Sony Announced Hybrid Digital Camera 386
Anna Merikin writes to tell us that Sony has begun shipping a new digital camera, the R1. With the R1 Sony has married the big digital SLRs' sensor with the live preview display of the compact cams. But to do so, it is not an SLR although it is about the same size as one. The new architecture also allows wider-angle optics to be used, but it does not have interchangeable lenses.
Why Sony? (Score:3, Interesting)
Canon knows optics. Canon makes awesome cameras. Try a Powershot or a Rebel, absolutely blows away everything on the market. Fuji makes a nice line of cameras also. Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.
Also, why would you buy an SLR without interchangeable lenses? If you're geeky enough to properly use an SLR, you probably won't be happy being stuck with one lense.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
No one but a tool would want a R1 though. RTFA, the lens is fixed, there is no macro mode, no burst worth speaking of (3 pics is not what I call burst), no video, no fast-switch preset modes (akin to Canon's Best Shot modes), ...
The only things it has going for it is 10MPix photos that you get on SLR and live preview that you get on compacts... I guess I should say "yay", but to me innovation sounds much closer to Panasonic putting an optic stabilizer on his FX8 and FX9 compacts AND at an affordable price (instead of the numeric "nonstabilizer" everyone else has).
Re:Why Sony? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, People in general are lemmings, they buy what is advertised, what is "recommended" to them by salesmen. It's not true for all people granted, but it's a sad fact that a very large portion of people are like this. I find it sad that people are no longer customers or people, they're consumers.. they consume, they buy what they're told to buy and like the lemmings they are they jump off the cliffs.
And in order to inject some humour into this post they also occasionally blow up after ten seconds with an "Oh no!" just before they see oblivion.
Why electronic viewfinders are better (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll admit that an EVF isn't perfect (even the A2's EVF needs more pixels), but I'll never go back to an optical viewfinder again. I look forward to better sensors and better EVFs
yeah...hybrid (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No thanks. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're going to have a principle of not buying or using products from companies that don't care about your security then at least be consistent. If you'd done this in the first place you'd have never needed to worry about Sony's rootkit.
Awesome. I'm waiting for Canon's answer! (Score:1, Interesting)
I use a Canon Powershot G2. It has a swiveling LCD that can be used for framing. It's a critical feature: I can take pictures from waist level or from three feet above my head. I don't have to hold the camera to my face to take a shot. I hold it whereever I want and swivel the LCD to get a good look at what I'm about to shoot.
To take a picture from ground-level, I just to crouch. To take an overhead shot pointing straight down, I simply stand on a chair and extend my arms. With a DSLR, I'd have to crawl on the floor or rig myself up in straps to take those shots.
I don't keep my camera glued to my face and pointed straight at my target. So, I can take pictures discreetly; making it much easier to catch people acting naturally. I can control the camera remotely with my computer. I see a live video feed, and I can take a picture at any time. With a DSLR, I couldn't do any of that - because all shots have to be framed with the optical viewfinder.
Why isn't this style of shooting popular with pro photographers? Because there aren't any pro cameras that support it. It's a design challenge - conventional DSLR sensors are unable to do this; they would overload and overheat very quickly. So, few pro photographers experiencee this style of shooting. They don't usually stoop down to using a "prosumer" camera with a swiveling LCD, and when they do, they still shoot through the viewfinder. They're creatures of habit.
I think Sony has started a revolution in digital photography. The R1 is the first model off the line. I'm sure that in three years, Canon, Nikon and others will have a number of similar cameras, with live preview through a swiveling LCD. Me, I'd buy a Canon Digital Rebel w/live-preview LCD without any hesitation.
A swiveling LCD won't convince pro photographer to abandon their beloved optical viewfinders. There is one thing that will, though: a head-mounted viewfinder. That's right: if you've got an electronic viewfinder, it doesn't have to be attached to the camera - it can be mounted right in from of your eyes. This gives the photographer total control as to the camera positioning, and lets him be more creative.
Pro photographers have always hated electronic viewfinders because they couldn't get perfect focus due to the low resolution. But Sony has shown them the answer: digital magnification built right in the viewfinder - without any loss of resolution. If you've got a 10 megapixel sensor and your viewfinder only displays half a megapixel, that lets you do a lot of digital zooming before you lose any quality. And this lets you focus more precisely than with the best optical viewfinder. And when 10000$ cameras start shipping with electronic viewfinders, those will be very high resolution.
I think this is the future of photography.
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
So I tell people. I tell everyone, even if they aren't listening at first. I tell them that Sony hides software on their music CDs that can enable others to take their computer over. I tell them that all of the great minds at Symantec, McAfee and Microsoft never knew or even worse, possibly looked the other way. I then ask them, "What else does Sony do to us?"
I tell them that multiple states now have class-action lawsuits against Sony, and that some states and countries are investigating Sony for criminal behavior. I tell them that I cannot trust any of Sony's products anymore, because I won't know that they've done something to me until the damage has already been done.
