i dont own an R1 but its clear from samples that the images are really very good
an impressive spec too what with 10Mp and F:2.8 24mm wide zoom. Wide is ever so much more usefull than long I think. And they say it has little noise even at 800iso.

The sensor is the same size as Pentax dSLR isnt it ?

Riley

Rriley wrote: That depends entirely on what type of shots you plan to take. I like shooting sports, wildlife, and candid shots. All three of those are nearly impossible without a good telephoto lens.

No, the R1's a bit smaller>>> (Both are in the APS-C category anyway)

R1 10 MP CMOS: 21.5 x 14.4 mm

Pentax 6 MP CCD: 23.5 x 15.7 mm

The lens of the R1 really needs to be at 14.3mm- 71.5mm to provide the range it is now at 24mm - 120mm in 35mm equiv. (The Carl Zeiss glass really needs to be big to provide that range) :idea:

ah I see thanks
yes it is big, quite a heavy camera too

thats true too gadget
I like wide I guess


Riley

A couple other small sensor limitation I didn't see mentioned are Depth of Field and small aperture limitations.

I wont go into the math, but essentially, the depth of field of a camera at a given F stop increases in inverse proportion to the sensor size. If you want a wide depth of field so everything is in focus, this is an advantage with smaller sensors. However, if you like to take pictures where the subject is sharp, and everything else is out of focus (that is, small depth of field), you are likely to be challenged.

Also note that very small apertures result in blurry images. Since F stop numbers are really just the lens lens focal length divided by the opening size, and lens focal lengths are proportional to sensor size, smaller F stops (numerically larger) are a proportionally smaller for smaller sensors, and thus more blurry. In fact, you generally see that cameras with small sensors generally limit the F stop to F8 or F11 at most. Since they also tend to have a limited maximum opening (small F stop numerically) to keep lens cost down, you will see a very limited range of apertures on P&S cameras.

All that said, I do see some minor size difference in the sensor size on P&S cameras. Some show 1/2.5 inch size, some 1/1.8 inch. I am not sure how accurate this is, but you should be able to determine the acurate diagonal size from the actual vs. "effective" focal length. or example - the lens onmy Camedia is 6.5 - 19.5 mm actual, and 32 - 96 mm "effective. From that I can calculate the sensor to be 43.3 / 96 * 19.5 = ~ 7.5 mm. In fact the specs show it as 8.46mm, so it isn't perfect, but it gives an idea (the error is probably that the "real" 35mm equivilent numbers are fudged a bit).

I've enjoyed reading all the comments especially the ones that say a DSLR would be a better buy than one of the higher priced non-DSLRs like the Sony R1 or Panasonic FZ50 or Canon G7. That sounds very sensible.

Right now the idea of a Nikon D50 with the kit lens is starting to appeal.

Meantime Old Faithful (Olympus C2100UZ) still works fine. Here's a picture it took today (cropped a bit and made smaller and then compressed to make the file comply with Steve's limit on file size).

Herb