Replacing DSLR with digicam

Every now and then we get served a reality sandwich, and my latest needs to be

washed down in part by liquidating my SLR and DSLR investment. Just sold off a

Pentax MZ-S which was hard to do, and now my remaining *ist DS and lenses are

listed in the classifieds here.

 

Beyond the obvious plug, I'm looking for some opinions regarding my plan to

replaced the SLR stuff with a digicam.

 

I've come to the conclusion I'm really not an SLR kind of guy, and I'm hoping I

can find something that I can get that leaves me enough change after selling the

DS kit, to meet some obligations.

 

I'm going to replace this stuff with an all-in-one prosumer digicam, and at the

top of the list is the Sony DSC R1, and my other consideration is perhaps

economizing even more and going with a KM A200 because I really enjoyed the A2 I

used to have.

 

If anyone is currently using the R1 it would be great to get your impression of

the overall user experience and especially opinions on the lens and image

quality. I'm aware of the general digicam tradeoffs in speed of operation, EVF

lag vs optical viewer and such, but as I'm a slow shooter and I'm getting

increasingly deliberate in my approach, most of that is OK. I do 90% still

subject also. And I'm an amateur with artsy leanings, so I'm not constrained by

any conventional criteria, just what I want my photos to look like. So far the

images from the R1 that I've seen have been very impressive to me.

 

While I'm familiar with the KM A2, advice would also be welcome on any things

unique to the A200, or other cameras I might not have considered so far.

 

If anyone's got some other suggestions about a digicam to replace a DSLR, please

weigh in.

 

And of course if anyone's looking for a nice Pentax *ist DS kit, check out my

photo.net ad.

The R1 is probably a good bet.

 

There is a big push for people to move to dSLRs but, it has been found that 90% of the people who buy one never move beyond the (usually low grade) 'kit lens' that the camera came with. They don't buy any other lenses and don't see any need to buy more lenses 'if the zoom does everything I want it to do'.

 

With the R1, you will get a top quality lens.

As far as I can tell the R1 is not much smaller than the *ist. If your problems with DSLR are related to size (and itmight not be the case) then you should look again. What about a Ricoh GR digital for example? I wouldn't mind one myself.

Dean, <br>

<br>

I have and use the Konica Minolta A2, the Sony DSC-R1 and a full Pentax *ist DS kit with

half a dozen lenses. The DSLR kit is my primary and the basis of my work, but if you don't

want to carry the lens kit and the differences in responsiveness are not significant to you,

you can't go far wrong with either an A2 or the R1.<br>

<br>

The A2 has more features and is amongst the very best of the fixed lens 8Mpixel cameras

with a smaller than DSLR sensor. The lens is superb, the controls are excellent, and it

produces very very good image quality. It does buffered writes on both JPEG and RAW so

even though it has a smallish buffer it proves not to be a problem.<br>

<br>

The Sony's lens is even better, although a little more limited in zoom range, and the larger

size sensor gives it a useful 2-3 stop advantage in sensitivity. ISO 400 captures are about

on par in noise with ISO 800 captures using the Pentax where the A2 achieves the same

noise level at ISO 64-100 at most. What this means is that you'll want to use a tripod or

flash more frequently with the A2 than with either the R1 or the DS. The R1's disadvantage

is that focusing is quite slow (but accurate) in low light circumstances and the two frame

buffer (RAW) or three frame buffer (JPEG) is often easy to run into the limits of.<br>

<br>

Overall, I find both to be a useful complement to the Pentax. I would probably take the R1

as a replacement mostly because of the additional sensitivity and resolution over the A2,

but either does a very similar job when used to exploit their particular capabilities and

avoid their foibles. Both work brilliantly on a tripod. The A2 is more compact and gives a

little better focal length range at the tele end and for macro, the R1 does a bit better at the

wide end.<br>

<br>

A couple of representative photos made with these two cameras: <br>

<br>

<center><br>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/42O2-half.jpg"

target=new><br>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/42O2.jpg"

border=0></a><br>

<b>Lighthouse Field - Santa Cruz, CA</b><br>

<i>©2005 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Konica Minolta A2<br>

