Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 23, 2006, 8:52 AM   #1
Member
 
AnhNamUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 96
Default

When I changed the Olympus 500 to Sony R1, some people said : why you go down from DSLR to Fix Lens..?? I told them because I dont need and dont like changeable lens also I though the quality of the picture of the R1 will be much better because of big sensor and Carl-Zeiss lens...thats why I paid a couple hundreds more to get the R1...plz tell me what do you think :?? ?
AnhNamUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 23, 2006, 8:59 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Morag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
Default

I think that a DSLR is always better if you have the money. I haven't seen a DSLR lower than 6.0MP, which works just fine for the most part. (I have no complaints with my 5.1MP).

DSLR's are also good for diversity. For example, I find my camera (a fixed lens Kodak P850) to be pretty bad for macro's. If it was a DSLR, I could go and buy a lens specifically for that, so I could have one camera that was great for wide angle shots, super zoom shots, AND macros.
Morag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2006, 9:13 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

The biggest difference is the sensor size and lens quality. I think the R1 addresses these points.

A DSLR provides greater flexibility than a fixed lens camera, the downside is that changing lenses eventually means getting dust on the sensor. If you don't want or nedd the flexibility then a DSLR isn't better for you.
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2006, 12:27 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

There is another difference that people aren't mentioning. Weight. And its a mark against DSLRs.
For some people a smaller size and lower weight is an advantage, and therefor DSLR is not "always" better than a fixed lens camera. They want to be able to carry it around all the time. They want to go on a long trip and not have to worry about its weight. They want to be able to fit it in their pocket.

This really matters. A camera you don't take (because its too big or heavy) takes no picture at all!

Technically a "SLR" does not have to have a replaceable lens. It just means that you can look through the lens when framing the image. Just thought I should point that out.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2006, 4:37 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 851
Default

Personally, I think moving from the Olympus E500 to the Sony R1 was a very good move indeed. The R1 has a significantly bigger sensor and an extremely good lens.

The downside is that the AF is slower and raw shooting somewhat slower also. But for image quality, the R1 beats the Olympus (and most other dSLRs) hands down. So, as long as the focal length range of the R1 suits your needs, then it is an excellent camera.
amazingthailand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 2:56 AM   #6
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

Morag2 wrote:
Quote:
I think that a DSLR is always better if you have the money.
Not even in that case, without video capability I wouldn't have gotten any usefull material from last summer's best thunderstorm.


eric s wrote:
Quote:
Technically a "SLR" does not have to have a replaceable lens.* It just means that you can look through the lens when framing the image.
More exatly it means that TTL viewfinder implemented using flipping mirror.
(which also has its downsides)
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 4:59 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Reviews are pretty clear that the lens on the R1 is very very good.

The sensor is big and ISO performance good.

Sure it's not an action camera, and you can't change lenses, but if the R1 satisfies your requirements it's an excellent camera.

A camera is just a tool for taking pictures, a SLR is not always the best tool.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 5:06 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

A DSLR solution with a high quality lens that starts out at the same angle of view you'd have with a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera would be pricey compared to most kit lenses. For example, the new Carl Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 lens that will work on the Konica Minolta and Sony DSLR models is going to run $699. That will give those DSLR models a 35mm equivalent focal range of approximately 24-120mm.

Because the lens on the DSC-R1 was designed specifically for this model, without the design constraints associated with a lens mount system, they were able to use a relatively high quality lens starting out that wide, and still keep the entire package (body and lens) under $1k

One downside is that you're stuck with brightness and focal range available to the lens that came on the camera, and you can't take the lens with you when you upgrade the body like you can with a DSLR (where your lenses are more of an investment). There are Pros and Cons to both solutions.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2007, 2:08 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Reviews are pretty clear that the lens on the R1 is very very good.

The sensor is big and ISO performance good.

Sure it's not an action camera, and you can't change lenses, but if the R1 satisfies your requirements it's an excellent camera.

A camera is just a tool for taking pictures, a SLR is not always the best tool.
I was interested in the camera because I could use the wide-angleend of the zoom lensfor landscape photography. With landscape photography you need a sharp lens over the whole area and what I did find was that to get sharpness in the corners with that lens I had to stop down to f8. But then you would expect thisof a zoom lens. At wider apertures at wide angle then not only are the corners soft but there is a soft left edge as well. But I am still very pleased with it. I was hoping they would continue development with the camera. I was hoping for a 12 or 16 Mpixel versionbut now it has been discontinued.
RolandRB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2007, 9:42 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1
Default

In many situations where the good low-light capabilities of a large sensor would be useful, I would also not like to hear the noise of an SLR's mirror/shutter. Just the time for a good large-sensor non-SLR.


gunars is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:34 AM.