Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 … 61 62 63 … 138 139 end

michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

Bijltje wrote:
for a fixed lens camera (with means in 2 years when the sensor is old school u can throw away the lens as well) or 3500 to 3800 euro for the same camera with EVF of OVF seems to me as an awful lot of money.

When I compare it to different camera's for the same or less money I see there's a lot u can buy for that amount with simular or better performance. M9

In one breath you call today's state of the art sensor two years down the road "old school" yet in the very next breath you suggest a M9 and its *three* year old CCD sensor as today's apparently still viable alternative?

That doesn't add up, does it?

Let's be realistic. This sensor is very good today - leading performance - and it'll still be excellent two and three years down the road.

Oct 12, 2012 at 09:37 PM

Bijltje
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

alundeb wrote:
Bijltje wrote:
alundeb wrote:
Bijltje wrote:
alundeb wrote:
Makten wrote:
I think it's dirt cheap for what you get.

Yup, the D600 + Distagon 35/2 is only a small grand $ less. It is a fair price to pay for miniaturization. If the lens is even better than the Distagon....

I think it is just that the small size and the fixed lens fool the brain to think "P&S pricing" unconciously.

For the price with OFV in europe u can almost buy a used leica M9 with ZM 35 c-biogon.

Its not dirt cheap

Why do people keep adding accessories, and then compare prices with used cameras?

Besides, you don't get the same at all with the M9. It is much bigger and heavier, and does not have live view. I don't care for rangefinders and don't need an OVF or EVF.

And now let us start talking about high ISO performance.

__I__ get a lot more for my money with the RX1.

Maybe its not all about u?

Above someone called it dirty cheap. 3100 euro for a fixed lens camera (with means in 2 years when the sensor is old school u can throw away the lens as well) or 3500 to 3800 euro for the same camera with EVF of OVF seems to me as an awful lot of money.

When I compare it to different camera's for the same or less money I see there's a lot u can buy for that amount with simular or better performance. M9, D800E, 6D, NEX7 ect.

Sure this RX1 is great since it combines a big sensor with a small body, but u pay a lot for that advantage.

And the only performance proof I have really seen from the lens is a calculated MTF chart. Not really comparable withe leica's or zeisses measured charts.

I see you try really hard to give me reasons to not get this camera, but unfortunately they don't work.

The sensor will not be old school in 2 years. The Sony 16 MP EXMOR APS-C sensor is just over 2 years and still going strong.

There will not be a similar camera with EVF or OVF. There is simply no space for it. The camera will have to be larger.

It is not true that we pay a lot for the advantage of the size of this performance. The cheapest big and heavy alternative at this performance is only a few percent cheaper.

Why would I try to let u not buy that camera? Please do what u want.

I only said I don't think 3100 euro for this camera, or any other compact camera with a fixed lens is dirty cheap. Maybe we have a different reference on what is dirty cheap and what is quite a lot of money.

Oct 12, 2012 at 09:46 PM

wolfloid
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

This camera isn't marketed towards those want an interchangeable lens camera, and in that regard the RX1 is similar to the Fujifilm X 100. Probably the cost of the camera will serve as a useful filter to help prevent those who aren't sure what they want in a camera from buying it.

Yes, good point. but I wonder what the real advantages would be for the RX1 over an effectively upgraded Fuji X100, which Fuji could quite easily do if they concentrated and got their act together.

If Fuji raised the MP level to 16 or more, sorted out the LR compatibility, improved the AF speed, minimised lens flare, used state of the art EVF, and improved the buttons and software speed and organisation - all quite possible without straining them too hard - what advantage would the RX1 then really have? One stop more depth of field control - a small advantage to some - perhaps, a little better noise control, and a little more resolution - all small advantages, perhaps.

On the side of the Fuji you would get a built in OVF and EVF, and a slimmer body, all contributing to a great form factor. With the RX1 I would be loath to have a neat little camera and then having to plonk an external EVF or OVF on top, which sticks out and catches on everything. As well as looking silly and seeming like an afterthought, it ruins the sleek gestalt it had without it.

