body. If that describes your usage, you are actually better off with a fixed lens that makes sure that no dust gets in and messes up your sensor (unless you have the recent Olympus cameras which have built-in sensor cleaning).

The camera seems to lack in processing power and software compared to the true Camera brands. A little counter-intuitive at first, having the better lens and then getting beaten in post processing. It may just be that the "real" camera makers have understood that a beautiful lens is not the only thing that makes a good camera, it has to respond well with fast auto-focusing and have good shot-to-shot times.

Re:Why Sony?

[mmj638]

I agree. So, what makes this camera better than a real SLR? - You can't change lenses. So, what makes this camera better than other compact cameras? - Bulkier - Much more expensive Sounds like this is a real loser of a camera, really. All the bulkiness and expense of an SLR, without the benefit of interchangeable lenses. On the plus side, the large sensor size is a plus over typical compact camera. So I guess you could sum up this camera as being an abnormally expensive and bulky compact camera with a large sensor size.

Re:Why Sony?

[StikyPad]

That may be true, but none of those points apply to the R1 at all. It does take very high quality pictures, but also costs a lot of pence and doesn't take videos.

Re:Why Sony?

[netsharc]

But wait, Canon also uses Sony's CCD... I only learnt that during the defective-CCD-debacle which was also covered here in /.. A list of the affected cameras show that not only Sony cameras use the CCD, but also those from other manufacturers.

Re:Why Sony?

[ceoyoyo]

That's exactly what it is. Mention of "SLR" is just to make it sound special. It's just a large regular digital camera with a larger sensor. That will probably give it slightly better noise characteristics, but make it lots more expensive too.

Re:Why Sony?

[feijai]

Sony's consumer cameras are known to take better indoor photos than competing Canons. My main Canon pocket camera at the moment (Ixus 50/SD400) takes mediocre indoor photos.

An interesting claim, since they both use Sony's CCD.

Re:Why Sony?

[gorav]

It's not to do with the CCD, it's to do with the implementation.

Re:Why Sony?

[cheese_wallet]

"Obviously, it works great to impress the guys at DPReview who take pictures of a uniform gray chart. "

That's not true. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21 .asp

I've found dpreview to be a great review site. I haven't seen anybody else as thorough, but steves-digicams.com isn't too bad. I just don't like the site layout.

Re:Why Sony?

[winkydink]

Did you miss the part that said "under the right conditions"?

Also, for a pro's view on why the camera doesn't matter, may I refer you to this article?

Re:Why Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

and what's wrong with MINOLTA?

Re:Why Sony?

[Johnno74]

I have an ixus 750 (I beleive its known as an ixus 55 in north america) and there is none of the shutter lag you speak of...

This little camera is amazingly quick. It takes about 2-3 seconds to take the first photo, from SWITCHED OFF. about 2 secs to power on, waay less than a second to take the pic. If you prefocus by holding the button half-down, the photo is taken _instantly_

In continuous shooting mode it can take better than one photo/second, and thats at 3000x2500. Its even faster at a lower res (until the buffer fills up, if you have a slow card...)

Re:Why Sony?

[Kadin2048]

Speaking as someone who used to sell these things, I second your thoughts. I wouldn't get a Canon or Nikon low-end camera for myself or someone in my family. At the higher end -- where the customers are somewhat more discriminating -- they make great gear, don't get me wrong. But at the low end they rely a lot on their brand name and cut a lot of corners.

Fuji, Olympus, and Minolta are all better in terms of consumer grade cameras than Nikon or Canon's entry level, IMO. Although they all have their good and bad years, and Nikon had some great prosumer equipment in the past (the Coolpix 950 comes to mind, that thing was great), you need to pay some money with Canon or Nikon to get into their non-crippled gear. Fuji -- possibly perhaps because they have a brand name that's associated with cheap drug-store film to most people -- gives a lot of bang for the buck. (Although I think they made a mistake with those xD cards.)

Anyway, just my two cents. I worked at a big camera retailer and we used to push Nikon merch like it was our job -- because basically it was, Nikon had great sales incentives -- but when it came time to get a gift for a friend or family, or pick up an inexpensive digital for myself, I went with the "second tier" brands.

Re:Why Sony?

[rco3]

And I will promptly turn around and disagree with you. I have a Fuji (which I love), two Sonys (both of which are better cameras than the Fuji), and an Olympus.

That Olympus is the single worst digital camera I've ever owned, or even seen. It's the only one I've ever owned which actually needed repair due to defects in materials or workmanship (I take care of my electronics - it was a crappy part), it has the worst autofocus I can imagine someone trying to market, and it's slower than a molasses-covered septuagenarian driver license office worker after lunch in January. It takes forever to turn on, takes forever to set focus and adjust exposure, and takes at least three eternities to actually take the photo when you depress the shutter button the rest of the way. On a camera without manual focus available, you HAVE to have *good* AF (and AE), and the Olympus has neither. I absolutely and categorically disagree with any statement which associates "Olympus digital camera" with "unquistionable quality (sic)", unless it's as a counter-example thereof. This camera, you see, is a flaming piece of shit. People - complete strangers! - have been known to see me trying to take a picture with it, take pity on me, and actually write me a check for my "Buy Rob a new, functional digital camera" fund.

Now I've got a Sony that's smaller, faster, has more resolution, and has both AF and AE far superior to the Olympus, and for that matter to any other consumer camera I've ever used, mine or anyone else's. I include in that dataset several of Canon's series of Digital Elph cameras, which are nice but I don't like 'em as well as this Sony DSC-T1. I don't think I'd have bought the Sony myself (it was a gift), but I sure do like it. It's a relief and a pleasure to use a camera that works as it ought.

Re:Why Sony?

[penguin-collective]

So, what makes this camera better than a real SLR?

Two big differences are that it doesn't have mirror noise and it does have a waist-level viewfinder. If those things don't mean anything to you, it's probably not the camera for you.

It also has a very high quality zoom with a very useful zoom range; you can't get anywhere near that quality with a dSLR/lens combo at that price. If I could get that lens for my Canon dSLR, I'd gladly pay $1000 for it.

Re:Why Sony?

[rco3]

Sony cans over-rated, check. AKG's kickin' ass, check. Hey wait, you forgot about Grado! Not really studio cans, but trés sweet, clean, and flat.

Re:Why Sony?

[macpeep]

As far as I know, the Powershot Pro 1 has a Sony ICX456 CCD in it. And by the way, the Sony R1 has Carl Zeiss optics. So half of your argument melts away there.

Having said that, there are obvious benefits of an SLR and while I wouldn't buy the R1 myself, I think you should read DP Review's review of it. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

Judging from the review, the CCD is top notch. The main lacking part in my opinion is the slow tele-end of the lens (F4.8). If it was F2.8 all the way from 24 to 120mm, I don't see much reason for most people to need any interchangeable lenses - unless you're shooting birds or something. And quite frankly, most owners of say, Canon 350D's will only have one slow and crappy zoom like a 28-105 with F3.5 at the wide-end or something. So this camera will be a much better choice for a lot of the current DSLR buyers.

Peppe

Re:Why Sony?

[NixLuver]

I'm not going to bag on Canon's equipment; I have 4 film-based Canon SLRs and 28 of their lenses, and I love 'em. But my pride and joy is an Hasselblad EL. And the name on those lenses? Carl Zeiss. Arguably the best lenses in the world, along with Schneider-Kreuznach and Leitz.

Care to guess who's name is on the lens of man Sony cameras? Carl Zeiss. And T* coatings. You may not like Sony as a company, and Canon may have them beat, even so - I'm not that familiar with the higher end digital cameras. But I'd wager a goodly amount of money that any Zeiss T* lens is at least comparable to any equivalent Canon lens.

Incidentally, Sony has made cameras for a long, long time.

Re:Why Sony?

[krosk]

IMHO Sony is best known for it's engineering. I personally bought a Sony camera because of its size. I was travelling across Europe at the time and I needed something to fit in my pocket, so I bought the T1. It's about as small as a pack of cards, takes great quality pics, and it's easy to use. Even though it does have it's problems (horrible JPEG compression, 5MP images come out to be 2.5MB!), I still love it and wouldn't've bought anything else. Just my $0.02.

Re:Why Sony?

[radish]

Having just come back from Safari in South Africa with a couple of DSLRs which spent a week in the back of an open truck bouncing down a dusty near-desert road. I can safely say that the sensor dirt issue really isn't one.

1) Don't get the sensor dirty. Change lenses infrequently and in closed environments. I took 2 bodies, one with a long telephoto and one with a mid range. In the field swap cameras, not lenses. This doesn't just help with DSLRs, with film cameras there are plenty of problems to be had if crap gets into the body. Plus of couse changing lenses is slow, animals aren't.
2) If you do get it dirty, don't clean it yourself. You'll screw it up.

Re:Why Sony?

[feijai]

It's not to do with the CCD, it's to do with the implementation.

Implementation of what? Lens? Light sensor? Length of time the iris is open? Camera companies have had these things down to a science for decades. The crucial differentiator in a camera is the CCD. Which Canon and Sony share.

Re:Why Sony?

[eraser.cpp]

If I may add to this a bit, even Canon consumer cameras are the best. Easy to use, competitive pricing and excellent picture quality. I think it's pretty much undisputed at the moment that Canon make the best digital cameras bar none.[/canonadvert]

Normally Canon snobs at least acknowledge the existence of Nikon. Canon having the best digital cameras is hardly a fact or undisputed. Both Canon and Nikon make excellent cameras, and while I find that Canon's bodies are usually better than Nikon's the Nikon lenses are frequently better than Canon's.

Re:Why Sony?

[DeafByBeheading]

Oh for the love of Pete! If you're gonna be enough of a douche to put accents on your foreign words, at least use the right accents: it's 'très'.

Re:Why Sony?

[Elwood P Dowd]

The Canon SD30 is a big improvement in shutter times from other Canon cameras. Dunno if it compares well to Sony.

Re:Why Sony?

[multiplexo]

Why would you buy a digital camera from Sony?

Uh I dunno, because they work really well, because they're the company that makes the sensors in Nikon and Pentax's gear.

Canon knows optics. Canon makes awesome cameras. Try a Powershot or a Rebel, absolutely blows away everything on the market.

The Digital Rebel? Nice try, it's a light-weight, cheaply built piece of crap. I had a Pentax K-1000 (the old Japanese model, not the later, unfortunate, Chinese built ones) that's more solidly put together than the Digital Rebel. And for the price of the EOS 20D I'd rather buy a Nikon so I have a broader selection of lenses.

Re:Why Sony?

[Max von H.]

Although I agree with you about Canon cameras (they rock, been using Canon for over 15 years here), there's one point of your argument that needs clarifying and will probably upset you: Canon's CCD chips come from Sony, except for the high-end dSLR models (custom CMOS sensors). All point'n'shoot Canon camera (Powershots, Ixus etc.) have a Sony CCD inside.

As for the lenses, I agree that they *do* produce good glass for the most part of their production and, mostly, have the best electronics, best menu navigation system and their dSLR sensors are absolutely outstanding.

I'm actually waiting for the Powershot Pro2, whenever it's announced. Should inherit Sony's 10MP CCD (same as in the R1), get Canon's anti-shake (oh man do I love this function in low light!), good glass (I imagine a new fast 28-200 or 24-140) and Canon's electronics and flip-screen (the R1's is really... eeeekk I hate it!).

Then again, Canon doesn't support linux for any of its printers and devices...

Re:Why Sony?

[rco3]

"Douche?"

OK, calm down, now. I'm really sorry, here. Nobody needs to get hurt over this. It was a simple mistake, and I'm really very sorry, OK? Now just back away from the keyboard. Let's try to relax, just a little bit. Deep breaths. Deep breaths. Yeah, that's better.

I think perhaps next time you should insert a smaller stick. Hint: not necessary to use the entire broomstick. Your ass will thank you. It may be worth ramping down the coffee consumption, too -- and I am only saying that because I care -- there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Re:Why Sony?

[kappa]

Sony is actually a huge player in the digital photo market. For example, they produce almost all sensors. Canon & Fuji use their own sensors, while Nikon, Konica-Minolta, Pentax and all the other brands use Sony sensors almost exclusively.

I used several Sony DCs and they are very good. Way above your average Powershots or Coolpixen. But of course Canon & Nikon make unsurpassed SLRs. Sony doesn't even try to compete with them here. They lack competence in doing SLR cameras and they confirm that by making such things as R1 mentioned in TFA.

Re:Why Sony?

[dynamic_cast]

Loved the "Real Genious" reference!

Re:Why Sony?

[NeMon'ess]

Those 3 seconds might only happen in low light, and only then it's more like 2 seconds. Moreover, if the cam uses a DIGIC II processor it's very fast in general.

Re:Why Sony?

[NeMon'ess]

Nice advice, but I think you just excluded a large chunk of the market by saying they should own two bodies. The niche for the Sony is folks who want good looking pictures and some flexibility, without a lot of hastle or serious expense.

Re:Why Sony?

[vistic]

As other people have pointed out, Sony's professional range of electronics are extremely high quality, and you can't really include them with the consumer grade electronics they also produce which are not made with the same level of quality. There's also a good chance the Sony gear your local news uses is pretty old and was manufactured back when Sony made high quality gear in general.

For me, if I'm thinking about buying a Sony I look at where it was manufactured. If it was made in Japan, then it may be worth buying... Indonesia? Maybe not.

I rather thought Leicas were rebranded Panasonics, and Panasonics are a bad thing.

Leica makes great film cameras, but I decided to stay away from a Leica digital ever since I saw they were Panasonics with few changes.

Re:Why Sony?

[markandrew]

First of all, if powershots and rebels are so far in front of everything else on the market, why do people still buy Nikons, Minoltas, Olympuses, etc etc? Canon may well make good cameras, and they may well be your favourite manufacturer, but that doesn't mean they 'blow away' everything else on the market. For one thing, the UI on their SLRs is definitely an acquired taste - I've had a canon for years and still hate their button fetish interfaces.

Secondly, the R1 doesn't use a CCD. It has a CMOS sensor.

Thirdly, sony doesn't make lenses (at least, not for this camera); the glass is made by Zeiss - if you're trying to suggest that Zeiss glass is 'lacking' in some way... ha. ha ha ha ha. you don't know much about lenses, do you?

Fourthly, the R1 is not an SLR. There is no *R*eflex involved in this camera - this is in fact one of it's main selling points, as it allows the lens and the sensor to be placed very close together, improving (in theory) such problems as chromatic aberration, and making the camera more compact. SLRs are not the be-all and end-all of photography. Get over it.

Fifthly, if you're going to be happy with the range offered by one lens (and lots of people will be) there is no advantage, and lots of disadvantages, to having an interchangeable lens. Dust for starters - having a fixed lens will dramamtically cut down on the amount of dust getting to the sensor. There are plenty of other reasons why a fixed lens can be A Good Thing.

The R1 may not be for everyone - it may not even be a good camera, for all I know - but your reasons for criticizing it are all, without exception, flawed.

Re:Why Sony?

[hexdcml]

I work in a camera shop and have the same reaction, I don't really like the cameras (in terms of UI, features, design and etc) - however... do bear in mind that Sony optically are ok, and certainly teaming up with Zeiss isn't hurting. Moreover, Sony CCDs are used in Canon, Nikon etc licensed to 3td party makes.

I read that the previous 8MP cameras, the Canon Pro1, Sony F828, Konica Minolta A2, and the Nikon 8700 all used the same Sony 8MP CCD.
Did you read about the CCD failures a while back? Something about the adhesive going bad? Yep, it's a Sony CCD - but also, it affected other makes too, including Canon.

I wouldn't touch a Sony camera with a barge pole, but the R1 looks promising - though personally, I'd stick with my EOS 350D :D

Re:Why Sony?

[Rich0]

I'm sure the Canon DSLRs are nice, but google Canon E18 sometime and see what others have to say about their compact cameras.

After my Canon digital compact died after only 1.5 years, the last thing I was about to do is buy another...

Re: Why Sony?

[gidds]

Agreed. Part of the problem is that people don't decide on quality, they decide on features. They have a ticklist (physical or mental) of features they'd like, and they look for the cheapest model which is claimed to have those features -- regardless whether it implements them well, or even whether they're actually worthwhile.

We see this in the popularity of x86 chips with higher clock speeds, despite the dubious improvement in actual performance. We see it in the use of league tables and newspaper rankings for deciding schools for our children. We even saw it in Microsoft's rush to 'implement' the POSIX standard in Windows. (I gather that the implementation is pretty unusable, that performance is dire and that no-one would actually use it. However, it's a tick in a box that makes Windows available to certain government departments.)

Sony in particular seem to base most of their electronics on this, designing their products simply to hit certain feature points. If people really took into account quality, durability, reliability, ease of use, etc., then I suspect Sony Electronics wouldn't be as powerful as it is today.

