Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Sony Hardware

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Announced Hybrid Digital Camera

Comments Filter:
  • No thanks. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eriko ( 35554 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:33PM (#14235598) Homepage
    Sorry, it's a Sony. Not interested.
    • Re:No thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eriko ( 35554 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @09:40PM (#14235892) Homepage
      Wow, my first flamebait *and* troll. Cool.

      Perhaps I should explain.

      Hint: Sony, as a corporation, has adopted the position that they should be able to do whatever they wish to your updateable systems in order to protect their corporate interests.

      My position on this is clear: That's fine. I will, quite simply, not buy *any* Sony product whatsoever until I see compelling evidence that this has changed.

      This camera could give me free beer (as in FREE BEER! WOO!) and I still wouldn't buy it -- because that gives capital to a company who wants to control what my devices do, and will install, without permission, software to enable this.

      So. You guys still buying Playstations can just shut up about the DRM issues. Sony certianly doesn't care about your opinions. You're still buying their stuff.

      I won't. Period.

      So, again.

      No thanks. It's a Sony.

      At least I'm still polite. Come next year (and the next rootkit DRM), it'll be "Fuck no, it's a Sony."
      • yes, but another way to look at it is: Microsoft's OS allowed this DRM rootkit to be installed and function so easily. They also have a very long history of messing up their users' security - worms, virii, trojan horses, IE, Outlook... So why should you buy ANY MS products? And why continue to use them? We know from MS's practices they care far more about mindshare than money, so why let them have what they want?

        If you're going to have a principle of not buying or using products from companies that don't ca
        • Re:No thanks. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by EvilCabbage ( 589836 )
          "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."

          I won't buy an Australian built Holden Commodore because they're one of the most stolen (and poorly built) cars in the country.
          That doesn't mean I blame Holden Commodore drivers for getting their cars stolen. Theives and scumbags still need to be smacked down becaus
  • I had a hard time trying to understand from the blurb what the whole deal was. It's a shame the slashdot editors are not interested in doing their jobs.
  • Why Sony? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lxy ( 80823 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:38PM (#14235623) Journal
    Ignore the rootkit and the other reasons we don't like Sony. Why would you buy a digital camera from Sony?

    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:Why Sony? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rdickinson ( 160810 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:43PM (#14235651)
      Carl Zeiss obviously suck at amking glass then eh?

      I wont buy sony anymore, doesnt make their cameras poor, though I dont see the thought behind buying an SLR (ish) camera without the mirror or the switchable lenses...
      • The mirror is only there to allow you to aim through the true lenses (instead of old school compact's independant aim). It's perfect until you manage to get rid of it through a live numeric feed (such as what compacts are currently using) which gets rid of a now redundant mechanical part.

        Switchable lenses, on the other hand...

      • Re:Why Sony? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by KangKong ( 937247 )
        What I have heard is that Zeiss is NOT making the lens, simply designing the best lens given the limitation Sony has given them. Sony then makes the lens based on that design.
        Main drawbacks of the camera is obviously the fixed lens and not being an SLR, 24mm is not that wide of a wide angle and 120mm is not that much of a tele. Since the light hits the sensor instead of reflecting up to the eyepiece without touching the sensor it shows the scene as the camera interprets it not as with a SLR an untouched vie
    • Re:Why Sony? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:44PM (#14235653)
      Why would you buy a digital camera from Sony?

      Not everyone is as into optics and cameras as you are. Sometimes people just want something that will take pictures or video, even if the quality isn't completely perfect. Not only that, they don't want to spend many pence on it.

      Do you know what people do? They go down to their local electronics retailer, and buy cameras from Sony. They may not be the top of the line, but they'll work, and they may offer the best return for what is spent on them.

      • Re:Why Sony? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by EvilMonkeySlayer ( 826044 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:57PM (#14235705) Journal
        If I may add to this a bit, even Canon consumer cameras are the best. Easy to use, competitive pricing and excellent picture quality. I think it's pretty much undisputed at the moment that Canon make the best digital cameras bar none.[/canonadvert]

        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.
        • 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.
          Don't you mean they blow up after three seconds with an "Jihad!" just before they see 56 virgins?

