Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Announced Hybrid Digital Camera

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the put-everything-good-in-a-bag-and-shake-it dept.

Sony 386

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! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No thanks. (4, Insightful)

eriko (35554) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235598)

Sorry, it's a Sony. Not interested.

Re:No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235612)

Damn straight. Slashdot, please don't advertise for Sony. Nobody wants anything from them.

Re:No thanks. (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235649)

I guess you need to buy a $1000 Sony digital camera before you get CompactFlash support instead of being locked into that god awful proprietary memorystick crap.

Re:No thanks. (2, Informative)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235781)

They most likely use compact flash because you can get 4 gb hard drives for them. And that kind of storage is more in demand when your pics are of a higher resolution. Also, being that less expensive cameras tend to be on the smaller side, having a compact flash slot can take quite a bit of room let alone both a CF slot and a Memory stick slot.

Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235605)

Anyone going to buy their products again after the rootkit fiasco?

Stop advertising for them and its no different from slashdot running stories on Sco Openserver?

Re:Who cares? (5, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235634)

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.

Re:Who cares? (4, Interesting)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235670)

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).

Re:Who cares? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235706)

you get live preview with a DSLR --the viewfinder-- unlike point and shits, the viewfinder on a DSLR actually sees through the lens and filters themselves to show what your picture will look like including focus and zoom done more precise than extra markings etched into the viewfinder

Re:Who cares? (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235794)

Thank god someone knows what Single Lense Reflex means. I was about to kill myself.

Re:Who cares? (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235815)

I was of course talking about a video screen live preview, which is the only "innovation" of the R1.

(and quite a few recent point and shots got rid of the viewfinder altogether, which is at best a questionable decision but well...)

Re:Who cares? (1)

qubex (206736) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235870)

This camera cannot be a true SLR. If it were a true SLR, you would not be able to have a live preview on the LCD. This because when composing a shot through the viewfinder, the internal mirror is in a depressed condition that prevents light from reaching the film/sensor, which is covered by a shutter anyway.

As a simple exercise of deductive logic, if you can see a live preview on the LCD, it means that light is being allowed to reach the CCD/CMOS sensor. This in turn means that there is no shutter or mirror. This means that though it may be behaving somewhat like an SLR, it is not an SLR. That means it's essentially a Compact with some kind of extra equipment in a cool-looking form-factor.

In any case, this sounds like another marketing-gimmick product from Sony. I'm sure it's only compatible with MemoryStick. Lenses are not interchangeable and the cropping factor is probably nonstandard. It's clearly intended for clueless consumers.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235710)

Mod parent up! I don't know what he was saying but it sounded like it was about cameras and stuff.

Re:Who cares? (1)

external400kdiskette (930221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235782)

Whilst this discussion was inevitably going to end up about rootkits instead of cameras as all Sony articles will be for the forseeable future it might not have such a big affect on Sony as people will still get their favourite music irrespective of the label it's on and Sony will continue to do what it does best, expensive sleek looking stuff that certain people cant get their hands off. I mean the idea of a major company shipping viruses with its product knowingly is beyond horrible as it's the kind of behaviour you expect from some teenage morons.

Re:Who cares? (1, Troll)

mikefrommcmurray (817962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235843)

If people buy this camera, it will just encourage Sony. If consumers punish then for the other Sony hardware with crappy DRM built in -- from MiniDisc to SACD -- diminishing profits for the entire company, parhaps that will force the suits to act. Not I'm not even addressing the Software DRM here.

There are 1,001 different digital cameras out there, including dozens of that blow the doors off this model. This is not a camera for professionals. How many non-pros need 10 megapixel resolution? If it's for a website, 5 MP is already overkill.

According to DPreview [dpreview.com] , This camera offers both Memory Stick/Memory Stick Pro and Compact Flash Type I/II. Isn't Memory Stick chock full of DRM goodies? While CF is also available, isn't a DRM storage method bad? Help me out here, people!

Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235751)

I don't care what divisions are responsible for what. There are people above all of them who orchestrate the whole mess, and if they are unwilling to clean house, I'm unwilling to do business with them.

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235773)

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.

Selfishness is next to godliness (0, Offtopic)

rooster9 (906725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235611)

So... I can't just turn uploading off like on Bearshare? Damn greedy bastards expect me to give back to the community.