(However, if I may sidetrack for a moment, lemming suicide is fiction, originating in a faked 1958 Disney documentary.)

Re:Why Sony?

[jpop32]

Sony has done nothing worth a headline here. This is pure PR - one of those planted "news" stories where some reporters got fed a story on a slow news day... maybe got sent a free camera with some marketing hype.

Geez... You really have no clue when it comes to digital cameras, right?

So, let me explain. This is a _significant_ new development in the field of consumer digital cameras, in no way an typical incremental evolution.

Its significance comes from a new type of CCD, a new development by Sony. Until now, you basically had two types of digital cameras, compact consumer cameras with tiny CCDs, and digital SLRs with huge CCDs. This is a first consumer camera with a huge CCD. They managed to marry the best of both worlds - excellent picture quality and light sensitivity (if that means anything to you, it goes up to ISO1600!) and a live preview on the cameras LCD screen. Truly a first. Expect all the other manufacturers to frantically scramble to catch up to Sony. This kind of cameras will rule the market in a few years. And, like it or not, Sony was there first.

Then again, if you read the FA you'd probably know as much. But, hey, let's not allow the facts to take the edge off of a fine groupthink induced rant.

Re:Why Sony?

[gorav]

Yes, but their cameras give different output because of different implementations. And no, these implementations aren't exactly the same. Different lenses and flashes, to start with.

Re:Why Sony?

[espressojim]

Get a Canon 17-85mm f/5.6 EF-S IS. I think they go for about $500. With the multiplier, that's about what you're looking for.

Re:Why Sony?

[penguin-collective]

The 17-85 is a good lens (I have it), but that's the equivalent of a 28-135mm/f4-5.6. Sorry, but that's a long way from a 24-120mm/f2.8-4.5 Zeiss lens. One f-stop and 4mm difference at the wide end is a huge difference and easily justified doubling the price.

Re:Why Sony?

[503]

Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.

If that's true, why did Nikon choose a Sony sensor for their flagship camera, the D2X?

Re:Why Sony?

[KilobyteKnight]

Geez... You really have no clue when it comes to digital cameras, right?

You obviously didn't click my URL. I may not be the world's greatest photographer, but I do know what I'm talking about.

So, let me explain. This is a _significant_ new development in the field of consumer digital cameras, in no way an typical incremental evolution.

Its significance comes from a new type of CCD, a new development by Sony. Until now, you basically had two types of digital cameras, compact consumer cameras with tiny CCDs, and digital SLRs with huge CCDs.

There are three basic types of digital sensors: Those with RGB sensors laid out in a rectangular grid; Foveon where they are stacked on top of each other; and Fuji's which has sensors which are offset from one another.

Or, if you prefer, two basic types: CCD or CMOS.

Prehaps you should browse around dpreview.com to see just how ordinary that camera is. Try the side by side feature of the site.

If you want to see a cool camera for a good price, try a Nikon D200. Or if excellent color and full frame is important, take a look at the Canon 5D. If you're really serious, look at something in the Canon 1D line. If you want a toy, look at Sony.

Re:Why Sony?

[jpop32]

There are three basic types of digital sensors: Those with RGB sensors laid out in a rectangular grid; Foveon where they are stacked on top of each other; and Fuji's which has sensors which are offset from one another.

Whatever, apples and oranges. The point is the size of the sensor (and, consequently, light sensitivity), and live preview, not pixel arrangement.

Prehaps you should browse around dpreview.com to see just how ordinary that camera is. Try the side by side feature of the site.

I read the review, even before posting the comment. And, to quote from the site: The DSC-R1 is a first of a kind, the first all-in-one digital (fixed-lens digital) to utilize an APS-C size sensor. I still stand by my assertion, it is not perfect, but this camera is a breakthrough, and deserved an Slashdot article.

Re:Why Sony?

[KilobyteKnight]

I read the review, even before posting the comment. And, to quote from the site: The DSC-R1 is a first of a kind, the first all-in-one digital (fixed-lens digital) to utilize an APS-C size sensor. I still stand by my assertion, it is not perfect, but this camera is a breakthrough, and deserved an Slashdot article.

I didn't say read the press release. I said do a side by side comparison.

My initial point was that this is nothing but a press release. Don't believe the hype.

Re:Why Sony?

[jpop32]

Don't believe the hype.

Hype or not, this is a camera that would satisfy all my needs as an amateur photographer. I don't need a true SLR, I don't need to exchange lenses. I want a good lens, a live preview and I want to be able to take a picture wherever there is enough light to see. For a thousand bucks, it doesn't get much better than this.

Don't bash it only because it's a Sony. On specs alone, it's an attractive package. Actual design could be better, especially the LCD placement. I hope that soon there will be a couple of alternatives to choose from, I'm definitely looking for a camera like this.

Re:Why Sony?

[cspeye]

yep.

not a real slr?
not interested.

i prefer the viewfinder over a crappy low-res lcd preview.

Vital statistics

[Grandma Death]

Who gives a crap how it works, the real question is what kind of rootkit does it come with?

Re:Vital statistics

[kd3bj]

Hopefully a better one than last time.

Re:Vital statistics

[bigberk]

That's funny but it is a valid question. These things always come with software, which you must install. Do you trust software written by Sony, given their history? I sure don't. Who knows what it might have embedded within it.

Re:Vital statistics

[saskboy]

After the Nightvision hack years ago that allowed people to see through clothing, you'd think Sony would have learned that people don't want their private things unhidden. Oh, wait.

Re:Vital statistics

[Reaperducer]

These things always come with software, which you must install.

They do? Since when? I've had Sony F-828, DSC S-30, and a crapload of Canons. I've never installed any of their software, and they all work fine with my Macs. Unless mandatory software installation to use a camera is some kind of Windows thing. I wouldn't know about that.

Re:Vital statistics

[Xugumad]

That's exactly my position on Sony products at the moment.

A lot of people are likely to say "Well, that was Sony's music people, this is the cameras division, they're seperate", but until I see evidence that the higher-ups don't support the music division's use of DRM (or at least DRM rootkits with large holes in them that install irrespective of whether you accept the terms and conditions), I'm treating them the same.

And "We're really upset you caught us rootkitting your computer, and our sales have dropped through the floor, so we're going to stop until we think you've forgotten" is not my idea of repentent...

Re:Vital statistics

[v1]

These things always come with software, which you must install

Depends on the computer. Some have adequate support software right out of the box. My mom just bought a new digicam and was asking me how to set it up. "Just plug it in". "But what about the CD? It says I have to install the software!" "Ignore that. Plug in the camera." "OK it's in... oh there it is, iPhoto just opened up. It's working!"

That's how things should work.

Re:Vital statistics

[Cheapy]

Sounds interesting. Care to post a link?

Re:Vital statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, not just a Mac thing.

Sony DSC-F828 with WinXP.
Didn't install anything specific from Sony. I just popped the Memory Stick (or CF/Microdrive) into my card reader (prefer them to the USB connections) and copied the images.

Opened in Photoshop using the RAW import filters when shooting RAW, or open in anything when shooting in JPEG.

Re:Vital statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Baaaah... baaaah... rootkit...

"Hey, I heard the AIBO comes with a rootkit now! (Score: +5, Informative)"

"Did you know that PS2 games have rootkits? (Score: +5, Insightful)"

"Sony's concept television has a built-in rootkit! (Score: +5, Funny)"

Come up with something original here, Xavier. You're getting lost in the herd.

Re:Vital statistics

[ceoyoyo]

People with iPhoto don't have to worry about Sony root kits. Well, not yet anyway. ;)

Re:Vital statistics

[ceoyoyo]

Well, if you don't have a computer that comes with iSync and iPhoto, and you don't invest in an external card reader... so yeah, I guess installing the software that comes with the camera is a Windows thing.

Re:Vital statistics

[saskboy]

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/archive/inde x.php/t-1855.html
Here's a discussion about it. It was nearly 8 years ago now...

Re:Vital statistics

[Reaperducer]

I don't use iPhoto, and iSync isn't for cameras. I just plug the camera into my Mac with the USB cable that came with it, and it appears as a removable drive and I just drag the pictures off, even the SRF (Sony Raw Format) ones.

No special software. No external card reader. No wonder so many photo professionals use Macs. ;)

Re:Vital statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

You can plug the same cameras into windows and they'll show up as mass storage devices. It's not that macs somehow excel in this area; some cameras are intentionally designed so that you must install the driver to access them.

Re:Vital statistics

[ceoyoyo]

If you've got a camera that uses the USB mass storage protocol then it should also appear as a drive on Windows. But if you don't (like most of the DSLRs, at least the ones that are a couple years old, not sure about the P&S ones), the Mac uses iSync (not the application itself, but the framework underlying it) to talk to the camera. It's integrated so well that on the Mac the camera will still appear as a drive and you'd never know the difference. No wonder so many photo professionals use Macs. ;)

Re:Vital statistics

[bit01]

This isn't flamebait. The person who moderated this either had finger trouble or is a marketing parasite.

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

Re:Vital statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

what kind of rootkit does it come with?

Of course this one:
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/11/sony_photo_shar ing.html

Re:Vital statistics

[v1]

ya, the annoying thing here is, when a customer stuffs in a CD from a manufacturer of a product, and it asks them for their admin password, almost 100% of users just blindly type it in, so there's really nothing to stop them from pulling a Sony on the rest of us too. (and 98% of software doesnt need admin rights to install, locally for that user) Though I wonder what restrictions software manufacturers have to agree to, to get that Macintosh logo on their box? That'd be a case I'd like to see... somebody try to pull a sony on us and have Apple come down on them with a BFH.

As it is with the sony rootkit, it makes you wonder... (1) do the manufacturers have to agree to anything to get that Windows logo on their box? (besides paying MS a mint?) Like that their installers may not intentionally compromise the security of the computer? and if so, (2) why has microsoft not gone after them with a vengence?

Re:Vital statistics

[boinger]

I'm with you.

I don't eat at Chipotle, for very similar reasons.

Once they IPO away from McDonalds, they'll be off my Personal Boycott list. Until then, they're just part of the Internation Asshole Conglomerate of McDonalds.

Re:Vital statistics

[doombob]

Why do you install the software? It's not necessary if you have a basic Card Reader that can handle Compact Flash and Memory Stick formats. Pull them out of the camera - Windows XP will autodetect these as you plug them into a USB reader. Copy the files (pictures) right over and edit them or print them or really just do whatever you desire at this point. Not like I'm advocating buying this Sony, but in case most people haven't noticed, most camera companies have no business dealing with any software.

Re:Vital statistics

[ceoyoyo]

I'm sure MS can deny the right to use the Windows logo if they want. Maybe they'll start tightening up since the Sony incident. Hopefully Apple takes it as an opportunity to stay a jump ahead and smack down the FIRST offender.

Unfortunately, if I were Sony I wouldn't WANT a Windows or Mac logo on my music CD. Let it be a surprise....

Re:Vital statistics

[Reaperducer]

I didn't know that. That's very cool.

Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Underaged kids might post nekkid pics of themselves online, will Sony DRM all photos or give these teens recording contracts?

Re:Think of the children

[EllynGeek]

Not to worry, the wireless phone-home feature will allow Sony to monitor for illegal and immoral usage. And sign up new jailbait I mean talent.

Hmm

[Ziviyr]

They named it after a button on their game controllers, I so must have one!

Interchangeable lenses

[JanneM]

For me, the whole point of LSR:s is the ability to change lenses as needed. Yes, the better image quality is nice too, but it's not _that_ huge a difference anymore. And this one (apart from being a Sony) has the drawback of being the same size as an SLR camera, without the benefit of switching lenses. I'd happily have either a pocketable point and shoot (small, light, inexpensive and quick and easy to use) or a DSLR (good image quality, great flexibility). This halfway thing is not the right thing for me.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[maswan]

See, this isn't "my" selling point for a DSLR, rather that all compacts are horribly slow. Both in startup and autofocus/shutter lag. This and light-sensitivity are much more important to me than interchangable lenses, assuming the lens on the camera is good enough of course.

Now, this particular camera is a first generation of its kind and it does have some issues (most touched on in the article and the dpreview: awkward lcd placement, no closeups, crippled burst mode). But I could see myself buying this kind of camera in a few generations.

Having gotten used to the tilt-and-swivel lcd on my everyday compact, I find it very inconvenient to pick up a DSLR and having to use the viewfinder. Sure, for manual focus it makes some sense, but that is a special case I care much less about, compared to getting resonable shots from the hip or from an arms-length up above my head, or taking pictures from the ground without having to crawl on it to see where I'm aiming.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[markdavis]

Lack of movie mode is what I think is insane! That, and no macro???? I have the D-828 and *LOVE IT*, it is a wonderful camera. Guess the R1 is *NOT* a suitable upgrade path, since although the 828 has a smaller sensor, it sounds like it is just as wide (angle), has same dual media, can tilt for up/down shots, has more than enough resolution (8MP), and has the missing movie and macro (like 1cm from the lens!!) modes.

Sony does this sometimes and it is very odd- they get a great idea for the next generation product and totally forget about what was successful BEFORE! The R1 will fail to attract people that liked the 727 and the 828 because it lacks features. And it will fail to attract people in the DSLR market because you can't change the lens! It is a lose-lose proposition.

I would like to see a F-929, an 828 with the new sensor with all the exact same fetures, plus add an HDTV 720P 16x9 movie mode (hey- it has the resolution, could have the CPU by now, can have enough storage for some short segments... the 828 can already do 640x480x30FPS).

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[JanneM]

I wasn't entirely clear. For a compact camera user (who already lives with a fixed lens and an electronic viewfinder) the largest gripe is usually image quality, especially at high ISO, due in large part to a small sensor. This Sony can be seen as an attempt to rectify that; throw on a sensor of the same size as a DSLR and you'll get comparative image quality. Of course, you'll get comparative size, weight and prize as well.

The Sony is the same size, weight and price range as a Canon 350D with the kit lens (a bit more, actually). It just isn't a compact camera anymore, and can't really compare to them. It throws away the huge advantage of small size entirely (which it has to do to use an APS size sensor). Apparently they also throw away other features compact users really like.

Instead it invites comparison with other cameras in the same size and price range - which are DSLRs. And from a DLSR users point of view, this is not all that compelling - in no small part because image quality is apparently not up where it should be and use of RAW format seems botched, but mostly because it lacks the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. The optics on this one is by all reviews superb. But you can't put on a really fast prime lens for nighttime photography; no real macro lens for insects or flowers; no long telephoto for sports or wildlife.

It relinquishes the benefits of a compact camera in order to compete with DSLRs on image quality. In the process, it pick up some of the same drawbacks (size and cost) but fails to incorporate any of the other benefits. And, in the end, it seems not to fully have achieved the desired image quality either.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[moosesocks]

Really?

That's nice and all for a film camera, but for a DSLR, there are several very distinct advantages for me, multilens support being only one of them.

I actually *like* having a real viewfinder. A low-resolution EVF or LCD screen just doesn't cut it for me, especially when taking shots that utilize a very shallow or very deep depth of field.

Secondly, the fact that there is virtually no power-on lag, and that there is absolutely no shutter lag is a big plus. Likewise, my canon DSLR dumps images (even RAW) to the CF card at a rate that is fast enough to let me shoot more or less continuously. Because of the huge benefits of RAW processing, I always shoot in RAW, and the fact that the sony requires a 9 second lag to save a RAW image makes the fature virutally worthless.

The single biggest feature of the DSLR however, is the ability to shoot in ISO 1600 or 3200 mode with very little visible noise. Imagine being able to take pictures in low light and indoors without a flash... It's that good. Fortunately, according to DPReview, ISO1600 performance is indeed above that of a normal compact camera, but not quite up to par with a real DSLR. This, in my mind, is the camera's ONLY saving grace. Unfortunately, they aren't the first to do this, and Fuji's approach doesn't require an expensive full-sized APS-C sensor (and lens to match) to do so which means they can implement it in a compact camera.

(in short, fuji's SuperCCD sensor has a bunch of extra photosensors that are normally used to extrapolate a little additional resolution, but in the case of the F10, these sensors are used to reduce noise in the surrounding sensors, resulting in fully-usable ISO1600 images. Sony's approach simply uses a larger sensor like in a DSLR, where the density of the photosensors is much lower, resulting in less electrical noise overall. The innovation here is that sony's camera has no real shutter/mirror mechanism which means that the sensor is exposed to light whenever the camera is on, allowing residual charges (noise) to build up on the CCD that have to be somehow 'cleared' before the photo is taken, hence the shutter lag.)

