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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 11, 2006, 6:52 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Hello,

I'm currently using a Minolta Z3 which is a nice kamera but with quite some noise and problems in low light. I like the wide zoom but missing a wide angle on the Z3.

So now I'm fighting with the decision between Sony DSC-R1, Panasonic Lumic DMC Z30 or Z50. The Sony gets a lot of positive points for the lens and the (almost) absence of noise while the Lumix have a bigger zoom range and video.

The Z30 seems to be running out of stock and quite a lot of people expect worse noise on the Z50..

Any advise?

Thanks!

tekwizard is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 11, 2006, 2:00 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 39
Default

Sony R1 might be a better option as panasonic picture quality is no good at high ISO's. R1 has a bigger sensor which will bring down the noise levels.

You can also start looking at beginning range DSLR's (like Nikon D50, XT etc) which going cheap these days and you can get a zoom lens to it.
vsrinu30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2006, 10:26 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
You can also start looking at beginning range DSLR's (like Nikon D50, XT etc) which going cheap these days and you can get a zoom lens to it.
None of them will buy you an R1's lens

Yes, youmay be able tofind (I am not sure) a lens that offers F/2.8 wide aperture, 5 x optical zoom, 24 mm wide angle with that kind of quality for your EOS 350D and (or) for yourNikon D50. However you are going to spend a fortune on those lens alone and if I am not mistaken; one of such lens will cost more than the entry level dSLRs themselves at probably above US $1000. :|

Sure, you can find a lens with the R1's C.Z. Vario Sonnar's glass reach; but you will not be getting the quality of that C.Z. lens unless you are willing to pay loads for quality lens alone. The lens of the R1 is as good as a CanonL glass IMO. :idea:

For further information, the high qualitylens of the R1 is also much nearer to it's image sensor than any dSLRs can go with their mirror boxes. This pose some advantagesin image quality designfor the R1. Really, the high quality C.Z. glass of the R1 is not to be underestimated at all. 8)Most of the time you have to carry more than one glass to match the one on the R1 alone.
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2006, 11:18 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
monx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107
Default

that might be so. But i feel the range is rather limited with the lens on the R1. Taking price into consideration it doesn´t really give you much of an upgrade path should you later find the lens range to be to short! While 24mm being great for landscape the 120mm TELE end is a bit short for getting up close.......
monx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2006, 1:35 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
that might be so. But i feel the range is rather limited with the lens on the R1. Taking price into consideration it doesn´t really give you much of an upgrade path should you later find the lens range to be to short! While 24mm being great for landscape the 120mm TELE end is a bit short for getting up close.......

Similarly with a single lens on a dSLR, you are going to be limited if not more limited...I think you need atleast two lens on a dSLR to match the quality and reach of the R1's lens.

Sure as I have said earlier, you can get a lens that cover that range or more, but you might not have that sort of quality or aperture value or as wide angle capability.

Code:
Taking price into consideration it doesn´t really give you much of an upgrade path should you later find the lens range to be to short!
If you want to talk about price, nothing beats the R1 IMO (Even according to most reviews I have read). Try finding a lens for the Nikon D50 or EOS 350D etc that can provide with a reach, quality, and aperture of the R1's lens. If best, try to find only a single lens that can match the R1's 24mm wide angle, F2.8 aperture, and 5x optical zoom C.Z. lens.

The Nikon D50 is currently one of the cheapest dSLR right? Lets sayit cost 600 USD today (Body only); I will try to battle with the R1 in price and lens quality.>>> Keep in mind the R1 cost about 900 USD today or slightlyless.

I add toD50 bodythe Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR that have the best MTF valuesto date.It isthe best quality lens you can get today for aroundUS $425.00.

With that, it still doesn't comes to the reach of the R1's lens since the R1's glass tops out at 120 mm (5x optical zoom on R1)compared to the max 50mm of the Tamron, I still need another lens for the D50 dSLR...

Recently Sigma announced the Sigma APO 50-150 mm F2.8 DC lensand I don't know the price, but it won't be cheap as it is a constant aperture zoom as you can note. This lensis the only hope for the Nikon D50 to battle with the R1 since it goes from the 50 mm of the Tamron onwards to the 150mm of the new Sigma as you can see.

Lets now count the cost: The R1 cost 900 USD. (All in one).

The Nikon D50 body cost 600 USD + 425 USD + 400 USD (Lets say the Sigma cost 400 USD). The total $$$$ you have to spendwith the D50 to compete with the R1 is a whopping 1425 USDs!!! :!on't forget that you have to put up with two bulky lens all the time, face dust problems as you change them regularlyfor the reach, and risk damaging the lenses out on the field (As you change them during action) - anything can happen.

You get constant F/2.8 aperture throughout your 17 - 150 mm range and that is probably the BEST advantage you will be getting for paying the price. But then again, the Sigma zoom might just cost more than the gracious 400 USD I gave it. (Who knows it might be very expensive considering F2.8aperture lens let alone constant F2.8 ones always cost premium dollars?). Nevertheless, youget more zoom.

In the end, nothing beats the Sony DSC-R1 for it's price as far as I know.

Read this page from Phil Askey's R1 review>>>

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

And this last page conclusion as well>>>

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









BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2006, 6:50 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
monx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107
Default

I partially agree but it seems we are discussing apples and bananas.

IF you choose to buy the R1 and don´t need access to primes, longer tele than the R1 offers then Yes it is a Killer buy!

As an all in one package , Yes it is hard to compete against the R1, but should you choose to want access to more range in tele or primesthen i think the R1 comes up a bit short in the long run. BUT hey peoples needs are different andif the 24-120 is your desired need then go R1 BA!(chinese particle to soften the tone :-))

From the mentioned z50/z30/R1 I would also go R1

I still wouldn´t leave out the option of going DSLR
monx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2006, 3:57 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Thanks for for the info and advise! :-)

You all helped me much and I'll go with the R1 now!
tekwizard 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 3:04 PM.