1. Having had a Canon Digital Rebel with some fairly OK lenses (Sigma 70-200/2.8, Canon 50/1.8, and Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS), I can say this camera makes me think about selling my gear to swap. Why? First, this looks like a simpler camera to use. The lens it has covers the range quite nicely and I doubt that most people would need to swap it out with another. There are negatives about no mirror/prism and positives. The 4-part histogram on review is a nice feature as is the live histogram. We'll have to see what the images are like. I doubt we'll find them excessively noisy. Oh, and the APC sensor isn't large enough? You want a full-frame sensor for less than $1000?

Posted at 6:26AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Doug Alcorn

2. Sure, I'll take a full-frame sensor for under $1000. More importantly, though, I don't want to pay $1000 for the combination of an APS sensor and a lens I'm going to have to throw away. I'll pay $1,500 for the APS in the 20D--although I'd probably rather pay $775 for the XT. Take the lens off this thing, let me bring my own, sell it to me for $850 or $900, and I'll think about buying it. If I'm spending more than $1000, though, I want to be investing in a system where at least some of the parts aren't going to become immediately obsolete.

I think I should be able to change the lens on a $1000 camera, too. Especially one that's being billed as a "prosumer" solution. Not that the Sony accessories won't be nice, but for this kind of money there shold be a little more flexibility. I'm sure it will take wonderful pictures. But will it take $1000 pictures?

Then again, I'm sure a $1000 picture looks different to everyone.

Posted at 6:26AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Jay savage

3. My big problem with the camera is its size and weight: they got rid of the prism and mirror but the camera's no smaller or lighter than the prosumer DSLRs on the market today.

My hope in a digicam with an APS-C sensor was the low-light performance we've come to expect with DSLRs and reasonable control over narrow depths of field in a smaller, lighter body.

Basically, I was hoping this could be an excellent second camera for DSLR shooters -- an easy-to-carry unit for those times when the DSLR is too big but you still want high-quality photos.

Posted at 6:26AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Tommy Williams

4. What a disappointing article on a rather cool camera. Really, could anyone have talked it down more?

The comment about noise was completely inaccurate. Results from the latest cmos chips show virtually noise-free images at up to 800 iso. At 1600 iso, they are the noise/grain equivalent of 400 iso film. How can anyone complain about that?

Comparing this camera to a slr is like comparing apples to oranges. Sure, you can go out and drop a grand on a plastic Canon that's packaged w/ an equally plastic lens that feels like it'll fall apart if the wind blows right. To purchase a lens w/ the speed, sharpness and focal length equivalent of the Sony would likely cost you another $1000. Refer to Michael Reichmann's review of the 828.

Unfortunately, this wasn't a review of the Sony R1. It was a comparison of the Sony and something it's not meant to be. However, it does speak volumes about the little Sony. Constant comparison of it to the entry-level slr market means that it has the 350D/D50 owners second guessing themselves.

I give major kudos to Sony on this one. It is truly a professional digicam, in every way a digicam can be professional. They've given it a real chip that provides enough resolution for Super A3-sized prints. Whoever says that they need more pixels than that A: has a printer costing no less than $2000. And B: wouldn't even been looking at this camera to begin with. They need to be breaking out the checkbook for a 1DsMk2, Leaf -or any medium format, or a Betterlight. The Sony uses a more professional display system. Gone are the kooky graphics and animations. Media support is there. Image format support is there. Frame rates, for the casual shooter, are there. Features -exposure bracketing, etc.- are there. Shutter lag is minimal. And let's not forget that glass.

My only complaints are the top-mounted LCD panel. When popped up, it has me asking, "Where are the rabbit ears?" And secondly; Why is there an EVF? This is a digicam. The viewfinder will never be as sharp as looking through a mirror and lens. To me, it's only there for superficial reason. To let the photographer 'feel' like he's looking through a lens. I say dump the viewfinder and put that money into the LCD. Make it bigger, brighter, sharper and more contrasty. And put it on the back, fixed, where it belongs... Embrace the digicamness for all it's live preview worth.