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[Furmy]

You should check out the Panasonic Lumix FZ-30.
I read/researched/demo'd/messed with a lot of different cameras when choosing one. I ended up with the Lumix FZ-5 because it's AF is a lot faster than it's competition (Sony H1, Canon S2IS, Kon-Min Z5).

I considered DSLR for a long time but I wanted the 'compact' size of the FZ-5, and didn't want to carry extra lenses. I've got a 5MP, fast AF, great lens (although not as nice as the glass on the FZ-20 and 30). I didn't get a few features that the Sony/Canon had - no flip lcd, no VGA video - but I did get a camera that takes better pictures. A DSLR would take much better shots in low light or at higher ISO (my FZ-5 is useless at ISO400) but DSLR didn't suit my needs.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[Reaperducer]

I won't buy an R1 because I have a nice F828 in my collection that I like better.

But Sony's done a good job of compensating for not having interchangable lenses. My '828 goes from 20mm to 200mm in just the optical part of the zoom. That means I can throw one camera in my bag and get the same range that my friends with Nikons get from dragging around a body and three lenses. The Sony costs less than a DSLR body and only 25% of the DSLR with a similar range and quality of lenses.

And although it's not the optimal solution, you can add accessories on to the Sony cams. I have a number of filters and fisheyes and wide angle lenses that screw on. Again, it's not optimal, but I'd rather blow dust off an exposed lens than try to blow it off some much more delicate sensor buried deep in my camera.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[JanneM]

And although it's not the optimal solution, you can add accessories on to the Sony cams. I have a number of filters and fisheyes and wide angle lenses that screw on. Again, it's not optimal, but I'd rather blow dust off an exposed lens than try to blow it off some much more delicate sensor buried deep in my camera.

It may well be a good solution for some people. All I argue is that this one sits very awkwardly between compact cameras on one hand, and system cameras on the other.

Screw-on extenders are a sort-of kind-of partial solution in some cases. You'll sacrifice quite a bit of image quality, though, and there are a lot of cases where this kind of add-on just isn't possible; you can't make the lens faster than f/2.8 no matter what you add on to the end. And with a set of addons, you have the same bulk and fiddliness you'd have with a DSLR.

Dust, by the way, is way overblown (sic). Sometimes people make it sound like you need to clean the sensor every month or something, which just isn't the case. I've had to use a blower to get rid of a speck once every six months. I have yet to need to do anything invasive (like actually wiping it or anything). Unless you live in a desert environment, dust just isn't a problem. And unlike fixed-lens cameras, if you _do_ get a speck, it's easy to get rid of yourself. When you get a visible particle in a fixed-lens camera you need to send it off for disassembly.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[pz]

Yes, the better image quality is nice too, but it's not _that_ huge a difference anymore.

Have you looked at properly exposed and printed shots from a decent dSLR (eg, a Canon Rebel XT) and a decent point and shoot (eg, a Canon SD450)? I'm not talking about viewing images on a computer screen, but looking at properly printed enlargements. With a dSLR you can get incredible, incredible detail and contrast that is just flat not possible from the lenses on point-and-shoot cameras. There still is a huge difference. Even the difference between entry level SLR optics and pro-quality optics (eg, Canon's L series lenses) produces a big step in image quality.

This is not to say that short back-focus optics have not become very good, but they're not quite up to the development that's been put into the 35mm format. Not yet, at least.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[JanneM]

Have you looked at properly exposed and printed shots from a decent dSLR (eg, a Canon Rebel XT) and a decent point and shoot (eg, a Canon SD450)?

Yep. I own a 350D. The image quality is absolutely better, especially for high ISO. But the image quality I got from my previous compact was certainly good enough for my use - or I thought it was until the DSLR spoiled me. Image quality was not the reason for me to look at a DSLR; the reason was the ability to change lenses (that and the optical viewfinder). The rest is all gravy.

By the way, I have yet to print a picture, ever. :)

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[Reaperducer]

You present some valid and iinteresting points. My only experience with dust was with my old film cameras. It was an ongoing battle. I don't live in a particularly dusty environment, but I do all of my shooting outdoors. Once a camera started with the dust, it was all downhill from there no matter what I did. Though, it might be possible that the brands I was using (Minolta and Yashika) were more prone to dust than a Canon or Nikon would be.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[Budenny]

But you also get dust. Little talked about, but if you change lenses much, dust is a real problem. They are not like the old analog SLRs, these things are magnets for it.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[JanneM]

But you also get dust. Little talked about, but if you change lenses much, dust is a real problem. They are not like the old analog SLRs, these things are magnets for it.

I've had my 350d since April. I change lenses frequently. I have so far had to puff away one visible speck with a blower, an operation that took all of ten seconds. While the issue certainly exists, dust really is far overrated as a problem for DSLRs.

And that problem does not go away with fixed-lens cameras. Compacts with a zoom pull air as they operate, and they aren't assembled in clean-rooms in any case, so you run the risk of getting visible specks there as well. With a DSLR it is easy to get it off by yourself; with a fixed-lens unit you'll have to send it off for disassembly and cleaning.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[Joe Decker]

Dust, by the way, is way overblown (sic). Sometimes people make it sound like you need to clean the sensor every month or something, which just isn't the case.

Depends a lot on how often you change lenses, and to some extent the lenses you use (the push-pull zooms seem a bit worse.) I shoot a lot, I change lenses a lot, I do find it a lot easier to clean my sensor at least once a month, but in general I agree the difficulty of the problem is overblown.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[NeMon'ess]

I believe some Minolta compacts have startup times of 1 second or just under.

Re:Interchangeable lenses

[pz]

By the way, I have yet to print a picture, ever. :)

That's exactly where you really see the difference. Monitor screens, except for the really, really good ones (eg, the 9M pixel T221 behemoths with 200 screen dpi that IBM designed for places like Sandia Labs) don't come close to 300 DPI of a standard printer, forget a good printer. The detail from a properly exposed, properly printed photo from a 350D using L glass is impressive.

R1 is a Hybrid because:

[Anonymous Coward]

It has an apc-sized sensor (2/3rds the size of a 35mm piece of film.) Most other non DSLR cameras have very small sensors which limit their high ISO capabilities.

Re:Who cares?

[CyricZ]

Yes, people will still buy from Sony. Why is that? Because, like it or not, they do offer products that some people will want, even if they also offer products that others despise.

I have talked to a number of people here in Britain about the rootkit incident. Basically nobody knows about it. I had my cousins in North America ask people there, and it was the same. The vast majority of people they talked to do not have a clue as to what had happened.

While the geek community may be horrified about what has happened, the general populace in both Britain and North America most likely does not give a damn at all. They are most likely not even aware of what had happened. Thus they will continue to support Sony.

As for Slashdot covering OpenServer, there's no reason for Slashdot not to. If some news item arises involving it, then Slashdot should post it. There are still many companies around who depend on UnixWare and OpenServer. It's still a very important product, even if the company which now owns them has done much to annoy the computing community.

Pictures?

[Jozer99]

Anyone got pictures?

Re:Pictures?

[this great guy]

Anyone got pictures ?

How the hell am I supposed to take a picture of the R1 with the R1 itself ? Hmm ?

Re:Pictures?

[this great guy]

How the hell am I supposed to take a picture of the R1 with the R1 itself ? Hmm ?

Oh wait I could use a mirror. Damn I am a blasted idiot.

Re:Pictures?

[this great guy]

My post was supposed to be funny, it's not a flamebait.

Re:Pictures?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig says it all.

Re:Pictures?

[Anonymous Coward]

One guy did but he got sued...

Re:Pictures?

[z0idberg]

there are quite a few reviews with pictures:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_r1-revi ew/index.shtml
http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/sony/cybe rshot/dscr1.html
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/r1.htm l

This is the same idea as the FujiFilm S9000/S9500 i.e. a DSLR/compact hybrid.

So overall, the thing's a wash.

[RasputinAXP]

This is a D-SLR camera without movie mode, interchangable lenses or anything resembling snapshot capability. From TFA:

... the R1's is permanently attached....You also sacrifice a movie-capture mode, which Sony omitted for no good reason, and a good close-up mode; the closest this camera can get to its subject is 13 inches.

The author also laments that there's no macro mode, which is kind of redeundant when you've already said you can't get any closer than 13 inches. And all for $1000!

Personally, I'd go with the Nikon D-series or a Canon Digital Rebel for a lot less with a few lenses and be able to actually get near some of my subjects.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[Lehk228]

many cameras have a minumum distance and also have a seperate macro mode that goes far inside that distance.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[damsa]

Canon and Nikon, in their higher end non interchangable lense cameras use higher quality L series lenses for Canon or ED series lenses. You can get a Rebel XT and a lense for 1k but it's unlikely that lenses is an L lense. Plus for most people in this price range they usually carry one lense anyways. So I can see a market for this kind of camera, good lense, good sensor, without the need for interchangable lenses. Sony uses a Carl Zeiss lense. To get interchangable Carl Zeiss lenses, it would cost a lot more than the consumer grade Rebel Xt lense or the Nikon D lense.

This camera bridges the gap between those that would've bought something like a Canon Pro1 with an L lense, and someone buying a Rebel XT with a not so great lense. If you look at it like that, its not a bad deal. Unless it comes with some sort of rootkit.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

you can't get any closer than 13 inches. ...
I'd go with the Nikon D-series or a Canon Digital Rebel for a lot less with a few lenses and be able to actually get near some of my subjects.

What would that be, a microscope?

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[RasputinAXP]

Try taking shots of (for example) a ring on someone's finger with a compact camera.

Gotta get close and in macro mode.

Did it this weekend when I took a pic of my now-fiancee's new ring. Can't do that with this camera if there's no macro mode setting and a 13 inch minimum distance.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[RasputinAXP]

This camera has a minimum distance of greater than a foot and no macro mode. What's Sony's excuse?

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[RasputinAXP]

The Sony Zeiss lenses are nice, a friend had one of the larger 5 megapixel cybershot-DVD cameras a little while ago.

The Nikon D50 body-only is $599.95 at B&H, and they offer a non-Nikon kit of the D50 plus a Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6 G AF Lens for $669.95 (though I haven't bought it yet, my Nikon-loving friends tell me to skip the Nikon kit with the 18-55mm DX Zoom Nikkor). Starting with a solid body at about $600 is a good way to go, and there's a ton of lenses out there for it. If you're spending up to $1000, you know enough to want a couple of lenses anyway, right?

I can see where you're coming from with the market point, though.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[ZachPruckowski]

now-fiancee's new ring

Congratulations and good luck to the both of you.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[Reaperducer]

The previous generation of this camera, the F-828, has a macro mode, and has a very good movie mode. It's also made of metal, while this R1 is plastic. The '828 also has a wider range than the R1. Sony seems to have taken many steps backward in order to jam a larger sensor in there. But in terms of picture size, it's not all that different.

I wonder what happened here behind the scenes. I wonder if it was it an engineering problem, or if they didn't want to cannibalize their F-828 sales.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[penguin-collective]

This is a D-SLR camera without movie mode, interchangable lenses or anything resembling snapshot capability.

It's not an SLR.

Personally, I'd go with the Nikon D-series or a Canon Digital Rebel for a lot less with a few lenses and be able to actually get near some of my subjects.

Where can I get a 24-120(equiv)/2.8-4.8 lens for the Nikon or Canon for $1000 (or at any price)? And how can I get rid of the mirror noise and vibration on those cameras?

The R1 is a different kind of camera; not better, not worse, just different. I think the R1 doesn't quite hit the spot, but I hope Sony will try again and others will follow suit. We need more cameras like tihs.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[Kiryat Malachi]

I don't know about the 18-55, but the 18-70 that comes with the D70 *is* a worthwhile lens to pick up.

And on any DSLR body, Nikon, Canon, *anything*, you owe it to yourself to pick up a 1.8/50 prime. They're cheap. You have no excuse not to.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[Hast]

I have a 28/1.8 Sigma for my 20D, and I have to say that for a long time it was my favourite lens.

Since then I've gotten a 10-22mm which is just *insane*. It's not as fast though, so indoors you tend to need a flash. And it's by no stretch a cheap lens either.

But in many ways it's exemplifies why you should go with the dSLR route. Begin with a cheap(-ish) 350D/D50 and kit lens. After a while trade up and get some better Sigma/Tamron lenses (they are quite good compared to the first party ones). In my experience the 3rd party lenses are quite comparable wrt optical quality, but the autofocus tend to lag and be a bit noisy.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[jpop32]

The author also laments that there's no macro mode, which is kind of redeundant when you've already said you can't get any closer than 13 inches. And all for $1000!

The limiting factor on any consumer camera I used was always the light sensitivity. I'd trade movie recording and 13" 'macro' for a decent ISO1600 capability. For me, that alone would extend the usability of the camera much more than being able to macro up to any distance or record a movie. The capability of taking night pictures (concerts, outdoors at night!) with sub-1s exposure is truly exciting.

Besides, lens like that for an dSLR would usually set you back more than $1000.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[RasputinAXP]

Thanks very much :)

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash.

[Kiryat Malachi]

I have a 12-24/4.0 Tokina for my Nikon. I love it, but I'd *never* trade my 50/1.8 for it. The wide angle is nice, but I find I use it for special reasons. The 50 focal is a great focal length, and having f1.8 available allows me to play DOF tricks. The fact that, brand new, it cost me 100 bucks doesn't hurt. Plus, when it comes to the fixed primes - those lens designs have been optimized over *decades* at this point. Zooms are still being tweaked, but lens geometry on a fast prime is fitted to a T.

Sigma/Tamron/Tokina make decent lenses, and *sometimes* their lenses are better than the 1st party lenses. But they also make some very cheap lenses, and their best still doesn't compare to the best that Nikon and Canon can put out. For instance, my 12-24; Tokina's is just as good as, or even better than, Nikon's, while being half the price. On the other hand, I have a 70-300 from Tamron. It's trash; it was cheap trash, which is why I have it (I needed *something* for tele, and it does function okay as a macro lens), but given the choice I'd certainly have gone after Nikon's 2.8 tele lens instead. I don't reject 3rd party lenses offhand, but like anything else - do the research before you slap down the plastic.

(The slower/louder AF is usually due to using a screw-drive AF instead of the newer PWM motor drive AF used in many of the 1st party, and some 3rd party, lenses.)

Everything you need to know

[Tom Davies]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120603sonydscr 1review.asp

Summary -- fantastic lens, but despite the large sensor inferior noise performance to entry level DSLRs.

Re:Everything you need to know

[Rdickinson]

The noise is a function of craming more megapixels onto the sensor.

The Canon 350d (8mp) and the Nikon (6 or 8mp) on the same sensor size.

People who 'know' dont equate number of pixels to image quality, theres many other things that take prescedence, nut to the masses things like Carl Zeiss and 10mp sell.

Re:Everything you need to know

[node 3]

His reviews tend to have a major bias in favor of Sony. It's annoying to read a review of a Sony camera, and see in the "compared to" chart there's a Canon or Nikon camera that beats it hands-down, but the conclusion for the Sony camera is "Highly Recommended" and the Canon (or Nikon) was merely given "Recommended".

Look at the list of negatives on the conclusion for the R1 and ask yourself how such a camera can be "Highly Recommended". How can the camera have such problems, but still get the highest rating? What would he rate an R1 that had the same lens (which he gushes over), but also addressed the issues he has with it? "Super Highly Recommended"? Even his list of "pros" in the conclusion are full of caveats.

I still enjoy his reviews, but his love of Sony does tend to negatively impact their value.

Re:Everything you need to know

[ceoyoyo]

The lens evidently uses some nice glass, but it's not nearly as fast as the old DSC-F828. It starts at F2.8 (the 828 is 2.0) but while the 828 has a constant max aperture over it's zoom range (F2.0), the R1 isn't constant -- it drops to 4.5.

Re:Everything you need to know

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's not at all true. DP review favored towards Sony? I'd say it's favored to Canon, but really it's not favored towards anyone. No camera is perfect and he says as much. However for the price considerations it is a really good camera.

I'm in!

[Construct X]

As long as I have to purchase another redundant proprietary memory format (Hello xD), that costs nearly twice as much per MB as SD and CF, then I don't want to be right.

Re:I'm in!

[damsa]

It uses Compact Flash or Sony Memory Stick. Have fun with your new camera.

Re:I'm in!

[Construct X]

It was a joke...

Re:I'm in!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello xD

Why, hello to you too. :D ;) :)

A simple choice for you, OSTG/Slashdot

[AeroNate]

You may choose between advertising for Sony and counting on my bajillion-per-day lurker page views to make money yourselves. Another "story" like this and I'm history.

Re:A simple choice for you, OSTG/Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

You may choose between advertising for Sony and counting on my bajillion-per-day lurker page views to make money yourselves. Another "story" like this and I'm history.

Y'all hear that? There goes a whaaaaambulance!

