Comparing lens resolutions

I think that you have made up my mind!
Double the pixels squeezed onto a sensor 1/4 the size even allowing for 8 years development?
I have tested my R1 with QuickMTF's ISO 12233 image and the results seem well up to par. TechRadar do a similar test on the RX10 but they use Applied Image's QA-77 image(s) which cost $358 and up! I am not that dedicated!
I will wait for the DPReview...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

In your position, I would consider micro four thirds with it's choice of lenses. I don't see how an 8x zoom can be good at all lengths but it is a Zeiss, I guess.

---

I grew out of SLRs with interchangeable lens in my film days. I never needed more than 3x optical zoom. After an Olympus all-singing all-dancing digital camera with a terrible lens I happened on the Sony DSC-R1 with its superb 5X optical zoom - a bonus!. The R1 has put me off interchangeable lenses (and optical viewfinders) for the duration.
I read somewhere that the secret of the R1 was that its rear lens element is only 1.5 mm from the sensor. This compares with the HUGE distance in a DSLR (and all DSLR based lenses) needed for that mirror. Since for marketing purposes interchangeable lens have to be well, interchangeable it seems to mean that even megabucks lenses are limited to 3X optical zoom if there is not to be barrel or pincushion distortion.
The R1's Zeiss lens does not seem have to any faults from 24 - 120 mm equivalent zoom. Interestingly on the R1 the lens physically extends again from 28 to 24 mm equivalent. The RX10's lens does not so it does not seem to be an upgrade - a worry! What a pity Sony could not have upgraded the basic R1 with 8 year's worth of electronic mod cons.
PS. Great that Cambridge in Colour does not need cookies!

It's not surprising that they haven't updated it. Most if not all bridge cameras offer very wide range zooms now so have to have a small sensor. The other point is that they would compete with the Nex series. If you want to upgrade that is probably where you should be looking but I would read the manual carefully to make sure it will do what you want it to do modes and control wise.

They did offer a compact with an aps sensor but not sure if it's still available.

John
-

I also have the R1, and greatly enjoy using it in those situations where I don't need high ISO or shooting speeds - the colour is so good, and the image quality is very appealing. It's also the only camera I'll ever trust the Jpeg output... just not directly. My way is to shoot in Adobe RGB with sharpness set to -. Open in Photoshop etc, and sharpen hard - say 300%@ .3 pixels; there's a lot of detail to be had there. To export, I assign a colour profile rather than convert.

It's an all-time great camera, isn't it?

Peter

I suppose Peter it all boils down to what you want from your new camera. If the essential feature is a lens that doesn't come off then I'm afraid you've pretty much had it. A test on the RX10 might show it as having a slight improvement over your R1 in absolute pixel level terms but remember a smaller sensor will seriously alter the 'look' of your photography. That small sensor will produce significantly different depth of field characteristics than you're used to which in day to day - real output not pixel peeping - terms means your photographs won't look the same. Depending on your photographic style you may not like the results and I have a feeling this will be very hard to gleen from any online tests.

However if you want the better noise control over a wider range of ISO's, a larger dynamic range, the faster response times, the same DoF rendering and everything else that a modern sensor and processor can offer then you're going to have to let go of your fixie and I would suggest take a look at many of the mirrorless solutions. The jpeg output from a Fuji X camera will blow your mind, literally knock you for six. I know many dedicated X users don't even bother with RAW (:eek:) as the jpeg's are that good. Alternatively the output from one of the Sony NEX range will also give you quite a shock as to how far sensors have come along since 2005. The lenses tend to have a very short element to sensor throw as there isn't a mirror to deal with the same as you're used to. The systems are small, light weight and the viewfinders are now very high resolution with less delay and smearing. If you do shoot jpegs straight out of camera then the modern processors deal with the likes of chromatic aberrations and distortions as the shot is processed so you won't ever see a 'problem' if it is there. You may not agree to this way of controlling them but it does work.



I'll throw one final thought into my pot of ramblings - if you can live without a zoom how about a Fuji X100s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black pearl

I suppose Peter it all boils down to what you want from your new camera.

---

Thank you Black Pearl for your comprehensive breakdown.
Put me down as a dinosaur but I am almost certainly going to stick with my R1. There are lots of cameras on the market which can improve on it point by point by point, better this, better that. However there does not seem to be any one camera/lens combination which can equal it for what I want: landscapes, architecture predominately.
I attach a photo which has received very favourable comments here. I wanted to catch the special evening winter light and being able to see it in the EVF adjusting the white balance to suit rules out an OVF. And then with a minimum of post-processing. (The swan is pasted in).

Now't wrong with sticking to what you have if it is giving you the results and you still enjoy using it.

