Replacing DSLR with digicam

[godfrey]

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

>> capture. <br>

> They're essentially instantanious. Again, speed of light responsiveness <br>

> is not necessary. It's how fast your brain works, in the milliseconds+ arena. <br>

<br>

Sigh. I'm sorry I said anything.

<br><br>

EVFs will improve, but they will not become faster or more responsive than an optical

viewfinder. They have other characteristics that make them more desireable in various

circumstances. Whether they become the dominant or only form of viewfinder only time

will tell for sure.

<br><br>

That's it for me.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[v.anisimov]

"...EVFs will improve, but they will not become faster or more responsive than an optical viewfinder..."

 

Good stuff, Godfrey. First your said EVF will never be as good. Given the overwhelming evidence, you're now saying EVF will not be faster than the speed of light. A safe bet indeed.

 

On the other hand, the speed of light is not a constant. Light moves faster in cold vacuum. A deeply frozen EVF with fibre optics may prove to be faster than the atmospherical speed of light at 20'C. Hence, even your safe bet may be proven wrong one day!

[pbizarro]

If I understand correctly, you need to sell your DSLR because you need money. And then you want to buy some "one camera do it all for all occasions". The Sony R1 seems to be a good choice, by all accounts.

 

However, be ware that this type of high-end bridge camera (semi-professional, with RAW) is being dropped out be camera makers. For example, Canon and Nikon have not up-dated the Pro1 range and the Coolpix range (I think that is the correct designation). Now that Sony wants to make an impression in the DSLR market, I doubt it that the R1 will see a successor.

 

Of course, there is a large number of excellent bridge cameras around, but without RAW capability. Look into the Canon and Panasonic ranges, e.g. the Canon S3. These are quite capable, cheaper, and have all the functions you may require.

[dg1]

Thanks Paulo,

 

That is the track I wanted to start, not a fight over relative merits of EVF vs OVF.

 

What it amounts to is between selling my MZ-S (done) and my film scanner (done) and now my DS kit, I can afford a "bridge" camera such as the R1 and have over $1K left over for some immediate needs.

 

While I may re-group at a later time equipmentwise, I think I'm the type of buyer the R1 is aimed at. Not only can't I afford the additional cost of a zoom lens of the R1's quality to add to the DSLR kit.. I can barely afford to keep what I've already got (by all rights I should just sell withoug replacing)! So right now I'm saying god bless Sony for the R1(rootkit or not). Well, I'm not that religious actually.

 

To a certain degree my questioning posture regarding DSLRs is rationalization due to losing them, but I think the R1, and possibly some of these other cameras you mention have many advantages, with of course tradeoffs to go along with them.. the above arguing is an example.

 

I've owned an A2 until recently and it is to my knowledge the most capable RAW shooter of any pro-sumer, having at least an adequate buffer for 3 consecutive shots, and now a new firmware rev is rumored to have made it even faster. A refurbed A2 is certainly an acceptable option.. but as much as I liked it I'm suffering from some "been there done that" syndrome and figure if I'm going to do this I might as well go for the A2 on steroids.. the Sony R1.

 

If I was really wise, I'd follow Vladimir's original admonission about equipment driven thinking and just use my pocket camera, a Pentax 750z, and forget the rest. Maybe that's what I'll end up doing..NOT.. I guess I'm looking for a "reward" ,ie new camera, for my "sacrifice".

 

In order to make the R1 purchase worthwhile, I will have to go through one of the more hit and miss vendors rather than my preferred B&H to save about $250.00.

 

When all is said and done, I could sell my F primes and keep the DS and pancake (my favorite), and the kit (useful and hardly worth selling),and come out roughly the same as selling the DS kit and getting the R1.

 

That would make this a DS vs R1 question! Now I'm really confused.

 

 

As for EVF vs OVF... oh, never mind..

[godfrey]

I'm with you, Dean. I don't understand the desire to debate ad nauseam on the EVF vs OVF

stuff either. Current EVFs have some nice features but do not match the responsiveness of

an OVF .. both are useful ... whether an EVF can ever match the responsiveness of an OVF

is a theoretical question to which I feel there is an obvious answer. If I were more

enthralled

by it, I'd work on a proof, but I'm happy to accept being wrong the first time someone

shows me an EVF that is more responsive than an OVF. ;-)

 

Stepping back to your question, the A2 is a good enough camera that I have been very

reluctant to part with it. It has fantastic features and the image quality it produces is

exceptional. The additional buffer size and write buffering in RAW definitely gives it a

small advantage over the R1 with regard to responsiveness, but that advantage is IMO

rapidly outweighed by the R1's lens quality and better sensitivity. The R1 also has a better

exposure system ... It's so nearly dead on the money with most exposures that the need

for bracketing is lessened significantly.