Re:A simple choice for you, OSTG/Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

O RLY? Microsoft is considered 10 times worse than Sony, at least as far as slashdotters care, but you're not complaining about the thousands of XBox stories this week.

Good review

[a_ghostwheel]

Good review can be found here.

Re:Good review

[DougMackensie]

Or here, D. Pogue does a good job of explaining how this camera has a different potential audience than a point and click or a DSLR.

Re:Good review

[errordactyl]

That's the same article as linked to in the original story. The guy does a good job of not understanding cameras and is full of himself to boot ("Understanding its significance requires reading four of the techiest paragraphs you'll read all day, but it's worth the slog." -- ya, right, not even close buddy)

He does get one thing right: that sony's new ccd is cool because it can do compact digicam things and it's big

But he forgets that 24mm "true 35mm equivalent" (i.e. with the fov of a 24mm lens imaging on 35mm film) lenses have been on a few digital compacts (nikon's 8400, some olympus (8080? 7070?)). I believe what he's thinking of here is the main advantage of having a mirror-less (non SLR) camera is that you can move the lens closer to the imaging surface which makes it easiar to design wide angle lenses. Rangefinders were popular for this because their wide-angles didn't have to employ fancy retrofocal designs in order to get below a 35mm focal length and still fill the frame. So it's an advantage over the SLRs in this way but I bet the optics are about as good as a blowjob from a girl with braces.

I applaud sony for having the guts to do something different and encourage other manufacturers to follow suit. A modular digicam in the style and format of a rangefinder (or smaller) with a reasonably fast interface and a very strong line of modestly priced wide angles would be wicked.

Re:Good review

[errordactyl]

I shall take the lens/blowjob comment back. Blowjobs from girls with braces can be good and so can this lens according to dpreview.

Sony? A new camera?

[RowboatRobot]

Wow. That's all I have to say. I mean, a new camera. And sony! And lenses which can't be exchanged (trapping you in to their own proprietary products and services), wow! This is all so surprising!

Re:Sony? A new camera?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. That's all I have to say. I mean, a new camera. And sony! And lenses which can't be exchanged (trapping you in to their own proprietary products and services), wow! This is all so surprising!

... and a rootkit that automatically mails your photos to Sony if they contain too much flesh tones...

Re:Sony? A new camera?

[markandrew]

please explain how having a fixed lens 'traps' you into 'their own proprietary products and services'. what products and services are you thinking of, exactly? are you suggesting that fixed lenses need special filters and/or lens caps? or that fixed-lens cameras can't use standard tripods or carry cases?

you do know that practically every camera manufacturer in existence makes fixed-lens cameras, and that they outsell interchangeable lens models, right? right?

Sony Camera

[this great guy]

Strangely enough, pictures of objects showing the word $sys$ always end up being completely black...

I have one on the way...

[david_bonn]

I'm buying one based on this review by Phil Askey.

My feelings are that Sony is a great hardware company being tormented by its music and movies divisions. Whatever genuis in Tokyo came up with the idea of acquiring media companies needs to be beaten. Badly.

Re:I have one on the way...

[Lehk228]

great hardware.... right..... have you bought Sony consumer gear made recently? it is worse than their major brand competitors and about comparable to the decent generic hardware.

Re:I have one on the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, so much for moral standards against anti-consumer corporate psychopathy.

reminds me of what someone posted in a mid-way rootkit topic, that its damn near hopeless thinking people will each and individually boycott a company.

Re:I have one on the way...

[damsa]

Yeah but the R1 is Prosumer, not consumer so it makes it okay.

Re:I have one on the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

See, I think that _because_ Sony owns the whole vertical chain from content creator to content viewer, and 80% of the software _and_ hardware in-between the two, is their only advantage over Apple.

Wouldn't Jobs love to have Sony's music library to swing around however it would like.... Just decide one day that we're going to start selling music online without begging to anyone from the RIAA for permission to open for business?

-AC

Re:I have one on the way...

[10Ghz]

Yep. It's not like Sony Electronics pushes non-standard stuff like ATRAC and MemoryStick over widely used alternatives. No sirree!

Re:Who cares?

[masklinn]

No one but a tool would want a R1 though. RTFA, the lens is fixed, there is no macro mode, no burst worth speaking of (3 pics is not what I call burst), no video, no fast-switch preset modes (akin to Canon's Best Shot modes), ...

The only things it has going for it is 10MPix photos that you get on SLR and live preview that you get on compacts... I guess I should say "yay", but to me innovation sounds much closer to Panasonic putting an optic stabilizer on his FX8 and FX9 compacts AND at an affordable price (instead of the numeric "nonstabilizer" everyone else has).

SLR Photography and Cameras...

[Cherita Chen]

Here is a link to more information on SLR photography, and the advantages of Digital SLR's over compact models. For anyone interested in learning more about digital photography, this is a must read...

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/photo_and_video/ digital-slr-reviews/fullstory.html

Re:Who cares?

[Lehk228]

you get live preview with a DSLR --the viewfinder-- unlike point and shits, the viewfinder on a DSLR actually sees through the lens and filters themselves to show what your picture will look like including focus and zoom done more precise than extra markings etched into the viewfinder

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up! I don't know what he was saying but it sounded like it was about cameras and stuff.

As an owner of the DSC-R1

[outofpaper]

I have to say I'm quite pleased with it. The ability to see what your image is going to look like before you take it is quite rewarding. Additionally the Ziess optics are spectacular.

Should I go more indepth with the benifits of this camera?

Re:As an owner of the DSC-R1

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the resolution of the LCD preview versus a large viewfinder on an SLR? -- point is, a viewfinder provides a higher fidelity rendition of the scene before pressing the shutter release. Or, am I missing your point?

That said, I'm certain that I will purchase an R1 or similar in the future to compliment my DSLR (and SLR).

Re:As an owner of the DSC-R1

[metkat]

yes please- I don't care so much about the live preview, but I'm really excited because I expect there's no mirror slap. I make porn, we shoot stills and video at the same time, and I would _love_ to have a decent camera that didn't leave us with a stream of 'k-klick, k-klicks' in our audio...

Re:As an owner of the DSC-R1

[markandrew]

your opinion is worthless here, stranger. 1st hand experience counts for nothing alongside all these excellent, well-informed expert opinions from the world's leading digital camera exponents. you are not welcome here.

Re:As an owner of the DSC-R1

[tim_uk]

Use a blimp.

I've been shooting stills in TV studios and on location movie sets and sound stages for years, usually during live takes and no sound recordist has ever looked up from his desk and snarled at me.

And I've shot with very loud SLRs both film and now digital, sometimes standing next to the main camera to match the eyelines.

no freaking way...

[YesIAmAScript]

Canon is a good company. Their SLRs are fantastic. But I'm sorry, they lag in the point and shoot market. Canon has finally nearly completed rolling out the DIGIC II chip in their P&S line. What does this mean? Well, finally, their P&S cameras aren't slow as slugs.

Sony rolled their lines to modern processors starting two years ago, they had switched their line over a long time ago now. Canon just got started 1 year ago and still hasn't finished. Look at the Powershot G5, because it has an old chip, it has enormous shutter lag and slow shot-to-shot time.

I tried to buy the G5, I demoed it, I just couldn't buy it. The Sony DSC-V3, with its up to date processor was a million times faster a startup, preview, lag, etc. And the optics on the two are identical.

So, although I like some Canons (the SD### series), they have been slow to advance in the P&S market. Oh, and they buy their CCDs (in P&S cameras, not their CMOS sensors in dSLRs) from Sony.

SLR

[Reality Master 101]

I was just thinking about this. Is it me, or is an SLR mechanism in a digital camera totally and completely stupid? The point of the SLR was to be able to look through the lens and see exactly what the lens was seeing. With a digital viewfinder, who needs all that extra mechanical crap? The only conclusion I can come to is that the camera makers are adding the SLR to appeal to "traditional" photographers.

Are there cameras with the extra good sensors along with interchangeable lenses, but without the SLR that I actually think is a negative?

Re:SLR

[Rdickinson]

I have a Minolta A2 - probably the best Electronic view finder on the market.

Its dreadfull(for image quality) when compared with the through the lens viewfinder of an SLR, there so much clearer and brighter.

its usefull for having grid patterns, histograms etc, but given the choice, I'd rather have the dSLR.

Also up until recently (with this sony aparently) running hte sensor, a LARGE sensor all the time suckd the battery power.

My friends canon 300d can take as many pictures with one battery (similar 'size') as my A2 does two - and I'm working in power saving mode (no LCD, eye sensor EVF etc.

Re:SLR

[Oh the Huge Manatee]

is an SLR mechanism in a digital camera totally and completely stupid?

Digital SLRs are not "completely stupid." One major benefit is that SLR design almost entirely eliminates the "shutter lag" that is common to most other digital cameras. The top Nikon DSLRs have shutter lag of less than 40 milliseconds; compare that to many non-SLR digital cameras where you sometimes wait half a second (or longer) between when you press the shutter button and when the picture is taken.

Digital viewfinders also use up MUCH more power than SLR designs. Nikon's DSLRs nowadays have a battery life of around 2,000 shots; most cameras that use digital viewfinders can only shoot a tiny fraction of that number without requiring a new battery or a recharge.

Finally, DSLRs allow established photographers to use any of the hundreds (thousands?) of existing lenses for compatible cameras.

Certainly there's a place for cameras with digital viewfinders. But DSLRs offer unique benefits that warrant a place as well.

Re:SLR

[michaeltoe]

Digital viewfinder = crap.

Re:SLR

[Rdickinson]

Most of the lag on consumer cameras is focusing time, not shutter time. SLR's tend to have better focus technology than even prosumer digi's.

I can set my A2 to manual focus and snap very quickly, with zero noise, an advantage when you need to be quiet. Effectivly non SLR digital cameras dont have shutters...

True about the power consumption though.

Re:SLR

[tigeba]

For one thing, you can brace the camera much better using the viewfinder than you can holding the camera at arms length gawking at the LCD display. Most LCD displays are not really large enough to assess focus, where a viewfinder is usually a much larger effective viewing area.

There are exceptions of course. An LCD would be pretty handy if you want to take a picture at ground level.

Re:SLR

[Rdickinson]

LCD screen != viewfinder, most cameras have both.

The minolta A2's viwefinder is hinged so you can look down verticaly on the camera pointing horizontal, very handy, and far better IQ than the LCD, and less power consumption.

(d)SRL still pwns it.

Re:SLR

[Keeper]

Yes, it does seem stupid if you don't know how digital sensors work.

Without the "SLR mechanism", a lot of technical compromises have to be made. The biggest thing you'd be able to relate to is probably response time -- it takes non-trivial amounts of time to clear the sensor and switch the sensor into picture taking mode.

If you've ever wondered why every single point and shoot camera has a bit of "lag" between hitting the shutter button and the camera actually taking a picture, this is why. (on some point and shoots, the lag time is greatly reduced if you disable the live preview)

Re:SLR

[damsa]

Running an LCD takes quite a bit of juice. So for some photographers, I am thinking maybe sports photographers, they don't really need an LCD screen, so you can turn it off. LCDs also don't offer the same amount of color and clarity especially if you are using filters and the like. So unless LCD resolution rivals real life and real life lighting, I can't see how they can replace traditional eyes. But that's just me talking out of my butt.

Re:SLR

[totoanihilation]

Now people in this thread have mentioned that electronic viewfinders suck, there's also a technical reason: Large sensors, like CPUs, suffer from transistor leakage. The longer they operate, the hotter they get, and the worse they perform. By only activating the sensor when needed, you get a much cleaner image.

Re:SLR

[Anonymous Coward]

For one thing, if you would like to manually focus at a certain depth, you need an SLR mechanism, as the resolution on electronic viewfinders is way too low. This camera is a nice toy, but nothing for serious applications.

Re:SLR

[ChrisMaple]

I'd like to see a pellicle design in a digital SLR. No lag waiting for the mirror to flop up.

Re:SLR

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

The point of the SLR was to be able to look through the lens and see exactly what the lens was seeing. With a digital viewfinder, who needs all that extra mechanical crap?

Somebody who actually wants to see exactly what the lens is seeing, of course, as opposed to a low-resolution digital rendering thereof. You know, so as to see the subject of the picture in detail before you shoot it.

The only conclusion I can come to is that the camera makers are adding the SLR to appeal to "traditional" photographers.

Indeed. Your problem is that you've failed to conclude that those "traditional" photographers might be on to something.

Re:SLR

[AK Marc]

Finally, DSLRs allow established photographers to use any of the hundreds (thousands?) of existing lenses for compatible cameras.

I see comments like this all the time, but I don't understand something. How is the lens related to the flapping mirror? If you had a CCD capturing and retransmitting the picture to a viewfinder, but ommitted the flapping mirror, then you would be able to have the same lenses on that body as the SLR version, but the camera wouldn't be an SLR. It seems to me that "SLR" and "interchangable lenses" have become confused. People associate them, but it isn't a requirement.

Big = Good

[dindi]

All I want from an SLR is standard size lens, so I can walk into a store, buy a fisheye, or a 200mm + tele-objective

I would even settle with 4-5 megapix, as most pictures I watch on the LCD screen, TV or projector, and my printouts are 20cm at max....

So it is nice to put SLR quality into a matchstick, but I would prefer an affordable full size body in (higher end) compact resolutions.....

Just for reference: I have an old canon crame for "real" photos, and a nicon 2 megapix for whatever else (compact coolpix series) and I am really looking into something more serious (as I take a lot of pix, and travel a lot locally) but I am not willing to shell out $2000 for anything just to be able to use third party optics ....

just my 2 cents .... I am sure many would like an affordable SLR just for the optics, but I do not see anyone providing it ...

am i alone?

Re:Big = Good

[damsa]

Buy an Olympus or Pentax. They are relatively cheap compared with Canons and the Nikons and their optics aren't too horrible. But then again all of your photographer friends will snicker at you. Sigma's are relatively affordable as well. But their lenses aren't known to be the greatest. There are a lot of affordable choices.

Re:Big = Good

[dindi]

I appreciate the tip, I am looking into Pentax .... I hate Olympus, I had an Olympus digi and it lasted 2 months ...
I abused it, but it should have taken it. I need something that can take lots of shaking (lotse dirt roads where I go), sitting in a backpack riding bikes, quads, and lots of sand and sun as well - well I moved to the tropics, so I need something that can take up with all the crap .

Thanks again, I quite honestly did not know pentax still existed (had some non-digi pentax stuff, and I liked them back in the nineties:) ).

Photographer friends: none :) I am a happy amateur and all I want is optics I can change, but digital ...

appreciate the tip again.
cheers

Re:Big = Good

[radish]

What's wrong with a low end Canon DSLR? Digital Rebel runs for what, $600 these days? It's a great camera (I used to have one myself). Takes any Canon EF series lens, from the $40 kit 18-55 to a nice $15k L telephoto :)

Re:Big = Good

[dindi]

oooh, thanks!

I see a price $668, that looks good. I will definetely keep an eye on that cam too, especially when

1. Xmas is over and prices drop (January)
2. Xmas is over and my wallet recuperates :)

thanks

ps: Continuous: 3.0 fps up to 14 JPEG / 4 RAW frames - that could be a bit faster though, well maybe on smaller resolutions that can be higher. Google on that, I will.

Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what divisions are responsible for what. There are people above all of them who orchestrate the whole mess, and if they are unwilling to clean house, I'm unwilling to do business with them.

The new architecture also allows wider-angle optic

[Rdickinson]

"The new architecture also allows wider-angle optics to be used"

Cheaply, its 24mm equivelant, isnt that wide angle, but they can make it decent and cheap - because its so close to the sensor.

Many uzi prosumer choices are better than the Sony

[winkydink]

uzi = ultra zoom.

I'm very fond of the Panasonic FZ20. 36-432mm f2.8 lens with optical image stabilization. If you hunt around, you can probably find for 1/2 of the Sony. There's plenty others too that offer better performance, IMHO.

For the SLR fan, I prefer Nikon to Canon (I have a D70s), but the arguments on this rival vi vs. emacs. Current thinking is to buy the one that fels best in your hands (whis is why I bought the D70s). A D50 body can be had for $550 + $700 for the shipping-next-week 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens (27-300mm 35mm equiv) gets you enough camera to keep you busy for a while before you start adding more lenses. Add a 50mm f/1.8 for portraiture/low light for under $100.

Olympus E Series, Anyone?

[JoshDanziger]

This camera seems ominously similar to the Olympus E-10 and E-20 cameras. The camera used a prism to split light between the sensor and the viewfinder. You could turn the sensor on and use that instead of the viewfinder. The lens was also fixed, like this Sony camera. Of course, it was only a 4MP camera, but that was years ago!

