p.7 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Guari wrote:
+1
This camera is marking a hiatus on camera development. It might not fit everyone's needs. It doesn't definitely meets mine. Nor is the price accessible to me at all. But to me, this camera marks the point where I know in 4 or 5 years I'll be able to buy a FF mirrorless in a small body for a price that my pocket will handle! Good news!
If anything, I think the RX1 indicates just how difficult it is going to be to make a small, 135 sensor, ILC mirrorless that doesn't have huge lenses, seeing as how much smaller this lens/sensor combo setup is than a NEX with the e-mount 24/1.8, despite the fact that the RX1's lens is about a stop faster in "equivalence" than the 24/1.8.
p.7 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Pairing it up with a 35/2.0 lens may not have been enticing enough in my humble opinion. They could have equally well made an APS-C with a 24/1.4 fixed lens and it would have matched in terms of high ISO noise and shallow depth-of-field. So a 24/1.8 on NEX-7 would have been just 1/2 stop lesser than this, though admittedly bigger and not much cheaper.
The charm of FF has always been to be able to use alternative lenses in their original full glory, I think? If it is a fixed lens anyway, who cares what format it is in, provided that it is paired up with the right lens. It would have produced the same photographic result anyway.
That said I wouldn't be surprised to see someone dismantling and modifying the camera, getting rid of the fixed lens but replacing it with a lens mount.
p.7 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Yeah. I like the positive thoughts. I probably won't buy one - I've just invested a bunch of money in lenses and just like using them too much, a Nex-7 plus 21 or 28 is just fine.
But - it's really cool, and I hope Sony is rewarded w/ decent sales for doing something like this.
p.7 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
goosemang wrote:
this is pretty awesome. figure you expect to pay $1,500-2,000 for a ff camera, plus 1k for an awesome 35 f/2, and the price really doesn't seem that out of line.
that was my line of thinking as well. this thing appears to be a bit smaller than an x100 yet it should have image quality to match or beat a canon 5DmkIII with a ZE 35/2 (the question mark here is only how good the lens is).
p.7 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
With all the rumored Sony offerings coming this week, I have to say I'm glad Sony is swinging for the fences and bringing some innovative new stuff to the table. The RX1 demonstrates innovation no other company has shown the stones to produce, FF cameras have been (outside of Leica) strictly "pro" DSLR's and nothing else. Sony's new FF sensor paired with a fast Zeiss lens, love it, love it, love it.
At $2799, its essentially a "body" priced at about the same as the Xpro1 with a Zeiss lens, that will undoubtedly focus much faster and have video and IQ that will crush the Fuji. Ditto against any Leica offering at a fraction of the price. Make a RX2 with a fast 85mm lens and I'll buy both. Good to see one company not rehashing the same tired formula as everyone else.
I bet this is going to set the stage for an APS-c version of this camera and a FF EVIL next year.
p.7 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
sebboh wrote:
that was my line of thinking as well. this thing appears to be a bit smaller than an x100 yet it should have image quality to match or beat a canon 5DmkIII with a ZE 35/2 (the question mark here is only how good the lens is).
Agreed. If the lens is good, AF is speedy, and Sony doesn't leave out some things like a digital distance scale, I might have to bite, as this would be a true, small replacement for my A900. Ugh, I hope I can talk myself out of it.
p.7 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
joychris wrote:
At $2799, its essentially a "body" priced at about the same as the Xpro1 with a Zeiss lens, that will undoubtedly focus much faster and have video and IQ that will crush the Fuji.
Agreed, although the X-P1 has that cool OVF. Either way, I think Fuji users are going to be surprised when the new 23/1.4 lens comes for the X-P1. It should be considerably larger than the fixed lens in the X100.
p.7 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
sebboh wrote:
that was my line of thinking as well. this thing appears to be a bit smaller than an x100 yet it should have image quality to match or beat a canon 5DmkIII with a ZE 35/2 (the question mark here is only how good the lens is).
These comparisons fail the test for me for these reasons:
1. I can't remove that "awesome" 35 f/2 lens and stick something else on there when I need to use other focal lengths. Loosing that versatility pushes the price out of line for me as it's easier to justify a high price for a body that can serve many uses and accommodate many lenses. I tend to agree with those who say it really does not matter if it's a FF sensor or APS once you stick a fixed lens on it - unless the price is really attractive.
2. The X100 of course has a built in Hybrid OVF/EVF. Adding that to the RX1 increases both the price and size.
This camera therefore seems to be quite a niche of a niche camera. It does not offer the value proposition of an X100 or the versatility of an X-Pro1, NEX, etc. The RX1 seems like it would be a hard camera for most to justify owning...but when has that ever stopped anyone around here!
p.7 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
These comparisons fail the test for me for these reasons:
1. I can't remove that "awesome" 35 f/2 lens and stick something else on there when I need to use other focal lengths. Loosing that versatility pushes the price out of line for me as it's easier to justify a high price for a body that can serve many uses and accommodate many lenses. I tend to agree with those who say it really does not matter if it's a FF sensor or APS once you stick a fixed lens on it - unless the price is really attractive.
