High-resolution burst performance in frames per second
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
Canon EOS 350D
4.0
Sony Cyber Shot DSC-R1
4.2
Nikon D50
2.9
Konica Minolta Dimage A2
2.3
Fujifilm FinePix S9000
2.1
Konica Minolta Dimage A200
1.9
Image quality
The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 produced generally excellent images, particularly at lower ISO ratings. Crisp details and nicely balanced colours abounded. Images with limited depth of field looked pleasantly smooth in unfocused areas, and the gradations between light and dark avoided unrealistically harsh contrasts. Except at the highest ISOs, we saw very few unnaturally coloured halos or jagged lines.
Our test images came out clean and noise-free at ISO 160, 200 and 400. A handful of colourful speckles showed up in dark areas at ISO 800, but even at ISO 1,600, the grain was relatively innocuous in evenly lit scenes. Images shot at ISO 3,200 were full of multicoloured splotches in darker areas -- par for the course for digital images at this high sensitivity.
The DSC-R1 has some of the best high-ISO performance we've seen in this price class. For instance, with most cameras this ISO 1600 shot would have so much noise your eyes would be unable to resolve the detail of this tabby's fur. But even at 100 per cent magnification the R1's shot stands up well to scrutiny.
Edited by Lori Grunin
Additional editing by Nick Hide
Android App 
RSS Feeds 
iPhone App 
Newsletters
User reviews2
Add your review
harrappeter 26 November 2007
Good: silent, sharp, good zoom range, RAW 10MP quality, nice to use-very, very fast
Bad: RAW write time is slow, no continuous RAW option, not strong
Comment: The first step forward since the Leica, the R1 has a good EVF and a good LCD on top that angles around and lets you take shots at waist-level, and if you do nature etc, you can put it on the ground and still see what you are doing without having to lie on the ground as well to see through the viewfinder. Having either the SLR or the Hasselblad/Rollei waist-level option is infinitely preferable to being stuck with only one. In use the camera is slow at locking onto your subject. It is. But holding the subject in foxcus with a half-press , you have total control of the exact moment of exposure at a delay of only 0.007 seconds!!!!. The fastest Canon on the planet is more than 5 times as slow. So though you get tired and your finger aches, its worth it because you are the deciding factor in image making choices, at last. The machine is also light and easy to carry all day, but it is not tough-knock that Zeiss zoom and, well, just dont. The problem due to packaging is getting a good one-I'm on my fourth, or is it fifth?, but I treasure this camera. Imagine a Leica M, but quieter with that zoom lens, and you get the picture. Its just not a knockabout family machine for happy snaps or news. Its for ART!!!!
George Pappas 8 July 2006
Good: Very fast start-up. The CMOS sensor size - excellent images, low power consumption, typically 60-80mins more shooting on same charge than F828, excellent lens.
Bad: Focus can sometimes miss subject. Cannot shoot in RAW only, must save a JPEG also-wastes memoy card space. Slow lens at telephoto end. Tends to some barrel distortion at the lower scale and some pincussion distortion is evident in some building shots at tele end.
Comment: Here is a camera that is an outstanding package wrapped in a nice handling black plastic body. To get the best out of it one must shoot RAW and process in Photoshop. The Sony supplied software (RAW converter) is rather average. JPEGs out of the camera tend to be over sharp and a bit contrasty, so you may want to experiment with these settings. I have found that in RAW you can extract detail that the in-camera processor loses.
Sometimes the autofocus does not get the subject focussed well. In fact Sony should do what Canon does and have an option to prevent shooting if not focused.
The white balance is generally good except under fluoro lights.
The top-mounted screen takes some getting used to but works well. The EVF is excellent with plenty of shooting info below the image.
ISO button well placed next to the shutter button.
Lens is generally excellent. Some distortion is evident at extremes of either end. I compared this lens to the Canon-L 28-70 and 70-200-L. Of course the L lenses were better but I have to say in print you would hardly tell the difference. All in all the price of the camera more than pays for the Zeiss lens. Chromatic aberration is virtually non-existent to those worried from the F828 saga.
Shooting in RAW takes time to save and the buffer is rather limited. Two RAW images locks camera up for around 3-8 secs. Not impressive but bearable.
I could go on but overall it's great for travelling and the images will promise detail and happiness.
See all 2 user reviews