I don't really think that there's anything to see here.

Re:Olympus E Series, Anyone?

[madstork2000]

I was just about to post the same comment. Olympus has been doing this for years... I still use my E10 regularly, and I can definately say it is *NOT* a compact camera. Anyway, dpreview has a very detailed (as usual) review of the camera at: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

-MS2K

Re:Olympus E Series, Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Olympus E-20 and it has all those Nice features combined..

+ 5-Mpix (E10 was 4mpix)
+ 4/3 ratio (ideal for printing so no wasted pixels)
+ Simultanoius LCD/SLR technology , with swing-lcd
+ Virtually silent (no anonying Mirror-slap)
+ Good quality lense
+ Combined Leaf + Electronic shutter
+ Flash sync with ALL electrocinc flashes upto 1/4000

My only wish they could make someday a E-30 or E-50 with same feats but Oly 4/3 mount compatible

Re:Olympus E Series, Anyone?

[Glock27]

I love how your comments (and the GP) haven't been modded up - I was going to post about the E-10 and E-20 myself. They are very innovative designs.

The one thing you forgot to mention about the E-series cameras is that you can get great addon lenses. For under $1000, you can get an F 2.8 600 mm. telephoto - a VERY expensive lens for 35 mm. cameras.

This Sony sounds quite unappealing, really. I wonder why this particular camera was worthy of a Slashdot story?

Re:Who cares?

[Trogre]

But you know you'll still be first in line when the PS3 comes out.

Of course you'll have to push past me first.

Why electronic viewfinders are better

[G4from128k]

I've been using a Minolta Dimage 7 and then an A2 since 2001 and vastly prefer electronic viewfinders (EVF) to traditional optical ones. Some of the benefits include:

1. Better understanding of the exposure: On an optical finder, the dynamic range of the eye automatically handles dark shadows and bright highlights that the camera cannot - its too easy to see a great picture that the camera can't get. An EVF gives me a better idea if I'm blowing out the sky or losing detail in the darkness. An EVF gives me instant visual feedback on what the picture will look like before I hit the shutter button.
2. Extensive programmable informational overlays: An EVF can overlay a huge amount of data about the image, the camera's mode, the user-interface state, image histogram, sighting lines, etc. Or I can turn it all off for an uncluttered view.
3. Instant post-shutter review: An EVF can display the actual picture taken immediately after the shot. I don't have to pull the camera away from my eye to check the results on an external screen (that's hard to see in day light anyway).
4. Magnification: With an EVF, one can zoom into a bit of detail in the live image to check the quality of the exposure or focus. It's like using a magnifier in a darkroom or a loupe on a print (the A2 offers 4X magnification). This is something that no optical finder can handle.
5. No viewfinder alignment/cutoff issues: Unlike an optical veiwfinder, an EVF shows exactly 100% of the image perfectly aligned and centered. Its more WYSIWYG than an optical finder.
6. Amplification in darkness: In low lighting conditions the EVF can boost the gain to provide a useful image. It's not night vision by any means, but it does help.

I'll admit that an EVF isn't perfect (even the A2's EVF needs more pixels), but I'll never go back to an optical viewfinder again. I look forward to better sensors and better EVFs

Re:Why electronic viewfinders are better

[Vila, Bob]

I think that a good optical viewfinder with a split prism focusing screen makes manual focusing quicker and easier than any EVF can. I'd rather not have to use controls to zoom in on an image just to check if I'm in focus.

I agree, however, that EVFs have their upsides. They definately have their downsides as well. I have a Digital Rebel with (from what I hear), a pretty average optical viewfinder. Even so, after 5000 shots I have never missed having an EVF. I'm not sure what it is -- if it's the stability of having the camera up against your eye, or the instantaneous shutter response.

To incorporate an EVF *and* an optical viewfinder active at the same time on a DSLR, you've got to split the incoming light between at least two destinations, meaning that both viewfinders *and* the autofocus suffer. It also means keeping the sensor constantly active, increasing noise in the image. I'd rather have one or the other, but not both. And for me, I prefer the optical viewfinder.

To each his own, eh? Makes for a wide variety of cameras, at the very least. ;)

Re:Why electronic viewfinders are better

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I hate EVFs. It's hard to see anything in the dark, hard to do manual focusing, and if the camera has a decent LCD on it, then it's kinda redundant. I wish the DSLRs would use pivoting LCDs and offer an easy live preview option, then it would be the best of both worlds.

Re:Why electronic viewfinders are better

[TrumpetPower!]

You've never used a camera with a good viewfinder, I'll bet. Even my Canon Digital Rebel has a somewhat sucky viewfinder, but it's so much better than any EVF could possibly be it's not even funny.

With a real viewfinder, there's absolutely no lag as you pan around. The image is perfectly sharp. Manual focus varies to not-hard with the Rebel to near-trivial with a good viewfinder. It works just fine in low light: I can set up a shot lit by a single distant candle without trouble, something truly impossible with an EVF. And on and on.

Exposure is trivial to check after the shot on the display on the back of the camera, especially with the histogram. Any camera made in the past few decades will include at least an exposure meter in the viewfinder, and modern ones will include aperture / shutter speed, shots remaining, focus confirmation points, and anything else you might want. You don't need to magnify an optical viewfinder, as it's already sharper than any EVF could possibly hope to be.

If you really want to know what an SLR viewfinder should be like, pick up a Canon 1 series (or whatever Nikon's equivalent is). Or, even better, try a rangefinder--there's few better ways to look through a camera lens than the way Leica does it.

When you've got an EVF with instant response, at least a few megapixels, and the exact same dynamic range and color rendition as the camera's sensors, we'll talk. Until then, even the best EVF isn't going to compare to a low-end SLR film viewfinder.

Cheers,

b&

Re:Why electronic viewfinders are better

[ejaw5]

Here's an EVF test for you (I've never done this, just looked at a few EVFs at the stores): Put the camera in continuous shoot mode and take as many frames of a running soccer player, surfer, or any other action shots. Can the EVF/LCD keep up with the panning so you are able to frame each shot? What about frame rate?

Re:Why electronic viewfinders are better

[metroplex]

Uuh, you obviously have never used a camera with a GOOD viewfinder. I have and am still using it, a Nikon F100. And the advantages you list don't make a lot of sense:

1. It's true that "the dynamic range of the eye automatically handles dark shadows and bright highlights that the camera cannot", but this is the way you will learn to understand how the camera translates real lighting situations on film/ccd. If you're used to EVFs, you won't be able to guess lighting with a normal viewfinder.

2. The traditional viewfinder of any good camera will display all the information you need. I can see time, aperture, EV compensation, flash ready light, flash compensation, which sensor will be used for AF, what kinf of light metering i'm using, the state of the battery, if the image is on focus, the number of remaining shots... is it enough?

3. Some will find this useful, but I personally find annoying to see every photo again after you've taken it. Just shoot a few and then check them, if you have a digital camera.

4. I guess this "magnification" is digital, and thus provides no gain in quality. I'm sure you see a LOT more detail with a good viewfinder than with a digital one, even at the maximum zoom setting.

5. My viewfinder shows 98% of the picture, but I can see it all half an inch away from the viewfinder. The viewfinders of other cameras show 100%, some even more (in rangefinder cameras)

6. If you have a small, dark viewfinder, this can be useful, but if you have a large luminous one, the eye works much better than digital gain.

So, I'm still waiting for an almost affordable camera with a viewfinder on par with those on film SLRs. It's a feature I'd miss so much on a consumer DSLR, i can't think of going digital right now.

This is ancient history.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this being announced now? This is ancient history, Sony announced the R1 long back. In fact, on Dec-1 they even announced a firmware update. Check here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120101dscr1fir mware.asp

Umm.... wake up slashdot.

Re:Who cares?

[external400kdiskette]

Whilst this discussion was inevitably going to end up about rootkits instead of cameras as all Sony articles will be for the forseeable future it might not have such a big affect on Sony as people will still get their favourite music irrespective of the label it's on and Sony will continue to do what it does best, expensive sleek looking stuff that certain people cant get their hands off. I mean the idea of a major company shipping viruses with its product knowingly is beyond horrible as it's the kind of behaviour you expect from some teenage morons.

Re:Who cares?

[damsa]

Thank god someone knows what Single Lense Reflex means. I was about to kill myself.

Re:Who cares?

[masklinn]

I was of course talking about a video screen live preview, which is the only "innovation" of the R1.

(and quite a few recent point and shots got rid of the viewfinder altogether, which is at best a questionable decision but well...)

Re:Why Sony? Call me crazy but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: Why Sony?
A: "Sony. Because Caucasians are just too tall!" --TV commercial narrator in the movie Crazy People.

I call BS!

[Anonymous Coward]

This article appears more of marketing propaganda than actual truth. Take for example "he R1 offers something that's never before been possible on a large-sensor camera: a wide-angle (24-mm) equivalent on the basic lens" What about the (10-12mm)-(20-22mm) lenses that are available for current D-SLR's - that gives 16mm wide lens vs 24mm wide! Oooo ...

Re:I call BS!

[audacity242]

Heck, my relatively inexpensive Nikon CoolPix 5600 ranges from 5.7-17.1mm.

Re:I call BS!

[markandrew]

remind me again how much those 10-20mm lenses cost, ON TOP of the price of whatever camera they're used on...

yeah...hybrid

[Repugnant_Shit]

I read the review...it isn't any kind of hybrid camera. It is just a new CyberShot model. Still no through-the-lens, changeable lenses, etc. because it is NOT meant to be anything like an SLR. Canon has a similar line of products.

Re:Who cares?

[mikefrommcmurray]

If people buy this camera, it will just encourage Sony. If consumers punish then for the other Sony hardware with crappy DRM built in -- from MiniDisc to SACD -- diminishing profits for the entire company, parhaps that will force the suits to act. Not I'm not even addressing the Software DRM here.

There are 1,001 different digital cameras out there, including dozens of that blow the doors off this model. This is not a camera for professionals. How many non-pros need 10 megapixel resolution? If it's for a website, 5 MP is already overkill.

According to DPreview, This camera offers both Memory Stick/Memory Stick Pro and Compact Flash Type I/II. Isn't Memory Stick chock full of DRM goodies? While CF is also available, isn't a DRM storage method bad? Help me out here, people!

Re:Who cares?

[qubex]

This camera cannot be a true SLR. If it were a true SLR, you would not be able to have a live preview on the LCD. This because when composing a shot through the viewfinder, the internal mirror is in a depressed condition that prevents light from reaching the film/sensor, which is covered by a shutter anyway.

As a simple exercise of deductive logic, if you can see a live preview on the LCD, it means that light is being allowed to reach the CCD/CMOS sensor. This in turn means that there is no shutter or mirror. This means that though it may be behaving somewhat like an SLR, it is not an SLR. That means it's essentially a Compact with some kind of extra equipment in a cool-looking form-factor.

In any case, this sounds like another marketing-gimmick product from Sony. I'm sure it's only compatible with MemoryStick. Lenses are not interchangeable and the cropping factor is probably nonstandard. It's clearly intended for clueless consumers.

Get a Olympus E-500 2 lens kit

[jonr]

If you can think outside the Canon/Nikon box you should check out the Olympus E-500 2 lens kit.
Best SLR bang for the buck. You get 2 lens kit for less money than the R1. And it is not much heavier.

Olympus had live DSLR preview...

[future assassin]

In the E10/20 cameras years ago.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E20/E20A.HTM /
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10/E10A.HTM /

Blatant advertizement

[oakad]

I'm holding an opinion that this is a simple ad. There are many companies doing great job with all kinds of consumer products, yet only Sony's new camera had made it here somehow.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the Panasonic FZ 30, terrific camera for the money. Better burst, much higher zoom, 8 mp, 640x480 30 fps video. Sounds like it blows the doors off the new Sony.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canon has been making digital SLR style cameras for years now. And you can actually use interchangable lenses. Interchangable lenses are extremely important if you want to do any photography beyond simple snapshots of your friends at a party. I always get aggravated when I read ads bragging about a camera's 5X analog zoom. That means a picture will look good from a range of about three feet to fifteen feet away at max. Digital zoom can basically be summed up with the words cropping and resizing, and leaves really ugly pictures. Forget close up pictures or getting a halfway decent picture in really bright or dark conditions with a non-interchangable lens, or using the majority of filters that are out there.

But if you are the kind of photographer that doesn't see the problem with pictures taken using a flash that's less than an inch away from the lens, well, DSLR is probably too much for you to take advantage of. So basically this is an uncomfortable compromise between casual photography and serious professional or at least hobbiest photography. BTW, SLR really only does you any good if you can change the lens out, or at the very least have a decent (20X or more) optical zoom. Your camera won't really be able to focus anywhere that the viewfinder can't see.

For an example, the Canon Powershot G6 can be bought for about $700. It is an EOS (Canon's line of digital SLR) which allows you to focus on the screen or viewfinder. While the G6 is only 7.1 megapixel vs the Sony's 10 megapixel, You really won't see much difference in picture quality between those two sizes. The choke point should still be at the lens, although there may be some effects that may clear up pictures a little in certain low light shorter exposure circumstances. Oh, and the swiveling LCD of the Canon is much more versatile: pictures can be reliably taken from anywhere you can hold the camera: above your head, near the ground, around corners, taking pictures of yourself, etc etc etc. Oh, and an adapter will allow pretty much any lens to be attached from macro to long range to fisheye. While you will probably have to drop a couple hundred dollars base minumum for any lenses that do anything better than the standard lens that comes with a decent camera, at least you have the option to do so.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, most people don't care. But I'm not most people. Sony has lost my business for a while...

Wow...

[Chris Brewer]

All the ease of use of a top-line professional SLR with the flexibility and adaptability of a compact for $1k...where can I get one?

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone likes to talk out of their ass and doesn't understand what a TTL (through the lens) digital camera is. There are many point and shoot digitals that actually see through the lens and filters showing what the picture will look like including focus, zoom etc.

Maybe you should try actually researching modern cameras that cost more than $50 before opening your mouth and looking like a total dumbass.

photo.net has a lengthy discussion

[uccemebug]

http://www.photo.net/equipment/sony/DSC-R1/

yes we know

[towsonu2003]

Beware: may install rootkit and ugly invisible mustache to your then-DRM'd digital pictures. May attempt formatting CF and/or HDD if rootkit is removed.

But what kind of gas mileage does it get?

[319please]

Unless it can do 0-60 in 5.2 seconds AND sip gas like it's Maker's Mark, I'm not interested.

What!? It's not THAT kind of hybrid?

Nevermind.

Much better review

[rhesuspieces00]

You can find a much better review <a href="http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews<nobr>/<wbr></wbr></nobr> r1.html">here</a>. It gives a much more detailed look at the features, but will be more useful still when they have completed the conclusions portion (awaiting production camera, as opposed to pre-production sample).

Re:Who cares?

[johansalk]

It's not just the rootkit, I stopped buying Sony products many years ago. The rootkit just confirms my previous experiences with Sony. They treat their consumers with in a bad way and place unreasonable constraints upon them. Anyone who bought a Sony minidisc device or any device that only uses memory stick knows what a pain Sony is. Also, the quality of their products have become quite questionable in recent years. There's been the CCD fiasco just lately, where bad glue made their CCDs practically come apart after a little while, and in my personal experience, both Sony Vaio laptops died just a little bit after their warranties expired.

Good Store to Buy the R1 From

[lo0ol]

When these things start appearing in stores, why bother going into one to buy one when you can get it a lot cheaper online? I haven't bought from the company myself yet, but I've seen it linked to on a lot of blogs lately. Something about supplying cheap cameras, so maybe some of you want to give them a shot; you might save some money that way.

http://www.priceritephoto.com/

Re:Good Store to Buy the R1 From

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear best buy is keeping them off the shelves until they go on sale in expensive bundles the day before Holiday Season Eve.

Seriously, for those without a clew, the company recommended above is a frequent subject of bloggers for its backwards marketing policies. But, thankfully, I am sure it has changed its name again by now.

Re:Who cares?

[Reaperducer]

Isn't Memory Stick chock full of DRM goodies?

No. But feel proud that you are another victim of F.U.D.

Sony cameras will take vitually any memory stick, including the one, very rare, model called "Magic Gate" which has some DRM in it for music. Of the 15 or so flavors of Memory Sticks, I believe that is the only one that has DRM, and again, it's only for music. You can take off your tin foil hat, Sony cameras have no method for attaching DRM to your pictures.

From a user's point of view, the only difference between a Memory Stick and a CF card in a Sony camera is the size and price.

