Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Announced Hybrid Digital Camera

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the put-everything-good-in-a-bag-and-shake-it dept.

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.

37 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 modecx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    3. 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. Why Sony? by Lxy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
    1. 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...

    2. 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.
    3. Re:Why Sony? by Rdickinson · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. 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

    5. Re:Why Sony? by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    6. 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?
    7. 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.

    8. Re:Why Sony? by totoanihilation · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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 ;)
    9. Re:Why Sony? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    10. Re:Why Sony? by radish · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  3. Vital statistics by Grandma+Death · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Every living creature on earth dies alone.
    1. 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.

  4. Hmm by Ziviyr · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --

    Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. So overall, the thing's a wash. by RasputinAXP · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.
  8. Everything you need to know by Tom+Davies · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

    --
    I have discovered a wonderful .sig, but 120 characters is too small to contain it.
  9. I'm in! by Construct+X · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    Download Opera 9 (in the BETA forum)
  10. Good review by a_ghostwheel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Good review can be found here.

  11. Sony Camera by this+great+guy · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  12. Re:Who cares? by masklinn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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).

    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  13. SLR Photography and Cameras... by Cherita+Chen · · Score: 3, Informative
    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

    --
    I'm not fat, just big boned...
  14. Why electronic viewfinders are better by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. Re:SLR by Keeper · · Score: 3, Informative

    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)

  17. 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.

  18. Good Store to Buy the R1 From by lo0ol · · Score: 4, Funny

    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/

    --
    Good-Tutorials
  19. 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."
  20. 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!

  21. Canon's slow autofocus and high shutter lag by greeneggs2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  22. TFA is confused about sensor sizes by jpatters · · Score: 3, Informative

    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".

    --
    "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."