|
|
  共3 页 第2页 (10条跟贴/页)
  |
|
|
|
|
 |
如意儿 |
 |
2005-12-04 22:25:13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
浅水游 |
|
2005-12-05 07:23:14 |
|
|
跟贴：早些年间有一句名言：该出手时就出手！（目标6000元拿下）
年轻单身时 遇见好女孩儿1
知道一定还有 好女孩儿2 好女孩儿3 但是当时猴急~~~
安身立命时 预见好婚姻1
知道也许还有 好婚姻2 好婚姻3 但是一直无悔~~~
共筑广厦时 寻见好房子1
知道一定还有 好房子2 好房子3 但是银票有限~~~
等待 只是为了 相遇！
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dodo |
|
2005-12-06 14:58:52 |
|
|
跟贴：看来浅水兄是认准了sony啦，防水罩出了没？sony相机的怪样子怕是不容易做罩子啊。
其实不打算换镜头的话确实没必要奋不顾身投入单反的怀抱（管它是N、C还是O），用非单反相机有一个无与伦比的好处，那就是“可以用LCD取景”啊。大家想想在水下扭着脖子看取景窗的痛苦就知道啦。
:-)
另外还要乌鸦一下，评论中提到的“外缘比中央清楚”问题的解释极为怪异，浅水兄最好再确认一下。另外有谣言说sony号称蔡斯镜头是腾龙代工的，也要核实一下为好。
知己知彼不吃亏啊
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yagor.q |
|
2005-12-06 15:31:31 |
|
|
跟贴：认真D同意dodo：“其实不打算换镜头的话确实没必要奋不顾身投入单反的怀抱（管它是N、C还是O），用非单反相机有一个无与伦比的好处，那就是“可以用LCD取景”啊。大家想想在水下扭着脖子看取景窗的痛苦就知道啦。”
另外，单反机也没有动态DV的拍摄功能，只能出P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
浅水游 |
|
2005-12-06 19:20:40 |
|
|
跟贴：两位仁兄高见
Carl Zeiss作为光学镜头的传奇鼻祖之一，在100年前就名动天下
Sony作为一家以家电产品起家的数码产品厂商，根本不具备高品质光学镜头的制造能力.
其所有的镜头都是别人OEM的，摄像机的镜头（广播级）配套的是Canon的镜头
民用镜头则高擎 Zeiss 的大旗，引进 Zeiss 的设计和 Zeiss 的认证，这种做法就当前的商业社会来说是 实际而且不能说是不严肃的！
（其DC 的镜头到底是 佳能or腾龙 帖牌OEM，神鬼难辨？我猜都有！）
所谓 T* 是 Zeiss 成名已久的一种镀膜技术，对于使用这种镀膜技术的镜头，在抗炫光鬼影以及增加光透率上确有不俗的效果。久而久之，成为不管是德产还是日产的Zeiss镜头是否是高级的一种直观标志？！
Sony在民品引进 Zeiss 之初，并没引进 T* 技术，以致招到不少口诛笔伐
反对者称其镜头是：[菜丝] 而非 [蔡斯] 并举证正宗 Zeiss 都有 T* 标志云云
（其实细细想来也是挺可笑的一件事）
Sony一狠心，又花钱“请”了这个标志过来，并猛吹一番，大有能：
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
浅水游 |
|
2005-12-06 19:24:43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stephen |
|
2005-12-06 19:47:08 |
 |
壁虎 |
 |
北京 |
 |
 |
|
|
跟贴：嘟嘟:
关于蔡斯头，对其产地不必介怀。
首先蔡斯并不只是把这批DC的头放在日本代公，单反的头里也有几支在日本生产。
另外因为代工的问题，蔡斯在日本搞了自己的质检大楼，距离代公的生产大楼只有一个街区，不经过严格的检测是不会通过的。
打个比方：不是说nike在中国制造就是国货了，呵呵。
当然也不是说讨论这个没有意义，而是要用事实说话。如果没人出来说这批镜头的光学质量有问题，那就不应该指责这一点。
其实小日本比较e心并且让我印象深刻的一件事是：莱卡本来应该成为经典的miniLux，在日本产的就早晚会出现E02（传说中的2号错误，好像叫“电路板曲张”什么的），我眼见过两台出这个问题。
呵呵，说得有点远了
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stephen |
|
2005-12-06 20:07:17 |
|
壁虎 |
|
北京 |
|
|
|
|
跟贴：另外关于数码相机边缘成像的问题，不好写出来，有机会的话私下说。呵呵
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
浅水游 |
|
2005-12-08 06:23:27 |
|
|
跟贴：dpreview 深度评测
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/page27.asp
最后结论：
!!!高度推荐 之 高度推荐!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
浅水游 |
|
2005-12-08 06:32:00 |
|
|
跟贴：Overall conclusion
I'll start as I shall no doubt finish this little piece of editorial, the lens is worth the price of the DSC-R1 alone. That fact is not to be underestimated, it's a great lens which provides you with a very useful 24 - 120 mm zoom range (which will be sufficient for the majority of users). Doing the math it's pretty clear that you have to spend a fairly considerable sum on lenses for a D-SLR to get close to this range and the quality of the DSC-R1's lens.