Yes, I know there are some who claim they do not need any sort of viewfinder, but really 24mp FF held at arms length!! Seems to unnecessarily invite camera shake and a negation of potentially class-leading resolution. Unless, of course, you want to restrict it to tripod only, which really narrows down its use.

As for the price, it makes me want to go down to the aforesaid next generation X100 (I can wait) or plumb for the New Leica M (I have all the lenses I'd want) and get something much more versatile, albeit without AF. For me, the price for such a camera without an elegant VF solution is just too much.

Oct 12, 2012 at 09:50 PM

Bijltje
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

michaelwatkins wrote:
Bijltje wrote:
for a fixed lens camera (with means in 2 years when the sensor is old school u can throw away the lens as well) or 3500 to 3800 euro for the same camera with EVF of OVF seems to me as an awful lot of money.

When I compare it to different camera's for the same or less money I see there's a lot u can buy for that amount with simular or better performance. M9

In one breath you call today's state of the art sensor two years down the road "old school" yet in the very next breath you suggest a M9 and its *three* year old CCD sensor as today's apparently still viable alternative?

That doesn't add up, does it?

Let's be realistic. This sensor is very good today - leading performance - and it'll still be excellent two and three years down the road.

Why do u all feel so attacked when I say 3100 or 3800 euro for a camera isn't dirty cheap?

I don't see myself as a target for this RX1. I still use my old sensored M9 and still love the output. I even loved the M8's output.

But when I say for the same money as the RX1 u can also get a used M9 I get the reaction the M9's sensor is old school with bad high iso and not up to the RX1 sensor.

Why would a person who apparently does care about sensors a lot, else he would point out the M9's old sensor, not think the same when the RX1's sensor is 2 or 3 years old?

Oct 12, 2012 at 10:01 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

wolfloid wrote:
Yes, good point. but I wonder what the real advantages would be for the RX1 over an effectively upgraded Fuji X100, which Fuji could quite easily do if they concentrated and got their act together.

If Fuji raised the MP level to 16 or more, sorted out the LR compatibility, improved the AF speed, minimised lens flare, used state of the art EVF, and improved the buttons and software speed and organisation - all quite possible without straining them too hard - what advantage would the RX1 then really have? One stop more depth of field control - a small advantage to some - perhaps, a little better noise control, and a little more resolution - all small advantages, perhaps.

that sounds great, but i think you are being overly optimistic about what fuji can and will do for an x100 upgrade. i suspect most of the things in your desired upgrade won't happen (particularly the lens redesign). i bet it's just a megapixel upgrade and a small software upgrade (hopefully the evf too, but i wouldn't hold my breath). i have to admit the extra stop of dof and low light ability do mean a lot to me though.

Oct 12, 2012 at 10:05 PM

pdmphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.62 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

sebboh wrote:
pdmphoto wrote:
Really hard to get interested in this camera when I have my Samsung NX200 with the 30/2 sitting next to me here. No EVF but then I could always get a NX20 or wait for the NX300 or NX-R.

Just seems like too much for a fixed lens camera with no EVF. I'd rather shoot with APS-C and have 24mm (16/2.4), 45mm (30/2), and other interchangeable lenses. I can transfer the lenses to a new body as time progreses. Hard to imagine me saying that after being a big fan of FF sensors (and using them exclusively over APS-C for about ten years). There are other factors that are important to me though.

Seems like Steve Huff is really doing his best to be a Sony representative, rather than objective user.

ha, ha. i seem to remember you saying you'd never ever seen an aps-c image that impressed you not too long ago.

it depends on what you're looking for. i would much rather shoot a 35/2 than a 24/3.5 or 45/2.8 (equiv) and nobody else has anything close to that in such a small package. size, light gathering, fov, and dof are all quite important to me. the lack of flip lcd and built in evf do worry me a bit though...

steve huff loves every camera he touches for at least the first week, so in a way he is kinda being objective.