Until I get some kind of assurance that this was a huge mistake, until I know who at Sony chose to do this and that they are fired, until a policy is in place that respects me, the consumer, rather than treats me like a guilty criminal that Sony needs to be protected from, then I will continue to tell people to protect themselves from Sony. Because there IS choice and Sony is NOT the only game in town.
I am now left with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt over ALL Sony's products. Would you buy a VIAO? Would you buy a PS2? Would you buy anything from Sony that connects to the internet? Would you put a Sony movie in your computer's DVD drive and expect that Symantec, McAfee or Microsoft will warn you if they've attempted something similiar there?
I rarely buy music, or listen to it for that matter. I don't have to worry about my home computer. But I've spent countless nights helping friends, co-workers and family members by ridding their computers of all the crap that ends up on their systems without their knowledge. When I FINALLY get their computer functional again, having spent hours saving what they never backed up, what they get back is NOT improved or better, it's just where it should have been all along. I consider ALL of those hours lost time, time I could have spent with my kids or my wife. And that is precious lost time. I cannot put a dollar value on that. Nor will I give a dollar to anyone that creates that exact same scenario.
I cannot resign myself that nothing is going to happen. I cannot let Sony get a pass. So, in my own little way, just like Mark Russinovich, I talk to people, alot.
Re:Why Sony? (Score:5, Interesting)
I find that while canon does good cameras with great image quality, they are still highly overpriced, and excruciatingly SLOW (in the compacts). IMHO, 3 seconds for the camera to react to my pressing a button (the shutter button on the A520, A410) is absolutely shameful.
As for the Rebel, I find the post-processing the camera does to be terrible, specially in high-iso. Obviously, it works great to impress the guys at DPReview who take pictures of a uniform gray chart. But when it comes to picking out details, I find the Nikon dSLR's to give much more natural results, even though they give visible grain.
So, my point is, Canon makes decent cameras, but they're not the best at everything, not by a long shot. Other brands are out there to stimulate competition, as they all have their strong points. Sony have the fastest compact cameras, bar-none. Sure the image isn't as good as a Nikon or Canon, but it's certainly good enough, and it's much better being able to capture the picture _when_ you want it, than to have a great looking picture of something you didn't want because of shutter lag.
Well... Enough rambling. That was my 2 canadian cents worth
Re:So overall, the thing's a wash. (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what happened here behind the scenes. I wonder if it was it an engineering problem, or if they didn't want to cannibalize their F-828 sales.
Re:No thanks. (Score:3, Interesting)
And that's another reason why microdrives, and very large compact flash cards don't appeal to many photographers... If something happens to the card, you're sunk. It's about as easy to carry around a few 1-2GB cards, and it's quick and simple to swap them out. Even with pro-consumer cameras in RAW mode, more than a hundred shots will fit on a 2GB card. you can pick up on 2GB cards, save money relative to larger cards and microdrives, and switch cards every hundred or so shots--which is all too easy to do with an SLR!
Obviously, professional photographers using professional cameras (8+MP), shooting in RAW mode will consume huge amounts of storage (~15MB each for 8 megapixel, 30MB for each photo on a 16MP Canon 1Ds MkII!)... This is why 4GB won't represent a huge number of photos to professional photographers using such expensive equipment. And, if you've got over ten thousand in camera equipment in your bag, the $500 each your 4GB CF cards cost probably isn't going to scare you too badly.
Honestly, though, I'm very suprised Sorny went with CF, ever. I would have guessed they'd recall every memory stick unit ever to modify it to take super mega ultra pro memory sticks before they went with CF. It's gotta be gettin pretty cold in Lucifers' place tonight!
Re:Why Sony? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, for a pro's view on why the camera doesn't matter, may I refer you to this article [kenrockwell.com]?
Ain't gonna sell well (Score:3, Interesting)
1. You NEED a movie mode in this camera. Decent movie mode alone would make it a cult gadget because with such a large sensor it would beat the crap out of camcorders three times the price (which is why I guess movie mode was not included in R1 - Sony makes camcorders too).
2. LCD on top is stupid. Give me flip-out-and-twist LCD that's on the back and flips out to the side. For the love of god make it 2.5" and at least 250K pixels.
3. At $1K I'm going to require some sort of image stabilization.
4. Better image processing. There's no excuse to having a good sensor and screwing up the images in software after they're shot.
Re:Why Sony? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fuji, Olympus, and Minolta are all better in terms of consumer grade cameras than Nikon or Canon's entry level, IMO. Although they all have their good and bad years, and Nikon had some great prosumer equipment in the past (the Coolpix 950 comes to mind, that thing was great), you need to pay some money with Canon or Nikon to get into their non-crippled gear. Fuji -- possibly perhaps because they have a brand name that's associated with cheap drug-store film to most people -- gives a lot of bang for the buck. (Although I think they made a mistake with those xD cards.)
Anyway, just my two cents. I worked at a big camera retailer and we used to push Nikon merch like it was our job -- because basically it was, Nikon had great sales incentives -- but when it came time to get a gift for a friend or family, or pick up an inexpensive digital for myself, I went with the "second tier" brands.