The blurb is extremely vague and confused (2, Insightful)

cytoman (792326) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235617)

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.

Re:The blurb is extremely vague and confused (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235717)

It's even more of a shame that the Slashdot editors even give a company who loves to compromise their customer's computers some advertisement.

And I'm not talking about Microsoft.

Re:The blurb is extremely vague and confused (1, Informative)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235804)

Sony took their camera sensor normally meant for expensive professional DSLRs with interchangable lenses and stuck it in a less expensive fixed lensed system. Think of Chevy putting a Nascar engine in a minivan.

From Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235618)

If it's from Sony it must be a spy cam!

Seriously, sounds like a nice unit. But at 2.25 pounds it needs a tripod.

Re:From Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235796)

When you download pics from the camera, it also installs the rootkit as an added bonus!

I dont hate Sony, but... (0)

Mooshi (888752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235622)

who cares?

Why Sony? (3, Interesting)

Lxy (80823) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235623)

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.

Re:Why Sony? (4, Insightful)

Rdickinson (160810) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235651)

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...

Re:Why Sony? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235667)

Zeiss has been a name that's rested on its laurels for many a year now. Anyone buying or promoting them over most other glass out there is the equivalent of a ricer who sticks "Type R" stickers on their car, no matter whether it's a Nissan, Chev, Ford or Hyundai.

Re:Why Sony? (5, Informative)

Rdickinson (160810) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235689)

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:Why Sony? (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235683)

The mirror is only there to allow you to aim through the true lenses (instead of old school compact's independant aim). It's perfect until you manage to get rid of it through a live numeric feed (such as what compacts are currently using) which gets rid of a now redundant mechanical part.

Switchable lenses, on the other hand...

Re:Why Sony? (4, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235653)

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.

Re:Why Sony? (4, Interesting)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235705)

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.

Re:Why Sony? (1)

chris_eineke (634570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235797)

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.
Don't you mean they blow up after three seconds with an "Jihad!" just before they see 56 virgins?

Okay, I admit. That was disgusting. :P

Re:Why Sony? (1)

nite_warrior (151737) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235725)

Not everyone is as into optics and cameras as you are.

if you are going to spend 1K on a camera... you have to know a little bit at least...

Anyways, sony lenses are not that bad. Personally, I will compare what are you getting on that camera compared to other at the same/similar price. For example you can get decent slr cameras for around the same price, and there is not where this camera fails.

The lenses are not so close... there is an adapter you can use and extra lenses/filters to match (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/ [dpreview.com] ). I still think, as most of sony products, it is too pricy for what you get.

Re:Why Sony? (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235817)

I find that people who spend 1k on a camera don't know much about optics. People that spend 1k on a lense and 100 bucks on a camera, know a quite a bit about optics.

Re:Why Sony? (1)

joshv (13017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235851)

Please, find me that mythical $100 digital camera body with interchangeable lenses :)

Re:Why Sony? (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235886)

Well you can find older Kodak bodies that take Nikon and Canon mounts on ebay for dirt cheap. But if you really cared about optical quality you would be shooting slides and scanning it one by one. That's the way we did it when I was a lad and by gum we liked it.

Re:Why Sony? (1)

nite_warrior (151737) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235672)

yeah... it sucks not to have interchangeabel lenses... if you just start on photografy is fine.. I've had my Fuji finepix S5000 for some more than a year... it was great to start and learn the concepts, but I've come to a point where I really want to get more control than leaving it all to the camera, and be able to focus better depending on what I'm takig picture of...

Re:Why Sony? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235676)

Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.

Yeah, you know how bad those all those betacams suck and who could forget their HDC-F950. Lacking right?

Re:Why Sony? (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235827)

This camera uses CMOS not CCD.

Re:Why Sony? (3, Insightful)

stuuf (587464) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235692)

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.

Re:Why Sony? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235734)

Sony doesn't make quality, for over a decade Sony's consumer electronics have been only marginally, if at all, better than the no-name brand electronics and quite a bit behind the other big manufacturers.

Sony's PROFESSIONAL gear is like a whole other company though.

Re:Why Sony? (1)

jeriqo (530691) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235885)

That's probably right.. I'm more into music, and Sony makes the "best" studio headphones available (MDR 7506), while they also make crappy $10 earphones.