          Okay, I admit. That was disgusting. :P
        • I would like to politely disagree with your opinion that Canon consumer cameras are the best. I may not object so much had the claim been made for Canon DSLRs, but surely not for their non-DSRL range. In my experience, and it's a long experience, Canon and Nikon use their reputation and brand name in the top-of-the-range and professional markets to sell consumer equipment that is inferior to that offered by other makers. People will buy anything Canon or Nikon, so they feel entitled to take a nice fat profi
          • Re:Why Sony? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <> on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:55AM (#14236591) Homepage Journal
            Speaking as someone who used to sell these things, I second your thoughts. I wouldn't get a Canon or Nikon low-end camera for myself or someone in my family. At the higher end -- where the customers are somewhat more discriminating -- they make great gear, don't get me wrong. But at the low end they rely a lot on their brand name and cut a lot of corners.

            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.
        • Re:Why Sony? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by totoanihilation ( 782326 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @10:37PM (#14236102)
          If I may add to this a bit, even Canon consumer cameras are the best. Easy to use, competitive pricing and excellent picture quality. I think it's pretty much undisputed at the moment that Canon make the best digital cameras bar none.[/canonadvert]
          Disclaimer: I deal with digital cameras for a living.
          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 ;)
        • by greeneggs2000 ( 739337 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @10:38PM (#14236105)
          I've never understood why Canon compact cameras are popular. They do tend to have decent lens quality. But: they have the slowest autofocus of any compact camera manufacturer. Enormous shutter lag. Lots of people who bought Canon digicams think they need to get a DSLR if they want 1 sec shutter lag. In truth, they just need to try a different brand.
      • These "sometime people" use compacts though, because they're cheaper, easier to use and much lighter. Blowing $1000 on a camera is not what "sometimes people" do, even a state-of-the-art compact camera (think Panasonic FX9, 6MPix, optic stabilizer, $330) is a lot for "sometimes peoples", and much more than enough for them to take useable pictures (videos don't even come into the talk, the R1 is not able to take videos...)

        They may not be the top of the line, but they'll work, and they may offer the best ret

    • Re:Why Sony? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stuuf ( 587464 ) <> on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:54PM (#14235692) Homepage Journal
      I've owned digital cameras from Fuji, Olympus and Canon. Not HP, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic etc. The way I look at it, there are two types of people who make digicams, camera makers who went digital and electronics makers who decided to start making cameras. The experienced camera makers know how to make good optics, and the others mostly know how to make inexpensive electronics. OK, Sony does make high quality but I'd rather buy from someone who's been making cameras for decades.
      • Sony doesn't make quality, for over a decade Sony's consumer electronics have been only marginally, if at all, better than the no-name brand electronics and quite a bit behind the other big manufacturers.

        Sony's PROFESSIONAL gear is like a whole other company though.
        • That's probably right.. I'm more into music, and Sony makes the "best" studio headphones available (MDR 7506), while they also make crappy $10 earphones.
          • Studio headphones (and headphones overall) is a highly debated area, yet from what I saw Sony rarely if ever gets branded as "the best". Sennheiser yes (though some people consider that it's "legacy love"), Beyerdynamic yes, AKG yes (you should check the K-271 for studio headphones btw), Koss gets a vote for those who care more about lots of bass than "truth" of restitution, but Sony...
      • You do realize that the sensor used in those high end cameras sometimes contain Sony sensors. The Minolta cameras contain Sony sensors. Also Carl Zeiss makes lenses for Sony. Oh and Sony has been making video cameras for over 30 years and if you watch your local news, chances are it is using Sony Betacam tapes with a Sony camera.

        Also, Panasonics are actually rebranded Leicas, and Leicas are a good thing.
    • Canon is a good company. Their SLRs are fantastic. But I'm sorry, they lag in the point and shoot market. Canon has finally nearly completed rolling out the DIGIC II chip in their P&S line. What does this mean? Well, finally, their P&S cameras aren't slow as slugs.

