|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 | |
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
|
![]()
BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Do you need a lens with that exact focal range? If so, great. Go buy an R1. Personally, I rarely use anything wider than my Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 (giving me the same angle of view on my KM 5D that I'd have using a 36-105mm lens on a 35mm camera). With 35mm film, you're just as likely to find me using a 35-70mm lens as any other lens for what I shoot more often. When I do need something wider on my 5D, I usually grab my Tamron 20-30mm f/2.7-3.5 (which starts out at the same angle of view you'd have with a 30mm lens on a 35mm camera). Some users may want a lens starting out much wider than that, or may need a lens much longer than a model like the R1 provides. With a DSLR, you have that choice. Each user is going to have different requirements in a camera. From your posting history, you really have no idea what would work best for you. It may be an R1, or it may be something different, depending on what you like to shoot more often. But, you'll find that out by using a camera, not by analyzing test results in reviews. I've seen lots of very nice photos from very cheap lenses, and how much light falloff I see at the edges or how much distortion I see is usually not much of a factor in my perception of these images. In most conditions, your skill as a photographer is going to be far more important than the equipment you're using or how an image looks at 100% viewing size on screen. The R1 is a nice camera. But, it may or may not be a good choice for a given user. It all depends on what they want to shoot and the conditions they'll be using it in. For most, but not all, conditions I use a camera in, it would work just fine (and at the current price, it's actually tempting). But, every user is different. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]()
Yeah, to the extend I agree with you JimC...
Sometimes a dSLR can just get better results because of thefar superior image sensor etc...so the lens just need to be good enough...to be able to edge overthe R1 in the image quality department. The R1 also have rather poor high ISO performance...compared to the dSLR cameras... I think any entry level dSLR bodies will easily win the R1 in high ISO performance, speed, responsiveness, JPEG image quality, RAW performance, RAW file sizes, buffer, customizability, features, viewfinder etc... I also noticed that the 6 mega-pixels Nikon D70s captures better quality images than the 10 mega-pixelsR1 with the 18 - 70 mm kit glass...the imageslooks more per-pixel-sharp and detailed. The highlight detail of the Nikon D70s is also very good. The R1 doesn't have the moire problems of the Nikon D70s, but it's images looks far less crisp as a result...they all look rather soft and consumer like to me...Nevertheless, the RAW of the R1 is just amazing; but at 20+ MB per go withrather slow performance. ![]() The RAW of the Nikon D70s is even better... ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
|
![]()
JimC wrote:
Quote:
It's funny, but when it comes to deciding on lenses there's a thread over at Dyxum that says a lot to me.The thread haspeopleposting some of their portrait shots with different lensesand most of the shots are fabulous regardless oflens grade. In some casesyou would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the most expensive and some of the middle of the road lenses. Of course the difference in lens speed isnot readily apparentsince the lighting conditions of each shot are different, but in terms of overall picture quality it is almost impossible to determine if the more expesive glassreally makes such a differnce that itis worth the addtional expense except when having a bright lens is an aboslute must or to fill a professional requirement. I even saw a decent photo taken with the 18-70mm kit lens. Don't get me wrong, you can pick out differences in sharpness, color and contrast here and there, but whoknows how much processing went into each shot or if the AF worked better in certain cases.It just confirms my already firm beliefs that under the right conditions almost any lens will do a good job in the hands of the right photographer. Having said that, having better tools in the hands of a skilled photographer canmake a difference in qualityand does enable the photgrapher to get shots that aren't possible with cheaper equipment. It's just that I believe that you don't have to break the bank to get good photos. I personaly can't justify paying for "G" glass but do believe that the middle of the road stuff makes my life easier and the hobby more enjoyable than when I shoot with what is normally considered junk. Of course someone with a "G" collection might consider my middle of the road stuff below par, but that's OK by me. Right now, I am trying to build and reduce my collection so that I have f 2.8 capabilty throughoutmost of my focal range except at either extreme where that is not possible or too expensive. The only thing in my collection that goes better than that is my F 1.7 50mm. I amtrying to include a few more primes but in mostcases it doesn't make sense to add primes that are covered by my 20-40mm 2.7-3.5 and 28-75mm 2.8 D lens unless I go brighter. As an example, adding the 20MM or 28mm 2.8 prime or some other 2.8 primes at the middle ofthatrange won't really buyme noticeable results. So when to comes to adding primes, I am looking at 2.0 or better but my budget keeps me from getting into deep. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
|
![]()
rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