Re:Why Sony? (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235861)

You do realize that the sensor used in those high end cameras sometimes contain Sony sensors. The Minolta cameras contain Sony sensors. Also Carl Zeiss makes lenses for Sony. Oh and Sony has been making video cameras for over 30 years and if you watch your local news, chances are it is using Sony Betacam tapes with a Sony camera.

Also, Panasonics are actually rebranded Leicas, and Leicas are a good thing.

no freaking way... (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235737)

Canon is a good company. Their SLRs are fantastic. But I'm sorry, they lag in the point and shoot market. Canon has finally nearly completed rolling out the DIGIC II chip in their P&S line. What does this mean? Well, finally, their P&S cameras aren't slow as slugs.

Sony rolled their lines to modern processors starting two years ago, they had switched their line over a long time ago now. Canon just got started 1 year ago and still hasn't finished. Look at the Powershot G5, because it has an old chip, it has enormous shutter lag and slow shot-to-shot time.

I tried to buy the G5, I demoed it, I just couldn't buy it. The Sony DSC-V3, with its up to date processor was a million times faster a startup, preview, lag, etc. And the optics on the two are identical.

So, although I like some Canons (the SD### series), they have been slow to advance in the P&S market. Oh, and they buy their CCDs (in P&S cameras, not their CMOS sensors in dSLRs) from Sony.

Re:Why Sony? (1)

pyite (140350) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235740)

To touch on what someone else said, Sony uses Carl Zeiss glass and Carl Zeiss lenses are some of the best possible optics you'll find. They make optics for incredibly respected companies like Hasselblad and others. But, I agree, not being able to interchange is useless.

Re:Why Sony? (3, Insightful)

KilobyteKnight (91023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235767)

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.

Re:Why Sony? (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235775)

Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.

Sony's 7mp sensor found on many point-n-shoots is considered superb by many. I use a DSC-P150 as my pocket camera and, under the right conditions, its pics outperform those of my Nikon D70s SLR.

Sony usually uses Carl Zeiss glass. Nothing shabby about that.

Re:Why Sony? Call me crazy but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235832)

Q: Why Sony?
A: "Sony. Because Caucasians are just too tall!" --TV commercial narrator in the movie Crazy People [imdb.com] .

Re:Why Sony? (1)

speleo (61031) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235875)

Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.

Hmm, I wonder why Canon uses Sony CCD chips in their Powershot line?

Also, why would you buy an SLR without interchangeable lenses?

No dust on the imaging chip. I probably spend more time cleaning and doing the Photoshop clone thing to get rid of dust spots than I do taking pictures.

Vital statistics (5, Funny)

Grandma Death (936904) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235625)

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

Re:Vital statistics (1)

kd3bj (733314) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235862)

Hopefully a better one than last time.

Think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235628)

Underaged kids might post nekkid pics of themselves online, will Sony DRM all photos or give these teens recording contracts?

Hmm (5, Funny)

Ziviyr (95582) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235629)

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

Interchangeable lenses (3, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235632)

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.

Re:Interchangeable lenses (2, Insightful)

maswan (106561) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235693)

See, this isn't "my" selling point for a DSLR, rather that all compacts are horribly slow. Both in startup and autofocus/shutter lag. This and light-sensitivity are much more important to me than interchangable lenses, assuming the lens on the camera is good enough of course.

Now, this particular camera is a first generation of its kind and it does have some issues (most touched on in the article and the dpreview: awkward lcd placement, no closeups, crippled burst mode). But I could see myself buying this kind of camera in a few generations.

Having gotten used to the tilt-and-swivel lcd on my everyday compact, I find it very inconvenient to pick up a DSLR and having to use the viewfinder. Sure, for manual focus it makes some sense, but that is a special case I care much less about, compared to getting resonable shots from the hip or from an arms-length up above my head, or taking pictures from the ground without having to crawl on it to see where I'm aiming.

Re:Interchangeable lenses (2, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235844)

I wasn't entirely clear. For a compact camera user (who already lives with a fixed lens and an electronic viewfinder) the largest gripe is usually image quality, especially at high ISO, due in large part to a small sensor. This Sony can be seen as an attempt to rectify that; throw on a sensor of the same size as a DSLR and you'll get comparative image quality. Of course, you'll get comparative size, weight and prize as well.

