Reading mode: Light Dark

R1 vs 40D/D300/E3

Go to last post
I am watching those exact models too.
The attracive feature of all of them is the Live View.

But once you got used to an adjustable LCD like the R1 (or H9 in my case) you would want it in your next5 camera.

So go for the E3.

--
Tod Yampel

Duck Club member
 
Ok, not only critics. Be creative. Tell me which lens would be the best to compare? If you think I am not able to do, please tell it.
 
Thanks for the comparison shots! Although, not 'scientific', as you've already pointed out, I definitely prefer the R1 shot. The colors are much more realistic and pleasing, as well as the Carl Zeiss lens is resolving a LOT of detail, even over the Canon 50mm prime which is a feat for any zoom. Sony had it right with the R1, no doubt about it.
--
http://cmvsm.smugmug.com
 
Sorry to say but I think you are wrong. It is the same test like you have seen some years ago with the R1 and the 20D here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A13.HTM

Just in the middle of that page you can read some interesting things, right under the 6 pictures called: "Detail comparison"

You need more processing in a Canon image than in pictures of Sony sensors. You cant use so much unsharp masking. But you can read by your own....

But the main thing is: Find me a compareable Lens, a ZOOM and not a 50mm-Lense!

Canon dont have a compareable lifeview and no comparable lense at no compareable price.
 
HarryWind said:
Sorry to say but I think you are wrong. It is the same test like you
have seen some years ago with the R1 and the 20D here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A13.HTM

Just in the middle of that page you can read some interesting things,
right under the 6 pictures called: "Detail comparison"
Click to expand...
I've not seen the article but I don't put a lot of faith in Imaging Resource's opinions.
HarryWind said:
You need more processing in a Canon image than in pictures of Sony
sensors. You cant use so much unsharp masking. But you can read by
your own....
Click to expand...
Well I guess it depends on how you look at it. Some people want a "final" product straight out of the camera while others want a less processed image that they can then process themselves to make it look like they want it to look, not like the engineers who designed the camera think it should look.
HarryWind said:
But the main thing is: Find me a compareable Lens, a ZOOM and not a
50mm-Lense!

Canon dont have a compareable lifeview and no comparable lense at no
compareable price.
Click to expand...
The 40D has live view and plenty of the Canon L lenses are comparable in quality to the R1's zoom. Yes the R1 has a fantastic lens but there lenses from Canon, Nikon, and others that are just as good. Expensive yes, but just as good nonetheless.

--
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

 
I was not trying to put R1 down..on the contrary I said R1 is doing great.

That's why even now after buying 30d, 40d and being short on money for lenses and other stuff I needed, it never crossed my mind to sell my R1 for that.

I do think R1 is one of a kind camera, and for out the camera pics it produces lovely photos with great colors and amazing detail.

I believe you can achieve same or even better from 40d with a little bit of PP, but some ppl like me :) are too lazy to work with raw and all that. ( I would if I really have to ).

That being said, there are many situations like low light AF and action shots or telephoto where R1 just won't cut it..that's when I need my 40D.
I don't want to get in a debate here..I have both cameras and love them both.

My original post was just a quick test to help the OP make an idea..there are many variables in the equation..just take it as it is.
 
R1 settings:
color: standard
saturation: normal
contrast: normal
sharpness: +

( I guess I forgot it like that because I haven't play with settings in a long time) ( now don't ask me to redo the test with sharpness -normal because I don't have the patience for that:) )

canon: picture styles standard
3,0,0,0 ( sharpness, contrast, saturation, color tone)
 
i think there is a version of this lens for the Alpha system, and also the Zuiko you quoted that has the same range. There are also other zooms of that kind, as the canon 24-105 L or the slightly lesser nikon 18-70 and sigma 18-70.

You are right about your way of doing it, but i think an "equivalent" configuratin isn't the same thing as taking one extreme side (with wide angle converter..) and try to obtain an exact copy of that exact effect.

