Sony R1 or Canon 350D?

[yann_r.]

Franco,<p>

I'm also very interested by the Sony R1. Then maybe I'm not really objective cause I (personnaly) don't find a lot of interest for buying a DSLR... but here's my humble opinion:<br>

Whatever many can say, even if a basic DSLR is cheaper than a R1, if you want quite the same lens quality, you have to buy very expensive lens. I don't speak about what one could find on Ebay. After, I think it's an objective point of view cause many professionnal reviews said it: the kit lens sold with DSLR are cheap, basic and not really performant.<p>

<i>"this camera is already dead. go for panasonic 9500 instead"</i><br>

A few R1 are available in France (Paris) for 782 euros (near than $930).<br>

1) I find the R1 really better than the S9500, else in tele cause the R1 is limited at 120mm but the S9500 has NO stabilized lens! not so great with a 300mm...<br>

2) The R1 isn't dead but - a news from a Sony provider in Paris - a new camera (maybe called the R2) should be available during summer 2006.<br>

... Think about the F828! This one is still available after more than 2 years life and its price is yet rather expensive... I don't think R1's price will go down & down so quickly.<p>

<i>I knew the pro-Canon against pro-Nikon war, here's now the pro-DSLR against the pro-DSLR-like one !</i> ; )) LOL

[yann_r.]

... and the S9500 is made by FUJI, not PANASONIC.

[omer_ipekci]

I assure you, you won't easily get the best results the fixed lens can deliver easily. I used slr likes. I have a digital compact (sony v3) I like sony's products etc. But they are NOT easily comparable to slrs. I wish they were though. Because I like the concept. I really looked (and still am looking) forward for an up to date F717 with tilting body.

 

Going the rebel direction here is a price evaluation

Like New body:~650 dollars +

1- Used Tokina 80-200 2.8: ~200 dollars

~150 left for a fast prime

 

2- Tokina 12-24 F4 (great lens): ~250 dollars

~100 left for a fast prime

 

In first direction you have a larger zoom capable lens with 2.8 constant aperture and combined with 350d better jpg quality.

 

In second direction you have covered wide angle better than the R1 (19-38) and with definitely better jpg(and arguably RAW) quality.

 

For the price/performance and poor ergonomics r1 does not cut the cheese for me. If it does for you, go for it.

[ilkka]

DO try both cameras to see how you like them. Compare the viewfinders. The viewfinder on 350 is not very good as SLR viewfinders go, but it is in some ways much better than an EVF. If you can live with the EVF then all is well. I have a Minolta A2 and often have to shoot with both eyes open, using the left eye to actually see what is in the scene and the right eye for framing. This especially in difficult lighting situations or when doing portraits. I find it impossible to see the expression on a person's face with an EVF. And the A2 has by far the best EVF ever put into a digital camera. Still, I have more than ten cameras, and if I just need to travel light and carry a camera that is capable of doing almost everything, I do not hesitate to pick that A2. And when I need something more, it often comes along as a backup. If I bought a similar camera now, I would probably get the R1 even though the viewfinder is not as good as the one on A2 and even with its slower buffer, smaller lens range, lack of image stabilisation and larger size/weight.

 

The R1 has a very good lens and the range is perfect for general use. For the SLR you would not only have to buy more than one lens, but also carry them and keep changing them instead of just concentrating on making photographs. I find it strange that people can recommend lens selections (17+80-200, 10-22+80-200) that leave a huge gap in the most important and useful focal length range of about 35-100mm. To fill that with the kit lens brings the trouble of carrying and changing three lenses, all of which are mediocre performers.

 

As has been said, 350 is a good way to start building a system. But if you don't want to build and carry and operate a system, the R1 is a very good choice. And even if you do later change your mind and decide to buy an SLR and five lenses, the R1 will still make an excellent backup.

[eugene_scherba]

I heard the R in R1 stands for rootkit...

[smile_my_friends]

I would advise against the fixed lense only because i've already been down that path. I had a Panisonic Lumix fz20 and it didn't have a big enough telephoto for me so I had to sell it after only 2months for a 20D and the 100-400mmL. Mabye your needs are different, but I found that it was limiting not to beable to buy new lenses for the Lumix. however, I also got some really nice pictures on it and learned a lot. I also used to think I was never going to beable to buy new lenses as I am only 18, but now I have a nice little collection growing. (17-40L 100-400L 100mm macro and 50mm f1.8 all EF and in a couple of years you can add the 500mm F/4L to that as well hopefully) I guess your financial situation may be different then mine though, i'm in college but my expenses are paid for so i work all summer for camera equipment and nothing else really. What I guess i'm saying is think will you NEVER beable to buy another lense or are you just going to have to wait a while. Also I love my little 50mm 1.8! (so light... so not the 100-400mmL... so nice after a day a nature shooting to put that thing on the camera :) )