      Sony rolled their lines to modern processors starting two years ago, they had switched their line over a long time ago now. Canon just got started 1 year ago and still hasn't finished. Look at the Powershot G5, because it has an old chip,
    • Re:Why Sony? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by KilobyteKnight ( 91023 ) <> on Sunday December 11, 2005 @09:11PM (#14235767) Homepage
      Why would you buy a digital camera from Sony?

      I wouldn't.

      I would only recommend Canon or Nikon to people looking for cameras.

      Sony has done nothing worth a headline here. This is pure PR - one of those planted "news" stories where some reporters got fed a story on a slow news day... maybe got sent a free camera with some marketing hype.

      Move along... nothing to see here.
      • Re:Why Sony? (Score:3, Informative)

        by jpop32 ( 596022 )
        Sony has done nothing worth a headline here. This is pure PR - one of those planted "news" stories where some reporters got fed a story on a slow news day... maybe got sent a free camera with some marketing hype.

        Geez... You really have no clue when it comes to digital cameras, right?

        So, let me explain. This is a _significant_ new development in the field of consumer digital cameras, in no way an typical incremental evolution.

        Its significance comes from a new type of CCD, a new development by Sony. Until now
    • Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.

      Sony's 7mp sensor found on many point-n-shoots is considered superb by many. I use a DSC-P150 as my pocket camera and, under the right conditions, its pics outperform those of my Nikon D70s SLR.

      Sony usually uses Carl Zeiss glass. Nothing shabby about that.
    • Sony always seemed to be lacking in both their CCD and their glass quality.

      Hmm, I wonder why Canon uses Sony CCD chips in their Powershot line?

      Also, why would you buy an SLR without interchangeable lenses?

      No dust on the imaging chip. I probably spend more time cleaning and doing the Photoshop clone thing to get rid of dust spots than I do taking pictures.

    • Canon knows optics.

      Sony may not know optics, but Zeis who make some of their lenses certainly do. That said I bought a nice Canon digital camera (with a Leica lens - they certainly know more about optics than Canon) for someone else yesterday, but own an older Sony which I really just use like a polaroid.

      Also, why would you buy an SLR without interchangeable lenses?

      My 35mm camera normally has a 35-70mm zoom on it, which most recent single lens digital cameras can emulate well. A lot of people just use o

    • Re:Why Sony? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by johansalk ( 818687 )
      A reason why you'd want an SLR-like camera without interchangeable lenses is that you know quite well what optical range you need and don't want to deal with the mess that is sensor dust. Think of it as the right tool for the job. I personally would not want an SLR, and if I did it would only be an Olympus as they have self-cleaning sensors. I have no tolerance for sensor dirt, and if you go on you'll see plenty of posts indicating clearly that it's a bitch of a problem and cleaning sensor
      • Re:Why Sony? (Score:4, Informative)

        by radish ( 98371 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @02:11AM (#14236812) Homepage
        Having just come back from Safari in South Africa with a couple of DSLRs which spent a week in the back of an open truck bouncing down a dusty near-desert road. I can safely say that the sensor dirt issue really isn't one.

        1) Don't get the sensor dirty. Change lenses infrequently and in closed environments. I took 2 bodies, one with a long telephoto and one with a mid range. In the field swap cameras, not lenses. This doesn't just help with DSLRs, with film cameras there are plenty of problems to be had if crap gets into the body. Plus of couse changing lenses is slow, animals aren't.
        2) If you do get it dirty, don't clean it yourself. You'll screw it up.
  • by Grandma Death ( 936904 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:38PM (#14235625)
    Who gives a crap how it works, the real question is what kind of rootkit does it come with?
  • Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ziviyr ( 95582 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:39PM (#14235629) Homepage
    They named it after a button on their game controllers, I so must have one!
  • by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:40PM (#14235632) Homepage
    For me, the whole point of LSR:s is the ability to change lenses as needed. Yes, the better image quality is nice too, but it's not _that_ huge a difference anymore. And this one (apart from being a Sony) has the drawback of being the same size as an SLR camera, without the benefit of switching lenses. I'd happily have either a pocketable point and shoot (small, light, inexpensive and quick and easy to use) or a DSLR (good image quality, great flexibility). This halfway thing is not the right thing for me.