|
![]()
BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
|
![]()
BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
|
![]()
BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
|
![]()
JimC wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]()
RODO, the R1 is only a little bit slower than the dSLR cameras (such as focus speed). However, if you are not shooting sports or fast actions, I don't believe thatanyone can notice the speed difference. (Or itshouldn't matter at all) Generally, the R1 is slow at RAW processing andRAW buffering, becauseit's RAW files are huge. (Bigger than the onesproduced by the dSLRcameras)
I took a close look at the images captured by the Nikon D70s and the Sony R1 again (At dcresource and here), and I have to admit that their JPEG image qualities are more or less similar. However, I still noticed that the R1 tend hard-clip the highlights. The R1 also tend to over-processed it's images, however, this can be avoided by turning down the sharpness setting in-camera to the min. (It's colors are fairly accurate though...) ![]() The RAW of the R1 should be spectacular though... Nevertheless, the superiority of the R1's lens can be seen in the respective images; no C.A., purple fringing, distortions, light fall off and de-centering. The high ISO performance of the dSLR cameras aregenerally better than the R1's, but the R1's high ISO performance is better than the Sony Alpha dSLR-A100 and the OLYMPUS EVOLT E-500 noise wise. In detail wise, it is one of the better one(s); with the Sony Alpha dSLR-A100. (Which is better than the Nikon D80) Finally, the build quality of the R1 is better than most of the dSLR cameras out there, such as the Canon Rebel models. So as you can see, the R1 is also a GREAT camera!! :-)So don't worry. The R1 have the widest F/2.8 angle lens I have ever seen, obviously there are wider lenses around for dSLR cameras, but those start slower than F/2.8! The R1's lens is also the only one lens solution that start(s) from the wide 24 mm F/2.8 angle to the 120 mm telephoto range. ![]() AND that new C.Z. lens of Sony is going to put all the other dSLR lenses out there to SHAME in PRICE & RANGE. BUT it's quality will also be GREAT!! Just that if you want to compare to L glasses and Nikon professional glasses, then it's quality becames only nearby, but still GREAT enough for high quality images. (And that is what that matters!!) Keeping all this in mind...the lens of the R1 is still BETTER because it has F/2.8 at the wide end, compared to the new Sony C.Z.. ![]() Lets take a look at the best dSLR lenses now >>> (And I only talk about zooms that has F/2.8 anywhere; because the lens of the R1 is so great with F/2.8 at the wide end) I won't include primes; they won't compare to the R1's complex zoom. Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM The best and the ONLY wide zoom in the Canon's linethat has F/2.8 (Although this one is a constant aperture zoom). This lens cost US$1400 !!! :!: I don't think that this lens have a better opticalquality than the R1's lens. It is also shorter and less wide on the Canon's 1.6 crop factor dSLR cameras. (Think how good is the R1's lens now!!) Sorry, the rest of the high quality Canon zoom line up are either not wide anymore or don't have theF/2.8 anywhere. Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor This lens cost US$1,500 !!! :!::!: (It is a constant aperture zoom though...) It isneither wider nor longer than the R1's lens on Nikon's 1.5 crop factor dSLR(s). Optically, I also don't believe that it would be BETTER than the R1's lens. (See how good is the R1's lens???) Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor This one is also a constant aperture zoom. It cost about US$1,250 !! :!: Same thing, it is NOT wider, and is also NOT longer than the R1's high quality C.Z. *T zoom. Optical quality wise, I don't think that it is BETTER as well. That's it for the Nikon F/2.8 wide zoom line up as well. (THEY HAVE NO MORE LENSES WORTHY TO COMPARE!!) They don't have any morewide zooms that have F/2.8 anywhere. KUDOS to the R1's lens! READ THIS LINK; look at the fantastic graph! Regards. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
|
![]() Quote:
For someone shooting alot of sports, a faster camera might be more important. The R1 isn't quick at continuous shooting. It will do the first 3 shots quickly, but then have to wait 4-8 seconds for the buffer to clear. It also doesn't autofocus as quickly as some others in lower light. As for the jpegs, you can get a bit better results normally using RAW; but that's true of any model. There isn't really anything wrong with the camera jpegs. One reviewer wished that the jpegs from the camera were less "over-processed" and "over-sharpened". But this is to some degree a matter of preference. And it would be true of alot of DSLRs--especially entry level models (because most consumers coming from point and shoots will prefer that). If you are happy with the range of the lens, and happy with the image quality, don't worry about what isn't perfect. Every camera has limits. Within the range covered by that lens, it will pretty much match or beat just about anything else anywhere near the price. The limitations are if you need a brighter lens for low light, or need more zoom, or faster continuous shooting, or a better ISO 1600, you won't have that, and maybe you could have had some of those on another camera. But there are also some things the R1 can do that most DSLRs can't--like allow you to compose your shot on the LCD. No reason to think of returning it unless there is something you really want/need that it doesn't do. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|