The DSC-R1 has been around for several years, the mythical fixed lens digital camera with a large (APS sized) sensor, but only in the minds of many of us. Thankfully Sony were brave enough to do it, to try something totally new and rekindle interest in the 'prosumer' fixed lens market which had pretty much been ignored since sub-$1000 digital SLRs came along. I'm glad to report as a prosumer / fixed lens digital the DSC-R1 is so much better than anything that came before it, it's really not worth comparing it to cameras like the DSC-F828, there's only so much you can do with a small sensor.
So yes, the DSC-R1 provides you with excellent images via a great lens and noise levels at higher sensitivities which would be impossible to achieve with any other fixed lens digital. However, it's a little tougher these days, digital SLR's are truly affordable and their performance has come on in leaps and bounds. Sony played the megapixel game (they had to) and fitted the DSC-R1 with a sensor which would 'out-number' cameras like the EOS 350D, however the reality is that (a) the step from 8 MP to 10 MP is so slight so as to be hardly noticeable and (b) the Canon has better in-camera image processing.
So here we come up to the issues. Firstly the DSC-R1's ISO 800 and 1600 aren't as good as the Canon (forget ISO 3200). When we first received the R1 we had hoped it would at least be a match but unfortunately it's not. At ISO 800 images are perfectly usable but you'll be aware that some detail will be 'smudged' by the high ISO NR system. At ISO 1600 you could face some fairly noticeable chroma mottle noise in shadows, something you just won't get from the Canon.
The second issue is image processing, take a RAW out of the DSC-R1 and run it through Adobe Camera RAW and you can see just what that lens / sensor combination is capable of, however you really need to be pretty dedicated to shoot RAW all the time, 20 MB per RAW file and around 9 seconds to write; I did note that some of our forums users are converting the Sony RAW files to Adobe DNG to save space. That's not to say JPEG's aren't good, they are very good, but you get a whole new appreciation for just how much crisper images could look converting in ACR.
About three quarters of my way through this review my mind was set on a 'Recommended' rating, and for a long time that's how it sat. Then I started to put together the price comparison table (page 20) and I soon realized just what you're getting. At $1000 you simply can't get close to the coverage and quality of that lens. Add to that the usable high sensitivities, great build quality, a package which is 'all in one', resolution just better than an EOS 350D and final results which can be extremely good indeed. Certainly there are a few niggles with the rest of the camera but at the price they can easily be excused. Hence it's a bit of a split rating, if you're an absolute perfectionist who doesn't mind spending more on lenses and shoots a lot at ISO 1600 you may wish to consider something else,
for everyone else I have no hesitation in Highly Recommending the DSC-R1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
共3 页 第2页 (10条跟贴/页)
|
|
|