ISO 100 @ f/3.2 @ 1/60 sec, Program, FL=12mm</i><br>

<br>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/large/21-half.jpg"

target=new2><br>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/large/21.jpg"

border=0></a><br>

<b>Kitchen Implements - Sheep Ranch, CA</b><br>

<i>©2006 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Sony DSC-R1<br>

ISO 160 @ f/8 @ 25 sec, Av, fl=49.8mm</i><br>

<br>

<i>Click on images above for larger rendering in separate window.</i><br>

</center><br>

I hope that's some help.

<br><br>

Godfrey

Godfrey, Meryl, Stefano,

 

Thanks much for taking the time to reply. I'm not selling the DS kit due to any real dissatisfaction with it. In fact it's a great DSLR, and I felt a great improvement over the 10D I was using, for size and weight. But I've been using a tripod more frequently and the size and weight of the R1 shouldn't be a problem (I checked one out at a shop and found the balance nice and the weight was reasonable). I will tend to use the waistlevel viewing most which is what I like most about the A2 I had, and in that position theres the neck strap support which should actually be easier on my wrist than even the *ist DS.

 

I like the Ricoh GR Digital, but I'm not prepared to spend that much on such a single purpose single focal length camera. For the one camera, one lens, aesthetic, I'd be more inclined to just keep the DS with the Pancake and sell everything else as I'm not necessarily looking to replace the dslr with a pocket camera.

 

I generally used either the 50mm f/1.4, 28mm f/2.8, or 40mm f/2.8 pancake with my DS, and the kit zoom really wasn't too bad, but not on par with the primes, so I'm drawn to the R1 to try to keep some of the lens quality of those primes.

 

And while I think an A200 or another A2 would be fine, as Godfrey points out, I'll get more usage out of the R1's ISO performance.

 

Thanks for posting the images Godfrey, they're both very nice, and certainly do both cameras justice.

 

I think I'm going to go for the R1, as I think it will offer me the image quality I want as well as offer an all in one solution that fits my budget adjustments. Were it not for the latter, I'd definitely be keeping the *ist DS kit as well. But I think the R1 will actually suit my shooting preferences better, and be somewhat more convenient for tripod shooting, than I've found with DSLRs or SLRs.

 

Your comments are helpful, thanks.

"...R1 will actually suit my shooting preferences better, and be somewhat more convenient for tripod shooting, than I've found with DSLRs or SLRs..."

 

Sounds like your decisions are equipment-driven, rather than purpose driven. Ask yourself - what are shooting? More importantly, WHY are you shooting? One doesn't have to have a camera, you know.

 

I suggest the Fuji F30 as the ultimate P&S. I used its predecessor F10 and was blown away by the pocket size body with an f2.8 lens and almost dSLR-like iso 800 and very usable 1600.

 

The Sony R1 gives you an all-in-one package with a fixed lens and live LCD. Great stuff, but how is it going to be "more convenient for tripod shooting"?

Vladimir,

 

It might not be too accurate of you to jump to conclusions about whether my photography is equipment driven or photographically driven.

I'm well aware of the difference, and I know as well as the next guy that what's really important is the photographer's eye. It is a moot point. Given that I accept and understand that reality, is it ok with you that I explore gear that I enjoy using.. for whatever purpose? Does the fact that you are suggesting an F30 mean that your photography is gear driven? Why would I want such a camera?

 

If you were to bother to read my original post, I think it is clear that I'm considering alternatives to my DSLR/SLR gear for budget reasons, as well as personal preferences. I'm not interested in getting into some argument about whether a given camera, be it Leica, or Hasselblad, or F30, will "make my photography better". Frankly it's insulting to insinuate as much simply because I stated a preference for waist level viewfinders. If you prefer an old brownie, or perhaps FED2, I can accept that.