A DSLR package includes real burst mode, snappy AF, interchangeable lenses, OVF...Etc. it is polyvalent and adaptable. These have also great value that can't be counted for nothing.

My R1 is still working and i'm still using it from time to time, but last week i did climb some remote part of the great wall. It was night (for the sunrise), windy, cold, with ice/snow and chaotic steps... then i still took 6Kg of dslr gear (bag+2 lenses+D200+big tripod) while i could have got less than 2Kg with a R1/lighter tripod/small bag. I didn't do that for the better IQ but for the F2.8 constant aperture, the ability to take pictures of people on the way, the low light focus...etc.

In the end i could have got nearly all my good shots with the R1 for less pain, but i paid (money and Kgs in the bag) for versatility... and security since one of my lenses just stopped working which was annoying but would have been far worse with the R1.
HarryWind said:
Ok, not only critics. Be creative. Tell me which lens would be the
best to compare? If you think I am not able to do, please tell 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)
 
haha, yes you are biaised :p

the A700 doesn't have liveview like the others, so i think that could be one reason why it wasn't selected. The lens higher quality lenses are also super expensive compared to canon/nikon

For the 135 F1.8, i think it's quite a difficult lens. I do have a 50-150 F2.8 and played with a 50 F1.4... i think the DoF will get really really short at 135 F1.8.
jrdu said:
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
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)
 
Well, at least on my 24" iMac screen, the R1 image looks way better and sharper than the one from Canon.
Is it just me that can see this?
I compared the 2 images with Phoenix Slides.
--
nemo66...the best sniper in town!
 
The Zeiss primes are stunning lenses. You can get some for Nikon bodies, but they don't autofocus. I don't want to play around with manual focus lenses. The only autofocus Zeiss primes available for digital cameras fit on the a700. Play with one for a little while. You will find it to be a very nice piece of equipment.

But the reason why it attracts me is that it gives me the opportunity to use image stabilized Carl Zeiss primes. I don't doubt that it's possible to buy cheaper Nikon and Canon lenses, but those lenses don't hurt my stomach.

Their stabilized lenses arent cheap either, but they are not primes, and they are not Carl Zeiss primes.

I bought the F707 because of its quality. I bought the R1 because of its quality. If I buy a DSLR it will be for the same reason. I can't see anything out there to match the quality of the Sony Zeiss prime lenses.
--
John Dunn
My show 'Serenity': http://fototime.com/inv/6A04BAB6F082B6C
 
R1 has way better DOF, better detail, wider colour range and better rendition of the various types of light visible. Thanks for your trouble.
 
NicoChina said:
i think there is a version of this lens for the Alpha system,
Click to expand...
I'm sure you know it, but just so any casual readers are informed, the R1 lens is a 14.3mm @ f:2.8 to 71.5mm @ f:4.8 short-back-focus design...while the Alpha lens is a 16mm@ f:3.5 to 80mm @ f:4.5 long-back-focus design. They are both EQUIVALENT to 24mm to 120mm on their respective camera designs.

The R1 design is slightly better according to published tests and since it is a SBF design, it's cheaper (that's why it could be included with a camera for less than $1000).

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
 
jrdu said:
The Zeiss primes are stunning lenses. You can get some for Nikon
bodies, but they don't autofocus. I don't want to play around with
manual focus lenses. The only autofocus Zeiss primes available for
digital cameras fit on the a700. Play with one for a little while.
You will find it to be a very nice piece of equipment.
But the reason why it attracts me is that it gives me the opportunity
to use image stabilized Carl Zeiss primes. I don't doubt that it's
possible to buy cheaper Nikon and Canon lenses, but those lenses
don't hurt my stomach.
Click to expand...
There are pills that help with stomach aches. What are you doing? Dropping the lenses on your stomach? ;-)

While I'm not exactly a Canon camera lover, I do admire their lenses. Nikon too. They both have excellent optics. Read the lens reviews over at Imaging-Resource.com. You can't judge a lens by it's price tag and the "cheap" Canon and Nikon lenses are still beyond my budget (and it sounds like yours too!).
jrdu said:
I
can't see anything out there to match the quality of the Sony Zeiss
prime lenses.
Click to expand...
You are not looking hard enough.