2. The X100 of course has a built in Hybrid OVF/EVF. Adding that to the RX1 increases both the price and size.
This camera therefore seems to be quite a niche of a niche camera. It does not offer the value proposition of an X100 or the versatility of an X-Pro1, NEX, etc. The RX1 seems like it would be a hard camera for most to justify owning...but when has that ever stopped anyone around here!
p.7 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Agree that Sony should be commended for pushing into territory where few/none have gone yet.
On the other hand this is a very niche camera. I think those who have the self discipline to wait it out will be rewarded soon enough with what they really want. That's my hope anyway.
By the way, regarding the screen, SAR said: "It has the same A99 3 inch screen but without the smart three way tilting system."
Maybe that means it has a different tilt screen, I read it as saying it's a fixed screen. Maybe it means nothing at all since this is in the rumor stage, until tomorrow or whenever we get specs.
p.7 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I personally think this would have hit the sweet spot at $2000 + or - $100.
It's basically a FF version of the X100.
And this is targeting a very specific niche. I got my X100 with the intention of not having to carry heavy equipments around. Making this camera with interchangeable lenses doesn't really interest me if it has to sacrifice on other stuff.
The X-Pro 1 for example, I have no interest in. It's basically a X100 with interchangeable lenses capability. It increased the price by $500 (a staggering 40%) while taking away the lens. With the 35mm F1.4 lens included, we are looking at double the price of X100.
As a tester to the market, I think the price is a bit high. But if Sony somehow magically reduced this thing to around 2k, I think it would be a hot item among many who seek the absolute best P&S possible.
p.7 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
fotografur wrote:
The APS-C sensors are so good now. And it would be smaller and I could use different lenses.
Just my thinking, any thought?
Same here. I don't want FF for the sake of having FF... without interchangeable lenses it loses it's allure to me. APS-C is in a good place technologically speaking, even 4/3 for that matter... the OM-D produces some amazing results.
For casual use, a camera such as this would be a dream... but it seems counter intuitive to use a machine like this for casual use, and at the same time it makes the RX100 seem even better for that purpose. Brilliant marketing, Sony!
p.7 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
fotografur wrote:
My thinking is I really don't need FF for $2800
If I can get a Canon EOS M with f2 lens for $800.
The APS-C sensors are so good now. And it would be smaller and I could use different lenses.
Just my thinking, any thought?
Three things.
1. The EOS-M ain't gonna much smaller, if it's even any smaller.
2. The EOS-M isn't going to deliver comparable IQ as Canon's 18MP APS-C sensor isn't competitive with Sony's 16 or 24MP APS-C sensors, let alone a FF sensor (this is the EOS-M's weakpoint, Canon's 18MP sensor should have been retired a couple years ago rather than flogged to death, it's the same mistake Nikon made with the Sony 10.2MP CCD sensor a few years ago)
3. It's doubtful that the EOS-M's 22/2 will be anywhere near as good as the Zeiss 35/2 on the RX1. I expect the 22/2 to be better than the camera it's designed for, but it's going to be an inexpensive kit lens, not the fixed lens on a $2800 camera. Pricepoint engineering will ensue.
Frankly, as much as I dig the RX1, it's a marginal cost argument against the X100 or a NEX-7+ZA24. But against the EOS-M? The EOS-M is already overpriced for what it is (a low-end mirrorless body comparable to a NEX-C3 or a NX210) and the expected IQ is not likely to be competitive as we already know it shares the T4i's sensor and processing and the T4i simply doesn't deliver the IQ that is available from the competition (not that it's bad, because it isn't. It's just not as good as the 16 and 24MP CMOS sensors we're seeing in cameras from Nikon, Sony and Pentax).
I should note one thing on the RX1's price, it's not that much more than a NEX-7+ZA24 and it's noticeably more compact and likely to deliver better IQ (due to the larger sensor). The RX1 seems to be the camera for those who would have bought an X100 except for the Fuji quirks.
p.7 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Disappointment, acceptance, and then cult camera status. The normal forum reaction to new products
The RX1 has all the requirements to provoke the above reactions.
The first digital FF compact, mirrorless, P&S, fixed lens camera in the world. Sony will go in the history books for this one. It will be followed in 6 months time by an interchangeable lens version (by the time they finish designing/producing a couple of lenses for it).
p.7 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Call me pessimistic, but, if anything, I think this new concept signals just how difficult it's going to be for Sony to make a 135 NEX and keep the lenses at a reasonable size. It seems Sony's trying to scratch the fullframe itch with this concept, and I still don't anticipate seeing a 135 NEX for a long time.
p.7 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I think we are likely going to see a larger than FF, mirrorless ILC from Hasselblad in a week or so - and one that may use a Sony sensor! Can you imagine the performance of a larger than 35FF Sony Cmos sensor? Of course, we probably don't want to imagine the price.
