RX1 review from luminous landscape

[GaryLH]

Steve Huff posted his a while ago. Here is the one from LL today.. Good thing I am currently not interested. For those who are..

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...1_review.shtml

Toward the end he has a one liner mentioning that dp Merrill had better resolution, but that was only place he felt the Merrill won.

Gary

[jsrockit]

I thought people here would be clamouring for this... but I only see a few that are interested. It appears that once you go over $1000 and then again over $2000... people lose interest quick.

[stompyq]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I thought people here would be clamouring for this... but I only see a few that are interested. It appears that once you go over $1000 and then again over $2000... people lose interest quick.

Sounds like your looking to get one

[f16sunshine]

Anyone suppose sony will get this thing priced under $2k in the next year?
It simple does not deliver enough at this price point.
However good it is at what it does.
It is too expensive sitting next to it's also very good competition.

[thegman]

I'm sure the price will go down, especially with the price of FF DSLRs now.

[Benjamin Marks]

Ditto on price drops. In a year they will have one with interchangeable lenses or x-ray vision or a top ISO of a billion and then this one will sell for $1500. Yum.

Ben

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by stompyq

Sounds like your looking to get one

Nope, no interest at all Pramodh. It's looking like a slim year for cameras for me. As we spoke about, I have an expensive item I have to pay for this year... as well as some dental issues.

[burancap]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I thought people here would be clamouring for this... but I only see a few that are interested. It appears that once you go over $1000 and then again over $2000... people lose interest quick.

My sentiments as well.

I was rather excited when it was first announced.

Then the realization settled in that perhaps as never before -there is such a really brilliant plethora of amazing cameras available today at better price points. Moore's law as applied to photography, I suppose.

I think it is a great time to sit and watch -then go cherry-pick the winners.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I thought people here would be clamouring for this... but I only see a few that are interested. It appears that once you go over $1000 and then again over $2000... people lose interest quick.

I was momentarily interested, but then I thought: "I already have the Leica X2 for a fixed lens, 35mm FoV compact. Good as the RX1 might be, I can't see it being worth the cost of selling the X2 and then paying another $1200 on top of that to get the same thing."

Then I figured I'd put that extra outlay into the fund for the new M, when it's available.

Then the Hasselblad SWC came available ... and there went that money. I'd much rather have an SWC than ANY new digicam however good the digicam might be.

Life is full of twists and turns... ;-)

[digitalintrigue]

APS_C is the price/performance leader.

However for a tiny body, full frame, with a Zeiss lens, the price is pretty fair IMHO. Figure a $500 adder for the small size, $1500 for the full frame sensor/body, and $800 for the Zeiss lens.

[jsrockit]

I don't necessarily have an issue with the price. I get it. However, I just feel the body is too small for the lens size... and I don't really think it is truly pocketable. While they are arguably inferior cameras in most ways, I'd much rather stick with the X100 and DP2 Merrill in this category. They feel right in my hands.

[burancap]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

APS_C is the price/performance leader.

However for a tiny body, full frame, with a Zeiss lens, the price is pretty fair IMHO. Figure a $500 adder for the small size, $1500 for the full frame sensor/body, and $800 for the Zeiss lens.

Well, let's remash that a bit just for fun.

Sony - check
Tiny body - check
Zeiss lens - check
~24Mp - check
Full frame - no

=~$600.00 RX100 (faster at 1.8)

~$2,400 for full frame is tough.

[digitalintrigue]

A full frame sensor costs approx 13x as much to produce as an APS-C, which in turn is significantly bigger than the sensor in an RX100 and similarly more expensive, although I haven't done the exact math. The RX100 does not have a 35/2 Zeiss lens, either, capable of covering a full frame sensor. Also, for reference, full frame Zeiss 35mm (manual focus) lenses sell for $1078-$1117.

However if the RX100 works for you, why spend more? I have one myself.

[back alley]

i think he likes it...i know that i do and the first spare 3k that falls my way will allow me to buy one!

[Monochrom]

well..he really liked the camera...but i don´t think i´ll get one...i´m quite happy with my m9..an not so fan of 35mm lenses...

i´ll get me myaself a dp2M...45 fov suit me better! and of course it´s cheaper....

[Snowbuzz]

Don't forget to factor in an extra $550-$650 for the viewfinder: using an LCD to take pictures is beyond my ability.

[back alley]

Originally Posted by Snowbuzz

Don't forget to factor in an extra $550-$650 for the viewfinder: using an LCD to take pictures is beyond my ability.

have you tried?

i use the lcd on the sony rx100 and it took a few tries before it was old hat...

[GaryLH]

If I need to take the picture below 1/30 then I would prefer an evf or ovf to get the most stable setup for the picture.

Gary

[digitalintrigue]

Does it have SteadyShot™? or just in movie mode?

[digitalintrigue]

Oh well if you have an RX100 you are set.

[GaryLH]

I am not sure if the rx1 has steady shot. I would assume it does. I have the rx100 and I wished it had an evf, but to get a truly pocket camera, I am ok w/o it. The rx1 is not a pocket camera by any stretch of imagination unless u are wearing some really baggy pants. Which puts it in xe1 or nex6 territory.

As I get older need faster shutter speeds

Gary

[fotomeow]

Originally Posted by Snowbuzz

Don't forget to factor in an extra $550-$650 for the viewfinder: using an LCD to take pictures is beyond my ability.

agreed. I can see paying $500 for an external digital VF for a camera costing $1000. But on top of the $3k price tag? and no faster than f2?
forget it.

[aizan]

What I do agree with is not having a built-in EVF. Not that I wouldn't want one. But, when you hold the camera and look at the rear LCD almost completely filling the rear panel, you realize that the only way one could be built in would be to make the camera bigger, which Sony clearly didn't want to do.

here's a crazy idea: make the rear LCD smaller to make room for an EVF in the corner. does it really need to be that big? i'd be ok with a 2'' screen.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by aizan

here's a crazy idea: make the rear LCD smaller to make room for an EVF in the corner. does it really need to be that big? i'd be ok with a 2'' screen.

I expect they could have put one in if they had wanted to, but profit margin goes down, and they lose the ability to sell you a clip one. It also becomes trickier to think of must-have features for the RX2.

It's clearly not in Sony's or any other camera maker's interests to make the RX1 perfect right off the bat. It's probably not even in most buyer's interests either as the early adopters, and frequent upgraders fund price cuts for the rest of us and keep the used market stocked with nice gear.

[btgc]

Originally Posted by thegman

I expect they could have put one in if they had wanted to, but profit margin goes down, and they lose the ability to sell you a clip one.

I know quality optical devices aren't cheap but when finder costs 1/3-1/2 of camera something has to be done....like raising price of camera to get proportion looking more reasonable

p.s. I'm aware rx1 isn't exactly cameraphone and I'm not complaining FF-sensor and Zeiss prime together cost more than typical P&S. I just think built-in finder is the thing to have in serious cameras. External finders are tech from mid of XX century, they tend to engage with clothings, straps and rest of the world. Just do it right and we say amen.