Dslr R1

[weekh]

Why does Sony want to come out with so many similar models A200, A300 and A350???

Why can't they come out with a R1 version with interchangable lens??

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by weekh Why does Sony want to come out with so many similar models A200, A300 and A350??? Why can't they come out with a R1 version with interchangable lens??

That's basically a DSLR... Or the A350.

R1 and DSLR are in different classes. If they did what you wanted, why would they want to cannibalize Alpha sales for an R2? They came out with the R1 before they had a DSLR. Now that they have Alpha, the R1 is in a lost, semi-obsolete market niche.

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Originally Posted by weekh Why does Sony want to come out with so many similar models A200, A300 and A350??? Why can't they come out with a R1 version with interchangable lens??

R1 feels more like a MF than what a DSLR should be.

[zcf]

Interchangeable R1 will probably need a new lens mount series. Now with CZ 16-80 + A300, it's not too much different from R1, this combination should actually better than R1 in AF speed, flexibility to use other lens.

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by zcf Interchangeable R1 will probably need a new lens mount series. Now with CZ 16-80 + A300, it's not too much different from R1, this combination should actually better than R1 in AF speed, flexibility to use other lens.

And the sensor is better.

[Parchiao]

Dun quite agree that the DSLR offerring will be better to use, I can take photos with the R1 in landscape or portrait formats and the LCD can be adjusted to suit any position, the new DSLR LCDs are only limited to landscape formats.

I would have rather that they had a R2.

[pai]

Originally Posted by Parchiao Dun quite agree that the DSLR offerring will be better to use, I can take photos with the R1 in landscape or portrait formats and the LCD can be adjusted to suit any position, the new DSLR LCDs are only limited to landscape formats. I would have rather that they had a R2.

yah lah. the lcd on the a350/300 isn't as flexible. it's more like the one on the A2. but still, if ppl really want, sony can build a swivel lcd into future models. and in almost all other ways, an a300 with a 16-80 is better (plus got option to use fisheye, macro, long lens, prime lens). ok lah, just a bit bigger, more expensive and no video mode

but yeah. i don't think sony going to carry on with that advanced prosumer line anymore. now all eyes on fuji.

[zcf]

Sony R1 don't have video mode also, if sony can come out a DSLR with good HD video function, I think it would sell quite well, as it got better sensor size compare to normal video camera for better dynamic range and ISO noise.

[ExplorerZ]

Originally Posted by zcf Sony R1 don't have video mode also, if sony can come out a DSLR with good HD video function, I think it would sell quite well, as it got better sensor size compare to normal video camera for better dynamic range and ISO noise.

sensor will be burning hot...

anyway, it seems like sony is trying to promote dSLR as if it is a PnS... so many body yet difference are minimal like pixel count... etc
seems even worse than the nikon d40 > d40x... but at least its a good upgrade from the "soon-to-be" outdate 6MP

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by ExplorerZ sensor will be burning hot... anyway, it seems like sony is trying to promote dSLR as if it is a PnS... so many body yet difference are minimal like pixel count... etc seems even worse than the nikon d40 > d40x... but at least its a good upgrade from the "soon-to-be" outdate 6MP

Well, you need to remember that 75% of the DSLR market are the "uninformed" who just think DSLR makes them look pro and impresses the chicks. They get impressed by things like pixel count, swiveling screens, etc. Anything that makes a girl go "wow!".

That's the market segment that's wide open for huge profits.

[Parchiao]

I brought along my R1 for a trip to London and Paris last year. The articulated screen and the focal range provided me with so many ways to take street shots without people realising what I was doing and also secrectly taking photos in places that did not allow photography.

The carl zeiss lens was superb, shooting into the sun with no worries. I am not sure if I would want a R1 with the ability to change lens because I don't think the image quality will be as good, I would rather have an updated R1 with faster focussing, faster EVF rsponse and faster RAW write times, better high ISO performance, updated flash system and most of all the same SUPERB lens.

[weekh]

I wish for an updated R1 body that accepts all those Alpha lenses.
I would be happy if Sony is able to retain the original R1 lens but convert it to alpha mount.

BTW, R1 is such a unique and excellent cam that I'm still keeping it despite all the higher mega pixel in the current digicam / DSLR. The CZ lens is well worth the price of the whole camera!

[TME]

Originally Posted by Parchiao I brought along my R1 for a trip to London and Paris last year. The articulated screen and the focal range provided me with so many ways to take street shots without people realising what I was doing and also secrectly taking photos in places that did not allow photography. The carl zeiss lens was superb, shooting into the sun with no worries. I am not sure if I would want a R1 with the ability to change lens because I don't think the image quality will be as good, I would rather have an updated R1 with faster focussing, faster EVF rsponse and faster RAW write times, better high ISO performance, updated flash system and most of all the same SUPERB lens.

Well bro, firstly no photography means no photography... don't spoil it for others... cos next this happens and the security finds, they will start checking everyone's bag and tossing out all cameras... not funny...

Also I don't understand how have interchangeable lenses can cause image degradation?!

