R1

[weekh]

I think the R1 is just too big. It is positioned to compete directly with dslr instead of small digicam with video feature.

R1 is between a DSLR and a digicam. It is priced like a DSLR and as big as one.
For such a heafty cam, I would rather carry a 350D + 17-85mm IS and don't mind paying extra for the choice of interchangability of lenses.

Not that the R1 isn't good but people tend to compare it with a DSLR. If only Sony reposition it and reduce the its size and weight, and let it competes directly with Canon Pro1, KM A2 etc... then I think the R1 will be a winner.

 

[wind30]

Check out what M.Reichmann thinks of the R1 after spending some time shooting with it. Luminous-Landscape

Ultimately the R1 is a tool. And to you, is it the right tool for the job in hand?

but I thought the ISO400 picture is REALLY noisy. The noise is in blotches and not fine grained. looks TERRIBLE. I though R1 is better than this. My E1 ISO 400 have noise but they are very fine grained, not in blotches...

 

[wind30]

I think the R1 is just too big. It is positioned to compete directly with dslr instead of small digicam with video feature.

R1 is between a DSLR and a digicam. It is priced like a DSLR and as big as one.
For such a heafty cam, I would rather carry a 350D + 17-85mm IS and don't mind paying extra for the choice of interchangability of lenses.

Not that the R1 isn't good but people tend to compare it with a DSLR. If only Sony reposition it and reduce the its size and weight, and let it competes directly with Canon Pro1, KM A2 etc... then I think the R1 will be a winner.

sony's take is that the 24-120 lens is better optically than the 17-85mm lens... Dunno how true that it though.

 

[weekh]

Alternatively, Sony could have improved the features of the R1 a bit like having better buffer size and shooting rate and compete directly with entry level DSLR.
As of now, I find it neither here nor there....

 

[kahheng]

1) The 4th shot looks ok to me. If you look at the bottom half of the picture the details is quite good actually. Of course the top part of the picture is very mushy but I think it is the atmoshere not the camera.

You must be kidding, seriously, and no offence meant. The bottom half looks like a picture from a cheap $100 CMOS camera or cameraphone. No texture whatsoever. Super overprocessed.

2) The 7th shot does looks a bit weird. esp the grass you pointed out. Maybe they have very smooth grass

3) the 2nd shot looks great to me

I think we must looking at different pictures

 

[kahheng]

I think the R1 is just too big. It is positioned to compete directly with dslr instead of small digicam with video feature.

R1 is between a DSLR and a digicam. It is priced like a DSLR and as big as one.
For such a heafty cam, I would rather carry a 350D + 17-85mm IS and don't mind paying extra for the choice of interchangability of lenses.

Not that the R1 isn't good but people tend to compare it with a DSLR. If only Sony reposition it and reduce the its size and weight, and let it competes directly with Canon Pro1, KM A2 etc... then I think the R1 will be a winner.

Personally speaking, the R1's size was not an issue to me when I considered the camera. The underwhelming JPEG picture quality was what made up my mind. Like I had said, you'd expect a lot more from an APS-C sensor camera sporting a Zeiss lens..

 

[kahheng]

sony's take is that the 24-120 lens is better optically than the 17-85mm lens... Dunno how true that it though.

I can't see how hard it is to design a lens better than it ;-) The EF17-85 is just a tad above average. Terribly poor lens for the money if you ask me.

Canon's lens range in the consumer zoom category is it's current weakness. Would love to see them improving this side of their lens business for their 1.6x camera users. Consider this: There isn't much of a choice for 1.6x users who want a good wideangle standard zoom, if you're sticking to buying only Canon lenses at this time - 18-55 (ok for the little outlay but ultimately a poor lens), 17-85 (overpriced, underwhelming performance), 17-40L (decent, but I'd expect most people to want a slightly longer reach; plus f4 for a pro quality 'standard' zoom is retrogressing. Please remember it will be equal to a 27-64mm/f4 normal zoom), 24-105L (not really wide enough as a do-almost-all standard zoom; f4 is forgiveable given the range and price).

Yes I know one can always buy Sigma and Tamron as alternatives, but you'd expect the camera manufacturer to do much better than to have such limited offerings.

I wish I could stick a Zuiko 14-54 onto a 1.5x or 1.6x DSLR body. That's how a mid-range standard zoom should be made and priced.

 

[Zerstorer]

Personally speaking, the R1's size was not an issue to me when I considered the camera. The underwhelming JPEG picture quality was what made up my mind. Like I had said, you'd expect a lot more from an APS-C sensor camera sporting a Zeiss lens..

Manufacturer samples have an uncanny ability to look real bad...heh, that 4th shot was at f4, so shallow DOF does account for part of the crappiness.