It comes down to optics, not distance

[dbIII]

there's no macro mode, which is kind of redeundant when you've already said you can't get any closer than 13 inches

If you put a 350mm lens on the end of a long set of bellows wound out you can't focus closer than about 30 inches (give or take memory and conversion from metric) but you get a huge amount of magnification. It's the same with medium format - with a table macro setup the lens may be twelve inches away from the thing you want to photograph, but 5x magnification on the negative isn't that hard to do - so long as you have a lot of light and don't mind that you don't get much depth of feild.

I'm not a professional photographer, but was an engineer reporting on broken bits of stuff which required a lot of taking photos with cool gear. I chose my digital camera for the macro mode, but have rarely used it, so it probably isn't that important a feature. People generally freak out when you take photos of their eyes.

ETERNAL SONY BOYCOTT

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if their camera runs 1000 miles on one gallon of gas! ;-)

SONY = BOYCOTT
SONY = BOYCOTT
SONY = BOYCOTT

HDTVs = boycott, Cameras = boycott, PSPs = boycott,
Playstation 2 and 3 = boycott,
VAIOs = boycott, CDs = boycott, DVDs = boycott
Motion Pictures = boycott, Radios = boycott
MP3 players = boycott, Radios = boycott.
Sony's Sound Systems = Boycott, Sony headphones = Boycott.

The SONY name is a kiss of DEATH,
no way, no how, no place, not now, not never, not ever.

Did I mention the Eternal Boycott of Sony?

I did?

Good.

Let's talk about the hardware, shall we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of you bashing Sony would do well to consider that the people who produced this camera are not even tangentially related to those responsible for the DRM debacle. The company is massive. If the R1 fails, it will be for lack of a market niche, not because anyone cares that you feel slighted by your last Britney Spears CD.

For what it is, the camera is solid. Like Sony's first major prosumer camera, the F828, it has an excellent lens and a highly professional interface. It also has an extremely high flash sync; those of you who actually take pictures know how useful this can be for outdoor portraiture. With the sole exception of Fuji's F10/11, noise is better here than any fixed lens digital camera to date. And it's quiet.

But this R1 also has a number of glaring faults.

Sharp lens. Slow lens. No IS. If Panasonic can put IS in a $250 P&S, Sony could have done it here. Sony's sensor has a 2 stop advantage over the FZ20, but the Panasonic's lens is 1.5 stops faster at 120mm. Combined with IS, the FZ20 is actually better for low light.

It's slow. Slow to AF, slow to clear the buffer, slow in general.

With a better memory interface, it could be fantastic. As for now, just like the F828, it's the first of a breed, and incomplete. Not three years ago it would have been spectacular, but the bar has been raised.

Live preview is pointless in high-end cameras

[CptPicard]

A lot of amateurs who are used to getting the cool moving pictures at the back of their compact consumer cameras automatically assume that DSLRs are inferior because they "lack" the preview. One I know even _returned_ a 350D because of this. It is, of course, a totally useless feature if you're shooting seriously, for various reasons, and I must educate people about this to no end... those that instantly spring to mind would be

- Image quality. In a DSRL you see _with your own eyes_ whatever is going to hit the sensor, through whatever optics you've got attached. This is going to be superior to any crappy LCD, unless perhaps you're working with very low light coming through due to some weird filters, or something like that. I bet you couldn't even properly do a manual focus when neccessary if you didn't use your eyeball as a direct measuring device. My idiot cousin got one of these leet cams that actually have a fake eyepiece by having a screen behind it, and he was like laughing his ass off at my "old-fashioned" (350D) camera that didn't do the AD/DA loop between lens and his eye. Try explaining to people like that that he's just getting reduced quality... even in the debrief screen, a serious photographer is going to look at the histogram, NOT the shown image because it just doesn't tell you anything about the exposure.

- Battery life. You won't be able to keep the screen on for long before you run out of charge.

- You _need_ a proper posture to hold the camera steady when shooting, and the traditional way of doing it -- holding the camera to your eye and stabilizing against your face and body is the way to go. If you were going to shoot while looking at the back of the camera, your camera shake is going to be humongous, esp. if you've got long optics attached.

Canon A620

[drewzhrodague]

I just got myself a Canon A620 -- Macro is fabulous, and I think the minimum distance is less than 1cm! My previous camera is still my phone, a Nokia 3650. I was very frustrated with having to be at least 9 inches from the subject for it to be in focus. Very annoying while shooting hand-sized objects. Sometimes you want to take a picture of something small. If you don't have a zoom, you just have to hold it closer!

Re:Canon A620

[penguin-collective]

The Canon A620 is a great little camera, but it doesn't come close to the R1 in high ISO settings. It also doesn't go anywhere near as wide.

Awesome. I'm waiting for Canon's answer!

[hernick]

I'm an amateur photographer. I take great pictures. I'm not interested in getting a DSLR - why? They force you to take pictures through the viewfinder. Pro photographers say it's the only way to shoot, and that LCDs are bad. They were right: there was no such thing as a pro-level camera with an electronic viewfinder.

I use a Canon Powershot G2. It has a swiveling LCD that can be used for framing. It's a critical feature: I can take pictures from waist level or from three feet above my head. I don't have to hold the camera to my face to take a shot. I hold it whereever I want and swivel the LCD to get a good look at what I'm about to shoot.

To take a picture from ground-level, I just to crouch. To take an overhead shot pointing straight down, I simply stand on a chair and extend my arms. With a DSLR, I'd have to crawl on the floor or rig myself up in straps to take those shots.

I don't keep my camera glued to my face and pointed straight at my target. So, I can take pictures discreetly; making it much easier to catch people acting naturally. I can control the camera remotely with my computer. I see a live video feed, and I can take a picture at any time. With a DSLR, I couldn't do any of that - because all shots have to be framed with the optical viewfinder.

Why isn't this style of shooting popular with pro photographers? Because there aren't any pro cameras that support it. It's a design challenge - conventional DSLR sensors are unable to do this; they would overload and overheat very quickly. So, few pro photographers experiencee this style of shooting. They don't usually stoop down to using a "prosumer" camera with a swiveling LCD, and when they do, they still shoot through the viewfinder. They're creatures of habit.

I think Sony has started a revolution in digital photography. The R1 is the first model off the line. I'm sure that in three years, Canon, Nikon and others will have a number of similar cameras, with live preview through a swiveling LCD. Me, I'd buy a Canon Digital Rebel w/live-preview LCD without any hesitation.

A swiveling LCD won't convince pro photographer to abandon their beloved optical viewfinders. There is one thing that will, though: a head-mounted viewfinder. That's right: if you've got an electronic viewfinder, it doesn't have to be attached to the camera - it can be mounted right in from of your eyes. This gives the photographer total control as to the camera positioning, and lets him be more creative.

Pro photographers have always hated electronic viewfinders because they couldn't get perfect focus due to the low resolution. But Sony has shown them the answer: digital magnification built right in the viewfinder - without any loss of resolution. If you've got a 10 megapixel sensor and your viewfinder only displays half a megapixel, that lets you do a lot of digital zooming before you lose any quality. And this lets you focus more precisely than with the best optical viewfinder. And when 10000$ cameras start shipping with electronic viewfinders, those will be very high resolution.

I think this is the future of photography.

Re:Awesome. I'm waiting for Canon's answer!

[penguin-collective]

You seem to equate "pro photographer" with "35mm SLR shooter"; that's wrong. Photographers use all sorts of viewfinders and focusing aids. Many pictures are taken without any viewfinder or focus at all. Others use ground glass.

The reason why EVFs haven't been popular is because in order to support an EVF, CCD-based cameras had to sacrifice on image quality. With CMOS chips, that's slowly changing. I expect EVFs will be very popular with pros once the sensors are up to it.

Re:Awesome. I'm waiting for Canon's answer!

[radish]

Actually, some of us love optical viewfinders because they're better. Better resoloution, better brightness, MUCH better response rate, easier to see in sunlight, etc etc. I used to use compact digitals (was never much of a photographer in the film days) with LCDs because I didn't know any better. Then I tried a DSLR, and the viewfinder was the thing that impressed me the most. 2 years and $10k later I wouldn't ever buy a camera with an LCD viewfinder again, they just aren't good enough, and don't really have any advantages. Low angle shots? That's why I was blessed with knees.


I think this is the future of photography.

I don't. The next few years will tell us who's right.

Re:Who cares?

[Lou57]

I have talked to a number of people here in Britain about the rootkit incident. Basically nobody knows about it. I had my cousins in North America ask people there, and it was the same. The vast majority of people they talked to do not have a clue as to what had happened.

I wish this wasn't the case, but I believe it is accurate. I wish others cared like we do. I wish they knew what we do. And so I am reminded of my dad's old saying, "If you wish in one hand and crap in the other, guess which hand fills up first."

So I tell people. I tell everyone, even if they aren't listening at first. I tell them that Sony hides software on their music CDs that can enable others to take their computer over. I tell them that all of the great minds at Symantec, McAfee and Microsoft never knew or even worse, possibly looked the other way. I then ask them, "What else does Sony do to us?"

I tell them that multiple states now have class-action lawsuits against Sony, and that some states and countries are investigating Sony for criminal behavior. I tell them that I cannot trust any of Sony's products anymore, because I won't know that they've done something to me until the damage has already been done.

Until I get some kind of assurance that this was a huge mistake, until I know who at Sony chose to do this and that they are fired, until a policy is in place that respects me, the consumer, rather than treats me like a guilty criminal that Sony needs to be protected from, then I will continue to tell people to protect themselves from Sony. Because there IS choice and Sony is NOT the only game in town.

I am now left with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt over ALL Sony's products. Would you buy a VIAO? Would you buy a PS2? Would you buy anything from Sony that connects to the internet? Would you put a Sony movie in your computer's DVD drive and expect that Symantec, McAfee or Microsoft will warn you if they've attempted something similiar there?

I rarely buy music, or listen to it for that matter. I don't have to worry about my home computer. But I've spent countless nights helping friends, co-workers and family members by ridding their computers of all the crap that ends up on their systems without their knowledge. When I FINALLY get their computer functional again, having spent hours saving what they never backed up, what they get back is NOT improved or better, it's just where it should have been all along. I consider ALL of those hours lost time, time I could have spent with my kids or my wife. And that is precious lost time. I cannot put a dollar value on that. Nor will I give a dollar to anyone that creates that exact same scenario.

I cannot resign myself that nothing is going to happen. I cannot let Sony get a pass. So, in my own little way, just like Mark Russinovich, I talk to people, alot.

Fujifilm FinePix F10

[night_sky_nsci]

Not reading any of the reviews (but having RTFA, GASP!) the new Sony sounds more like Fujifilm FinePix F10, which I just bought a month ago. Super CCD, long battery, 6.3 megapixels, and best of all -- much, much less than $1000 that these Sony ones go for. It had very good reviews, and good heavens, they weren't lying about its ISO 1600 sensitivity.

Don't buy SONY anything!

[gone.fishing]

Please remember what Sony/BMG did with the rootkit. It was unethical to say the least. When I learned of this, I resolved to "vote with my money" and will no longer buy anything Sony. I know Sony Electronics aren't exactly the same as Sony music but (or should I say BUT) they have the same roots and and my refusal to do business with Sony anything is bound to make them think about things - but not if I am a lone voice in the woods.

Like-minded Geeks unite! Boycot those Sony scumbags who thought a rootkit was a good idea! Only the bottom line matters to them. Affect it!

Re:Don't buy SONY anything!

[ArsenneLupin]

And another reason not to buy Sony (esp cameras): the memory stick.

Re:Don't buy SONY anything!

[Billly Gates]

Funny I did a similiar comment here and got -1 troll faster than you can say goatse.cx.

People just claimed how wonderfull sony is and the fact that most people dont care. Incredible.

Re:Don't buy SONY anything!

[Microlith]

Boycotting this Sony won't affect SonyBMG.

They're all different beasts, and slaying one won't kill the other. You have to single out the one you want dead and kill it.

Re:Don't buy SONY anything!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but pretty much all of Sony is evil these days. DRM up your ass, bullshit proprietary formats, etc. They are corrupt to the core. I vow never to buy another Sony product again (which will be tough when the PS3 comes out, but I'll stand by my convictions)

Re:Don't buy SONY anything!

[springbox]

You know, I've been doing this for a while, and I'm sorry to say, the PlayStation 2 still happened and Sony is still alive. Although I still refuse to buy anything from them.

Re:Don't buy SONY anything!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you see... I decided to never buy .*SONY.* again so that includes BMG... Just get the whole thing at once *evilgrin*
And no, I won't revoke this decision, however beautiful the specs for the Sony...I forgot the name with the 24mm lens looked to me.
It's over, Sony!

Re:Don't buy SONY anything!

[gone.fishing]

Did you read my post before you replied? I'm wondering because I specifically talked to that very issue. Yes, I know Sony/BMG is a different company than Sony Electronics - but they are in the same "family" and just like when you do something it can (and often does) reflect on the entire family.

By saying "buy nothing from the entire Sony family" it puts Sony/BMG's corporate brothers and sisters in the position of calling on their sibling telling them to "get your act together, your behavior is hurting us too."

Re:Who cares?

[toddestan]

This camera cannot be a true SLR. If it were a true SLR, you would not be able to have a live preview on the LCD. This because when composing a shot through the viewfinder, the internal mirror is in a depressed condition that prevents light from reaching the film/sensor, which is covered by a shutter anyway.

As a simple exercise of deductive logic, if you can see a live preview on the LCD, it means that light is being allowed to reach the CCD/CMOS sensor. This in turn means that there is no shutter or mirror. This means that though it may be behaving somewhat like an SLR, it is not an SLR. That means it's essentially a Compact with some kind of extra equipment in a cool-looking form-factor.

It can be done. I remember a film SLR camera (by Olympus, I think) that used a fixed partially silvered mirror in place of the mirror that normally flips up in most SLRs. The reason they did that was to reduce vibrations from the mirror flipping up when a picture was taken. There is no reason a digital SLR couldn't use a simular approach to send light to both the viewfinder and the sensor at the same time. Of course, you do have the disadvantage of both a less bright viewfinder and less light reaching the sensor (or film).

Re:Who cares?

[Andy Dodd]

Except that P&S digitals with an LCD display ALSO display the exact image that the image sensor sees through the lens. i.e. DSLRs don't have any advantage in framing over P&S digitals. This camera Sony has released is merely a high-end P&S, because it is missing all of the other features typically found in SLR cameras (interchangeable lenses, etc.).

Canon's slow autofocus and high shutter lag

[greeneggs2000]

I've never understood why Canon compact cameras are popular. They do tend to have decent lens quality. But: they have the slowest autofocus of any compact camera manufacturer. Enormous shutter lag. Lots of people who bought Canon digicams think they need to get a DSLR if they want 1 sec shutter lag. In truth, they just need to try a different brand.

Re:Canon's slow autofocus and high shutter lag

[t3rmin]

I will agree with you on that for Canon cams except those with the new DiGiC II system. I've got a Canon Digital Elph SD400 and it is lightning fast. You can go from powered down to first shot in just a few seconds (sorry, don't have exact times, but it is really fast). Auto focus is fast, clicking around menus is fast, reviewing pictures is unbelievably fast. Only thing that seems to take a bit sometimes is charging the flash.

I've had several earlier Canon models and speed was always my biggest complaint. They appear to have overcome that in their newer models, though!

I LOVE my Elph; it's absolutely tiny (put it in your pocket and forget about it), takes great pictures, and although it has a proprietary battery, they are available for cheaper than a set of rechargeable AAs on eBay.

This is sort of lame. Better hybrid would be..

[Anonymous Coward]

Like maybe a 30 GB HDD in the camera? So the number of pictures stored could be virtually unlimited.

JVC has the right idea somewhat with their HDD based video camera. But they should make the HDD a removable USB 2.0 drive. Or accept iPods or something.

Hybrid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, and here, out of the mists of history, the legendary esquilax, a horse with the head of a rabbit and the body of a rabbit.

Behold...

[rbinns]

Canon has had this out for a couple months... They modified a 20D specifically for astrophotography. One of the main features is to use the LCD as the viewfinder with zoom (for framing stars). It costs about as much as the 20D did when it was new. Link

As a DSLR owner, I have to ask why this feature would be desired? When shooting, especially when the subject is moving fast, the easiest way to capture an image is by using the optics. Delays and ghosting on an LCD would just kill the shot composition. Also, how would this camera acknowledge the auto-focus points? Would it have a grid pattern similar to what is seen in the traditional viewfinder, or could you choose from several arrays from which the camera could choose to focus (which would be kind of neat).

I still won't buy this or anything Sony for that matter.

Re:Who cares?

[qubex]

The Canon EOS-1RS (circa 1997) or thereabouts could also pull this trick. I had one. As you mention, the amount of light reaching the film was drastically reduced - a penalty of about 4 stops, sometimes more, sometimes less. That doesn't really apply in this case though, because from what I understand this camera isn't doing it optically, it's using a digital system instead.

