Sony DSC-R1 - Focus speed and response a weakness?

[Paul Roberts]

also the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z2 Digital Camera uses phase detection
--
Paul A Roberts

 

[Jared Hunter]

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

Even more curiously is how EVF lag alone is being measured. For example, at the instant a moving subject passing in front of the camera is dead center with the lens, where is the subject located in the LCD frame in the EVF? Now factor in LCD gain up in less than optimal lighting where LCD frame refresh rate is usually reduced. Just because a camera feels "fast" and one tends to shoot slower moving subjects doesn't mean that EVF lag isn't problematic in more critical situations. You may have gotten the shot, but are you 100% sure that was the exact instant you were gunning for?

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

It seems to be using external IR AF in addition to contrast detection, but nowhere do I hear phase detection mentioned. The focus lag times posted in the dpreview certainly does not suggest phase-detection class performance.

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

Your sample pictures are gone and Imaging Resource gives a positive opinion of the image quality in words. You haven't shown me any of your 'bad' sample images. The imaging resource review comments that it may cost more than the R1 to get a lens combination covering its range with comparable aperture and image quality.

And no, to most people shutter noise does not matter.

Here you go again, deciding the issue for other people. I haven't told you that it matters for me, but others have TOLD you that it matters for them and you've basically told them not to take the picture. You say that nature photographers will use SLRs no matter what. Have you asked what a nature photographer thinks of the R1 or a possible future removable lens camera using EVF instead of reflex mirror? What about journalists photographing from concealed locations?

Others have told you how they have utilized swivel LCDs to the benefit of their shooting and you tell them that they should stop using the swivel LCD. They tell you they need the LCD to frame overhead shots and you tell them that they ought to be able to frame them blind. If that's not trolling I don't know what is!

 

[Lin Evans]

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

Even more curiously is how EVF lag alone is being measured. For
example, at the instant a moving subject passing in front of the
camera is dead center with the lens, where is the subject located
in the LCD frame in the EVF? Now factor in LCD gain up in less than
optimal lighting where LCD frame refresh rate is usually reduced.
Just because a camera feels "fast" and one tends to shoot slower
moving subjects doesn't mean that EVF lag isn't problematic in more
critical situations. You may have gotten the shot, but are you 100%
sure that was the exact instant you were gunning for?

It never is the "exact" instant unless the photographer anticipates and uses his/her experience with the equipment. That goes for every camera from point an shoot to the very fastest dSLR's with ideal lenses and is the primary reason sports and action photographers rely on fast frame rates to maximize the odds of getting that perfect moment.

Human reaction time is often greater than camera response time and is another factor which is highly variable.

Lin

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

And then there is your laughable assertion that contrast detection AF is not only slower but LESS ACCURATE than phase detection AF. LMFAO

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

And then you also apparently think everyone has arms wracked by decades of smoking crack which shake uncontrollably whenever they're holding anything at arm's length. I can obtain clear pictures with my viewfinder-less FX7 (which of course is only my carry-around camera) at below prescribed safe shutter speeds even without using the stabilizer, thank you very much.

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

Are you high again? Do I really have to find the dpreview test of it? OK here it is: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page27.asp

THAT COMPARISON USED 50MM PRIME LENSES

Comparing a 5x zoom to a prime, yeah, you're real smart! Misrepresenting it as comparing with the Canon kit lens, how honest of you!

 

[Andre Oliveira]

But the solution could come from currently available technology. For example there is no reason for the EVF to reproduce color. It is made for framing and focusing purposes. Even expensive broadcast tv cameras still use BW VF. It has more resolution and is cheaper. If SONY had stuck a BIG B&W LCD as EVF it will work much better for it´s purposes. To check color just use the flip-up LCD.
--
Andre

 

[Andre Oliveira]

I haven´t seen an pictures yet.
--
Andre

 

[Andre Oliveira]

maybe prospective buyers would think a B&W EVF a drawback
--
Andre

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Has anyone figured out any other way to do phase detection AF
besides using a mirror, anyway?

