Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 3, 2006, 9:11 PM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
I don't know, but I cannot find a zoom as good that can provide 24 mm wide angle F/2.8 on any APS-C dSLR cameras...I also cannot find a good quality lens that can provide that range of 24 - 120 mm on any APS-C dSLR cameras as well.
Ben, you spend too much time reading reviews and pixel peeping. :-)

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.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2006, 9:26 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

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...Crisper. :|





BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2006, 9:41 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
It depends on what you want to shoot.

You may not need to try and match the focal range of the DSC-R1 in a single lens. Also, you tend to get into "splitting hairs" with image quality between lenses at typical viewing and print sizes. It can take a trained eye to even see the difference between many lenses in better conditions.

A DSLR gives you the flexibility of changing lenses to better meet your needs, and you've got many lenses to choose from for most popular camera mounts (since they've been around for a long time, with lenses from the camera manufacturers, as well as third party manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Cosina/Vivitar and more).

For what I shoot more often, the focal range of the R1 would be about right. I'd personally want brighter lenses available for low light use without a flash (that's where primes come in). Also, if you wanted a great camera for sports, it would not make a good choice, as it's focal range would be limiting.

A DSLR also gives you the option of brighter lenses. For example, a bright 50mm f/1.8 lens is available in popular camera mounts like Nikon and Canon for around $100. It's about 4 times as bright as you'd have using the lens on the DSC-R1 at an equivalent focal length. You can also get longer lenses for a DSLR, if you need them.

There are pros and cons to any system. But, from a "bang for the buck" perspective, the DSC-R1 is a very good deal for what it does. You'll need to decide if it's limiting for the types of photos you like to shoot more often.

Any camera choice is a compromise.




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.

meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2006, 9:13 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
Default

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
What do you mean by fast??? Do you need a fst burst rate?? What kind of subjects are you shooting?? Also, you've only had the camera two weeks. I would give it more of a chance. Get used to it, play around with it. Any camera you choose will have some compromises.
What i mean is what i read on a camera forum ,the guy said The R1 is not a fast Jpeg camera , Ive just bought one , The Jpegs look ok to me i wont be shooting raw no way , and it seems fast enough , But am i missing something ?, I wonder what cameras do better jpegs ,again what is a fast jpeg camera ? a camera that takes better jpegs than the R1 and is fast , Is that the Question i need to ask thanks.:?
rodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2006, 9:17 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
I agree with JimC, the lens of that Sony DSC-R1 is just excellent...(If therewas another word above this, I'llbe usingit)

I want to emphasize that you JUST CANNOT get a lens with that kind of quality and reach for your dSLR WITHOUT spending above $1000 at least!

Just now and a few days ago, I have been literally cracking my head over this R1 debate issue..."What can I do with $1000 (even with just a Nikon D50) to be able to match that lens on the R1???"; I still have not found an answer yet...But I DO know that I have been researching lenses these pass few dayslike mad, and with so far no success.
Thanks for your opinion on the R1 that is comforting ,your posts are allways exellent and so interesting and i think you are a mine of information on this forum . Please when your lens research is finished let us have the results of your research rodo .
rodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2006, 9:24 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
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...Crisper. :|




Are you saying i should trade in the R1 for the Nikon? Im a little confused as you said the R1 was so good is the 70s the best Nikon i see there is a 40 / 50 / 80 in my price range just about ,, If so what lenses do you think would be best many thanks :-?:-?Rodo .
rodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2006, 9:27 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Find me a lens that can match the one on the R1 at least in optical quality.
Yes please let us know your lens research results .many thanks .
rodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2006, 9:40 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
I'm confused as to what you're finding lacking.

The jpeg images from the DSC-R1 are a bit more processed than you'd get from some DSLR models.

IOW, you'd probably need to spend some time tweaking contrast, saturation and more from a DSLR for equivalent results.

If you don't like the look of the jpeg images, you can dial back contrast, sharpening and saturation a bit for more neutral results (or increase these values for even more punch). Many users prefer images that have more "punch" directly from the camera. It's a matter of preference.

As for speed, it's not going to be in the same class as some of the DSLR models around. You're limited to a 3 shot burst with the R1. It depends on what you're shooting if you really need something faster or not.

If you decide to move to a DSLR, keep in mind that it's going to cost you more for equivalent lens quality.

The lens on the DSC-R1 has the same angle of view that a 24-120mm lens would have on a 35mm camera, and it would be hard to match it in a single lens.

Sony has a lens coming out that would work on KM or Sony DSLR models that provides the same angle of view (which would require a 16-80mm lens on a DSLR like these). But, the lens by itself is probably going to sell for what you can buy an R1 for now.

We'll have to wait until it's shipping for reports on it's quality.

Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5

Only a post in another forum , It said the R1 is not fast (Enough i suppose he ment? ) and its not a jpeg camera ( No good jpegs i suppose he ment only raw?) So what cameras are better at jpegs and fast compared to the R1 i wonderd, maybe the good jpegs being more important than machine gun speed to me, Oh and should i sell the R1 and buy what is good at jpegs and fast thats what i thought the R1 would be thank you Jim great answers and advice your a mine of information indeed a legend on here .Anouther member benjaminxyz has just mentioned a Nikon 70s and cheaplens to be better than the R1, sharper but in jpegor raw do you think ?its all a bitconfusing.
rodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2006, 12:23 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

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...) Remember that there is always the professional quality AdobeRGB setting in the R1, for ever more accurate and broader range of colors.

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. If Sony had not planned the new C.Z. lens for the A100, the R1's lens will be the ONLY such lens today!! EVEN THEN, because the new C.Z. lens isn't out yet, the R1's lens is STILL the only such kind NOW!! (This clearly shows how good it is!) Furthermore, the new C.Z. lens isn't as fast at the wide end as the R1's lens. (Thelens of the R1 is still BETTER!!!)

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.




BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2006, 12:38 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
What i mean is what i read on a camera forum ,the guy said The R1 is not a fast Jpeg camera , Ive just bought one , The Jpegs look ok to me i wont be shooting raw no way , and it seems fast enough , But am i missing something ?,
If it seems fast enough to you than it is. If the Jpegs look good to you than they are.

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.

kenbalbari 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 8:09 PM.