The Sony is the same size, weight and price range as a Canon 350D with the kit lens (a bit more, actually). It just isn't a compact camera anymore, and can't really compare to them. It throws away the huge advantage of small size entirely (which it has to do to use an APS size sensor). Apparently they also throw away other features compact users really like.

Instead it invites comparison with other cameras in the same size and price range - which are DSLRs. And from a DLSR users point of view, this is not all that compelling - in no small part because image quality is apparently not up where it should be and use of RAW format seems botched, but mostly because it lacks the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. The optics on this one is by all reviews superb. But you can't put on a really fast prime lens for nighttime photography; no real macro lens for insects or flowers; no long telephoto for sports or wildlife.

It relinquishes the benefits of a compact camera in order to compete with DSLRs on image quality. In the process, it pick up some of the same drawbacks (size and cost) but fails to incorporate any of the other benefits. And, in the end, it seems not to fully have achieved the desired image quality either.

Re:Interchangeable lenses (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235742)

Lack of movie mode is what I think is insane! That, and no macro???? I have the D-828 and *LOVE IT*, it is a wonderful camera. Guess the R1 is *NOT* a suitable upgrade path, since although the 828 has a smaller sensor, it sounds like it is just as wide (angle), has same dual media, can tilt for up/down shots, has more than enough resolution (8MP), and has the missing movie and macro (like 1cm from the lens!!) modes.

Sony does this sometimes and it is very odd- they get a great idea for the next generation product and totally forget about what was successful BEFORE! The R1 will fail to attract people that liked the 727 and the 828 because it lacks features. And it will fail to attract people in the DSLR market because you can't change the lens! It is a lose-lose proposition.

I would like to see a F-929, an 828 with the new sensor with all the exact same fetures, plus add an HDTV 720P 16x9 movie mode (hey- it has the resolution, could have the CPU by now, can have enough storage for some short segments... the 828 can already do 640x480x30FPS).

R1 is a Hybrid because: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235633)

It has an apc-sized sensor (2/3rds the size of a 35mm piece of film.) Most other non DSLR cameras have very small sensors which limit their high ISO capabilities.

Pictures? (1)

Jozer99 (693146) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235635)

Anyone got pictures?

Re:Pictures? (1)

this great guy (922511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235680)

Anyone got pictures ?

How the hell am I supposed to take a picture of the R1 with the R1 itself ? Hmm ?

Re:Pictures? (0, Flamebait)

this great guy (922511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235696)

How the hell am I supposed to take a picture of the R1 with the R1 itself ? Hmm ?

Oh wait I could use a mirror. Damn I am a blasted idiot.

So overall, the thing's a wash. (3, Informative)

RasputinAXP (12807) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235636)

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.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash. (2, Informative)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235690)

many cameras have a minumum distance and also have a seperate macro mode that goes far inside that distance.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash. (2, Insightful)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235755)

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.

Re:So overall, the thing's a wash. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235839)

you can't get any closer than 13 inches. ...
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.


What would that be, a microscope?

Everything you need to know (4, Informative)

Tom Davies (64676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235641)

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

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

Re:Everything you need to know (1)

Rdickinson (160810) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235712)

The noise is a function of craming more megapixels onto the sensor.

The Canon 350d (8mp) and the Nikon (6 or 8mp) on the same sensor size.

People who 'know' dont equate number of pixels to image quality, theres many other things that take prescedence, nut to the masses things like Carl Zeiss and 10mp sell.

I'm in! (3, Funny)

Construct X (582731) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235643)

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.

Re:I'm in! (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235763)

It uses Compact Flash or Sony Memory Stick. Have fun with your new camera.

A simple choice for you, OSTG/Slashdot (0, Troll)

AeroNate (740123) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235647)

You may choose between advertising for Sony and counting on my bajillion-per-day lurker page views to make money yourselves. Another "story" like this and I'm history.

Re:A simple choice for you, OSTG/Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235673)

You may choose between advertising for Sony and counting on my bajillion-per-day lurker page views to make money yourselves. Another "story" like this and I'm history.

Y'all hear that? There goes a whaaaaambulance!

Re:A simple choice for you, OSTG/Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235791)

O RLY? Microsoft is considered 10 times worse than Sony, at least as far as slashdotters care, but you're not complaining about the thousands of XBox stories this week.

Good review (3, Informative)

a_ghostwheel (699776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235650)

Good review can be found here [dpreview.com] .

