Sony Cybershot DSC-R1 Replacement?

Does anyone know if a new version of this camera is on the horizon?

wrote:
Does anyone know if a new version of this camera is on the horizon?

The Alpha A100.

The R1 is trash, has the worst view finder, and a re-badged Sony lens.
Hint Zeiss sells it's trademark, they don't make the lenses for Sony.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:50:07 -0500, Watcher dev/null wrote:

wrote:
Does anyone know if a new version of this camera is on the horizon?

The Alpha A100.

The R1 is trash, has the worst view finder, and a re-badged Sony lens.
Hint Zeiss sells it's trademark, they don't make the lenses for Sony.

What difference does it make who owns the factory as long as the
workmanship satisfies Zeiss QC? I think you'll find that the license
to use the Zeiss name involves far more than the use of a logo.

Sony sucks, but using Zeiss-designed lenses made to Zeiss standards in
Zeiss-approved facilities is not one of the reasons.

Why bother? It was a mistake in the first place. What many users wanted was
an improved 828, and instead they got this piece of crap. Who would use this
instead of an SLR? Yes, I know all about live preview and silent image
capture, but what percentage of users really need those features? Nice lens,
but too many features dropped from the 828. If Sony upgraded the 828 with
less fringing and much lower noise, I'd have one in a heartbeat.

FWIW, I really miss the nightshot/nightframe feature, laser-assist focusing,
hinged body, and movie mode of the 828, and the R1 has none of them.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Does anyone know if a new version of this camera is on the horizon?

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
Why bother? It was a mistake in the first place. What many users
wanted was an improved 828, and instead they got this piece of crap.

Are these any more to your liking?

http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=907

David

Watcher dev/null wrote in news:45e45eca$0$27979$88260bb3
@news.teranews.com:

wrote:
Does anyone know if a new version of this camera is on the horizon?

The Alpha A100.

The R1 is trash, has the worst view finder, and a re-badged Sony lens.
Hint Zeiss sells it's trademark, they don't make the lenses for Sony.


Respectfully disagree. My R1 imagery is head and shoulders above my A-
100's, because a lens very close to the sensor can easily do better than
the best lens I can put on the A-100. It can be more telecentric and
gives better resolution as well as uniformity out to the corners.

The A-100 suffers from the old film 35mm problem of having to leave room
for a flopping mirror, which was less a handicap with film than with
silicon. Silicon prefers head-on incidence and dies at off angles.
Lenses for the A-100 tend to be bigger and heavier, as a result.

The articulated LCD is pretty good, even if the eye-level viewfinder is
less than perfect. I particularly like having it face up, so you can use
the camera at low elevations (waist level or on the ground) and still
frame the picture just like many of the old MF cameras. Great for
flowers, etc.

That said, my R1 sits on the shelf for two simple reasons. It lacks
image stabilization, and the zoom range is too short. I'm not keen about
the memory stick, with no options, but it works OK.

I'm taking about 90% of my outdoor stuff with my H5, and only bring out
the big, klutzy A-100 for really serious stuff.

Just my US$0.02.

JB

On Feb 27, 9:33 pm, "Kinon O'Cann" wrote:
Why bother? It was a mistake in the first place. What many users wanted was
an improved 828, and instead they got this piece of crap. Who would use this
instead of an SLR? Yes, I know all about live preview and silent image
capture, but what percentage of users really need those features? Nice lens,
but too many features dropped from the 828. If Sony upgraded the 828 with
less fringing and much lower noise, I'd have one in a heartbeat.


Why is it a mistake? I'd use it if it was as fast as an SLR. But
nowadays manufacturers force us to buy an SLR for it to be reasonably
quick and ergonomic (not that I wouldn't have an SLR otherwise, but it
is not possible to buy anything like the minolta a2 any more; if you
could get something like the a2 but with a larger sensor and a lens
like the sony, I'd get it).

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:53:34 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

Why bother? It was a mistake in the first place. What many users
wanted was an improved 828, and instead they got this piece of crap.
. . .

: FWIW, I really miss the nightshot/nightframe feature, laser-assist focusing,
: hinged body, and movie mode of the 828, and the R1 has none of them.

. . .
Are these any more to your liking?

http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=907

Yeah, ISO 3200 and NightShot® technology in the H9 sounds good.
But the press release omits the sensor size of these 8mp cameras.
According to the news reported by dpreview that includes a detailed
specifications list, both the DSC-H7 and H9 use a disappointingly
small 1/2.5" sensor, so it remains to be seen in full reviews how
well they'll actually perform in low light. The 8mp DSC-F828 and
even the older 5mp DSC-F717 both had 2/3" sensors which are more
than twice as large as the small ones used by the H7 and H9.

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message k...
Kinon O'Cann wrote:
Why bother? It was a mistake in the first place. What many users
wanted was an improved 828, and instead they got this piece of crap.

Are these any more to your liking?

A little more, yes. But I'd still want a manual zoom! And can they shoot IR?


http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=907

David

"acl" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 27, 9:33 pm, "Kinon O'Cann" wrote:
Why bother? It was a mistake in the first place. What many users wanted
was
an improved 828, and instead they got this piece of crap. Who would use
this
instead of an SLR? Yes, I know all about live preview and silent image
capture, but what percentage of users really need those features? Nice
lens,
but too many features dropped from the 828. If Sony upgraded the 828 with
less fringing and much lower noise, I'd have one in a heartbeat.


Why is it a mistake? I'd use it if it was as fast as an SLR. But
nowadays manufacturers force us to buy an SLR for it to be reasonably
quick and ergonomic (not that I wouldn't have an SLR otherwise, but it
is not possible to buy anything like the minolta a2 any more; if you
could get something like the a2 but with a larger sensor and a lens
like the sony, I'd get it).

I guess it's a mistake because of all the reasons you just mentioned. It's
expensive, slow, limited, and lacks many of the features you'd want in a
high-end point and shoot camera, like movie, nightshot/nightframe, etc. Why
would anyone buy it in lieu of the Nikon D40, for example? Or any other
decent SLR?

As I've mentioned before, a "swiss army knife" camera like the 828 would
have been nice if they had improved the IQ and fringing. It was a really
nice cam that was flawed.