Ps. Try and have a play with a Fuji X100 - then try not to fall in love with it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pjbw

Thank you Black Pearl for your comprehensive breakdown.
Put me down as a dinosaur but I am almost certainly going to stick with my R1. There are lots of cameras on the market which can improve on it point by point by point, better this, better that. However there does not seem to be any one camera/lens combination which can equal it for what I want: landscapes, architecture predominately.
I attach a photo which has received very favourable comments here. I wanted to catch the special evening winter light and being able to see it in the EVF adjusting the white balance to suit rules out an OVF. And then with a minimum of post-processing. (The swan is pasted in).

---

It's easiest to use the "Click Here To Upload Photos From Your Computer" button Peter. If that doesn't do anything click go advanced and it will work from there. Then just click "choose", upload now and then click - right click copy the info that appears in the Tags field and paste that into the post. Leave the other entry as default.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black pearl

Ps. Try and have a play with a Fuji X100 - then try not to fall in love with it :)

---

I do need some zoom or else huge megapixel count.!
I am trying to display my picture along with this message...

Trying to cope without a zoom via more pixels is a little daft imho. it wont work out. For what you have the Sony replacement is definitely the Nex range or if you want a big step up the a7R. Can't type alpha so the a has to do. That one is mirrorless and full frame. Takes E mount lenses though which I thought were for APS for the Nex which are also mirrorless. Other mirror less include Olympus and Panasonic, both micro 4/3. Canon do one as well but no electronic viewfinder, just the screen. Some Nex cameras do have an electronic viewfinder.

Pity you didn't upload a decent sized shot say 1500p wide. It's an interesting camera and it would be good to see a well taken shot produced with it.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pjbw

I do need some zoom or else huge megapixel count.!
I am trying to display my picture along with this message...

---

That's a nice composition, kind of like those old landscape paintings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

Trying to cope without a zoom via more pixels is a little daft imho. it wont work out.

---

+1

Constable would be proud... and ask for an R1!

Oh, and here's a thread on DPR that might interest you;

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3597008

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by proseak

Constable would be proud... and ask for an R1!

Oh, and here's a thread on DPR that might interest you;

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3597008

---

Depth of field and exposure levels differ so not really a sensible comparison. The remote is missing on one shot too.

John
-

Here's another link for you from ephotozine -

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/so...n-review-23394

HTH

Peter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

Pity you didn't upload a decent sized shot say 1500p wide. It's an interesting camera and it would be good to see a well taken shot produced with it.John-

---

John, to do the camera justice my exhibition JPEG print is 3600 x 2400 pixels @ 300 DPI, 3,137,097 bytes. I don't think uploading it in full would be a help.
I know it is an interesting camera, discontinued in 2006 and it may be that I will come round to changing it for an RX10, eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by proseak

Constable would be proud... and ask for an R1!

Oh, and here's a thread on DPR that might interest you;

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3597008

---

I have looked at this DPReview thread and have added the following reply to the leading post:

I think the RX10 is a definite winner here.

Ed Form.

I definitely agree. I would never have kept my R1 since 2006 if it produced pictures like those from your brothers R1.
Two thoughts which may be connected:
Another poster on this thread mentioned that he/she thought there was evidence of 'motion blur' in your R1 pictures.
I remember after I had bought mine that I read that some R1s had to be returned because the lens was slightly loose on the camera body.
It might be worth checking your brother's R1...

PS. A poster on my "Comparing lens resolutions" thread in the Cambridge in Colour forum pointed me to this thread. I think I have now learned enough for me to hold onto my R1s (I bought a spare when the R1 was discontinued in 2006) but I will wait until I read the full DPReview.

Incidentally I read recently that the reason the R1 was discontinued was for health and safety reasons; it has a laser rangefinder! Could this be? Certainly the spot auto-focus on mine is superb; I have never had to use manual focus.

It looks like this comparison will run and run. That R1 was quite a camera!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pjbw

I have looked at this DPReview thread and have added the following reply to the leading post:

I think the RX10 is a definite winner here.

Ed Form.

I definitely agree. I would never have kept my R1 since 2006 if it produced pictures like those from your brothers R1.
Two thoughts which may be connected:
Another poster on this thread mentioned that he/she thought there was evidence of 'motion blur' in your R1 pictures.
I remember after I had bought mine that I read that some R1s had to be returned because the lens was slightly loose on the camera body.
It might be worth checking your brother's R1...

PS. A poster on my "Comparing lens resolutions" thread in the Cambridge in Colour forum pointed me to this thread. I think I have now learned enough for me to hold onto my R1s (I bought a spare when the R1 was discontinued in 2006) but I will wait until I read the full DPReview.