In the case of this Sony R1 that appears to use a digital viewfinder (EVF), you'll be drawing massive amounts of power to keep the sensor and the viewfinder running simultaneously. Power drain on the batteries will be enormous, greatly reducing the number of photographs (and even composing time!) available to the photographer.

As I said previously, this is definitely not a camera for any kind of serious photographer: neither the seasoned amateur nor the professional can consider this to be a worthwhile investment.

P.S. Having re-read the review, I now realise this camera can accommodate either MemoryStickPro or industry-standard CompactFlash (CF) cards. I stand corrected.

Re:Who cares?

[Epsillon]

"Yes, people will still buy from Sony. Why is that?"

If I may expand on CyricZ's question, possibly because this whole episode has been blown out of all proportion?

Besides which, didn't Sony do the right thing? To hell with karma, they withdrew the draconian DRM encumbered CDs almost as quickly as they could. The ultimate resonsibility for the fiasco lies at the door of First 4 Internet, not Sony. I admit they should have tested what they were selling before RTM, but going on a hate campaign after the company has apologised only makes future episodes, especially involving other companies, harder to deal with.

Seriously, if we can't hand out kudos to manufacturers bowing to public pressure on DRM or a bit of slack for those same companies admitting mistakes, aren't we just shooting ourselves in the foot?

Another perspective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pros have shot from the waist, overhead, and the ground forever and always will. There's some slight skill involved, of course, compared to seeing it as you shoot it in a swivel viewfinder, but considering that we can now bracket shots and freely shoot and adjust focus, aperature, FOV, etc as required and review pictures instantly, it's not quite as bad as you make it out to be.

Also, consider that even with an entry-level DSLR (Nikon D50, for example), I can shoot 2000 to 2500 shots (with image review on the LCD after each) on a single battery charge. I can frame, compose, zoom, etc. using virtually zero battery. That adds up. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that that number would be reduced by a factor or 8x or 10x if I was composing my shots on a battery-eating LCD.

This is hardly innovative at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Take one look at the Fuji Finepix series of cameras. They have the same "monster" lens (compared to compacts) that the Sony R1 has, and have always had the ability to view through the display instead of the viewfinder. And, with a proper adapter, you can use lenses and filters just like an SLR. Plus, the S7000 that I have uses a nifty geometry with its CCD to allow for 12 megapixel images with only a 6-megapixel CCD.

News.com.com needs to do its homework before announcing something "new."

Lemmings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, People in general are lemmings, they buy what is advertised, what is "recommended" to them by salesmen. It's not true for all people granted, but it's a sad fact that a very large portion of people are like this.

Yes, the average, non-technical minded person, given the option of researching optics and megapixels and button layout and response time and memory cards etc etc etc... is happy to take a suggestion, spend some money, and take home a camera that works fine. Are they really less happy because they didn't get the BEST? And if you think so, isn't that... the essence of consumerism?

(If you like, you can imagine that I put my pinky to the corner of my mouth like Dr. Evil as I said that last line.)

Live view

[mezzaninex]

'Live view' has been avaiable in EVF entry level SLRs for a while now. There is nothing new about this at all, and it is an article about camera specifics, but written to people who don't know anything about cameras...

TFA is confused about sensor sizes

[jpatters]

TFA is confused about sensor sizes. First, it says this:

But like an SLR, it has a huge sensor inside, 21.5 by 14.4 millimeters.

And then it says this:

Yet without switching lenses, the R1 also zooms in 5x (a 120-mm equivalent). Unlike the focal-length measurements of other digitals, these are true 35-mm camera equivalents that don't have to be multiplied by, say, 1.5.

The 35mm frame size is 36 by 24 mm, for a diagonal of 43mm, which is 1.67 times the diagonal of the sensor in the camera. So you have to multiply by 1.67 to get your "35mm equivalents". If you look at the front of the camera (pictured here) you can see that the actual focal length range of the lens is 14.3mm to 71.5mm, and when you multiply by 1.67, you get the quoted 24mm to 120mm. It is hardly new, or in any way a "feature" for a digital camera manufacturer to quote the "35mm equivalent" when talking about focal lengths. It is, however, totally bogus, IMO, because it tells you nothing about depth of field, which depends on the actual physical focal length and the distance to the subject. Given that the maximum apeture at the longer end of the range is f/4.8, your subject will have to be pretty close to get the claimed ability to use "that professionals' trick of blurring the background".

Re:TFA is confused about sensor sizes

[tim_uk]

it tells you nothing about depth of field, which depends on the actual physical focal length and the distance to the subject.

Not entirely. It is primarity dependent on the aperture in use.

Re:TFA is confused about sensor sizes

[jpatters]

Well, I did sort of mention that when I talked about how limiting the maximum aperture was going to be.

Trouble is SONY makes sensor for many other brands

[acomj]

Sony actually does make good sensors. Canon uses some in there point and shoot line. Other manufacturers do as well. Camera makers don't talk much about who's sensore they are using publicly. Rumor is the Nikon SLR line is using sony sensors.

  Sony digital cameras aren't bad (I have an canon s70 and rebel xt). However my friends Sony focuses and shots faster than my canon s70. (the rebel xt is an SLR and is a great camera). I don't like memory stick and that is my reason for avoiding.

You have a good point though.. the sony is more expensive than the digital rebel xt and can't change lenses. Although it has 2 more megapixels..but that matters little.

See the review of the sony at http://dpreview.com/

no company ever

[Anonymous Coward]

"No company ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." --H. L. Mencken

Prius?

[arch119]

> Sony Announced Hybrid Digital Camera
It can function with gasoline when the battery power is low.

Re:Trouble is SONY makes sensor for many other bra

[ceoyoyo]

This camera seems to have inherited the worst of the two camera types. It's too big and expensive to be a compact but doesn't get any of the flexibility or power of an SLR (except for the big sensor).

There are other cameras like this, larged fixed lens cameras, but they're cheaper than SLRs and generally a bit smaller. This one isn't. Why not get an SLR instead?

And LCD viewfinders are awful compared to an optical viewfinder for non-P&S photography.

LOL you know Sony makes Canon's sensors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right? Because that powershot you just mentioned is powered by those sensors that "always seemed to be lacking".

I own and A60 and an A75 and love both. Both take fantastic shots. And yes that's do precisely to Sony sensor inside. Sony knows more about CCD's then Canon ever will. Why do you think they farm out their CCD to Sony on some of their most popular models if it sucks so bad?

Re:Who cares?

[ozmanjusri]

Check out the Panasonic FZ 30, terrific camera for the money.

Yeah, I'll second that, Lumix cameras are solid, well designed and take the sharpest pics out there. Actually, I'd say the single worst aspect of the FZ30 is the one Sony is hyping as a positive - the EVF. Electronic viewfinders suck for manual focus and in low light.

its hardware AF vs. software AF

[rebelcool]

on SLR's there is half silvered mirror that bounces some of the light to special sensors at the bottom of the mirror box that are wired directly to the AF motor. these are the hardware AF modules.

on non-slr cameras, a software routine must run that has to dump data off the entire sensor chip (basically just like the LCD lag) and analyze it to determine the focus. its speed is determined by the chip refresh rate, the main processor speed and the efficiency of the software routine.

naturally, the dedicated hardwired AF modules are much, much faster. The autofocus in a pro camera like the D2X is insanely quick and accurate.

My sig says it all

[this great guy]

My sig is also supposed to be funny. It's a parody of the message sent by this IM virus ("lol this is not a virus").

I don't get it

[jshackney]

I bought an N70 several years ago for about $900 with a couple lenses. I recently upgraded to the D70. My reasoning and justification for the SLR was 1) interchangeable lenses, 2) the price-per-megapixel ratio was more in line with what I expected. I figured if I'm going to spend a decent chunk of money, I'm going to get the SLR with all the bells and whistles. This Sony product looks like it's just going to blur the lines between a reputable product (Canon, Nikon, Minolta, et. al.) and one that (in my eyes) is nothing more than an overpriced child's toy. Besides, I didn't know it was a problem that I had to look through the sight to take a picture. Most good SLRs frame a photo very well. Also, most good SLR documentation will detail exactly the size of the framed area vs. the image that appears on the "print".

I'm not a professional photographer. I'm not even an amateur. I just want to be able to take good pictures and be able to compose them however I see fit. A modern D-SLR is no more difficult to use than a 110 point and shoot. If you want to take good pictures and spend a lot of money doing it, the Sony seems to be a dead-end upgrade path.

Why SLR? Simple reason

[Belseth]

They seem to indicate it's a mystery why some would prefer SLR and it was more nostalgia than practical need. Well take it from a pro that has had to use compact digital cameras. It's nearly impossible to focas most of them properly. Most people don't care because they let the auto focas do it for them. The screens on the prosumer non SLRs just aren't good enough to judge focas in a lot of situations especially low light. If the screen is good enough you might live without seeing through the lens but I'd definately want to try one and see the output before I bought one. I can get a true SLR for that price so for me I don't see the advantage and I think most pros will have the same opinion. It's really aimed at higher end consumer use. Basically consumers that want pro quality without having to deal with looking through a lens. I'd consider one for a back up pro camera, what I call crowd cams. Essentially at times you need to hold a camera over your head or at an odd angle. I could see the usefulness then, I've got a prosumer camera for that use myself.

Ain't gonna sell well

[melted]

Sony, here's a list of recomendations from me regarding R1:
1. You NEED a movie mode in this camera. Decent movie mode alone would make it a cult gadget because with such a large sensor it would beat the crap out of camcorders three times the price (which is why I guess movie mode was not included in R1 - Sony makes camcorders too).
2. LCD on top is stupid. Give me flip-out-and-twist LCD that's on the back and flips out to the side. For the love of god make it 2.5" and at least 250K pixels.
3. At $1K I'm going to require some sort of image stabilization.
4. Better image processing. There's no excuse to having a good sensor and screwing up the images in software after they're shot.

Re:Ain't gonna sell well

[Belseth]

You NEED a movie mode in this camera. Decent movie mode alone would make it a cult gadget because with such a large sensor it would beat the crap out of camcorders three times the price (which is why I guess movie mode was not included in R1 - Sony makes camcorders too).

I think you'd find it'd add a zero or two to the price tag. The problem isn't the CCD chip it's buffering and storing 30fps video. Most still cameras take a second or two to store a single high res frame. They can do video because of the radically lower resolution. It'd take a pretty beefy storage system to handle even 15fps at full res. Pro video cameras at nearly that res go for better than a hundred grand. Notice I said nearly that res because they aren't quite. It'd be fun to have even if it did only 15 seconds of video but I think we are about five years away from anything that compact handling 6 megapixel video.

Re:Who cares?

[tripler6]

The powershot g6 is not an slr. Its not an eos. Anything that begins with "powershot" isn't even close. digital eos - rxt, 20d, 5d, 1d, 1ds

that b.s.

[penguin-collective]

Sony's digital cameras tend to be excellent and often quite innovative. Their lenses are usually Zeiss lenses. And as for electronic imaging, Sony has been in that business for a long time.

The Rebel and Powershot cameras are excellent in many ways, but they "don't blow away everything on the market". Nikon's SLRs are competitive, and Powershot lacks a number of features that other cameras have.

As for the "SLR without interchangeable lenses", the R1 is not an SLR, it's a camera with a sensor that is also used in SLRs. Its lens has such a useful range (24-120) that many people will not need anything else.

But don't worry: over the next few years, you will see cameras like the R1 with interchangeable lenses; that is, non-SLR cameras with electronic viewfinders. The SLR design itself is pretty much obsolete at this point.

As for "geekiness" and number of lenses, I take most of my photos with a "normal" lens; I'd be overjoyed if someone produced a digital camera with an APS sensor and a fixed 35mm or 50mm equivalent lens. The closest I have been able to get to that is a Rebel XT with a 35mm/f2 mated to it (which is an excellent combo, but still larger than it needs to be).

Who cares?

[Alderin1]

It says, "Sony", I'm not buying it.

What, did they think their half-hearted apology about the music cd DRM rootkit would break the boycott of the rest of their junk? I for one will not continue support for any portion of Sony if their morals regarding how it treats it's customers are so slanted that the best line they can think of is, "We are re-evaluating our position".

After the announcement of the rootkit, the only kind of response that would have gotten me to reconsider a boycott would be something along the lines of, "We are appalled at the underhanded means that some of our representatives have deemed appropriate to protect our content, and those responsible for this outrage have been removed from the company." But, of course, instead, they are playing the big corporate game of "lets just see how little we can do to make them believe we are changing, so they will continue to buy our junk".

They want to keep the rights to the junk they sell in an overpriced iron fist, fine, they can keep all of it, I won't have any of it.

image quality

[penguin-collective]

Yes, the better image quality is nice too, but it's not _that_ huge a difference anymore

Actually, there is a huge difference in image quality between digital SLRs and other digital cameras at higher ISOs. For many serious photographers, that's the primary reason for using digital SLRs. The R1 promises to deliver that in a non-SLR design.

Why does that matter? SLRs have a number of problems, foremost mirror noise and lack of live preview. Something like the R1 could be a big success (although I think the R1 itself doesn't quite do the trick).

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

What boycott?!?!

Ignorant geek. Do you think that you alone have started a boycott?!!?

You are a fucking moron. Congratulations, you get a cracker.

"Quality"?

[Anonymous Coward]

the lens is worth the price of the DSC-R1 alone. That fact is not to be underestimated, it's a great lens which provides you with a very useful 24 - 120 mm zoom range (which will be sufficient for the majority of users). Doing the math it's pretty clear that you have to spend a fairly considerable sum on lenses for a D-SLR to get close to this range and the quality of the DSC-R1's lens

WTF?

If it's a 24-120mm lens, and it doesn't weigh 10 pounds, then it can't be very fast -- f/4-f/5.6, maybe?

Zoom lenses aren't easy to make -- which means if you want to be able to zoom, you sacrifice pretty much *everything* else: speed, size, weight, quality, complexity, and so forth.

But the whole point of an SLR with interchangeable lenses is ... being able to use whatever lens you want. I have a 24mm, 50mm, and 100mm, all between f/1.8 and f/2.8, which *combined* cost far less than the Sony R1. And, being fast primes, I bet they each produce better quality output than the R1. (And does Sony even have USM lenses?)

So the whole "worth the price of the R1 alone" / "have to spend a fairly considerable sum on lenses for a D-SLR to get close to this range and the quality of the R1's lens" is ignoring the rather large restriction "has to be a zoom, at the expense of all else". (But a similar lens for my system is only $225 new, anyway.)

The R1 may be a great new camera (for its price level), but the only way you can claim that one can't cover medium-wide-angle to medium-telephoto with an SLR, affordably, is to ignore most of the best SLR lenses available.

Re:"Quality"?

[shmlco]

"...then it can't be very fast -- f/4-f/5.6, maybe?"

Variable aperture, f/2.8-f/4.8, so... no.

rootkit

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but will it come with a rootkit?

Yawn ... it's already been done

[Mesolimbo]

Leica, amongst others, already did this years ago. Totally not newsworthy.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't Magic Gate be present in all Sony based flash-memory products? Memory stick, PS2 memory cards etc..

And as I recall - it is kinda DRM related.. but not in a consumer sense. It allows Sony to control who can produce and sell "Sony" compatible flash memory products.

See also "GateCrasher" chip made by Datel (co.uk) which circumvents this hardware lockout so that they can produce their own unlicensed memory cards

At the risk of Godwinning the thread...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Not that I want to be a Nazi Party apologist, and not that I think too highly of goose-stepping morons speaking German, but...

Hint: Germany, as a country, has adopted the position that they should be able to exterminate inferior races in order to protect their national interests.

No, they haven't. The SS and Gestapo did. Germany, as a large country, has various political and military factions, and not all of them are equally into the whole Final Solution thing.

(I mean, really. Sony puts their name on their equipment as a means of capitalizing on goodwill that accrues to the whole company. Since the DRM stupidity hasn't been repudiated on an executive level, all of their divisions do deserve to be tarred with the same brush.)

Re:At the risk of Godwinning the thread...

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Your analogy is right; Germany did have various political and military factions, and not everyone was aware or would have approved of the Final Solution thing. It'd indeed be wrong to claim that all Germans are evil.

As for Sony: do you really expect the executives to have understood what a rootkit is? Especially the executives of the non-electronics divisions? Please. It's not unlikely that the Music division did it off on their own, and after it was discovered, what would the other division heads do? Sony's primarily a Japanese company; it's reluctant to admit to mistakes, and divisions speaking out against each other would be considered even worse.

Re:At the risk of Godwinning the thread...

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd indeed be wrong to claim that all Germans are evil.

I wasn't claiming they were all evil. But would you have bought a shiny new Mercedes in 1944?

