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

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.

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.

Good review

[a_ghostwheel]

Good review can be found here.

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: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: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)

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.

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: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.