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.

16 of 386 comments (clear)

  1. No thanks. by eriko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, it's a Sony. Not interested.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    1. Re:No thanks. by eriko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    2. Re:No thanks. by 10Ghz · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  2. Interchangeable lenses by JanneM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re:Who cares? by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Why Sony? by Rdickinson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  5. Re:Why Sony? by CyricZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Why Sony? by stuuf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  7. Re:Why Sony? by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.
    --
    When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
  8. Re:SLR by Oh+the+Huge+Manatee · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  9. Re:Vital statistics by bigberk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Who cares? by johansalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Who cares? by Reaperducer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."
  12. Re:Why Sony? by KangKong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Don't buy SONY anything! by gone.fishing · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  14. Re:Why electronic viewfinders are better by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.