Sony RX1

[elverket]

Well, the RX1 actually made me do it: I sold my Leica kit. M8.2, cron 35mm v4 and 90mm are gone, and my RX1 is scheduled for delivery next week. Never thought I'd ditch Leica for a Sony, but I've been missing autofocus and the .7m focus limitation and lackluster ISO performance was driving me crazy. Gonna miss the bokeh, image "signature" and the sweet rangefinder, though...

[Avotius]

If it had a good built in viewfinder ala Fuji X100 I would buy this. As it is now, no. I have lived with out a built in viewfinder on my EP1 long enough to know that I dont like shooting with a back LCD.

[edge100]

Originally Posted by Paul T.

Incidentally, Fuji look to have backtracked on the "statement" that their existing lenses are full-frame.

Yes, that's quite curious. They either gave too much away in the first statement, or misspoke. I can't imagine that they'd misspeak about something so fundamental, but you never know.

To be honest, FF is not a huge deal to me. Would be nice, but I can live with APS-C for the time being. 35mm film is "FF", anyway.

[bwcolor]

I just need to hold out long enough that I can convince myself that the next generation is just around the corner. Honestly, it amazes me that some of you purchase every new high end non-dslr camera that hits the market. The above approach replaces a twelve step program. Yes, I want (shoot mostly 35mm lenses), but when I remove the emotion, I'm quite happy with my NEX-7, X100, 1DMKIII and lots of film cameras. Just need to repair my scanner. BTW.. went through this with thinking of replacing the Canon (shoot soccer) with the 5DMKIII, but have held out so far. Fact is, the old MKIII still produces excellent images.

[bigeye]

Homer: "Mr. Burns, you're the richest man in the world. You OWN EVERYTHING!"

Mr. Burns: "Ah yes, but I'd give it all up for just a little bit more."

.

[Dralowid]

I have only just realised how damned expensive this camera is...as someone else said, this is M8.2 money...

[Ruhayat]

Originally Posted by btgc

35mm? I didn't expect this from Sony. Do market needs another 35/2 lensed compact? There's X100 already.

I have to agree. Either a short zoom or prime 50mm f2.0 would have been more of an alternative to the existing Leica X2, Fuji X100 etc. I think full frame makes more sense in the telephoto, portrait range where the shallow DOF is desirable.

[CaptZoom]

I'll take the dynamic range of a full frame sensor any time I've cropped frame sensor.
I'm also glad Sony went with a prime...zooms are cumbersome (not to mention difficult to fit on such a tiny body). To keep the size of the zoom some what manageable, they'd either have to give up on a fast fixed aperture or make the lens a variable aperture lens. Regardless of the route, there'd be equal amounts of discontent people. Keeping to a classic prime focal length (which are easier to design well) helps ensure the image quality. Image quality is what's going to bring people over to purchasing the camera. All other concerns are secondary. The RX1 could be the greatest camera in the world, but without the IQ no ones gonna pay $3K for it.

[btgc]

Originally Posted by CaptZoom

To keep the size of the zoom some what manageable, they'd either have to give up on a fast fixed aperture or make the lens a variable aperture lens.

What's so wrong with variable aperture zooms as long as you don't use it all the time in manual mode or with manual flash? If long end isn't terribly slow (f/11 like on old film compacts) which applies considerable restrictions I'm not worried - AE does it all for us, humans.

Say, Sammy EX1 aka TL500 had 24-72/1.8-2.4 zoom. At longest end this zoom is slower than at wide end. Is it a real drawback, considering miniscule difference?

In fact if Samsung would come out with a model like this but with APS-C sensor (instead of tiny 1/1.7") good part of RX1 audience would step back. Only true fans of prime lenses and real Zeissites would stay strong

[Lss]

Originally Posted by btgc

Say, Sammy EX1 aka TL500 had 24-72/1.8-2.4 zoom. At longest end this zoom is slower than at wide end. Is it a real drawback, considering miniscule difference?

For most people (who want a zoom anyway) that sounds great. But when it turns into a 3.5-5.6 or something worse and you could have an f/1.4 or f/2 prime instead, it is much more of a drawback. The problem is not so much losing a stop or two at the long end, it is the fact that you lose it on a lens that isn't particularly fast even at the wide end.

[CaptZoom]

Btgc, that's thing man I rarely use the auto mode. I'm pretty much handicapped when it comes to auto anything.