    • See, this isn't "my" selling point for a DSLR, rather that all compacts are horribly slow. Both in startup and autofocus/shutter lag. This and light-sensitivity are much more important to me than interchangable lenses, assuming the lens on the camera is good enough of course.

      Now, this particular camera is a first generation of its kind and it does have some issues (most touched on in the article and the dpreview: awkward lcd placement, no closeups, crippled burst mode). But I could see myself buying this ki
      • I wasn't entirely clear. For a compact camera user (who already lives with a fixed lens and an electronic viewfinder) the largest gripe is usually image quality, especially at high ISO, due in large part to a small sensor. This Sony can be seen as an attempt to rectify that; throw on a sensor of the same size as a DSLR and you'll get comparative image quality. Of course, you'll get comparative size, weight and prize as well.

        The Sony is the same size, weight and price range as a Canon 350D with the kit lens
  • Anyone got pictures?
  • by RasputinAXP ( 12807 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:40PM (#14235636) Homepage Journal
    This is a D-SLR camera without movie mode, interchangable lenses or anything resembling snapshot capability. From TFA:
    ... the R1's is permanently attached....You also sacrifice a movie-capture mode, which Sony omitted for no good reason, and a good close-up mode; the closest this camera can get to its subject is 13 inches.

    The author also laments that there's no macro mode, which is kind of redeundant when you've already said you can't get any closer than 13 inches. And all for $1000!

    Personally, I'd go with the Nikon D-series or a Canon Digital Rebel for a lot less with a few lenses and be able to actually get near some of my subjects.
    • many cameras have a minumum distance and also have a seperate macro mode that goes far inside that distance.
    • Canon and Nikon, in their higher end non interchangable lense cameras use higher quality L series lenses for Canon or ED series lenses. You can get a Rebel XT and a lense for 1k but it's unlikely that lenses is an L lense. Plus for most people in this price range they usually carry one lense anyways. So I can see a market for this kind of camera, good lense, good sensor, without the need for interchangable lenses. Sony uses a Carl Zeiss lense. To get interchangable Carl Zeiss lenses, it would cost a lot mo
    • you can't get any closer than 13 inches. ...
      I'd go with the Nikon D-series or a Canon Digital Rebel for a lot less with a few lenses and be able to actually get near some of my subjects.

      What would that be, a microscope?
      • Try taking shots of (for example) a ring on someone's finger with a compact camera.

        Gotta get close and in macro mode.

        Did it this weekend when I took a pic of my now-fiancee's new ring. Can't do that with this camera if there's no macro mode setting and a 13 inch minimum distance.
    • The previous generation of this camera, the F-828, has a macro mode, and has a very good movie mode. It's also made of metal, while this R1 is plastic. The '828 also has a wider range than the R1. Sony seems to have taken many steps backward in order to jam a larger sensor in there. But in terms of picture size, it's not all that different.

      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.
  • by Tom Davies ( 64676 ) <> on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:41PM (#14235641) Homepage 1review.asp []

    Summary -- fantastic lens, but despite the large sensor inferior noise performance to entry level DSLRs.
  • I'm in! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Construct X ( 582731 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:42PM (#14235643)
    As long as I have to purchase another redundant proprietary memory format (Hello xD), that costs nearly twice as much per MB as SD and CF, then I don't want to be right.
  • Good review (Score:4, Informative)

    by a_ghostwheel ( 699776 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:43PM (#14235650)
    Good review can be found here [].
  • Wow. That's all I have to say. I mean, a new camera. And sony! And lenses which can't be exchanged (trapping you in to their own proprietary products and services), wow! This is all so surprising!
  • Sony Camera (Score:4, Funny)

    by this great guy ( 922511 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:46PM (#14235663)

    Strangely enough, pictures of objects showing the word $sys$ always end up being completely black...

  • by Cherita Chen ( 936355 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @08:49PM (#14235674) Homepage
    Here is a link to more information on SLR photography, and the advantages of Digital SLR's over compact models. For anyone interested in learning more about digital photography, this is a must read... digital-slr-reviews/fullstory.html []

  • All I want from an SLR is standard size lens, so I can walk into a store, buy a fisheye, or a 200mm + tele-objective

    I would even settle with 4-5 megapix, as most pictures I watch on the LCD screen, TV or projector, and my printouts are 20cm at max....

