R1 vs 40D/D300/E3

After two years' happy ownership of an R1 I'm thinking whether to get one of the new breed of DSLRs as dust protection (IMHO the DSLR's Achilles' heel) seems to have moved on considerably, and there are times when I'd like to use a more extreme focal length or shoot fast-moving objects or work in low light.

I've narrowed it down to the 40D, D300 and E3. There are impassioned arguments about the relative merits of these cameras, but when it comes to image quality, how do they compare to the R1? If anyone has undertaken any side-by-side comparisons I'd be interested to know what they showed.

Popular Photography magazine is about to name its camera of the year with these three cameras among the candidates. You can go to their web site for more details. The Sony A700 has built in stabilization in their body which saves you very expensive individually stabilized lenses from Canon and Nikon. DPR reviews are starting to point out this difference which seems to be gaining importance to them.

It is said that in searching of a DSLR system the initial consideration is which lens you will need then look for a body you can then afford. Canon has by far the largest selection in lenses which are cheaper than Nikon lenses like for like.
--
Bob,

'A good photograph is knowing where to stand.' - Ansel Adams
Sony R1
Canon Pro1
Casio Z750

After using a Sony H2 for about a year, I got an Olympus E-510. I don't know if the E-3 is that much better than the E-510, considering the price. The E-3 is about 3 times more expensive...but the E-510 also has body image stabilization, dust protection, 10mp, great image quality...and a great Dpreview review. The E-3 appears to be better...but 3 times in price seems a little steep to me. I'm going to wait next year, and see what price we can get for the E-3, because the E-510 is one nice camera.

I just got the inexpensive Zuiko 70-300mm lens with a 600mm reach. For a standard lens, the image quality is great...see some of my pictures on the Olympus Talk Forum. I just got that lens two weeks ago...will be posting more pictures over there sometime today. I'm amazed at the image quality. My pictures get better too, as I get used to the camera. It's my first DSLR.

Nikon and Canon have done a great job with their DSLR cameras and lenses, but I think Olympus is doing some awesome things...making good progress with the selection of their lenses.

relative ............all results depend for a big part on the one behind the camera.

keep in mind all brands got + -

going the DSLR route it means investments in lenses quality won't come cheap.

there are often discussion about it if should i buy this or that brand, imho its only u who can figure that out it all comes to ur personal needs and things u wanna do with ur tool.

often thinkin the other way around works better invest in lens qualty then the body is not the biggest difference ............. good glass is.

cheers Marti

--

• living in harmony with nature and other people ...will create an better world for all * marti58 -2006

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13696194@N05/

Yes, you are so right. They don't come cheap.

I hope I'm done spending any more dollars for a while (unless they are stolen or damaged). I got three standard lenses for about $600 (USD), considering that I bought the first two as a kit (together with the body). People claim that the Zuiko lenses are pretty high quality...for a standard lens.

I'm new at this...that is using a DSLR...but the prices have come down enough for me to get started. I guess some people spend thousands for these...way too much for me...barely was able afford what I got. Then I had to get a tripod, a second battery, another memory card (my xD card was damaged). It gets expensive...ouch!

I can only compare the R1 to the Canon 40D, as I own both. With the standard 28-135 kit lens that comes with the Canon, I'd say that if you use RAW the R1 comes in as having better photos. Using other glass, the 40D beats the R1. Typically I use a 60mm macro lens on the 40D which gives very sharp results, but of course, no zoom. The R1 is good if you typically find yourself in situations where you need a wide lens but not necessarily a large zoom.

Like the R1, the 40D does it's best work when shot in RAW mode. Both have about the same build quality.

Of course there's the price. At around $1425 to $1499, you could get the 40D with the 28-135 kit lens and have a decent setup. But you can find the R1 for less than half of that, too. If you're not doing 16x20 prints on a regular basis and don't need a big zoom, the R1 could be a better deal.

They are true! You cant compare a R1 with a DSLR because of handling and silence.

May be, only the Lumix L10 is something similar with lifeview a swivel monitor and continuous focus. But a comparable Lens costs about 2000Euro. And if you like to find 19-24mm at 2,8 you have to spend even more.

So, I keep my R1 and enjoy it.

Hi Mark,

Recently, I was in your situation... well, I never owned a R1, but I do own a H9 (hark, the hissing sounds!)... I did a deep study of the 40D, D300, and the E3 and I've made a practical decision based on the following conclusions:

40D:

Clear improvements over the past 10D/20D/30D models, relatively cheap, nothing exotic but you're not on your own. It's probably the best choice for low light because of the brilliant EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM lens. And for far reach, there's the famous 70-200 2.8L IS USM or even the 100-400 IS USM.

D300:

Exotic and has a lot of featuers (51 point AF, AF in Liveview, etc.). For me, I wouldn't pay the price difference for the added (supposed?) benefits over the 40D. The image quality between the 40D and the D300 are very close in most instances to call a winner, unless maybe in some special situations. Often I've seen people complaining about a lack of a good quality (non-kit) wide zoom with VR for the Nikon cameras. A recent test has shown the D3 and the D300 being not suitable for deep sky astrophotography... if you ever do that.

