I would see the main problem being user confusion.
That is not exactly what I meant. I think you would kind of double the shutter movements and thereby divide by 2 its lifespan.
I don't think so. It is the shutter that is noisy.
I haven't said the D2X has a good iso3200 noise. I said the R1 has noise comparable - and it is really not too much worse - to D2X, and the Nikon guys can live happily with it. What's more important, the image rendition of the R1 is to my mind indeed very much alike D2X. Higher noise on high isos is the price one has to pay for the really great rendition these cams have.
The best lens on all optical counts I ever had - both on D70 and 20d and Rebel XT - is the Sigma Macro 50mm, so I hope Sigma will make one day a usable wide range zoom too. I really don't like what they offer now.
The size don't bother me. I really don't care for the tiny P&S cameras. IR would be nice, but I can live without it.
Want movie mode, by a video camera. The quialty is better. I want a camera to take pic's not movies.
The best compare to any other P&S camera. It's not a SLR so I'm not comparing the R1 to an SLR. By what I have seen, ISO 800 on the R1 is cleaner then 100 on my 717.
This could be true.
Personaly, I prefer and OVF, but a live preview LCD would be nice.
A 5X zoom? Might as well add F2.8 or even faster lens. Then what the cost will be and how much heavier will it be. It's already over priced. If I didn't have my D70, I probably would by the R1. The image quality is great from the R1 and the noise level is very low.
--
I agree it's a still camera, not a video camera. Want video, buy a video camera. And yes, the R1 is slightly on the large size.
This is true, but still usable. The R1 is a great camera for portraits and landscape shots. If you want more zoom, then you will need a smaller sensor to increase the crop factor, but that will add more noise. Or put a more expensive Zoom lens on the R1 and maybe even loose the WA. Which do you want, more noise or pay more money. I prefer neither.
My D70 with its high-end kit lens have distortion. My 717 have distortion. That's nothing new. I think that's the nature of a zoom lens. Again more money for a better lens. Lens distortion is really not that bad for the R1.
It's not a DSLR, so I'm not comparing the R1 to a SLR. But, it is the best and cleanest compare to another P&S camera.
This is true. Cannon does a great job on eliminating noise on higher ISO. Beats Nikon any day. The R1 should be compare to the D70, not the 20D due to they both using Sony sensors.
But, there is a difference. For me, there would be a huge difference since my D70 is only a 6-pixel camera.
How about the slow RAW files? To slow!
Well then, say good buy to the large sensor and hello noise.
In fact, the mirror is the major source of noise on most SLRs. You can verify this by using mirror lock up and listening to the noise made by the shutter.
Well, I thought you were comparing to the noise performance of the D2X b/c you thought this described the R1 in a favorable light.
I see. I can also imagine people arguing that they take fewer shots because there is less need for bracketing or reshooting due to features such as a live histogram.
--
You are right. It's the SLRs having a very noisy shutter.
Daniella uses mostly the Rebel instead of 20D due to the bad slapping of the 20D. A camera should not be that loud to frighten the birds.
I've read on Sony website the R1 is noiseless.
The iso3200 noise of the big Nikon is very ugly indeed, especially if you have to pay 5000 bucks for a body; some other features of this cam must somehow equalize this issue, very possibly the IQ, for instance. Otherwise, Nikon could not make money with it. I think I could be quite happy with an inteligently built $1000 camera with similar IQ features. I think Sony got to be quite angry seeing how Nikon is making money with their electronic technology, so they made their mind up and made a really fine, quality camera
There's a tad more in the R1 then just being a good all-in-one camera for the "working class"; this camera is the very first fully electronic rangefinder on earth, if we agree to ignore the short and hapless appereance of the unpractical Epson snobbery toy.
I mean all that what you get out of the imager and image processor, the sweet little nothings like color, the way the higs, mids and lows are given back, things which simply couldn't be measured or pointed with the fingertip but make you buy this instead of that cam.
--
On the contrary, I confirmed that it ws the mirror and not the shutter that is the major source of noise.
The 20D is designed for 5FPS and the shutter is designed for longer life, so it's a higher powered, heavier duty, mechanism.
If the R1 is truly noiseless b/c it does not require a mechanical shutter at all, then you could put the same type sensor in an SLR body and do w/o the shutter as well.
I'm not sure what you mean here by "fully electronic rangefinder". The electronic parts (EVF and OVF) are functionally identical to many other cameras on the market such as the 828.
I assume that you don't mean 24mm, but the shortest focal length possible on the R-1. That's not a feature I track, so I'm am afraid that I can't offer you any help on this.
I appreciate your points that the lens is quite good - especially for the price. I guess I'm reluctant to call the R-1 a new species when it's really the same type of camera we've seen so many times before - just with a larger sensor. That's why I think the big deal with this camera is primarily that it has such a large sensor at such a low price.
I see. I think the R1 samples look quite promising from the sensor perpsective too. They're definitely a huge step forward for the people who were previously purchasing cameras with small sensors. For those who already have digital SLRs, the R1 is a bit noisy, but the trade off of convenience vs. image quality is nowhere near as brutal as it was before.
I guess the LCD positioning is different so by definition it must be unusual. But to me the positioning seems to me to make the LCD more comfortable to use. With the flip style LCD you have a large amount of freedom in positioning the LCD in a way that fits your needs. So it is not as much of an issue. But a fixed LCD on the back of a camera is poorly positioned for my needs. I don't want to have to hold the camera up in front of my face to view the LCD. I don't usually want to hold it down at my waist either. I would much prefer holding the camera out in front of me much the way I would hold a book and be able to look down on the LCD. Until one has actually used a camera for a while, it is hard to evaluate the ergonomics, but the innovation in LCD positioning looks like a plus to me.
Exactly. The people who prefered the simplicity of the quality film rangefinders will like the fine digital rangefinders too (what's a digital rangefinder? A cam having a large imager by having no mirror!).