Incidentally I read recently that the reason the R1 was discontinued was for health and safety reasons; it has a laser rangefinder! Could this be? Certainly the spot auto-focus on mine is superb; I have never had to use manual focus.

It looks like this comparison will run and run. That R1 was quite a camera!

---

I'm the original poster of the thread that pjbw was advised to take a look at and, since he came and woke us all up from our post-new-year snooze in the dpreview-Sony Cybershot forum :o, I thought I'd follow him back here and see what you folks have been saying.

As the thread there makes plain, the samples of output from my brother's example of the marque did not do the R1 justice as I tried to compare it with the RX10. They did, however, illustrate the overruling weakness of the R1 [I've owned 2 of them in recent years and I bought the one my brother still has, so I know the camera very well] the viewing screen and the EVF are rubbish: the screen is the size of a large postage stamp and its resolution is far too low and the EVF is equally poor. What's worse, the focus point indicators on the screen often tell lies - not deliberately, they just cannot show you everything that they embrace because the screen resolution isn't good enough. These completely inadequate ways of framing pictures lead to a high incidence of incorrectly focussed images with a wisp of shrubbery or other unseen interloping object pin sharp against a blurred version of the intended subject.

Before anyone leaps in and alleges poor technique: probably! But manual focus with screen magnification, and moveable spot focusing, are far to clumsy to capture even slow-moving children and most of us granddads are blessed with the standard-issue, quick-moving variety anyway. To show that I can use an R1, and that I know how good they are, look at this image...

http://www.theformsonline.com/pics/16.jpg

To illustrate how clumsy the R1 is at capturing scenes like that, with objects in more planes than a wall has, I have to tell you that I kept only 4 of the 12 images I made as my granddaughter cleaned her grandma's stone circle on the first sunny day of spring 2013. In all of the rest, the wisp of berberis visible in the left front of the image linked above was crystal sharp against a blurred little girl - granddad's have no use for blurred images of their nine-year-olds. The image was shot with fill flash and is everything a good photograph should be [no artistic comments please :o ] but it's tricky to get shots like that without a substantial admixture of discards.

To get to the point of all this preamble: look at this image...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/came.../YDSC00821.HTM

As I said, I know the R1 inside out and I loved both of the examples I owned, but an R1 is simply incapable of the IQ of that shot.

My advice to pjbw is twofold. If you were only looking at the RX10 because it might be the update of the R1 that you'd perhaps like to have but you are satisfied with your results, why change?

If, on the other hand, you'd like a modern screen and EVF and a distinct performance hike, get yourself down to your local camera store and try the RX10. It is superior to the R1 in every measurable way and is a joy to use.

It does landscapes...

http://www.theformsonline.com/pics/01.jpg

...and livestock comes and poses for it...

http://www.theformsonline.com/pics/02.jpg

Ed Form

I have to say that every one of the images posted looks terrible showing a combination of or individually - focus errors, camera shake due to incorrect shutter speed selection, massively blown highlights, over processing (common on small sensor cameras) poor WB and I think even a de-centred lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black pearl

I have to say that every one of the images posted looks terrible showing a combination of or individually - focus errors, camera shake due to incorrect shutter speed selection, massively blown highlights, over processing (common on small sensor cameras) poor WB and I think even a de-centred lens.

---

No need to sugar-coat it, Robin, just tell it like it is! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edform

Ithe viewing screen and the EVF are rubbish: the screen is the size of a large postage stamp and its resolution is far too low and the EVF is equally poor.
If, on the other hand, you'd like a modern screen and EVF and a distinct performance hike, get yourself down to your local camera store and try the RX10. It is superior to the R1 in every measurable way and is a joy to use.Ed Form

---

Again I definitely agree.
I went and looked at an RX10 in my local Jessops. It was very impressive. The EVF was vastly better than the one in my R1. That huge screen was impressive too but crippled for me by its not being able to be swivelled sideways so that I can brace the camera against a wall say to take photos in such as a cathedral or Egyptian tomb where flash is forbidden. imho I got the impression that the optical and electronic contortions needed to produce such as that headlined constant f2.8 might be counter-productive in some situations; too dependent on the programmers (I was one for 20 years)!
However, in spite of its vastly superior paper specification and huge array of bells and whistles I did not think it was worth dipping into a savings account for. However I remain to be persuaded...

I wish that cameras could be 'tailored' as with my Windows computers instead of we punters having to take what all those manufacturers think is marketable. My Sony 'R2' would have the same lens as the R1, the same APS-C sensor upped to 20+ MP, and vastly faster processors for viewing, metering and focusing so that I could take action photos. It would also produce acceptable photos at more than ISO 400.