You are right on that one (although I think it was more like a year ago

Oct 12, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Taylor Sherman
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

Your 5DII isn't "that much bigger/heavier" than an RX1

Oct 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

pdmphoto wrote:
You are right on that one (although I think it was more like a year ago

). That is part of the problem. I'm not seeing anything special from the RX1 and the attached Zeiss 35/2 lens. Definately not the special look I see from the Zeiss Zx 35/2 on FF. My Rollei/Zeiss 35/1.4 and Canon 5DII aren't that much bigger/heavier, has a great special look, and is a stop faster. So why would I want to $3000 on a RX1? Look at the distortion from the RX1 in this sample (I am sure this will be fixed internally by new camera firmware, but gives you some idea about the lens design): http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/10/10/quick-unscientific-high-iso-comparison-canon-5d-mk-ii-sony-a99-and-sony-rx-1/

i'm gonna have to strongly disagree about the rollei 35/1.4 and 5D not being that much bigger. i have the c/y version of that lens and it is almost as big as the RX1 without a camera attached to it (amd the 5D is huge without the lens). the size and portability difference is night and day. i also think from the samples that the new lens has a nicer look than the ZE or ZM 35/2, though it lacks the magic of the c/y 35/1.4. i'm sure the new lens will be a better landscape lens than the f/1.4 though. distortion looks to be between 1 and 2 percent which doesn't bother me at all while detail, contrast, control of CA, and dof fall off look very good to me. we'll have to wait till the camera is in more competent hands for a longer time (and we have access to raws) before any real conclusions are drawn.

Oct 12, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

Yeah, it's DIRT CHEAP. What camera should I get instead if I want a small one with a fast 35 mm lens? An M9 with a 35/2 costs at least twice as much and is twice the weight.

Oct 12, 2012 at 11:56 PM

itai195
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

I think my negative perception of the RX1's price is mainly formed by the fact that the EVF must be purchased separately and at a fairly exorbitant price. If it was bundled, or at least the same price as other add-on EVFs from Sony, it'd seem much less objectionable.

Oct 13, 2012 at 12:08 AM

pdmphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.62 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

Taylor Sherman wrote:
Your 5DII isn't "that much bigger/heavier" than an RX1

Not for my uses. I'm including the addition of the EVF on the RX1, and the stop faster lens on the 5DII. Hoe much bigger heavier wouldit be with a 35/1.4 lens

Also, the Rollei/Zeiss 35/1.4 (whuch I have) is smaller and almost half the weight of the newer Zeiss Zx 35/1.4 beast.

Oct 13, 2012 at 01:06 AM

michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

wolfloid wrote:
Yes, good point. but I wonder what the real advantages would be for the RX1 over an effectively upgraded Fuji X100, which Fuji could quite easily do if they concentrated and got their act together.

[snip laundry list of worthwhile improvements]

That was a great list. I have a hard time believing Fujifilm will pour that much energy into a revised X100 myself, but maybe I've missed a roadmap announcement from them?

Your question as to what advantage the RX1 would have is definitely the key question to ask though. Aside from the advantages you noted - sensor related advantages in one hand, physics related (DOF) on the other, handling might be a differentiator for some, but ultimately it would probably come down to the lenses and how they render on each camera.

Since an upgraded X100 doesn't exist at present there's nothing to compare at present, unfortunately.

For me, the price for such a camera without an elegant VF solution is just too much.

Understood, completely. The external EVF isn't my preference either but neither is the omission of an integrated EVF a deal killer for me.

Oct 13, 2012 at 01:21 AM

aleksanderpolo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.62 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

RX1: 480g
EVF:

less than 100g?

5DII: 811g
C/Y 35/1.4 600g about the same weight as Rollei

so almost 3 times as heavy, you gain one stop of light, but then the new sensor is better. They are about the same price.

Oct 13, 2012 at 01:23 AM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

pdmphoto wrote:
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Your 5DII isn't "that much bigger/heavier" than an RX1

Not for my uses. I'm including the addition of the EVF on the RX1, and the stop faster lens on the 5DII. Hoe much bigger heavier wouldit be with a 35/1.4 lens

Also, the Rollei/Zeiss 35/1.4 (whuch I have) is smaller and almost half the weight of the newer Zeiss Zx 35/1.4 beast.