It's a little out there, but a plenoptic camera can do phase detection AF via the main sensor. Unfortunatly, plenoptic cameras are just lab curiosities at this time.

But something similar, where a little grid (or diffractive etching) pops up in the chamber, creates a few plenoptic areas on the main sensor for focusing, then pops back down when the picture is taken...

Or a few cells on the sensor that are penmanent plenoptic areas, which are simply summed back into normal areas instead of being processed the way you would a lightfield image.

--

Salvage troll posts! When you see a thread started by a troll, post something useful to it. It will drive the trolls up the wall.

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[DocDAT]

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.

Now with gobledygook talk like that you should be a politician. You can't run from the fact that you were trying to use the lens as an argument for the R1.

Now the obvious answer to this is of course that you don't need a
Canon fit lens with the same speed and range for the money, because
unlike the R1 you can combine different lenses and get even better
range and speed. Of course this will be more expensive, but it'll
also have considerably better optics and judging from the previews,
better sensor too.

"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!

Ok are you willfully trying not to understand what I'm saying?
"You don't need" = "one doesn't need". Understand?
Apparently I also have to spell out the argument:

You say you can't get an equivalent Canon fit lens for DSLR and therefore the R1 is better. I say no, that's not relevant because with a DSLR you are not stuck with a single lens (translation for Simon: One is not stuck with a single lens), you can get all the lenses you want and have a combined far greater range, speed, optical quality etc etc. Yes it'll cost you more, but then better quality does cost more. Whether YOU as in Simon wants that, is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the person who is considering a DSLR or the R1.

If you are a photographer that wants the advantages of the larger
sensor, is happy with the zoom range, and is not so bothered about
action photography etc. then the Sony represents a valid
alternative to a DSLR.

Yes if you'd like to pay $1000 for a DSLR sized camera with P&S
operation.

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.

P&S/compact digicam/normal digicam operation = slow response, slow AF because of contrast AF, poor viewfinder IE EVF and so forth.

Look, you don't need the 10-22mm for that, and for your information
it would be a 16mm equivalent as opposed to the 24mm from the R1.
If you want to take landscape pictures a zoom lens with 17 or 18mm
on the wide end is just fine on a 1.6X crop sensor. So you'd be ok
with the 350D and kitlens for a lot less money than the R1. Now the
great thing is that if this is not enough you can always buy more
lenses. Yes that'll be more expensive than the R1, but then better
quality and performance usually costs more.

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.

LOL so you're saying a landscape photographer has to have a wider lens than 17mm on an APS-C sensor? And that such a person has to get a zoom and not a wide angle prime?

The kit lens for the XT is 18mm - on a 1.6 crop this works out as
29mm not 24mm! You might be keen to gloss over this 5mm difference
because it doesn't suit your hypothesis, but for a landscape
photographer that 5mm at the wide end makes a load of difference.

Well I've seen many great landscape photographers who do quite well with a 17mm on a 1.6X sensor. And if such a person needed an ultra wideangle zoom like the 10-22mm he'd get a much wider angle than the R1 with probably better optical quality anyway.

Oh and you are wrong about the pricing too. Here in the UK the RRP
of the XT plus the kits lens is £799 - that's compared to the RRP
of the Sony at £699.

You could have grabbed those numbers out of thin air as far as I'm concerned as the R1 isn't even listed on the major european price search machine. The official price in the US is $1000. The XT with kit lens is less than that.

Plus the Sony
has 2 more MPs.

Nope it doesn't. It has LESS usable resolution than the 350D. 1,550
lines per picture height vertically, 1,650 lines horizontally as
opposed to 1850x1650 with the dirt cheap 50mm 1.8 on.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A.HTM

The Sony has 2 more MPs of output - fact. Thanks for the extra info
on "usable" resolution.

So even though the extra 2 MP has no real meaning (other than creating more noise) you still consider it a benefit?

I'll quote some more from the preview:

"We found some of its ergonomics decidedly awkward, and both timing
performance and high-ISO noise levels aren't up to the best of the
digital SLRs currently on the market. As such, it's clearly not an
SLR-killer"

At $1000 it better be, or it's just an overpriced and oversized
compact digicam.