[btgc]

Originally Posted by CaptZoom

Btgc, that's thing man I rarely use the auto mode. I'm pretty much handicapped when it comes to auto anything.

Sounds reasonable. But then, how about auto focus?

[CaptZoom]

Originally Posted by btgc

Sounds reasonable. But then, how about auto focus?

No auto focus! Apart from P&S cameras with huge depth of fields, I can never get auto focus to focus where I want! I always focus and recompose...maybe that's got some thing to so with it. I almost never miss with manual focus. It's obviously not the cameras, rather there's some thing wrong with me! It's not just photography, I only drive manual cars, don't own a microwave, etc.

[CaptZoom]

Incidentally I just realized that the RX1 costs about the same as a new 35 'cron! Doesn't sound so expensive now

[sepiareverb]

Originally Posted by btgc

In fact if Samsung would come out with a model like this but with APS-C sensor (instead of tiny 1/1.7") good part of RX1 audience would step back. Only true fans of prime lenses and real Zeissites would stay strong

Maybe. The benefits of FF are real for me. And as the sensor gets bigger the lenses tend to get slower- just as it was in the film days.

[Frontman]

I tried out the RX1 today, and found it quite interesting. My only complInts were the size, the body was a bit small for me, and the AF seems no faster than the X-Pro. IQ was great, and I had fun doing some wide open shooting with it.

[umcelinho]

as soon as they start selling for $400 in the used market i'll be all over one

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by umcelinho

as soon as they start selling for $400 in the used market i'll be all over one

Yep, me too. I might even do it at $800.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Yep, me too. I might even do it at $800.

Lol... Next years black Friday sale??

Gary

[gustavoAvila]

Originally Posted by Dralowid

I have only just realised how damned expensive this camera is...as someone else said, this is M8.2 money...

Actually, the RX-1 is approaching M9 money!

If one includes the cost of the EVF (non-optional for many potential buyers), a used M9 ($4,000 on the low end) is a reasonable alternative to consider.

(Assuming, of course, that a lens purchase is not required for the M9.)

[Paul T.]

I don't think that's really a fair comparison, when you consider you're getting a Zeiss lens as part of the deal - and you're comparing new with used. We have second hand Zeiss lenses sell on here for $1000 plus. And the M Biogon is easily the equal of the V4 Summicron in rendition (sibjective I know), but with this camera you have the compactness that we all love of the 'Cron and M combination.

I don't see price hampering the success of the RX1; it's probably subpar AF speed and EV that will be the most likely objections for prospective buyers.

[gustavoAvila]

Of course it is not a fair comparison.

(How many camera purchases are really based on logic to begin with?)

The fact remains that the RX-1 is a very expensive camera.

For potential buyers who already own one or more M mount lenses, a used M8 (or M9) body is a comparably priced alternative to the RX-1.

As to whether the RX-1 will be a mass marketing success, my guess is no. (And I doubt this is Sony's intention.)

My very biased opinion is that the only justification for a full-frame, mirrorless camera is to mount M lenses!

The cost/benefit ratio (for a fixed lens, FF sensor body) simply does not compare favorably with smaller sensor options (such as the Fuji X100 or Leica X2).

While the Sony may sell "reasonably" well, it will never, ever fly off the shelves at Best Buy!

[David_Manning]

I almost pulled the trigger on the RX1 last week.

I instead purchased an RX100, it's little brother. It has the same "user" experience (arm's length shooting, menu-driven), but has a useful zoom range and is eminently more pocketable...in fact, it fits in my Contax T3 case. I'm much more likely to carry the little RX100 everywhere than an NEX-sized camera with a large-ish lens.

Also, the RX100 has very good low-light capabilities. I guess if I constantly want bokeh in every shot, I'll pull out the 5DmkII and 50 or 85.

For what these cameras are, I just found the RX100 a bit more flexible and useful than the RX1. I still like it, though...but I don't see myself ever owning one after enjoying the RX100.

[Richard G]

Originally Posted by Ruhayat

I have to agree. Either a short zoom or prime 50mm f2.0 would have been more of an alternative to the existing Leica X2, Fuji X100 etc. I think full frame makes more sense in the telephoto, portrait range where the shallow DOF is desirable.

Agree ++ and ten characters more.

[FrozenInTime]

Originally Posted by Paul T.

but with this camera you have the compactness that we all love of the 'Cron and M combination.

Your Avatar remins me how much the small body and large lens combo of RX-1 looks like Dr Solomon's Ermanox