    So it is nice to put SLR quality into a matchstick, but I would prefer an affordable full size body in (higher end) compact resolutions.....

    Just for reference: I have an old canon crame for "real" photos, and a nicon 2 megapix for whatever else (compact coolpix
    • Re:Big = Good (Score:3, Informative)

      by damsa ( 840364 )
      Buy an Olympus or Pentax. They are relatively cheap compared with Canons and the Nikons and their optics aren't too horrible. But then again all of your photographer friends will snicker at you. Sigma's are relatively affordable as well. But their lenses aren't known to be the greatest. There are a lot of affordable choices.
      • I appreciate the tip, I am looking into Pentax .... I hate Olympus, I had an Olympus digi and it lasted 2 months ...
        I abused it, but it should have taken it. I need something that can take lots of shaking (lotse dirt roads where I go), sitting in a backpack riding bikes, quads, and lots of sand and sun as well - well I moved to the tropics, so I need something that can take up with all the crap .

        Thanks again, I quite honestly did not know pentax still existed (had some non-digi pentax stuff, and I liked th
  • uzi = ultra zoom.

    I'm very fond of the Panasonic FZ20. 36-432mm f2.8 lens with optical image stabilization. If you hunt around, you can probably find for 1/2 of the Sony. There's plenty others too that offer better performance, IMHO.

    For the SLR fan, I prefer Nikon to Canon (I have a D70s), but the arguments on this rival vi vs. emacs. Current thinking is to buy the one that fels best in your hands (whis is why I bought the D70s). A D50 body can be had for $550 + $700 for the shipping-next-week 18-200mm
  • by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @09:14PM (#14235778)
    I've been using a Minolta Dimage 7 [] and then an A2 [] since 2001 and vastly prefer electronic viewfinders (EVF) to traditional optical ones. Some of the benefits include:
    1. Better understanding of the exposure: On an optical finder, the dynamic range of the eye automatically handles dark shadows and bright highlights that the camera cannot - its too easy to see a great picture that the camera can't get. An EVF gives me a better idea if I'm blowing out the sky or losing detail in the darkness. An EVF gives me instant visual feedback on what the picture will look like before I hit the shutter button.
    2. Extensive programmable informational overlays: An EVF can overlay a huge amount of data about the image, the camera's mode, the user-interface state, image histogram, sighting lines, etc. Or I can turn it all off for an uncluttered view.
    3. Instant post-shutter review: An EVF can display the actual picture taken immediately after the shot. I don't have to pull the camera away from my eye to check the results on an external screen (that's hard to see in day light anyway).
    4. Magnification: With an EVF, one can zoom into a bit of detail in the live image to check the quality of the exposure or focus. It's like using a magnifier in a darkroom or a loupe on a print (the A2 offers 4X magnification). This is something that no optical finder can handle.
    5. No viewfinder alignment/cutoff issues: Unlike an optical veiwfinder, an EVF shows exactly 100% of the image perfectly aligned and centered. Its more WYSIWYG than an optical finder.
    6. Amplification in darkness: In low lighting conditions the EVF can boost the gain to provide a useful image. It's not night vision by any means, but it does help.

    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

    • by TrumpetPower! ( 190615 ) <> on Sunday December 11, 2005 @10:48PM (#14236154) Homepage

      You've never used a camera with a good viewfinder, I'll bet. Even my Canon Digital Rebel has a somewhat sucky viewfinder, but it's so much better than any EVF could possibly be it's not even funny.

      With a real viewfinder, there's absolutely no lag as you pan around. The image is perfectly sharp. Manual focus varies to not-hard with the Rebel to near-trivial with a good viewfinder. It works just fine in low light: I can set up a shot lit by a single distant candle without trouble, something truly impossible with an EVF. And on and on.

      Exposure is trivial to check after the shot on the display on the back of the camera, especially with the histogram. Any camera made in the past few decades will include at least an exposure meter in the viewfinder, and modern ones will include aperture / shutter speed, shots remaining, focus confirmation points, and anything else you might want. You don't need to magnify an optical viewfinder, as it's already sharper than any EVF could possibly hope to be.