Surely you're joking. The 5Dii is MUCH larger and heavier than the RX1, even with a little 50/1.8 on it. See here: link and here: link 2

Oct 13, 2012 at 01:25 AM

michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

Bijltje wrote:
But when I say for the same money as the RX1 u can also get a used M9 I get the reaction the M9's sensor is old school with bad high iso and not up to the RX1 sensor.

It was you that called a two-year-in-the-future RX1 lens/sensor "old school".

What I did was point out the inconsistency of your argument - I'm definitely not agreeing with you on your point.

To make it clear: I don't believe the M9 three years after its introduction is unusable today, and I certainly don't believe the sensor/lens combo in the RX1 sensor/lens will be unusable two, three or four years from now. Provided either camera meets needs and continues to function, who cares what age the components are?

Many Leica owners consider their digital M cameras as lasting investments that will meet their photographic imaging needs for many years, not two years. Why should a high end Nikon or Sony or Canon product be viewed any differently?

Oct 13, 2012 at 01:51 AM

michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

douglasf13 wrote:
Surely you're joking. The 5Dii is MUCH larger and heavier than the RX1, even with a little 50/1.8 on it. See here: link and here: link 2

The Canon could eat at least two RX1's and still have room for dessert.

I like the X100 as a carry-everywhere size. The RX1 is smaller than that except along the lens axis and then only by a little bit. The tiny NEX-6 with ZA24 mated to it even look large in comparison to the RX1.

Just as a reminder in case any currently viewing this thread missed this great overlay found back a number of pages:

The new camera of around Photokina2012 6/6-RX1 Outline(Top) by foxfoto_archives, on Flickr

Yup, they could have snuck an EVF in there without making it big. C'est la vie.

Oct 13, 2012 at 01:55 AM

michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

I missed this earlier, or Huff later linked the following into this posting:

I know many who shoot with a Leica M9 and 35 Summicron. Just from the little I have seen I have no doubt that this RX1 can exceed the Leica M9 and 35 cron in quality, low light and even detail once I can process RAW files. The quality is there and it even hadles B&W conversions amazingly well.

Scroll down the link just a little to to find comparisons between the RX1 and Monochrome 35/1.4, both shot at f/2.8 same subject.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/12/sony-week-wrap-up-and-more-thoughts-on-the-sony-rx1

Oct 13, 2012 at 02:35 PM

rirakuma
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

This is an impressive little camera with a hefty price tag. Say you have the money to buy it and you did how long will you keep it for? This camera isn't marketed for the average Joe, its for people who have the money to buy it and enjoy it without worrying about its value in the future. Camera development have been extremely impressive lately, the next generation of NEX cameras might be even better than the RX1.

Oct 13, 2012 at 03:06 PM

michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

If it were an interchangeable lens camera, with the same price: $2,800 - I bet there'd be almost zero comments about hefty price tag. Or maybe it'd have to be priced at the same as say a D600 and we'd all chalk up price equivalence even though there isn't feature equivalence as part of the cost of miniaturization.

It's a $1,100 Zeiss lens with a digital back permanently attached for another $1,800. It costs less than a Leica Summicron 35/2.0.

Ok, it is $77 a month amortized over 36 months. Over five years, that's $46 a month.

Rather than think of it that way, I'd be willing to bet that it doesn't depreciate more than 25% during the first 12 - 18 months. If Sony doesn't release another model which competes for the same buyers, and nor does any other maker, it'll do better of course.

Factoring depreciation alone that's 700 dollars divided by 12 or 18 is 58 or 38 dollars respectively per month. If it gets close to a dollar a day I'm good.

Over 36 or 48 months would you think the camera will still be worth a grand? It seems possible to me.

Oct 13, 2012 at 07:30 PM

rirakuma
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.62 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)

I have a feeling the camera will depreciate as soon as you take it out of the box due to the lack of demand. Its going to be a fantastic camera for sure but its unlikely that it can compete the cameras coming out in 5 years time. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying its a bad camera, I just have a strong feeling that it will lose value very quick mostly due to the high price and the lens being fixed. Kinda reminds me of the D3X, great camera and very expensive for many but for those who use it professionally its a worthy purchase.

Oct 14, 2012 at 12:00 AM

1 2 3 … 61 62 63 … 138 139 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 61 62 63 … 138 139 end