Sony full frame point and shoot...35/2 Zeiss

[emraphoto]

is it just me or is some of the pricing for cameras these days getting a touch ludicrous?

i mean sh*tballs man, here in Canada they have started taking pre-orders at $2999! that is a plum crazy price to me.

i was pretty captivated when i saw this thing but immediately lost interest when the price was announced (which means nothing as i am sure a whole gaggle of folks will be plopping down the bills when it is available).

i am quite happy to shoot a generation or two back these days. is this REALLY going to pump out better work than an X100? in my case, i think not.

[emraphoto]

Originally Posted by j.scooter

Something I have been thinking about lately.

For a fixed lens camera, especially one with a normal wide lens, what is the advantage of a full frame sensor?

i have asked my Students this question, albeit with different context, a few times and get mostly blank stares in return.

they can spew the rhetoric all day long to each other but when i ask them to explain why they need to immediately sell their digital rebel and buy a mkIII whatever... rarely do i get a sound answer.

[shadowgun]

I'm more than happy to take the gamble and fork out the cash for this camera.

Funny hearing Leica owners criticising about how this camera is expensive.

How dare they ask $2800 for a full frame camera with a Zeiss 35/2 lens.

How much is the Leica X1/X2 again? Please don't give me that "but it's a Leica" cr@p as an excuse to justify the X1/X2 over the Sony RX1.

[back alley]

Originally Posted by shadowgun

I'm more than happy to take the gamble and fork out the cash for this camera.

Funny hearing Leica owners criticising about how this camera is expensive.

How dare they ask $2800 for a full frame camera with a Zeiss 35/2 lens.

How much is the Leica X1/X2 again? Please don't give me that "but it's a Leica" cr@p as an excuse to justify the X1/X2 over the Sony RX1.

that hasn't really been the case here...folks are more upset about the lack of an internal finder.
my own fear is that after spending nearly 3k i'll discover that i still need more gear to live happily ever after.

[craygc]

For me its more about the inability to use existing glass on this camera ...rather, I look at it as potentially opening the door to what is just around the corner. As for the lack of a viewfinder; although the price is horrific, I much prefer the proposed viewfinder. On the Nex 5n, I find the ability to articulate the finder through 90 degrees invaluable for getting shots.

[EdwardKaraa]

I think it's going to be a great performer, both in sales and IQ. The Sonnar's MTF look very promising, even though they are computed not calculated. It would be nice to have it in different flavors though. Besides the Sonnar version, a 21 Distagon and a 85 planar versions would be perfect.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by j.scooter

Something I have been thinking about lately.

For a fixed lens camera, especially one with a normal wide lens, what is the advantage of a full frame sensor?

Over an APS-c such as x100...
1- thinner dof
2- better high iso... X100 no prob up to 1600, xp1 up to 3200, I would suspect rx1 should be at least 6400

Since I don't shoot much wide open for the thin dof look and 3200 iso is fine with me, a x100 with the xp1 sensor is all I need

Gary

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by shadowgun

I'm more than happy to take the gamble and fork out the cash for this camera.

Funny hearing Leica owners criticising about how this camera is expensive.

How dare they ask $2800 for a full frame camera with a Zeiss 35/2 lens.

How much is the Leica X1/X2 again? Please don't give me that "but it's a Leica" cr@p as an excuse to justify the X1/X2 over the Sony RX1.

It is priced higher than an x2,,, if I remember correctly x2 is slightly over 2k. IMHO the rx1 is a better camera all the way around then the x2 though, just not a camera for me.

Gary

[jarski]

Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa

I think it's going to be a great performer, both in sales and IQ. ...

yup. its great move from Sony. never ending protests about prices makes wonder do some people really believe it making any difference? be it Leica, Sony, Fuji or any other brand... its either "more money than brains folk willing to pay" or "greedy corporations sucking blood of us poor gear heads" argument.

[shadowgun]

Originally Posted by back alley

that hasn't really been the case here...folks are more upset about the lack of an internal finder.
my own fear is that after spending nearly 3k i'll discover that i still need more gear to live happily ever after.

The same argument applies. The X1/X2 does not have an internal finder either.

The RX1 is in a similar league, just better in terms of sensor and (potentially) lens.

I doubt it that the majority of people here would ever be content with ANY camera, regardless how good it is - there's always *just one more thing*

[EdwardKaraa]

Originally Posted by shadowgun

I doubt it that the majority of people here would ever be content with ANY camera, regardless how good it is - there's always *just one more thing*

And that is the plain truth!

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by GaryLH

2- better high iso... X100 no prob up to 1600, xp1 up to 3200, I would suspect rx1 should be at least 6400\

1600 only on the X100? I routinely use at at 3200 with fine results and many use the X-Pro1 up to 6400 with fine results.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by GaryLH

Over an APS-c such as x100...
1- thinner dof
2- better high iso... X100 no prob up to 1600, xp1 up to 3200, I would suspect rx1 should be at least 6400

In other words the advantage of full frame as such is pretty marginal; the point of diminishing returns has been passed IMHO.

The only advantage is that it allows Sony to test the waters for an interchangeable lens full frame compact photo camera with the E-mount.

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by rxmd

In other words the advantage of full frame as such is pretty marginal; the point of diminishing returns has been passed IMHO.

It's personal, of course, but I disagree. I think APC-C looks much better than 43rds - I guess it's a combination of factors, including dynamic range, noise, DOF, the actual focal length fo the lens, etc. And full frame - when I compare the results my friend gets with his Canon - looks similarly superior to my X100.