Re:Good review (1)

DougMackensie (79440) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235784)

Or here [nytimes.com] , D. Pogue does a good job of explaining how this camera has a different potential audience than a point and click or a DSLR.

Anna Merikin? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235652)

What kind of stupid foreign name is that?

Sony? A new camera? (2, Insightful)

RowboatRobot (899380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235662)

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!

Sony Camera (4, Funny)

this great guy (922511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235663)

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

I have one on the way... (1)

david_bonn (259998) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235664)

I'm buying one based on this review by Phil Askey [dpreview.com] .

My feelings are that Sony is a great hardware company being tormented by its music and movies divisions. Whatever genuis in Tokyo came up with the idea of acquiring media companies needs to be beaten. Badly.

Re:I have one on the way... (2, Informative)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235752)

great hardware.... right..... have you bought Sony consumer gear made recently? it is worse than their major brand competitors and about comparable to the decent generic hardware.

Re:I have one on the way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235887)

heh, so much for moral standards against anti-consumer corporate psychopathy.

reminds me of what someone posted in a mid-way rootkit topic, that its damn near hopeless thinking people will each and individually boycott a company.

SLR Photography and Cameras... (3, Informative)

Cherita Chen (936355) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235674)

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 [consumersearch.com]

As an owner of the DSC-R1 (1)

outofpaper (189404) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235724)

I have to say I'm quite pleased with it. The ability to see what your image is going to look like before you take it is quite rewarding. Additionally the Ziess optics are spectacular.

Should I go more indepth with the benifits of this camera?

Re:As an owner of the DSC-R1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235753)

So what's the resolution of the LCD preview versus a large viewfinder on an SLR? -- point is, a viewfinder provides a higher fidelity rendition of the scene before pressing the shutter release. Or, am I missing your point?

That said, I'm certain that I will purchase an R1 or similar in the future to compliment my DSLR (and SLR).

SLR (0, Troll)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235739)

I was just thinking about this. Is it me, or is an SLR mechanism in a digital camera totally and completely stupid? The point of the SLR was to be able to look through the lens and see exactly what the lens was seeing. With a digital viewfinder, who needs all that extra mechanical crap? The only conclusion I can come to is that the camera makers are adding the SLR to appeal to "traditional" photographers.

Are there cameras with the extra good sensors along with interchangeable lenses, but without the SLR that I actually think is a negative?

Re:SLR (2, Informative)

Rdickinson (160810) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235793)

I have a Minolta A2 - probably the best Electronic view finder on the market.

Its dreadfull(for image quality) when compared with the through the lens viewfinder of an SLR, there so much clearer and brighter.

its usefull for having grid patterns, histograms etc, but given the choice, I'd rather have the dSLR.

Also up until recently (with this sony aparently) running hte sensor, a LARGE sensor all the time suckd the battery power.

My friends canon 300d can take as many pictures with one battery (similar 'size') as my A2 does two - and I'm working in power saving mode (no LCD, eye sensor EVF etc.

Re:SLR (5, Insightful)

Oh the Huge Manatee (919359) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235810)

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.

Re:SLR (1)

Rdickinson (160810) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235842)

Most of the lag on consumer cameras is focusing time, not shutter time. SLR's tend to have better focus technology than even prosumer digi's.

I can set my A2 to manual focus and snap very quickly, with zero noise, an advantage when you need to be quiet. Effectivly non SLR digital cameras dont have shutters...

True about the power consumption though.

Re:SLR (1)

michaeltoe (651785) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235835)

Digital viewfinder = crap.

Re:SLR (1)

tigeba (208671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235855)

For one thing, you can brace the camera much better using the viewfinder than you can holding the camera at arms length gawking at the LCD display. Most LCD displays are not really large enough to assess focus, where a viewfinder is usually a much larger effective viewing area.

There are exceptions of course. An LCD would be pretty handy if you want to take a picture at ground level.

Re:SLR (1)

Rdickinson (160810) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235866)

LCD screen != viewfinder, most cameras have both.

The minolta A2's viwefinder is hinged so you can look down verticaly on the camera pointing horizontal, very handy, and far better IQ than the LCD, and less power consumption.

(d)SRL still pwns it.

Big = Good (1)

dindi (78034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235743)

All I want from an SLR is standard size lens, so I can walk into a store, buy a fisheye, or a 200mm + tele-objective

I would even settle with 4-5 megapix, as most pictures I watch on the LCD screen, TV or projector, and my printouts are 20cm at max....