[Parchiao]

Originally Posted by TME Well bro, firstly no photography means no photography... don't spoil it for others... cos next this happens and the security finds, they will start checking everyone's bag and tossing out all cameras... not funny... Also I don't understand how have interchangeable lenses can cause image degradation?!

Bro, how I use a camera is none of your business. I do as I please, and the same for yourself.

On the part of better image quality, read up on the uniqueness of the R1 lens vs DSLRs. It's not to say the R1 has a better lens, it's the design of the camera makes the R1 lens better than if let's say the same lens were used in a DSLR mount.

[TME]

Originally Posted by Parchiao Bro, how I use a camera is none of your business. I do as I please, and the same for yourself. On the part of better image quality, read up on the uniqueness of the R1 lens vs DSLRs. It's not to say the R1 has a better lens, it's the design of the camera makes the R1 lens better than if let's say the same lens were used in a DSLR mount.

The R1 has an APS-C sized sensor which is the same as most DSLRs... it also has an excellent CZ lens which are available for any KM/SONY DSLRs... so how does have an interchangeable lens caue the image quality in DSLR to be "not as good"? The CZ lenses released for the Alpha bodies are optimised for those bodies just as the CZ lens for the R1 was optimised for the R1... the flange distance from rear element to sensor are different for both cameras because the R1 does not have a physical shutter... it uses an electronic shutter... this difference does not make the image better or worse if it is properly taken into account for in the lens design... which it must be otherwise you will all sorts of artifacts in your image for DSLRs.... which is also one reason why most manufacturers have scrambled to update all their existing lens lines as the film era lenses have different design constraints which do not suit a more reflective sensor with microlenses and pixel wells as compared to silver halide film... so with optimised lens designs, how does having an interchangeable lens cause an DSLR's image to be "not as good" in comparison to an R1? In fact, for a DSLR, you could obtain superior IQ at the same focal length and aperture if you used a prime lens from CZ (like an 85mm f/1.4) as it simply has fewer elements and groups and much fewer compromises in terms of lens design... so I really don't quite understand what you said in your previous post and my intention was for you to clarify what you meant... However your previous answer in asking me to read up on the uniqueness of the R1 bears no relationship in answering my question??? The R1 is unique is in that it was and still is the only fixed lens camera that has an APS-C sized sensor. Other than that... it behaves similarly to any DSLR in terms of its optical performance... no particular advantage where optical performance is concerned... SO I would like to hear you out it would be most interesting to me if there is something in the R1 design that allows for better IQ than a DSLR...

[Parchiao]

Originally Posted by TME The R1 has an APS-C sized sensor which is the same as most DSLRs... it also has an excellent CZ lens which are available for any KM/SONY DSLRs... so how does have an interchangeable lens caue the image quality in DSLR to be "not as good"? The CZ lenses released for the Alpha bodies are optimised for those bodies just as the CZ lens for the R1 was optimised for the R1... the flange distance from rear element to sensor are different for both cameras because the R1 does not have a physical shutter... it uses an electronic shutter... this difference does not make the image better or worse if it is properly taken into account for in the lens design... which it must be otherwise you will all sorts of artifacts in your image for DSLRs.... which is also one reason why most manufacturers have scrambled to update all their existing lens lines as the film era lenses have different design constraints which do not suit a more reflective sensor with microlenses and pixel wells as compared to silver halide film... so with optimised lens designs, how does having an interchangeable lens cause an DSLR's image to be "not as good" in comparison to an R1? In fact, for a DSLR, you could obtain superior IQ at the same focal length and aperture if you used a prime lens from CZ (like an 85mm f/1.4) as it simply has fewer elements and groups and much fewer compromises in terms of lens design... so I really don't quite understand what you said in your previous post and my intention was for you to clarify what you meant... However your previous answer in asking me to read up on the uniqueness of the R1 bears no relationship in answering my question??? The R1 is unique is in that it was and still is the only fixed lens camera that has an APS-C sized sensor. Other than that... it behaves similarly to any DSLR in terms of its optical performance... no particular advantage where optical performance is concerned... SO I would like to hear you out it would be most interesting to me if there is something in the R1 design that allows for better IQ than a DSLR...

The distance from rear element to sensor opens up a whole world of difference to the image quality that a lens is able to produce. Performance at wide angles are sharper i.e. corner to corner and does not vignette as easily as let's say a DSLR wide angles lens. The shorter distance also allows for less possibility for chromatic abberation. This all boils down to the physics of light, less distance for the light to travel means less possibility for light to deviate.

[TME]

Originally Posted by Parchiao The distance from rear element to sensor opens up a whole world of difference to the image quality that a lens is able to produce. Performance at wide angles are sharper i.e. corner to corner and does not vignette as easily as let's say a DSLR wide angles lens. The shorter distance also allows for less possibility for chromatic abberation. This all boils down to the physics of light, less distance for the light to travel means less possibility for light to deviate.

As far as I know vignetting occurs from the front element, and not because the sensor is further from the rear element... that's one reason why ultra wide angles have super large front elements and huge filter sizes (my KM 17-35mm is 77mm, and my previous Sigma 17-35 is 82mm) and very shallow lens hoods... Once the light is focused and projected into the lens, vignetting will not occur as the focussed light should hit the sensor plane at the normal... ocular diffraction or internal refractions are different issues...

