Slashdot Mirror
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.
Sorry, it's a Sony. Not interested.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
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.
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.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
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...
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.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
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!
Yeah, you know how bad those all those betacams suck and who could forget their HDC-F950. Lacking right?
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.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
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.
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.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
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.
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.
This camera has a minimum distance of greater than a foot and no macro mode. What's Sony's excuse?
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.
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.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
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.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
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.
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!
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.
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&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
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.
-
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
... 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?)
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
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.
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.)
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.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Yep. It's not like Sony Electronics pushes non-standard stuff like ATRAC and MemoryStick over widely used alternatives. No sirree!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.