      If you really want to know what an SLR viewfinder should be like, pick up a Canon 1 series (or whatever Nikon's equivalent is). Or, even better, try a rangefinder--there's few better ways to look through a camera lens than the way Leica does it.

      When you've got an EVF with instant response, at least a few megapixels, and the exact same dynamic range and color rendition as the camera's sensors, we'll talk. Until then, even the best EVF isn't going to compare to a low-end SLR film viewfinder.



  • I call BS! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This article appears more of marketing propaganda than actual truth. Take for example "he R1 offers something that's never before been possible on a large-sensor camera: a wide-angle (24-mm) equivalent on the basic lens" What about the (10-12mm)-(20-22mm) lenses that are available for current D-SLR's - that gives 16mm wide lens vs 24mm wide! Oooo ...
  • yeah...hybrid (Score:2, Interesting)

    I read the isn't any kind of hybrid camera. It is just a new CyberShot model. Still no through-the-lens, changeable lenses, etc. because it is NOT meant to be anything like an SLR. Canon has a similar line of products.
  • If you can think outside the Canon/Nikon box you should check out the Olympus E-500 2 lens kit.
    Best SLR bang for the buck. You get 2 lens kit for less money than the R1. And it is not much heavier.
  • All the ease of use of a top-line professional SLR with the flexibility and adaptability of a compact for $1k...where can I get one?
  • Beware: may install rootkit and ugly invisible mustache to your then-DRM'd digital pictures. May attempt formatting CF and/or HDD if rootkit is removed.
  • You can find a much better review <a href=" r1.html">here</a>. It gives a much more detailed look at the features, but will be more useful still when they have completed the conclusions portion (awaiting production camera, as opposed to pre-production sample).
  • by lo0ol ( 799434 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @10:11PM (#14235995) Homepage
    When these things start appearing in stores, why bother going into one to buy one when you can get it a lot cheaper online? I haven't bought from the company myself yet, but I've seen it linked to on a lot of blogs lately. Something about supplying cheap cameras, so maybe some of you want to give them a shot; you might save some money that way. []
  • by ( 213219 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @10:26PM (#14236056) Journal
    Please remember what Sony/BMG did with the rootkit. It was unethical to say the least. When I learned of this, I resolved to "vote with my money" and will no longer buy anything Sony. I know Sony Electronics aren't exactly the same as Sony music but (or should I say BUT) they have the same roots and and my refusal to do business with Sony anything is bound to make them think about things - but not if I am a lone voice in the woods.

    Like-minded Geeks unite! Boycot those Sony scumbags who thought a rootkit was a good idea! Only the bottom line matters to them. Affect it!
  • by jpatters ( 883 ) on Sunday December 11, 2005 @11:23PM (#14236276)
    TFA is confused about sensor sizes. First, it says this:

    But like an SLR, it has a huge sensor inside, 21.5 by 14.4 millimeters.

    And then it says this:

    Yet without switching lenses, the R1 also zooms in 5x (a 120-mm equivalent). Unlike the focal-length measurements of other digitals, these are true 35-mm camera equivalents that don't have to be multiplied by, say, 1.5.

    The 35mm frame size is 36 by 24 mm, for a diagonal of 43mm, which is 1.67 times the diagonal of the sensor in the camera. So you have to multiply by 1.67 to get your "35mm equivalents". If you look at the front of the camera (pictured here []) you can see that the actual focal length range of the lens is 14.3mm to 71.5mm, and when you multiply by 1.67, you get the quoted 24mm to 120mm. It is hardly new, or in any way a "feature" for a digital camera manufacturer to quote the "35mm equivalent" when talking about focal lengths. It is, however, totally bogus, IMO, because it tells you nothing about depth of field, which depends on the actual physical focal length and the distance to the subject. Given that the maximum apeture at the longer end of the range is f/4.8, your subject will have to be pretty close to get the claimed ability to use "that professionals' trick of blurring the background".
  • by melted ( 227442 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:34AM (#14236506) Homepage
    Sony, here's a list of recomendations from me regarding R1:
    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.

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.