E3:

This is probably the best step in the right direction of the DSLR future minus the small sensor. Sure, it's a different technology that can't be compared directly to the standard sensor sizes but it has a lot to prove too. If this camera had a bigger sensor, I'd have bought it. A lot of people are worried about its low light performance. The 4/3 people claim that the smaller sensor allows smaller lenses and smaller cameras. The 410 and 510 are both relatively small... but the E3? It's huge. This is one thing that made me realise that the 4/3 people are losing their grip. Plus, because of the 2x crop factor, traditionally, you have to spend a lot on very wide lenses for wide photography.

All of the above cameras probably have better IQ compared to the R1, with the right lenses ofcourse. But if you have faith in the T* zooms, why not go for a Sony DSLR? The A100 is a really sharp DSLR (probably more than the 40D and perhaps even the D300?) and the and the A700 is supposed to be an overall improvement (except on sharpness) to the A100. You could also go for Nikon and get Carl Zeiss lenses, but as you might already know, there aren't any zoom lenses for the Nikon ZF mount at the moment.

Also, if you're that big on IQ, you should probably start by looking at the lenses you plan on buying sooner or later.

Hope I didn't make your decision harder

GTW

PS: If you haven't guessed, I went for a 40D with the 17-55 on Friday

a fantastic camera. great images. BUT, it's speed left something
to be desired. the 40D is dead accurate with AF and exposure,
and AWB. I sold the R1 and my 20D to upgrade. and it was worth
it. the 40D and kit lens can be had at CC for about $1350
with a 10% coupon readily available on ebay for $1.25. good luck
with your decision.

Mark B UK said:

I've narrowed it down to the 40D, D300 and E3. There are impassioned
arguments about the relative merits of these cameras, but when it
comes to image quality, how do they compare to the R1? If anyone has
undertaken any side-by-side comparisons I'd be interested to know
what they showed.

Click to expand...

Have the D300 and E3 been shipping yet? If not, I doubt you'll find anyone that may have taken side-by-side comparisons except for some of the big review sites.

I suspect thought that all three will be faster than the R1 with images varying depending on the lenses used. Not an easy direct comparison to be made.

Olga

Where do you get that a lens comparable to the one on the R1 is about 2000€??

HarryWind said:

They are true! You cant compare a R1 with a DSLR because of handling
and silence.

May be, only the Lumix L10 is something similar with lifeview a
swivel monitor and continuous focus. But a comparable Lens costs
about 2000Euro. And if you like to find 19-24mm at 2,8 you have to
spend even more.

So, I keep my R1 and enjoy it.

Click to expand...

--
French living in China,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolas_harter/
Sony R1
Nikon D200 (tamron 17-50 / sigma 50-150 / SB600)

It is difficult to make IQ comparisons with the R1 because it depends a lot on the lens...

Basically i'll say they are all perfect enough it normal conditions, but the DSLR allows you to use specialized lenses for special conditions. That's big advantage compared to the R1 (with the phase detection AF system).

If you go for IQ only :

• in theory, go for the D300 which has a better resolution
• in reality, the 40D is cheaper and you can spend the money on better lenses (unless you can afford the D300 with a top nikon lens, in which case there isn't much in the APS-C sized class that can beat it for now).
• the E3 is probably limited by its smaller captor, but it has advantages that are beyond IQ.

Also note that the F-stop number are only comparable between Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Sony AX00. The R1 and the olympus cameras use smaller captors and it is easier for the to get a "F2.8" or so. The exposure time is the same but the total quantity of light is smaller.

Real life IQ depends on AF speed and accuracy, image stabilization, shutter speed and so on...

Mark B UK said:

After two years' happy ownership of an R1 I'm thinking whether to get
one of the new breed of DSLRs as dust protection (IMHO the DSLR's
Achilles' heel) seems to have moved on considerably, and there are
times when I'd like to use a more extreme focal length or shoot
fast-moving objects or work in low light.

I've narrowed it down to the 40D, D300 and E3. There are impassioned
arguments about the relative merits of these cameras, but when it
comes to image quality, how do they compare to the R1? If anyone has
undertaken any side-by-side comparisons I'd be interested to know
what they showed.

Click to expand...

--
French living in China,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolas_harter/
Sony R1
Nikon D200 (tamron 17-50 / sigma 50-150 / SB600)

NicoChina said:

Where do you get that a lens comparable to the one on the R1 is about
2000€??

Click to expand...

I believe that Harry was saying:

1. The Lumix L10 is the only dSLR that compares with the R1 (he didn't elaborate or justify that opinion much).
2. With the L10 system, the only comparable lens is about 2000€.

He did not say that the ONLY comparable lens to the one on the R1 was that expensive.

NicoChina said:

HarryWind said:

They are true! You cant compare a R1 with a DSLR because of handling
and silence.

May be, only the Lumix L10 is something similar with lifeview a
swivel monitor and continuous focus. But a comparable Lens costs
about 2000Euro. And if you like to find 19-24mm at 2,8 you have to
spend even more.

So, I keep my R1 and enjoy it.

Click to expand...

