fz50 or canon 400d with sigma?

[BenjaminXYZ]

Ben...Show me the test results that show R1 lens image quality better than the $340.00 Sigma 17-70!

Here are the "objective" test results at slgear.com for the R1, and the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A6.HTM
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/349/cat/31

That doesn't look like a clear win to me. The Sigma looks like it tests as even a bit sharper, and also with less CA. The Sigma does have just a bit more distortion wide open and also a bit more shading wide open at the wide end of it's zoom.

And of course there are many others which may not start as bright as f2.8, but which will give equal image quality once stopped down to f5.6 or smaller.

That time I wanted to reply to this post, but both dpreview and imaging-resource were down that day!

when we look at the R1's optical test results, we see graphs so good that they're almost boring. Sharpness across the frame and across the aperture and focal length range is almost perfect, as shown by the exceptionally low and uniform blur numbers.

Worst-case chromatic aberration is likewise low, and the average CA numbers are lower still, indicating that what CA is present doesn't extend very far into the frame. Shading (or vignetting, as it is more popularly called) is also very low, reaching a maximum of about a third of an f-stop at the 24mm equivalent focal length and maximum aperture, but in all other cases being less than 1/4 stop.

Worst-case geometric distortion is about 0.8% barrel, at maximum wide angle, dropping rather rapidly to about 0.2% pincushion at 20mm actual/35mm equivalent focal length, rising just a bit at 50mm equivalent, and then gradually decreasing to nearly zero at maximum telephoto.

To understand just how good these results are, you'll need to visit SLRgear.com and look at some of the test results for the more expensive lenses there. Even a cursory comparison will reveal that you'd easily have to spend several thousand dollars on lenses alone to get this kind of optical performance with a conventional digital SLR.

What would it cost to duplicate the Sony DSC-R1 conventionally?

It's of course impossible to do a direct apples-to-apples comparisons between the DSC-R1 and a kit assembled from a conventional digital SLR and a kit of lenses, but it's interesting to put together a shopping list to see roughly what it would take to achieve similar performance. Let's take a look at a Canon kit that approximates the DSC-R1's capabilities: (Note that in the following, we're including only lenses that match the optical performance of the R1's lens. There are certainly cheaper lenses that will cover the same focal length range, but their optical performance doesn't approach that of the R1.)

[/quote]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A6.HTM

From Phil Askey: http://www.dpreview.com

It's fair to say that on a value comparison the DSC-R1 wins straight off the line, there isn't a single digital SLR kit available right now for $1,000 which will provide you with a lens as good as that found on the DSC-R1. The standard kit lenses sold with the EOS 350D and the E-500 provide a three times zoom range but start around 28 mm at F3.5 compared to the DSC-R1's 24 mm at F2.8. The $200 saving you would make buying a digital SLR kit could be put towards another lens but that still wouldn't get you near.

So we move on to designing our own kits, the EOS 350D can be combined with the EF-S 17-85 mm IS lens, you get image stabilization and a 5x optical zoom range (although not as wide as the R1), on the downside you're getting a slower lens which isn't as good as the R1's lens and having to pay a $320 premium.

To get the same kind of lens quality and approximate zoom range on the EOS 350D our best choice were two Sigma EX DG lenses, a bundle which comes in around $730 more than the DSC-R1. If you prefer Canon lenses expect to pay more than twice the price of the R1. With the E-500 the options are limited by available lenses, the excellent 14-54 mm lens is easily as good as the R1 lens but would provide only a 3.5x zoom range and the total bundle price would be around $200 more.

As you can see the R1 is very well priced, a fair comment would be that the lens alone is worth a large chunk of the $1000 asking price and that if you don't need the flexibility of separate lenses then on price alone its very attractive.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/page20.asp

Superb 24 - 120 mm F2.8 - F4.8 lens is worth the $999 alone

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.

I soon realized just what you're getting. At $1000 you simply can't get close to the coverage and quality of that lens.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/page27.asp

[BenjaminXYZ]

Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC

Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR

If I am not mistaken, the Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC and the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR are both higher quality lenses than the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro. (They are also both more expensive lenses)

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...2845/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

Read the reviews of the 3 lenses above.

I would personally go for the Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC if I go for a digital SLR camera. (That is my favorite lens!!)

Unfortunately, I don't think that even the best quality one out of here will be as goodqualityas the R1's lens...

[rodo]

bomber1 wrote:

And that is exactly what i have done!! i bought an fz20 then just about every new dslr on the market , and found that i really am not using a camera enough to justify spending proper money on good glass, the debate will go on and on! but it is a no boner ya get what ya pay for and thats the bottom line ! or as i said earlier weigh up all the pros and cons before purchase ,because a better camera will not take better pictures if you don't know how to take a picture ! ( people forget that ) horses for courses find out what course your on first. then buy !!!

Yes the Fz 20 is wonderfull i found the cheap entry level and kit lens dslr cams with crap kit lens i tried could not compete with the Fz 20, exept for speed maybe and low light shots but Fz 20 is superb imo well underated,, also the Fz 2 i have as well has some of the best out of camera shots ive taken / seen . only 2 mp but simply superb , I tried the fz 30 but not better than both my FZ 2 or Fz20 go figure that, R1 is so good, wide wide angle wonderfull build / nice to use / own, Im over the moon , Dslr maybe in the future? if the evolve ? just my point of view you undersand .BTw R1j pegs seem fine to me , raw is too much time messsing about i feel , Cant understand why some posts say use Raw Ugh what a pain is that. R1 is Great .:|.

[bomber1]

i don't know if the fz20 is a better camera but i think that its really about what you want a camera for! none but none of any of my shots are better or worse if you look at them in normal picture size, as i said before looking at a picture taken with any camera on a pc monitor and the size it starts of at ie 17 19 inches changes how good or bad what we perceive a camera is, any camera ie compact bridge slr will look much the same printed by any of the high street film processing mob , so i really think as i said before think about what you want a camera for , don't get caught up in all the mega-pixel hype and buy accordingly

[bomber1]

just taken delivery of fz50 !!because of better zoom 430ml the shots at long range are at least as good as sony alpha at 300 ml !! noisier yes but magnify a100 shots to same size and not £300 better, beats me!!