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:

Those are complete sentences and their meaning is so distinct that it's not possible to misinterpret them. Wheras your quotes beneath are so out of context as to be rediculous.

From the conclusion:

"It offers an absolutely unique focal length range..."

and

"the combination of lens and camera can't be equalled for less than
twice its selling price of $999."

And twice the usability, versatility and not to forget far higher longevity regarding the lenses that can be used next time you buy a new body.

 

[DocDAT]

Your sample pictures are gone and Imaging Resource gives a positive
opinion of the image quality in words. You haven't shown me any of
your 'bad' sample images.

Ah yes, very convenient that the sample pictures are gone. Are you now claiming they were fake?

And no, to most people shutter noise does not matter.

Here you go again, deciding the issue for other people. I haven't
told you that it matters for me, but others have TOLD you that it
matters for them and you've basically told them not to take the
picture.

I haven't decided anything and I haven't heard ANY DSLR owners claim that the noise is so bad that they would pick the R1 over their DSLR. Only you and maybe one other person (all proponents of the R1) have claimed it makes a difference to them.

You say that nature photographers will use SLRs no matter
what. Have you asked what a nature photographer thinks of the R1 or
a possible future removable lens camera using EVF instead of reflex
mirror? What about journalists photographing from concealed
locations?

Take a look at the various SLR forums here. Notice a trend? 99% would never consider an EVF until they have multi MP and no lag.

Others have told you how they have utilized swivel LCDs to the
benefit of their shooting and you tell them that they should stop
using the swivel LCD.

No I haven't. Pure fiction.

They tell you they need the LCD to frame
overhead shots and you tell them that they ought to be able to
frame them blind.

No, I said that if one does not have LCD (which DSLRs don't have incidentally) then one can frame blind (which practically all photojournalists do in crowds with celebrities). Of course it would be nice with a SLR with that option if it didn't mean loosing the OVF. However it sadly does at the moment.

If that's not trolling I don't know what is!

Yes it's hard not being self aware. Looking at your string of posts one after the other below, trying to insult me instead of actually considering the issue, it's pretty obvious who's the troll here.

 

[DocDAT]

And then there is your laughable assertion that contrast detection
AF is not only slower but LESS ACCURATE than phase detection AF.
LMFAO

Yes you're quite the authority on AF methods and the various people who really now about this stuff (and I know I'm not one of them, but I can read what they write) is wrong when they say so?

Yes it's quite sad really.

 

[DocDAT]

And then you also apparently think everyone has arms wracked by
decades of smoking crack which shake uncontrollably whenever
they're holding anything at arm's length.

Huh? With statements like that, then yes I think you must be on crack.

I can obtain clear
pictures with my viewfinder-less FX7 (which of course is only my
carry-around camera) at below prescribed safe shutter speeds even
without using the stabilizer, thank you very much.

Good for you and you're writing this because? I routinely take clear pictures at 1/25s handheld with my 50mm 1.8 which people claim has to be kept at 1/(50*1.6), but I don't see how that's relevant to our current discussion?

 

[DocDAT]

Are you high again? Do I really have to find the dpreview test of it? OK here it is: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page27.asp

THAT COMPARISON USED 50MM PRIME LENSES

Comparing a 5x zoom to a prime, yeah, you're real smart!
Misrepresenting it as comparing with the Canon kit lens, how honest
of you!

Nope, I thought it was the kit lens, but then that doesn't really matter, because there are many zooms that are just as sharp as the 50mm. Actually my inexpensive Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 is just as sharp, if not sharper, all the way down to F2.8.

 

[DocDAT]

Either because of too much site traffic or complaints from Sony. But you can see people's reaction here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=14968054

And just found some other samples here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=14973659

 

[DocDAT]

I'm serious.

But as you said it'll probably throw a lot of people off.

 

[DocDAT]

Are they fake or invalid because you don't like them too?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=14973659