 

Considering the R1 vs a reduced DS kit is something I've debated over too ... I have a trip

coming up and would love to carry the smaller, simpler R1 kit instead of a 3-5 lens DS

kit ... but for the kind of photography I want to do I think the DS wins out. It has the

advantage of a bit more sensitivity, options of wider and longer focal lengths, and faster

lenses at that, on top of the greater responsiveness. It sure would be nice to have both as

there are some subjects I want to do where the tripod friendliness of the R1 would be

preferable, but I don't want to carry that much gear.

 

Godfrey

[scott_eaton]

<I>I don't buy this argument. The latest generations of fighter jets are using EVF-style technology to fly suprsonic jets in aerial combat.</i><P>I was in an electronics showroom the other day, and happen to take a look at the lastest generation Hi-Def TVs, DLP's, and other expensive toys. In all honesty, until I get 120 channels of high quality TV programming all in native 720p for $50 a month, and can replace my DVDs of Stargate SG1 with remastered HiDef versions, I'm sticking to my 31" CRT based Toshiba television. My Toshiba has a radically better non Hi-Def picture than a state of the art $5,000 LCD at that electronics store. Unless of course you like motion artifacts, excessive digital filtering, and other problems I can't tolerate with LCD sets.<P>So, if these problems can't be fixed with a state of the art $5,000 LCD display, I have a hard time believing Sony can make a ultra responsive electronic viewfinder. I'm not opposed to the technology, but have a hard time believing it can replace a 'decent' optical dSLR viewfinder. The overwhelming problem here is not so much the technology involved, but the poor standard that's being applied in the form of APS sized viewfinders.

[dg1]

Thanks Godfrey, definitely food for thought. I think in my case, my DS lenses are so biased wide-normal to longish-normal, that the R1 would be a huge leap on both ends. All I have is a 28mm f/2.8, the 40mm f/2.8, and the 50mm f/1.4. (42mm, 60mm, and 75mm in 35mm equiv) And very occasionally I will use the 18-55mm kit zoom for a wider 28mm equiv lens. I mostly used my A2 for my zoom lens camera while I had it, and the image stabilization made the long end fairly handholdable, and the lens was nice and fast throughout the range.

 

The appeal of the R1 is that it seems I could retain the optical quality of my 3 primes and certainly improve on the 18mm end of the kit zoom, while adding a larger wide-tele range. While the 120mm end isn't as long as the A2's 200mm equivalent, the extra cropping margin with the 10meg sensor could extend that pretty well.

 

So it seems to me the R1 would cover my DS, and A2, pretty well. The tradeoffs to the DS are the responsiveness and exceptional optical viewfinder of the Pentax (and the great EVF resolution of the A2). But I'd get a great lens and a waistlevel finder in the bargain.

 

I don't want to start bickering about OVF vs EVF again, but one thing about an EVF that is seldom mentioned is 100% framing accuracy. I don't have a problem with 92-95% (or even 82% on my pocket camera) viewfinders because it can be a safety margin and cropping can be done later. But if one wants to do the maximum in-camera work, the WYSIWYG nature of an EVF is a nice feature.

 

So as I'm slowing my process down anyway these days, something like the R1, biased toward slow and accurate, will probably suit me more than a fast and responsive camera.

 

As my DS isn't selling that quickly (I'm waiting a while before putting on ebay) I am going to order an R1 this week and most likely, there'll be some overlap during which I can get accustomed to it and still have the DS for comparison.

[dave_powell1]

Someone mentioned Panasonic earlier, and I wanted to throw its Lumix FZ-30 to the discussion. Tested one for a weekend, and found it to be a nice SLR alternative. Its EVF and LCD are first-rate, and it was nice to have a 12x stabilized optical zoom. (Actually, you get around 20x zoom if you reset the camera down to about 4 MP...but I'm wondering if the extra "extension" is just "digital zoom.")

 

Still, standing on the hill behind my house, I was able to shoot a house on a ridge three miles away...handheld...20x zoomed...stabilized...on a windy day... and could actually read the license plate parked in the other house's garage in the photo!

[fast_primes]

One of the things not mentioned is that there is a major advantage forgoing an SLR type OVF--namely the ability to achieve very high optical performance for wide angle lenses. This is one of the factors contributing to the excellence of the Sony's R1 zoom.

 

The only caveat I have with the R1, is the lack of anti-shake technology. Of course a subsequent model will have it, since it's a major selling point of Sony's new KM SLR line.