I'm happy with the APS-C output, I think it will do me for a couple of years, partly because I like the ergonomics of the X100, but I think it's when one gets to full frame where the extras represent diminishing returns.

We''re nearly there. I think in summer or September 2014 there'll be a much better choice of cameras with good ergonomics and optical performance.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Paul T.

We''re nearly there. I think in summer or September 2014 there'll be a much better choice of cameras with good ergonomics and optical performance.

That is certainly right; we've seen a slew of highly interesting cameras, and I guess we're "getting there".

[Pete B]

Originally Posted by j.scooter

Something I have been thinking about lately.

For a fixed lens camera, especially one with a normal wide lens, what is the advantage of a full frame sensor?

I'm interested in their statement "50% better dynamic range" than any sensor Sony's previously produced. Does this mean wider EV range? i.e. previously, 7 stops range but now 10.5 stops?
Pete

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Pete B

I'm interested in their statement "50% better dynamic range" than any sensor Sony's previously produced. Does this mean wider EV range? i.e. previously, 7 stops range but now 10.5 stops?
Pete

It probably means 0.5 bits (1 extra bit would mean twice the dynamic range), and since a bit is equivalent to a stop it means 0.5 extra stops, so 7.5 instead of 7.

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by GaryLH

Over an APS-c such as x100...
1- thinner dof
2- better high iso... X100 no prob up to 1600, xp1 up to 3200, I would suspect rx1 should be at least 6400

Since I don't shoot much wide open for the thin dof look and 3200 iso is fine with me, a x100 with the xp1 sensor is all I need

Gary

gary, it's only 1.2 stops better in DOF terms. and my x100 has no problems up to iso3200. and x100 has two internal vf's!

and i find it very interesting that though ive brought it up twice before in this thread, no one addresses the disappointing performance of the sony 'zeiss' lenses already on the market as a potential harbinger for this 'zeiss' being disappointing as well. why is history not a guide here?
tony

[emraphoto]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

gary, it's only 1.2 stops better in DOF terms. and my x100 has no problems up to iso3200. and x100 has two internal vf's!

and i find it very interesting that though ive brought it up twice before in this thread, no one addresses the disappointing performance of the sony 'zeiss' lenses already on the market as a potential harbinger for this 'zeiss' being disappointing as well. why is history not a guide here?
tony

i have had images from the X100, shot at 3200 with little to no post, published. noise is not an issue for me and unless you pull out the magnifying glass, i suspect not for many others.

[Ken Ford]

Originally Posted by back alley

my own fear is that after spending nearly 3k i'll discover that i still need more gear to live happily ever after.

Given your history, I'd predict this is a near certainty.

[back alley]

Originally Posted by Ken Ford

Given your history, I'd predict this is a near certainty.

ouch!

i've been pretty steady with my gear for a long time now...rd1 x2 plus a few lenses...

that is part of the current dilemma...i prefer not to sell either of the epsons so will have to save up for anything new.

[willie_901]

Originally Posted by rxmd

In other words the advantage of full frame as such is pretty marginal; the point of diminishing returns has been passed IMHO.

The only advantage is that it allows Sony to test the waters for an interchangeable lens full frame compact photo camera with the E-mount.

One interesting aspect of technical photography in this decade is the point of diminishing returns RXMD brings up.

First! that point is different for different people.

Second, and this is true for many areas where technology plays a roll, the cost of incremental improvement is much greater than the realized improvements. Doubling or trippling the price does not yield a factor of two or three improvement in results.

In 2009 the newest 24 x 36 mm sensors significantly outperformed the latest APS-C sensors which in turn significantly outperformed the best m 4/3 sensors. In 2012 the practical impact of the performance gaps seem to be shrinking. The physics of photon measurement always favors increased sensor area. But each of us will decide how much is enough and what price should pay to get to the next level.

The result is ergonomics and lenses play a bigger role in differentiating cameras because all the technology is excellent. This means more choices for the photographer. And not making a choice (change) is more practical than before because the consequences of doing nothing are small.

[fstops]

DOF in APS-C sensors as well as aperture can be calculated very easily.

For example an APS-C sensor has the same dof at f5.6 that you get from FF sensor at f8... So, shoot one stop less with APS-C than you shot with FF.

Aperture the same way, F1.4 in a APS-C sensor has the same dof as F2 in a FF sensor (1.4*1.5=2.1). the F2 sensor of X100 is equivalent to F3 in a FF sensor.

With M43 simply multiply by 2, so at f1.4 M43 sensor has the same dof as F2.8 in FF.


APS-C is really not that different from FF, but M43 can never have that small dof like FF, even at f.95 but people are still buying overpriced "fast" M43 lenses.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by j.scooter

Something I have been thinking about lately.

For a fixed lens camera, especially one with a normal wide lens, what is the advantage of a full frame sensor?

"One with a normal wide lens" is "the" choice for street photography.. however street photography should not necessitate more MP than what the APS-C sensors offering, especially when some of them were capable of fine ISO 6400 outputs.

The Nex-6 with interchangeable lens mount, built-in EVF, tiltable display and Zeiss 24/1.8 will go for $1.950; whereas the RX-1 with EVF will cost $3.250... Is $1.300 price difference worth of the size difference of the sensors?

[fstops]

As far as street photography is concerned, one is more likely to explore more and avoid the typical touristy crap by having a cheap camera than a $3000 albatross hanging around one's neck.