Where the R1 excels over other bridge cameras would be that the CZ lens is made for the sensor such that it collects maximum light with minimal distortion at the front and the light hits sensor at the normal, resulting in less ghosting and reflections as well as having each pixel site's microlens pick up maximum incident light... I think it also reduces sensor blooming under very harsh lighting... the digital lenses for APSC DSLRs are also designed to optimise this, which is also why the CZ 16-80mm is so expensive even though it is only a DT lens... cos it does this very well... the ability to resolve fine detail at 16mm is really quite astounding for this lens... it is so sharp that it is not suitable for portrait cos the image captured will be less than flattering... the R1 cannot exceed this cos of the more complex lens design resulting in losses in light transmisson, and hence poor IQ!

[Parchiao]

Originally Posted by TME As far as I know vignetting occurs from the front element, and not because the sensor is further from the rear element... that's one reason why ultra wide angles have super large front elements and huge filter sizes (my KM 17-35mm is 77mm, and my previous Sigma 17-35 is 82mm) and very shallow lens hoods... Once the light is focused and projected into the lens, vignetting will not occur as the focussed light should hit the sensor plane at the normal... ocular diffraction or internal refractions are different issues... Where the R1 excels over other bridge cameras would be that the CZ lens is made for the sensor such that it collects maximum light with minimal distortion at the front and the light hits sensor at the normal, resulting in less ghosting and reflections as well as having each pixel site's microlens pick up maximum incident light... I think it also reduces sensor blooming under very harsh lighting... the digital lenses for APSC DSLRs are also designed to optimise this, which is also why the CZ 16-80mm is so expensive even though it is only a DT lens... cos it does this very well... the ability to resolve fine detail at 16mm is really quite astounding for this lens... it is so sharp that it is not suitable for portrait cos the image captured will be less than flattering... the R1 cannot exceed this cos of the more complex lens design resulting in losses in light transmisson, and hence poor IQ!

Bro, read this link lah, it's as best as I can muster. I have come across a lot of other information about the R1 in the past, but I no longer have the links or remember where they were.

The truth is that the R1 lens a whole lot easier to design and really costs less to put together. Easier to design means challenges like shaprness and vignetting are easier to overcome.

If you still don't believe me, you will need to look for someone who understands physics and light to explain.

[TME]

Originally Posted by Parchiao Bro, read this link lah, it's as best as I can muster. I have come across a lot of other information about the R1 in the past, but I no longer have the links or remember where they were. The truth is that the R1 lens a whole lot easier to design and really costs less to put together. Easier to design means challenges like shaprness and vignetting are easier to overcome. If you still don't believe me, you will need to look for someone who understands physics and light to explain.

If u read the article very carefully, the presence of the mirror does not affect IQ... it affects lens designs... I will cut and paste the relevant parts:

Quote: The reason this semantic issue is germane to IQ, is that the configuration variables of a camera, ie, fixed or removable lens, mirror or no mirror, pentaprism or pentamirror, optical or electronic viewfinder have (mostly) no impact on IQ. So, don’t fall for this myth! NOTE: The above configuration options DO matter, but they have little to do with IQ. Well, one of them does have a measurable effect on IQ: A fixed-lens camera CAN have a better lens. More on this in the next section…

The impact of the bridge camera is on the design of the lens which may or may not have an impact on IQ. The whole point is that the distance between the rear element and the sensor has no impact on the IQ... having a smaller flange to sensor distance can help lens design but it does not mean better IQ...

Quote: “The proximity of the rear element to the image sensor greatly enhances the possibilities for wide angle and very wide angle lens, enabling them to be made smaller, lighter (containing less glass), faster (larger aperture), and less expensive.”

According to the article, such a lens would be cheaper to manufacture and lighter as well as allowing for wider angles (within limits... larger than 12mm = fisheye). Whether or not this affects IQ is not quite clear from the article... but given current quality of lenses... they are outresolving the highest resolution sensors... and besides, if you cannot display that kind of resolution on your display, it's really of no use...

So to me it is not conclusive that having the R1 design where the reflex mirror is dropped will necessarily increase image quality... while the possibility is there... I think we're really at the limits of resolution... u can't display more resolution that your display can or your eye can see...

[yokechye]

hmm... i dun understand the need to compare so much between R1 and a DSLR. if RI is going to accept any interchangeable lens, technically it is as good as a DSLR.

A DSLR with interchangeable lens, if i glue it to the body with with lens, its as good as a R1. in time to come, many years down the road, R1 cannot catch up with a DSLR. sony lens comes out with CZ lens which are as good as the one R1 has. similarly, the lens R1 has, Sony lens has it too.

how wide can R1 go? how far can R1 go? there is a limit. wide angle adapter only can cause the image quality of the R1 images produced to be lower. similarly, if u wanna add an wide angle adapter or a tele to a DSLR lens, it also reduces image quality.

So R1 or DSLR, they are the same.

Wat is important is the person behind the camera. <- the always mentioned phrase.