--
French living in China,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolas_harter/
Sony R1
Nikon D200 (tamron 17-50 / sigma 50-150 / SB600)

Click to expand...

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/

Thanks for your comments/advice, especially genotypewriter, whose thinking is pretty close to mine.

If the E1 turns out to deliver amazing IQ, I'd be tempted, as I think the lenses may be good and I like the spec. However, the combination of the smallest sensor and the largest body is far from being a triumph of design and packaging.

It seems to me that the 40D is excellent value for what it is, as are the lenses, which would enable me to get better/more optics for my money. I'm very close to taking the plunge

Go to this site below just posted by an individual user of some E-3 images - and as is always the case, the cameras are just hitting the scene now and it takes time for folks to show their pictures:

http://rayk.zenfolio.com/p286912700/

Additionally, I have the R-1 and V3 (love em both and won't be selling them, that's for sure), but I've got to tell you that the new crop of Olympus DSLR's are just awesome and the colors coming from those cameras are causing many folks to pick them up. And it also be noted that the Olympus internal dust buster is still the most effective one on the market. I have to laugh because when Olympus came out with this feature years ago, the other brands laughed...but now look at everyone. Same with Live View, etc. And also, every Olympus camera has built-in pixel mapping, so if you develop hot pixels, you can remedy the situation in seconds as opposed to having to send the camera in.

Of course, besides the E-3 - which is built like the proverbial tank, don't overlook the E510 because that baby can really rock and you can pick up E510 bodies now for under $600. Here are some high ISO E510 images (all ISO 800 to 1600):

















And the colors can knock your socks off with this E510. In fact, the color tonality of the Olympus cameras is what often lures many users in:





--

If you want to have 24-120mm you need a Olympus Zuiko Digital SWD ED 12-60mm 2.8-4 and that is about 900 Euro.

If you use the R1-converter to 19mm, you will need aditionally the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:4.0 and that is about 1600 Euros and only with stop 4 and not 2,8 like the converter of the R1, that only costs about 280 Euros.

I count together nearly 1200 Euro for R1 complete and about 1200 for the L10, 900 Euro for the 12-60 and aditional 1600 for the slower 7-14.

This is 3700 Euro for the only comparable camera on market. 3 times more for the same.

Interesting calculation.

that is not at all a "comparable" camera, it is only a camera configuration that allows super wide angle with a swivel LCD liveview. but in the MANY other aspects they are very different cameras.

with a bit of exageration it is like if i said only ferrari has the same klaxon as my car, so i've got a bargain coz the only equivalent is a zillion times more expensive.

moreover, 14 mm and 19mm aren't at all the same thing, i don't know the 4/3 wide lens but it seems quite logical to be slower and much more expensive.

HarryWind said:

If you want to have 24-120mm you need a Olympus Zuiko Digital SWD ED
12-60mm 2.8-4 and that is about 900 Euro.

If you use the R1-converter to 19mm, you will need aditionally the
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:4.0 and that is about 1600 Euros and only
with stop 4 and not 2,8 like the converter of the R1, that only costs
about 280 Euros.

I count together nearly 1200 Euro for R1 complete and about 1200 for
the L10, 900 Euro for the 12-60 and aditional 1600 for the slower
7-14.

This is 3700 Euro for the only comparable camera on market. 3 times
more for the same.

Interesting calculation.

Click to expand...

--
French living in China,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolas_harter/
Sony R1
Nikon D200 (tamron 17-50 / sigma 50-150 / SB600)

especially since this is the Sony Talk Forum.

I've looked at them all. The E3 and the D300 are available here in China now. The a700 is by far the sweetest of this crop of cameras, (but of course, I'm biased).

Apart from the a700 body being really really nice, the things that attracts me to the Sony are the Carl Zeiss primes. The 135mm 1.8f lens is hurting my stomach, I want it so much.
But I don't have any money, so I'll have to use my R1 until it or I dies.
--
John Dunn
My show 'Serenity': http://fototime.com/inv/6A04BAB6F082B6C

I don't have the other cameras but here's some quick shots from R1 and 40D.

This is not supposed to be a professional test! these are just out of camera jpgs with no sharpening or pp. This is just to make an idea.

Both shot at f8 1/250 base iso ( 160, 100) auto white balance. Focused on puppy nose.
Lens used on 40d, canon 50mm f1.4

That being said, I realized that DOF is deeper on R1 at same aperture settings ( probably because lens is closer to the sensor?) and also canon could benefit from some sharpening ( then it would be much closer to call )

All in all, I believe R1 still holds its ground considering it's a 2 year old camera compared to 2 months old 40d...
R1



40D

Thanks for the comparison. This is exactly what I would have expected to see -- the R1 images are more "processed" looking than the 40D. If you look at the detail in the pink dog (which is what the 40D was focused on,) you can see that the R1 is more contrasty and has more sharpening artifacts as well as some stairstepping and compression artifacts around the red words on the white ring around the dog's neck. The 40D image is cleaner and would give you more room for post processing. What were the camera settings for each?

--
Todd Walker...Canon TenD, Canon GThree, Canon EssDee500, Panasonic FZ30,
Sony R1
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://flickr.com/people/twalker294
http://www.twphotography.net