Oh, and when you guys wake up, go over and slap Nico around. That 135/f:1.8 sounds delicious. Remember...short DOF is what dSLR addicts call having "control" over DOF. ;-)

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
 
NicoChina said:
i think there is a version of this lens for the Alpha system, and
also the Zuiko you quoted that has the same range. There are also
other zooms of that kind, as the canon 24-105 L or the slightly
lesser nikon 18-70 and sigma 18-70.
Click to expand...
You forgot Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X 165 AF PRO DX, giving 24-75mm on a 1.5x crop camera.

Personally I will not accept anything less than a 24mm WA. 28mm? Never ever, period. Honestly I would feel myself fooled around by a smart salesperson if I would buy a system that requires two lenses to cover the 24-120mm range, something that fulfills my needs by about 95%. That's why there are just few alternatives out there:

1) E-3 with 12-60mm, though because of the different aspect ratio the horizontal angle of view is narrower than 24mm equiv.

2) Future Sony with articulating LCD (if ever released) and CZ 16-80mm

3) FF Canon 5D replacement with 24-105mm (or 24-70mm)

4) Future Nikon with articulating LCD (if ever released) with Tokina 16-50mm

Pentax? No thanks.

--

Markku
It's RAW or Never

http://marsal.zenfolio.com/
http://www.photo.net/photos/Mark_Q
 
soccu said:
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!
Click to expand...
Before I get to detailed comments, let me say that I'm an R1 fan.
soccu said:
...these are just out of camera jpgs with no sharpening or pp.
Click to expand...
All JPEGs are processed in the camera.
soccu said:
This is just to make an idea.
Click to expand...
I made an idea once. ;-)
soccu said:
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
Click to expand...
Why did you use a fast prime lens on the Canon? It's not at all similar to the CZ lens on the R1!
soccu said:
That being said, I realized that DOF is deeper on R1 at same aperture
settings ( probably because lens is closer to the sensor?)
Click to expand...
No. The fast that the CZ lens on the R1 is a short-back-focus design has no affect on the DOF. The slight differences are a due to the R1 having a slightly smaller sensor.
soccu said:
...and also
canon could benefit from some sharpening ( then it would be much
closer to call )
Click to expand...
One of your BIG errors was to set the R1 sharpening to +. That is wrong for two reasons: 1) It biases the results toward the R1 for most casual observers and 2) the R1 has much too strong sharpening...even the - setting is a bit heavy.
soccu said:
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
Click to expand...
I agree, but not because of your results, which make R1 users appear to be rabid fanbois.

It would have been informative to have included EXIF data in your two files.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
 
i only knew the DSLR version was a bit slower.

but in fact that can't be exactly the same. The R1 version has F-stop number for x1.66 crop while i guess the SLR one has FF equivalent. (and the R1 starts at ISO 160... etc.) but they have the same 24-120 range as u said and with comparable aperture and probably sharpness and other qualities
chuxter said:
NicoChina said:
i think there is a version of this lens for the Alpha system,
Click to expand...
I'm sure you know it, but just so any casual readers are informed,
the R1 lens is a 14.3mm @ f:2.8 to 71.5mm @ f:4.8 short-back-focus
design...while the Alpha lens is a 16mm@ f:3.5 to 80mm @ f:4.5
long-back-focus design. They are both EQUIVALENT to 24mm to 120mm on
their respective camera designs.

The R1 design is slightly better according to published tests and
since it is a SBF design, it's cheaper (that's why it could be
included with a camera for less than $1000).

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
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)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top