 

Working with a tripod, I find having an variable angle LCD allows ME to compose without straining my back and my neck to get down to the viewfinder level at low angles, and not having to contort so contributes to a more relaxed and thoughtful state of mind while working. YMMV. I always enjoyed using a TLR, the way the image appears on the ground glass from above makes a somewhat different impression on compostional decisions than the SLR's view. A waist level LCD simulates that to some extent and I enjoy that. Is this a bad thing?

 

The F30 sounds like a fine camera, but I already have a pocket camera I'm very happy with, a Pentax 750z, and I'm not looking to replace my DSLR with a pocket digicam anyway.

Sorry Dean, no reason to get defensive and feel insecure. I agree with your case for an LCD on a low-standing tripod, it can get very inconvenient with an SLR.

 

Actually I'm a strong believer that the current SLR technology has no future (I made a few posts on the subject). The future belongs to cameras with a good sensor and electronic viewfinder (EVF). The current EVF technology is lacking in refresh speed and resolution. Once it's fixed, there will be no reason whatsoever to have a flipping mirror, hinges and other mechanical parts in a camera.

 

On a side note, the F30 is still a great choice for when you can't carry a bigger camera. Its low light capabilitis are fantastic and you'll never need a flash. I love my FEDs too, I still have a FED-3 my father gave me for my 12th birthday.

<I>Actually I'm a strong believer that the current SLR technology has no future (I made a few

posts on the subject). The future belongs to cameras with a good sensor and electronic

viewfinder (EVF).</I><P>

 

Bingo... My feelings exactly. It's just a matter of time.

<center><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/R1-walk/image/

walk-0080-800.jpg"><br>

<b>"Still Live" - Sunnyvale, CA"</b><br>

<i>©2006 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Sony Cybershot DSC-R1<br>

ISO 160 @ f/4.8 @ 1/40 sec, Program, FL=72.0mm</i><br>

</center><br>

<br>

<i>Vladimir said:<br>

> The Sony R1 gives you an all-in-one package with a fixed lens <br>

> and live LCD. Great stuff, but how is it going to be "more convenient <br>

> for tripod shooting"?</i><br>

<br>

The articulated LCD setup as well as an eyelevel viewfinder gives a lot more freedom of

motion and positioning flexibility for the R1 when working low or high angles compared to

an eyelevel, optical-only viewfinder on a DSLR. The flexi-spot control on the AF system,

coupled with manual focus and push-button AF on manual focus mode, makes it actually

easier to nail the precise focus on a tripod as well. Add to that the live histogram with

zebra stripe display for saturation areas, and I find the R1 to be a dynamite tripod camera.

<br>

<br>

Where it is not as good as a DSLR is in lens options. The Zeiss T* lens on the R1 is superb,

but it, like any 5:1 zoom lens, cannot maintain quite as good rectilinear correction at the

wide angle setting as a good prime lens with equal or greater field of view (say: the Pentax

*ist DS with DA14mm f/2.8 lens): the R1 lens will produce more barrel distortion at wide

angle settings, it has virtually perfect rectilinears as it approaches its maximum focal

length. The barrel distortion it has is modest and correctable with Photoshop and other

tools, however. <br>

<br>

I often use the R1 purely for the joy and ease of use on a tripod, but it also shoots from

waist level hand-held, both landscape and portrait orientation, with great ease. It's a

terrific camera ... It has its limits, but if your work is within those limits it is as good as any