[dg1]

I agree. I would like the anti-shake technology that KM had in the A2. This is one of the reasons I did not order the R1 originally, but an even better anti-shake technology is available with the use of a tripod or monopod. Sometimes a new technology gets seen as a panacea for everything, and we have to ask ourselves, what did people do before this?

[dpeterson]

<p>I've used a number of digicams from Fuji and Panasonic, and have found that noise crippled too many of my images. They are great cameras as long as you are shooting in perfect lighting conditions. The only digicam I have found worth the investment is the Olympus c-8080 a discontinued but highly capable digicam. Why not purchase the new Pentax K100 and a zoom lens that covers the range you will need? I think it will be a more usable tool over the long term.</p>

 

<p>I use the Pentax *istDL. I has the size of a compact digicam, is very light, inexpensive and uses just about every lens ever made for Pentax cameras. The K100 adds image stabilization to the mix--you can't beat it!</p>

 

<p>A photo from <a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm">Albuquerque Photos</a> taken with the *istDL (you could not get this grain free low light 400ASA shot with any digicam:</p>

 

<img src="http://www.abqstyle.com/albuquerque_photos_4/albuquerque_classic_car_1.jpg">

[dg1]

Thanks Donald, but I already have an *ist DS that I am selling. The subject header, "replacing DSLR with Digicam", is perhaps too generic, and if you were to read the whole thread you'll see the real question pertains to the Sony R1, which is in its own class relative to other digicams. That camera should be able to closely match the low noise of your example at ISO 400. I will soon find out, as I've ordered one that should arrive next week.

 

The other camera tossed about was the KM-A2, a truly great digicam like the 8080 you mentioned, and one that I did own before, and features a very effective anti shake system (the one Sony has appropriated from their purchase of KM). For a still subject like your photo, the KM A2 has a 2 to 3 stop advantage when handheld compared to the *ist DS/DL or other DSLR, plus no mirror shake so that photo could have been done at ISO 64 where the A2 quality is on par with a DSLR. I'd like anti-shake again, it's a nice feature, but it doesn't completely replace a tripod or monopod, and that's not why I'm selling my DSLR. It's more of a $$ thing. I'll get more bang for the buck with the Sony R1, and have some $$ left over for some other obligations. Were I to keep the DSLR instead, the chances of my *ist DS ever seeing a lens like the Sony's Carl Zeiss attached to it are slim to none. If the R1 does not meet my expectations, I will return it and find another KM-A2 and be done with it.

[photo5]

I dunno I had a Canon Pro1 digicam for almost two years and I sold it to get a Nikon D70s. The Canon Pro1 had a fantastic lens and all these amazing features and I got brilliant photos out of it. I was very satisfied and it was very compact to boot.

 

What I missed was, a real viewfinder view instead of the nasty EVF. The ability to shoot beyond what the built-in zoom had to offer (28-200mm). The ability to shoot people quickly and not wait for the AF or shutter delay. The ability to use filters easily (came with filter "adapter" which was notorious for filters getting stuck on it). The ability to shoot at high ISO's and not get horrible grain (the Pro1 is excellent at ISO 50, OK at ISO 100, but 200 and 400 were pretty bad).

 

I guess if you'd be satisfied with a point and shoot, get the R1. It's a pretty fancy one, but still a point and shoot. Look at the review on dpreview.com and compare it to the review for other digicams as well as dSLR's. I think for the money the R1 costs, you're better off with a dSLR.

 

Dave

[dg1]

Dave,

 

No argument here, DSLRs are definitely superior for certain things. I agree that responsiveness and an optical viewfinder great features, particularly on the Pentax DSLRs.

 

It's a question of tradeoffs, but not all the advantages go to the DSLRs. It just depends on what your needs are.

 

I just hope someone buys the DSLR kit. Seems to be a hard sell, -- maybe I'll have no choice but to keep it ;)

[dg1]

>I think for the money the R1 costs, you're better off with a dSLR.<

 

Street price is under $800.00. Name a DSLR and lens combination, with high quality optics to match the R1, for that price.

 

Even the reviewers you mention that seemingly don't like the R1 concede that it would cost 2 to 3 times that to outfit a DSLR kit with similar glass. And they were talking relative to the $1000.00 list price.

 

I paid $800.00 for my *ist DS w/kit lens, so I guess I don't follow you on this point.

 

As stated originally, cost is definitely an issue for me, and the more feedback I get, and research I do, the more the R1 seems like a no-brainer value.

[phule]

Dean,

 

If the money dropped into my lap, I'd buy your Pentax kit up in a second. Sadly though, the weather report calls for just party-cloudy conditions with zero chance of falling cash...

[dg1]

Thanks Rob, I've been hoping for some of that good weather too!