I think the only thing Zeiss about the lens is the T* coating.;p

The cam isn't that crappy, just that it doesn't fufill the high expectations of it.

 

[kahheng]

Manufacturer samples have an uncanny ability to look real bad...heh, that 4th shot was at f4, so shallow DOF does account for part of the crappiness.

Please lah, it's not so much the shallow DOF that's the issue. Look carefully at the parts of the trunk that are in focus. There's little micro-detail, aka, texture. And this is a fairly close range shot. Also have a look at the leaf shots in the samples further down.

BTW, end user samples I have had a look at bear this out. JPEGs look heavily overprocessed. Texture is heavily removed.

The cam isn't that crappy, just that it doesn't fufill the high expectations of it.

And that my friend, is exactly what's wrong with the R1. It *IS* crappy precisely because it does not fulfill the high expectations of it. Even if priced at S$1k street, I'd still say there's something very wrong with it given the hardware specs.

 

[Zerstorer]

Please lah, it's not so much the shallow DOF that's the issue. Look carefully at the parts of the trunk that are in focus. There's little micro-detail, aka, texture. And this is a fairly close range shot.

Have to withhold full judgement until one gets to see some raw conversions. Many manufacturer samples look pretty bad when first introduced.

Yes, the jpegs seem to have issues with fine detail as well as somewhat hard contrast/large sharpening radius.

Perhaps the difference lies in expectations...heh I didn't hold such high hopes for this. Treat it as a Canon 350D with a 17-85 or a sigma 18-125mm and it suddenly doesn't look all that bad. Basically a similar level of performance.

 

[kahheng]

Have to withhold full judgement until one gets to see some raw conversions. Many manufacturer samples look pretty bad when first introduced.

And then we go back to the issue of it not being a very practical camera to shoot in RAW mode.

Ok, I am not going to post anymore in this thread in case people think that I am a Sony basher. For the record, I am an equal opportunity critic........ ;-)

 

[Zerstorer]

And then we go back to the issue of it not being a very practical camera to shoot in RAW mode.

Ok, I am not going to post anymore in case people think that I am a Sony basher. For the record, I am an equal opportunity critic........

Haha, ok I missed the part about it being a dog in RAW mode. Now that's unacceptable to me.... Seems quite crappy now.

 

[tao]

I was thinking about selling my E1 to get this. I saw some samples generated from RAW and I thought the quality was really good. Did not see any jpegs. Are they really that bad?

I don't know... but I get the feeling that by changing from the E-1 to the R1 (is the motive to get the 10MP?), you will fully regret it... in terms of image quality, lens sharpness, focusing speed & accuracy, built quality, loss of weather seal, RAW capability, speed of operation, etc.

 

[wind30]

I don't know... but I get the feeling that by changing from the E-1 to the R1 (is the motive to get the 10MP?), you will fully regret it... in terms of image quality, lens sharpness, focusing speed & accuracy, built quality, loss of weather seal, RAW capability, speed of operation, etc.

Ya the main thing is the 10MP 5 to 10 MP is actually quite significant. I have compared the pics of E1 and R1 at imaging resource and The extra resolution is really nice.

I think the lens is just as sharp as my 14-54 from the sample pics.

 

[wind30]

here is a new review of R1 + sample pictures.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_r1-review/index.shtml

BTW,
the write time for the RAW file is 4 seconds for Sony memory stick high speed. Which I happen to have a 512MB lying around...

 

[sulhan]

Hiee Pals..

With the Use Model probably for prints up to Super B and around that.......I think the images are good.
If you wann print= larger than that...then you would wanna change viewing model of abotu ~2 metres that will probably also hide those little image weakpoints...


rgds,
Sulhan

 

[wrx_sti_22b]

In Sitex '05, only 1 unit of the DSC-R1 is displayed in the cabinet. not put on cabinet for ppl to touch or play with it.

 

[holeinone]

In Sitex '05, only 1 unit of the DSC-R1 is displayed in the cabinet. not put on cabinet for ppl to touch or play with it.

Not true bro. I played with it just like the other cams on display. I left the display telling the salesgirl that I like my 828 better. Somehow, image quality aside, I feel that the R1 just doesn't cut it.

But I am still a loyal Sony fan...

 

[Ecclesiasm]

so far, no one commented on noise.

Had a chance to operate one today and to my disappointment, high noise at ISO800. Tried ISO 3200 and it generated the kind of noise that I expected it to.

Didn't bother with ISO400.

 

[Rashkae]

so far, no one commented on noise.

Had a chance to operate one today and to my disappointment, high noise at ISO800. Tried ISO 3200 and it generated the kind of noise that I expected it to.

Didn't bother with ISO400.

ISO400 is ok, actually.