So it is nice to put SLR quality into a matchstick, but I would prefer an affordable full size body in (higher end) compact resolutions.....

Just for reference: I have an old canon crame for "real" photos, and a nicon 2 megapix for whatever else (compact coolpix series) and I am really looking into something more serious (as I take a lot of pix, and travel a lot locally) but I am not willing to shell out $2000 for anything just to be able to use third party optics ....

just my 2 cents .... I am sure many would like an affordable SLR just for the optics, but I do not see anyone providing it ...

am i alone?
 

The new architecture also allows wider-angle optic (1)

Rdickinson (160810) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235756)

"The new architecture also allows wider-angle optics to be used"

Cheaply, its 24mm equivelant, isnt that wide angle, but they can make it decent and cheap - because its so close to the sensor.

Many uzi prosumer choices are better than the Sony (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235764)

uzi = ultra zoom.

I'm very fond of the Panasonic FZ20. 36-432mm f2.8 lens with optical image stabilization. If you hunt around, you can probably find for 1/2 of the Sony. There's plenty others too that offer better performance, IMHO.

For the SLR fan, I prefer Nikon to Canon (I have a D70s), but the arguments on this rival vi vs. emacs. Current thinking is to buy the one that fels best in your hands (whis is why I bought the D70s). A D50 body can be had for $550 + $700 for the shipping-next-week 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens (27-300mm 35mm equiv) gets you enough camera to keep you busy for a while before you start adding more lenses. Add a 50mm f/1.8 for portraiture/low light for under $100.

Olympus E Series, Anyone? (1)

JoshDanziger (878933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235766)

This camera seems ominously similar to the Olympus E-10 and E-20 cameras. The camera used a prism to split light between the sensor and the viewfinder. You could turn the sensor on and use that instead of the viewfinder. The lens was also fixed, like this Sony camera. Of course, it was only a 4MP camera, but that was years ago!

I don't really think that there's anything to see here.

Re:Olympus E Series, Anyone? (1)

madstork2000 (143169) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235808)

I was just about to post the same comment. Olympus has been doing this for years... I still use my E10 regularly, and I can definately say it is *NOT* a compact camera. Anyway, dpreview has a very detailed (as usual) review of the camera at: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/ [dpreview.com]

-MS2K

Re:Olympus E Series, Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235856)

I have Olympus E-20 and it has all those Nice features combined..

+ 5-Mpix (E10 was 4mpix)
+ 4/3 ratio (ideal for printing so no wasted pixels)
+ Simultanoius LCD/SLR technology , with swing-lcd
+ Virtually silent (no anonying Mirror-slap)
+ Good quality lense
+ Combined Leaf + Electronic shutter
+ Flash sync with ALL electrocinc flashes upto 1/4000

My only wish they could make someday a E-30 or E-50 with same feats but Oly 4/3 mount compatible

Why electronic viewfinders are better (3, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235778)

I've been using a Minolta Dimage 7 [steves-digicams.com] and then an A2 [steves-digicams.com] 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

This is ancient history. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235779)

Why is this being announced now? This is ancient history, Sony announced the R1 long back. In fact, on Dec-1 they even announced a firmware update. Check here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120101dscr1fir mware.asp [dpreview.com]

Umm.... wake up slashdot.

I call BS! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14235834)

This article appears more of marketing propaganda than actual truth. Take for example "he R1 offers something that's never before been possible on a large-sensor camera: a wide-angle (24-mm) equivalent on the basic lens" What about the (10-12mm)-(20-22mm) lenses that are available for current D-SLR's - that gives 16mm wide lens vs 24mm wide! Oooo ...

yeah...hybrid (2, Interesting)

Repugnant_Shit (263651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235840)

I read the review...it isn't any kind of hybrid camera. It is just a new CyberShot model. Still no through-the-lens, changeable lenses, etc. because it is NOT meant to be anything like an SLR. Canon has a similar line of products.

Get a Olympus E-500 2 lens kit (1)

jonr (1130) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235878)

If you can think outside the Canon/Nikon box you should check out the Olympus E-500 2 lens kit.
Best SLR bang for the buck. You get 2 lens kit for less money than the R1. And it is not much heavier.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?