As for Sony: do you really expect the executives to have understood what a rootkit is?

They know now.

Re:At the risk of Godwinning the thread...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Huh? Your analogy is right; Germany did have various political and military factions, and not everyone was aware or would have approved of the Final Solution thing. It'd indeed be wrong to claim that all Germans are evil.

Nobody's claiming that all Sony employees are evil, either.

Re:At the risk of Godwinning the thread...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was with you upto the "Music division did it off on their own" but then you justify their behavior after it was discovered with an all-encompassing "they are Japanese, they can't admit mistakes or point them out in others". Well, if that's the explanation, I can't think of a better reason not buy stuff from them. I mean tomorrow, this camera has a manufacturing defect and they refuse to fix it for you because "oh, we are japanese, we can't admit we made a mistake". Please note i am not saying japanese are like that, you said it. The inclusion of the rootkit was a mistake that most execs might not even have understood but their reaction after the truth came out has no excuses.

Re:Who cares?

[Lou57]

they withdrew the draconian DRM encumbered CDs almost as quickly as they could

Not true. Read what is happening by Mark Russinovich in his latest blog at SysInternals entitled Premature Victory Declaration?.

Re:Who cares?

[Lehk228]

P&S cameras do not show focus nearly well enough, the low resolution of the LCD display does not permit it. also some P&S cameras don't show on the screen the exact dimensions that will be in the photograph


one last flaw is the massive battery drain which occurs due to the operation of a backlit LCD on a typical point and shoot. with my kodak easyshare with the screen off i can easilly fill a memory card (over 80 pictures) but with it on i can barely get 30.

Re:Who cares?

[Lehk228]

best of all it will probably be priced more expensive than a digital Rebel and possibly more expenive than a Rebel XT

Funny....most TV stations use

[p51d007]

If Sony cams are so bad, then why do a LOT of television stations use SONY cams to do their reports on? I know the 4 tv stations in my area use sony cams, you see them all the time.

Hybrid

[rpresser]

Am I the only one who thought this meant it was going to run on a diesel-electric hybrid engine? Or maybe on hydrogen?

EVF vs OVF

[Namarrgon]

I have an A2, and I agree with all the GP's points. S/he didn't mention that the A2's EVF is significantly better than any other EVF by virtue of having 4x the resolution, so consider that when comparing OVFs to EVFs you've seen.

However, I agree with your points too. Optical viewfinders are undoubtedly faster and clearer, and I do sometimes wish for one when (attempting to) frame a flash shot in very low light.

Nevertheless, the gains can certainly be worth the tradeoffs, at least for some applications. The pan speed is good enough for most things (anything I use it for), the focus magnifier does offset the OVF's greater sharpness to some degree, and the live feedback & information while composing your shot is certainly better than the SLR approach of "take the shot, then review it to see if the settings were right". With a live histogram & WSYIWYG picture, you know it's going to be right before you ever press the button.

Maybe your usage doesn't benefit from these things, and you're clearly happy with your SLR, so that's fine. But don't make the mistake of thinking that an OVF is "so much better than any EVF could possibly be", because you'll soon be proved wrong. People said the same about film over digital, not long ago, and it's clear where the trend is today.

Right now, EVFs and OVFs both have advantages for different needs, and we can debate the merits of each, but when we have an EVF with instant response, at least a few megapixels, and the exact same dynamic range and color rendition as the camera's sensors - then the conversation will already be over.

Re:Good Store to Buy the R1 From - NO ITS NOT

[birdshooter]

http://thomashawk.com/2005/11/priceritephoto-abusi ve-bait-and-switch.html

boycott Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to for all slashdotters to boycott Sony

Sony used to make awesome electronice. Then they bought some movie and music companies.

Now, everything Sony produces is full of region code, DRM, in your face restrictions.

Please:
1. Do not by any sony products
2. Do not advertise any sony product.
3. Spread this boycott

What Kind of Rootkit

[GnarlyNome]

What kind of rootkit does it install?

Not so spectacular.

[Syonax]

It is basically the same as a Minolta DiMAGE, except it has a larger and better CCD.

Camera or new company?

[nozpamming]

With all innovation, it changes the dynamics of the marketplace. You need three major technologies for digital cameras: Glass, eg. optics, Sensor technology and Image processing.

The first technology is what the original camera manufacturers are good at, the other two technologies is where all the new players step in. Sony has been making digital video cameras for a long time, they have amazing experience with electronic miniaturisation and production. Canon too as a matter of fact. Leica has not for example, that's why they now produce wonderful lenses for other manufacturers (and keep a dying line of cameras going - but I'm not sure how well they are doing).

Last, as with any consumer product, aesthetics and operability are important, and people use digital cameras in a slightly different way than old film based ones. It may not be a bad idea to start designing these without any preconceptions from a begone era.

Unremarkable machine, buy a regular compact

[salimfadhley]

Great, a hybrid with all of the disadvantages of a compact (slow-sucky lens, lag, over-reliance on digital view-finder) with all of the disadvantages of a DSLR (heavy, big).

I'm sure this will appeal to the "my first big camera" crowd who find the choice of lenses from Nikon and Canon intimidating, however they could have bought a Canon Digital Rebel or the equally awesome Nikon D70s, which would both produce better shots and allow customers to preserve their investments in lenses.

I think compacts are great... and I also think that Casio and Panasonic make the best compacts. Compacts are more about electronics than optics - you dont care about a little bit of vignetting when the camera is smaller than a credit card.

On the other hand a big SLR is a magnificent thing - the glass is carefully crafted to suit a particular photographic need and will usually deliver superior results in a narrow set of circumstances. A good SLR needs to have perfect optics, plus a number of mechanical components that are entirely absent from compacts.

Bottom line; Compacts and SLRs are different things. Most keen photographers own both. I think this is neither.

non-interchangeable lens called (D)SLR? - NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

24mm isn't very wide, actually it probably is more like 12mm-60mm or less, but cropping factor is 2 or more. How good lens you can get with $1000? f/2.8? f/1.8? I guess it's f/4-5.6 and varies thru the range.. .. you can get descent wide-ange, medium or long-range. There's no overall good lens for 28-120 range. You get distortions on wide-end, vignetting, flare-problems and such probably with this. Zooms just are like that. It's called SLR - but you cannot use lens hoods, polarizing filters or such casual stuff of SLRs.

Neither I understood the picture and aperture you view is by prism thru the lens (roughly what you get is what you see), but just brought from pocket cameras - the-battery-eating framing by lcd. So it's pocket camera with rather larger megapixel count than SLR -features.

That camera ain't SLR - whatever Sony's marketing dept. says - Canon EOS5D in same price range packed with some el-cheapo 50mm prime wipes desk seriously with that Sony.

I don't trust Sony

[DrXym]

Sony used to be a brand you could trust. Now thanks to shitty proprietary formats and DRM, I don't trust Sony at all.

I might buy a PSP or PS3 since those are unique devices with unique selling points but I see little reason at all to risk buying Sony branded television, DVD player, audio system, MP3 player etc. These are not unique devices and there are literally hundreds of models and brands to choose from. In virtually every case Sony kit costs more than that from competing brands and is not significantly better. In some ways it is actively worse. Why buy a Sony DVD player if I can't region unlock it? Why buy their MP3 player if I must run some shitty DRM'd software to download tracks to it? Why buy any of the products when they use a memory card that no other manufacturer uses? Why buy Sony music if it's going to royally fuck up my PC?

The net result of such shennanigans is that techo savvy people don't trust Sony. I'm sure it hasn't dented them at the box shifting bottom end of their market, but it sure as hell has at the other end. People who read reviews, compare features and so forth know that Sony has lost it's golden boy image. Once upon a time Sony could do no wrong and commanded a premium price on its products. These days all that remains is the premium price.

GET A CLUE SONY! YOUR MUSIC / FILM INTERESTS ARE SCREWING YOUR PRODUCT COMPANY INTO THE GROUND.

Olympus tried this already

[EmagGeek]

They made a compact-in-an-SLR-chassis a number of years ago and couldn't sell it at all.. None of the benefits of the SLR (optics, interchangeable lenses, etc) with none of the benefits of a compact (portability, weight, etc). It was a pretty useless machine.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

FUD? When I checked this Wikipedia article on MagicGate technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagicGate), it said that "MagicGate encryption [...], as of 2004, has been introduced into all of Sony's Memory Stick products"

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Olympus E-10 and E-20, though they used an optical block rather than a pellicle mirror for beam-splitting. Excellent cameras both, and still quite widely available. They're TRUE SLRs with an high quality, fast fixed zoom lens and some other interesting features (good intervalometer, very high shutter speed in interlaced mode). Like all Olympus DSLRs, they're beautifully made, too.

get an Olympus DSLR with a dust-shaker

[danny]

Or get an Olympus DSLR with a subsonic dust-removal system. This really does work - people who turn up reporting dust in the Olympus SLR forum on dpreview are so are that they're considered novelties.

I know there are lots of options for cleaning sensors, but the last thing I want to have to do is worry about that on a hike, or while travelling in Africa, or anywhere like that.

Oh, and my E1 is weatherproof - splash- and dust-proof!

Danny.

Live display makes the camera difficult to steady!

[Strolls]

I'm not a serious photographer, but I like to think that I have a modicum of a clue. Years ago when I got my SLR the manual talked about the position of your arms when holding the camera, in order to keep it steady; with a traditional SLR, for instance, one's right hand is close to one's eye pressing the button, so it's best to tuck the right elbow against your body so that there's less movement when you close the shutter.

Fast forward to the twenty-first century and I've been using a crappy digital Kodak one megapixel for a couple of years & decide to upgrade to a snazzy 4 or 5 megapixel Olympus MjuMini. I consistently get WORSE & more blurry pictureswith the new camera.

For those of you not familiar with these two cameras the crappy Kodak, as well as its LCD screen, has a little viewfinder which you frame up with; you may be able to frame the picture using the LCD, but I've never done so. The MjuMini, on the other hand, is about half the size and has no space at all for a viewfinder - you HAVE to frame the shot by holding it a couple of feet from your face, so that when you press the shutter the movement is transferred directly to the camera, with nothing to steady it. It seems extremely difficult to hold a camera really still when it's two feet away from your face, and I'm getting some really crappy shots with it, indoor, at least (most of my photos are for ebay, or posting a photo of a connector for a technical discussion).

It seems to me that this Sony really isn't solving a significant problem in previewing images.

Give me pentaprisms or give me death

[Brunellus]

While I'm resigned to EVFs for video, I refuse to use them for stills.

My usual photographic working environment is a beer-soaked, smoke-filled, crowded dive bar with a band hammering away on stage. Trying to take still photos of live action in this kind of environment (around 2 or 3 EV, sometimes lower than that)is hard enough. An EVF in those lighting conditions lags a lot, making it nearly impossible to compose critically where your subject is moving fast.

There's also the matter of critical focus. If you take pictures on a summer day, and your camera just hits f/16 and scale focuses, an EVF is perfectly adequate. But try manual focusing at f/2--not happening. (Oh yeah, I forgot to mention: most AF systems crap out at around EV 3 and start hunting. You can focus better manually, or use the old "prefocus and wait" trick to "trap" your subjects in focus).

I use a Pentax *ist DS, which I bought because it had a great optical viewfinder system. It's easy to manual-focus on the ground glass (something that's hard for me on the Canon digiRebel's v/f, which gives you something to look *through* rather than something to look *at*, IME). The glass pentaprism makes it brighter than the digiRebel's v/f as well--the latter has a mirrorbox. I would much rather have a proper viewfinder than every electronic whizzbang feature on my camera; the electronics are just the recording medium, after all. The real action is in the optics; all the wizardry can wait until I get home and fire up the GIMP.

Sony's high-end digicams are a "neither fish nor fowl" proposition, and I'd hesitate to recommend them to anyone. They are priced almost at the level of real DSLRs, and have impressive (and often excessive) feature sets. But their lenses are neither interchangeable nor particularly fast, and at the top end, the cameras are bulky and awkward to handle. People who buy them would have been better off either with a smaller and handier digicam, or a proper DSLR.

Re:Why Sony? 24mm - That's why!

[donstenk72]

It looks like you can't get a better deal if you _must_ have a wide angle, for example interior photography. I'll be getting one asap - I was close to spending $300 more for a Canon DSLR with a wideangle zoom lens. Unless of course I can find a 24mm lens (no zoom) that fits well on DSLR. Any suggestions? I have never worked out how lenses for analogue camera's compare on a DSLR. Would be great if someone could enlighten me.

camera details

[derniers]

detailed review at the "camera geek" site: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/ very interesting design, my guess is that the innovations in the R1 are more likely to migrate into the point and shoot lines (of Sony and the other camera companies) than into DSLRs

For those who are boycotting Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.petitiononline.com/bcsony/petition.html

Re:For those who are boycotting Sony

[chawly]

I tried to sign but I don't think that the site is working properly

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Panasonic FZ 30's noise is completely ridiculous, even at ISO 100. At ISO 400 it is more-or-less unusable. The lens on the R1 is much better than the Panasonic's, which itself is good for a P&S lens. And of course the manual mode on the R1 is better.

Nikon Dust Off

[caveat]

The optional ($99, but worth it) Nikon Capture software has a "Dust Off" feature - you take an out-of-focus picture of a featureless white card (instructions in the manual) so the only thing that shows up clearly is sensor contamination; the software uses it as a reference to strip out any visible dust from your photos. I personally don't have a dust problem, but a friend had some horrible dust issues and the software worked rather well until he could get it cleaned. Word to the wise, not a lot of shops will do that - he had to send his back to Nikon. They were cool about it though, charged him like ten bucks and shipping. I've heard you can retract the mirror and jam a Shop-Vac in there, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try that on my expensive-ass camera.

One word

[caveat]

Lag. DPReview doesn't mention it at all, but I've seen a couple of other sites that claim while it's been greatly reduced from other EVFs, there's still a discernable pause between pressing the button and getting the picture. Couple that with a lack of a decent burst mode and the camera is useless for any sort of fast-action photography.

Anyway, without interchangeable lenses, it's a moot point. An interchangeable-lens remote EVF with a completely lag-free viewer that's as clear and bright as a proper TTL would sell, but we're a LONG way from that. Even if we did have that, it would probably more eat into the viewfinder/twin-lens reflex market more than the SLR market.

Re:Why Sony? 24mm - That's why!

[Echnin]

Most DSLRs have an APS-C-sized sensor, that's about 22mm wide or something like that; same size as an APS frame. This Sony cam also has an APS-C sensor. Because of the smaller size, you need to multiply the actual focus length by 1.6 to get an equivalent of what it would be like on a camera with a 35mm film, or a 35mm sensor which Canon has on their single-digit cameras (5D, 1D etc). To compensate, some lenses (EF-S line for Canon; Nikon has a line as well I believe. The 350D comes with such a lens; 18-55mm or approx. 29-88mm equiv.) make wider zooms possible for less money because they have to cover less area. Such lenses are incompatible with 35mm cameras. 24mm equivalent shouldn't be a problem; that would only need a 15mm lens. I don't know about an EF-S lens at that exact length, but a regular EF fisheye lens would work well.

Ever heard of "pixel binning"

[melted]

How is 8MP camera with a small sensor different from a camera with a 10MP large sensor? I'm not talking about capturing full-res video. I'm not even talking about capturing high-def. 640x480 at 30fps would be more than enough for me. What's important here is that due to sensor size (or, really, focal length range) I'd be able to blur the background, and there would be _zero_ noise, even at ISO 1600.

Re:Ever heard of "pixel binning"

[Belseth]

640x480 is about half a megapixel. Based on the post I thought the intent was to capture ultra high res video.

Soft backgrounds are tough. The real issue is apeture size. The smaller the size the deeper the depth of field. I shot a hidef film and getting a soft background was tough. You needed a ton of light and even then it wasn't that soft. In the film world 8mm tends to have a lot of range due to the small apeture. Forced perspective is easy since there's a deep focas. Try the same shot with Vistavison. It's nearly impossible with Vistavision to do forced perspective because the focas is so shallow. It's why it was used for so many westerns and outdoor films. Works great with a ton of light and the lens at infinity. It's like a pin hole camera. If you want to see CU stick a tiny hole in a piece of tin foil. Even with bad eye sight fine print looks sharp. Now punch it out until it's the size of a pencil, no effect. Kind of the same with lens. It's the optics that give you the shallow focas. With a bigger CCD you get a wider open lens to cover the chip. It's good and bad but it mimics 35mm far better and gives you a similar look and feel to the way it focases.

Re:Who cares?

[Reaperducer]

It's Wikipedia. Someone could write that all Memory Sticks came with a free tub of butter. It still wouldn't be true. Citing Wikipedia is about the weakest argument you could make.