SLR in the resolution class and it's certainly a LOT less expensive than any DSLR and

comparable quality lens.<br>

<br>

Godfrey

<i>

> > Actually I'm a strong believer that the current SLR technology has no<br>

> > future (I made a few posts on the subject). The future belongs to<br>

> > cameras with a good sensor and electronic viewfinder (EVF).<br>

> <br>

> Bingo... My feelings exactly. It's just a matter of time.<br>

</i><br>

While I'm fundamentally in agreement that there is a huge future in cameras that have all-

electronic imaging/framing systems ... the A2 and R1 are the best of this lot to date in this

respect ... I don't believe that the optical reflex viewfinder camera will ever go away

entirely. <br>

<br>

The reason is simple: responsiveness. An optical viewfinder is going to respond and track

in low light at the speed of light and there is no EVF possible that will operate at close to

that speed, particularly in low light. It's one of the things that the laws of physics will

forever get in the way of. <br>

<br>

In practical terms, an EVF that had 2x to 3x the pixels of the R1 and a 60-120hz refresh

rate, even in low light, would be as close as needed for many purposes. It would allow

amplification for low light and attenuation for bright light, and would operate without the

physical/geometric constraints of an optical system. It would be mechanically simpler too.

But I suspect that such designs are still a ways out into the future. <br>

<br>

Godfrey<br>

Vladimir >Sorry Dean, no reason to get defensive and feel insecure. <

 

mm..Ok, Let's not go THERE!

 

But really thanks for your input. I used a Fed2 for a few years, and enjoyed it a lot. Ended up giving it to a friend when I found I wasn't messing with film much anymore.

 

There are times when I think DSLRs, for all their good points, are anachronistic in keeping the form factor of the traditional camera design. In part I think they are transitional and offer the photographer to keep one leg in the past. Maybe DSLRs are the real "bridge" cameras. Of course the DSLR's performance,image quality and optical flexibility can't be denied. When digicams can match that plus add in the way their own unique characteristics, things should get rather interesting in a hurry. I think the prosumers like the A2, and Canon Pro1 were serious steps toward that, and now the R1 and, in a way, the Olympus 330 are pushing further. I'm sure there are more innovative nonDSLRs waiting in the wings.

<I> An optical viewfinder is going to respond and track in low light at the speed of light and

there is no EVF possible that will operate at close to that speed, particularly in low light. It's

one of the things that the laws of physics will forever get in the way of. </I><P>

 

Speed of light responsiveness is certainly not necessary - unless your brain operates that

fast. Very easy for technology to mature to levels actually required - which are FAR less

zippy. Television has been around for ages... Microsecond (or even millisecond) delays are

insignificant. Circuit topologies, maturing EVF technology, and faster semiconductor

processes are the solution - and very easy if the motivation is there.

Certainly, Brad. As I said in my post above.

 

The reality at present is that in low light circumstances the responsiveness and light

gathering power of the sensor is what counts ... and responsiveness slows to a crawl with

current sensors making image stability when trying to focus hand-held in low light nearly

impossible with an EVF. Put the R1 or A2 on a tripod and they're fine, but any camera or

subject motion and you see immediately why the 'speed of light' of an optical finder is

superior for low light photography. :-)

 

Godfrey

<I>there is no EVF possible that will operate at close to that speed, particularly in low light.

It's one of the things that the <b>laws of physics will forever get in the way of</b>.

</i><P>

 

Again, your saying EVFs will never get there due to laws of physics. Simply not true.

"...at the speed of light and there is no EVF possible that will operate at close to that speed, particularly in low light..."

 

Godfrey - I don't buy this argument. The latest generations of fighter jets are using EVF-style technology to fly suprsonic jets in aerial combat. How much more responsiveness do you need? It's all a matter of cost. Currently only the military seem to be able to afford such technology. Soon enough it'll be available to everyone.

 

Also, electricity is also unbelievably fast. I'm not good at physics but it wouldn't far off the "speed of light" for most applications. Most high-tech circuits will involve optic fibre anyway, hence the "speed of light". A future EVF will feel as fast as an optical viewfinder PLUS there'll be NO MIRROR BLACKOUT.

