Sorry, a point of fact is just that, a point of fact and not an argument. It's certainly possible to use a point of fact as a basis for an argument in support of a hypothesis. I offered neither a hypothesis or argument. You decided to supply both for me and also come to my conclusion.
"You don't need" - now you're presuming to tell me what I need from a camera! In fact you seem to be saying that whether I actually want faster lenses or a bigger range I should be delighted to pay more for them anyway!
What's your definition of P&S? The general definition seems to be an automatic camera with no (or very minimal) manual control. The R1 is a fully manual camera, not a P&S.
Yes, for your information, you do need a a 10-22mm for that. Have you looked at the Canon lens line-up recently? If you want to get the equivalent focal length of the R1's 24mm on a 1.6 crop DSLR then your cheapest option is the 10-22mm.
The Sony has 2 more MPs of output - fact. Thanks for the extra info on "usable" resolution.
And thanks for quoting a small and select part of the review. Of course, the problem with quoting a selected bit from a review is that others may also check out the entire source material:
--
Which you used in reply #1.
Oho, so you mean you just mash the shutter button right down for most shots, increasing camera shake and capturing your subject after some long, variable time determined by the focus and shutter lag?
And on you ramble. Evidence? What about the sample pictures, timing figures, size measurements etc. Or are those not valid because you don't like them? And no, to most people shutter noise does not matter. That it apparently does to you does not make the statement stupid. Rather your assertion that it is.
Unlike Sony, Canon sells two DSLR bodies in the under $1K territory, making it dangerous to confuse its market by offering a competing configuration that shares some of the key features of a DSLR. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but the under $1K consumer may not be sophisticated enough to resolve them and they'd end up just splitting the same market between two products. Sony has no DSLR yet, just an announcement about agreement with K-M. This frees them up to experiment, to see what works. Does the DSLR consumer buy one for its resolution vs. noise advantage? It's shallower DoF? Or is it for interchangeable lenses, faster AF (phase detection will always be faster than contrast detection, especially when focus is initially way off), optical viewfinder and absolute optimization of the sensor for image quality alone? If the latter, what if some advantages are tossed in that are not found in a DSLR, such as live preview with either swiveling LCD or EVF and including a live histogram? If cost is an object, is it better to put the money into the sensor, the lens, the buffer/responsiveness or what? Sony gets to find out without harming any of its other products and can then know what to do for the future.
If the sensor is in the middle of an EVF refresh, there's probably another 33ms before the sensor finishes that, can switch to full-res capture mode and take the shot. This may mean that it's more like 66ms total delay from real-world event to capture.
B&H-ing, I'd say that 350D + 17-85IS at 1320$ or 350D + Sigma 18-125 at 1080$ or 350D + Sigma 18-200 at 1190$ are much more attractive alternatives. And, lighter! Probably, smaller, too!
I'm sure some people would preffer the Sony. However, your landscape-taking amateur would probably prefere a prime lens. The price might be higher or lower than the 10-22 (ranging from 400 to 1800$). B&H prices.
Agree, comparisons do help. However, such a comparison must be as complete and accurate as possible. One must factor costs, ease of use, ergonomy, weight, flexibility and value. A lens bought for 2000$ will probably sell for about the same price in 5 years. Better value.
Hi David,
Since the difficulty in locking focus varies not only with technology scheme (i.e. phase vs. contrast detection) but also with lens angle of view, maximum aperture and depth of field (linked to the preceding two), not to mention type of lens motor, your example points out that we'll need to try to form good apples to apples comparisons as these debates evolve (and there'll be many, many more of them over the next several months, I'd imagine!). Perhaps a good vehicle for comparison would be Canon's 17-85mm mounted on a 350D and measured at 17mm and 75mm (two focal lengths that are shared by both cameras). With a good sale, this combo is about $1200, in the R1's ballpark, and the lens covers a very similar FL range (29-136mm equivalent vs. 24-120mm).
I'm curious, how exactly are you measuring such short delays with millisecond accuracy? This reminds me of voice mail messages from my mom. "Hi David. It's me - mom. I'm calling at approximately 6:34pm"
Hi David,I'm curious, how exactly are you measuring such short delays with
millisecond accuracy? This reminds me of voice mail messages from
my mom. "Hi David. It's me - mom. I'm calling at approximately
6:34pm"
David