My background is that I'm a camera assistant in Hollywood. I work w/ quarter million dollar motion picture camera systems and Zeiss/Cooke lenses that would each buy ten of these Sonys. I have a fair bit of knowledge, regarding photography/cinematography -more technical than artistic. My father is a Nikonian and shoots w/ the D70, D2X and every lens you can imagine. He still winces, when he sees the shots that I get from my little T1:)

Regards,

Mike

Posted at 6:26AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Integr8d

5. Mike,

APS-C is a hucge step in the right direction, but a "professional" camera really needs a full-frame sensor. If you don't want to take my word for it, you can look up any of the numerous things Bob Atkins has had to say about sensor size vs. pixel size. Also, noise and grain are two completely independant visual phenomena, and noise is much more noticable to the human eye--at least in color images--so that while even if there is no no more noise in a digital picture than grain in a film print (not that it makes much sense to compare the two; apples to oranges) accoring to some quantatative analysis, the noisy digital picture will look "worse" to most people than the grainy print. CMOS sensors are getting better all the time, but even if we accept that pictures won't be unacceptably noisy below 800, that means the camera will be noisy accross 75% of its range. That's fine, the high speeds are there as anoption for people who are willing to make the trade off. What's not fine is that there are no options at the other end. I don't insist that my digicam go down to ISO 24 (although it's certainly nice when they do, but it's slightly absurd to bill a camera as "professional" or "prosumer" when it won't even go down to 100.

As for my post being about "something it's not meant to be," I categorically disagree. Go read Sony's press release again, and you'll see that they are clearly selling this camera as "profesisonal grade", which makes your comments about printers a little confusing. "Professional grade" is by definition targeted at high-end reproduction equipment. Of course, there's room for discussion as to what "professional" quality means with regard to digital to begin with. Some stock art collections will accpet images from any camera 6MP or above, regardless of sensor size. Arizona Highways won't accept digital submissions at all, even from a Mamiya with a Phase one back. I, obviously, fall somewhere in between.

Your comments about the lens, however, are spot-on. but that just makes the situation more frustrating. I think that Sony--and other like them--have forgotten that they're making a digital camera here. This is evolving technology and the camera was doomed to obsolescence before it was produced, and that beautiful lens is destined for the trash heap. At the rate sensors who are adcancing, no one who has $1000 dollars to drop on this camera today is going to be content with a 10.3MP APS-C sensor for very long. I've never been a particular Leica collector, but I'm willing to admit that putting a top-quality fixed lens on a 35mm camera and designing the camera around it makes a certain amount of sense. But this isn't a camera you're going to leave to your grand children; the format is still evolving.

Posted at 6:26AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Jay Savage

6. Jay:

I eagerly look forward to your explanantion of how the D2x and 1D MarkIIN are not professional cameras. This is not a professional camera in the sense that it would be very hard to send your kids to college using just this camera since it's not versatile enough in its optics or fast enough in recycle times to make a career on -- I see people saying they want to shoot weddings with it and shake my head sadly -- but I'm sure you can get professional results with it for individual shots. Maybe you can talk to Alex Majoli.

Posted at 6:26AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Ryan

7. There definitely was a link in that last sentence when I posted it: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

Posted at 6:26AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Ryan

8. I think you hit it on the head "You can get professional results with it for individual shots." Sure. I can do the same with a Lomo. In fact, I can produce better snapshots with a Lomo than I can with a "professional" rig, especially if the big camera has fairly slow metering or auto focus. Because the Lomo is designed to take snapsohts in a particular way the people like.

The same applies to digital pictures. The fact that Alex Majoli can take great pictures with a point and shoot doesn't make the camera he uses a professional camera. He could take great pictures with a pinhole camera made from a film canister and duct tape. Also, he shoots a lot of people, and people tend to be less intimidated by a point and shoot than by a huge, black hunk of steel that screams "press".

But i think we mean something else when we call equipment "professional". What exactly that is is open for debate, but I think it has to do with consistency, reliability, and probability. That is, "professional" equipment increases to the greatest possible degree the probability that each shot will turn out exactly as the photographer intended.

That's not always a recipe for great art. We all know the value of the unexpected. But that's what we're looking for.

I actually like your words here: in my book, a "professional" camera is a camera (for an averagely talented pro, not a great artist) to make a career on.

It's also, in my mind, and investment on which you want to see significant return over a period of time.

Posted at 6:26AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Jay Savage

9. I've been looking at a D50 as my first foray into the digital realm. The first thing to go would be the kit lens, so I'd have to add another grand for some decent optics. If you're really concerned about megapixels (and I'm not really), the Nikon's six million puts it way behind the Sony already. So if you're talking about obsolete, add the D50 kit to your list. Any digital camera made today will be landfill by the end of the decade. I'll probably get the Sony.

Posted at 6:26AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Brendan O'Shea