And in fact, operation in low light is where EVFs, being more sensitive, can trounce optical

viewfinders - assuming there's motivation to go there.

Modern television camera integrated displays are a great example.

A jet fighter has room and space for a lot of power hungry electronics to amplify the

incoming signal, and its heads-up and targeting displays don't need the kind of

responsiveness of a high-resolution still camera ... A modern television camera with

integrated display is 8x the size of a DSLR and it's only got to be responsive enough for

motion capture, not still image capture.

 

There's a big difference between either of these imaging systems and a hand-holdable,

high resolution still camera with a fast viewfinder. Yes, an EVF can amplify the brightness

and make it possible to see in darker circumstances than an optical viewfinder, but at the

expense of time to capture enough light to produce an image. This is why an EVF at slow

shutter speeds is somewhat jumpy and hard to focus.

 

Have you used an R1 or A2? You would understand what I mean if you did. The EVF/LCD

displays operate smoothly in sufficient light but become slow and jerky as light levels

drop. By comparison, in low light the DSLR viewfinder might be relatively dim, but its

responsiveness is invariant and always at the speed of light. The EVF in the R1 slows down

to around a full frame jump in 1/10-1/8 second as light levels get slow, which makes it

hard to hold still enough to focus.

 

But let's not get into a silly debate on this subject. As I said, there is a big future in these

devices as performance improves, but nothing will match the optical viewfinder for

responsiveness. The future will either prove me wrong or right, I'm willing to accept its

testimony. ;-)

 

Godfrey

<I>Have you used an R1 or A2? </I><P>

 

No, but I have used an ancient sony f707.<P>

 

Again there is no <B>law of physics</b> that will <B>forever</b> get in the way of

making a responsive EVF. It's simply motivation and demand. Sensitivity is increased

through integration. Faster displays are made by employing parallel streams, similar to the

way canon gets a fast readout rate from their sensors - 8 paths, making a fast capture

rate. Can work the other way around on EVFs. Really is incredibly simple if the demand is

there. Technology doesn't stand still.

<I>it's only got to be responsive enough for motion capture, not still image capture.

</i><P>

 

They're essentially instantanious. Again, speed of light responsiveness is not necessary. It's

how fast your brain works, in the milliseconds+ arena.

I just read a Sony interview which basically hinted that the R1 could be the last of its breed, and Sony may concentrate on DSLRs instead.

 

I see no reason to replace the current excellent optical viewfinder technology (in those cameras where it is excellent) with poor-quality, slow, low-res electronic substitute. Would you like your eyes to be replaced with glasses using EVF? Why not, if it is so great?

 

As to the original question, as you trade higher-end equipment to get lower-end stuff, you lose both money and features. That doesn't seem like a good way to go. If you trade up, at least you gain something (quality and features), and not just lose.

I really do like the EVF of my Canon A80........it's live, it swivels every which way......little small, but I've seen the MiniDV ones that are big and love them.

 

But......put the EVF in place of the "slr" part of my 20D. But keep the lens interchangability, the high usable ISO, the fast lenses, the lack of shutter lag, RAW, large sensors, etc.........just give me an EVF swivel screen on it. It's gotta be possible.

"...But let's not get into a silly debate on this subject..."

 

You first.

 

"...As I said, there is a big future in these devices..."

 

You didn't. ikeminded people believed cars were dangerous at speeds higher than 30mph and planes will never be commercially viable.

And it's not all about power consumption. Easy to get a postage stamp size video cam (with

great sensitivity) and hook it directly into a similaraly small and low power and small battery-

powered LCD monitor. Great quality, no dekay lag. Extremely easy to extend that basic

thought into a camera system where the EVF (or LCD) is equally responisve with a sufficient

level of quality. There have been huge advances in display technology. Just a matter of time

and motivation to propagate that into camera systems.

 

Using the R1 (with design compromises, such as a small buffer and long RAW write times) as

a metric of what's possible, is very faulty.