The first link for the instruction manual currently fails with a 404 error - file not found. The other links for the EXE or ZIP versions of the "i-Manual" work - these contain the User Guide which is far more interesting than the instruction manual was.
p.85 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
michaelwatkins wrote:
I don't believe he was speaking to the RX1 - He is talking about the A99 DSLR (or DSLT if you prefer) compared to the D600 or maybe D800.
That is what I meant too. As soon as you want to list the ways the A99 improves on regular DSLRs, you start talking of the EVF and how revolutionary it is, and already you have moved to a different class. EVF and OVF DSLRs are not interchangeable for everyone. I wouldn't like EVFs to replace OVFs, for one, and am happy that both exist.
p.85 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Carsten: Point noted and understood if not agreed with fully.
Personally I do not believe the photography world needs to adopt a rigorous biological-style classification system in order to communicate effectively, but that seems to be where we are headed, if this thread is any indication. I'm not sure that's a positive development!
Instead I'll continue to be a fan of duck-typing: "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck."
p.85 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Why any serious photographer would care whether his camera is classified as point and shoot or CSC or DSLR is beyond me. That's strictly the realm of people more concerned with perceptions than producing. And most serious photographers don't fall into that category. People on web forums however...
I love seeing all the folks who baby their gear and get stuck on tiny details-- and then bumping into people at the height of their careers and abilities who are actively engaged in the photography business... with their banged up, last gen (or older), taped over, dented stuff.
Good stuff. Arguing about size is one thing, but classification?
p.85 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Makten wrote:
Today I handled the RX1 at a photo fair here in Sweden. I was surprised by how silly small it actually is in your hand and how small even the lens is. In fact, the RX1 was so small and negligible that most people didn't even see it! That's a feature that I desire very much.
I can't say much about performance, except that the AF wasn't fast at all. But it seemed very accurate and the speed could very well depend on the firmware. The menues were just as awful as in the A99, that I also tried and that has a very nice EVF indeed. So if the hotshoe EVF for the RX1 is the same, I think no one will be disappointed with it.
Build quality was very nice and better than I expected. The lens barrel is all metal and buttons and dials were sturdy and with a tactile feel to them. The balance between weight and "quality feel" was perfect. Light, but small and solid.
Point and shoot? No way. Anyone buying such a camera will know how to use it, because the looks of it is really unappealing (butt ugly in my opinion) and can't be used for bragging, unlike an M9. And no one in their right mind will buy such a niche camera for "pointing and shooting" at that price. No, this is a tool and I think I like it more now when I've held it....Show more →
p.85 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
navyasw02 wrote:
Lots of people care. Half the reason people in this thread are poo-pooing the camera sight unseen because it says Sony on it. If it said Canon or Nikon, half of the naysayers would be raving about how great a value is at $2800 and making outlandish claims that it inverses the rule of thirds to the rule of 3. The other half are poo pooing it because it's in the P&S category. Sony should have marketed it as an Alpha since they're already disadvantaged by brand name alone.
PS - I've gone back several times to play with the A99, it runs circles around the Canon/Nikon offerings in the same class. If I wasn't so heavily invested in Canon glass and was in the market for a camera, this is what I'd get. Sony has their stuff straight, Canon and Nikon are selling revised iterations of the same old thing instead of being innovative....Show more →
p.85 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
OK, people. To my great surpise, when I walked in to my favorite camera shop today, what did I find? He had received one of the first 10 to hit the sheves of French retail barely 30 mn before. He let me play with it only long enough for me to get 5 lousy shots, and I wrote it up
I am hoping to do more tomorrow, including a comparison with my NEX 7 with Leica Elmar 24mm.DearSusan's RX-1 review
p.85 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
onpaws wrote:
Amazon USA has shipped my rx1 order, excited!
Congrats! Hope amazon sends my RX1 soon then too.
Phillipe, hope it is still there in the shop tomorrow.
Mr Huff posted some comparison with 35 lux on M9.
From what I have seen from Huff and Navy's shots are the 3-d , great contrast wide open and smooth bokeh with slow transition. The cat's eye bokeh circles for lights is a weakness but I know from Suede's posts that this is a function of entrance and exit pupil size/ratio and distance from last element to sensor which are pretty tight for this small camera with lens embedded into the camera.
Pls post images in RX1 image thread when you post, thanks!
p.85 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
philber wrote:
OK, people. To my great surpise, when I walked in to my favorite camera shop today, what did I find? He had received one of the first 10 to hit the sheves of French retail barely 30 mn before. He let me play with it only long enough for me to get 5 lousy shots, and I wrote it up
I am hoping to do more tomorrow, including a comparison with my NEX 7 with Leica Elmar 24mm.DearSusan's RX-1 review
p.85 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
philber wrote:
Wayne, your wish is my command! Second instalment of the RX1 review.
Thanks Philippe!
Glad you got to shoot with it some more. Huff`s high ISO street B&W shots are amazing and seem as good as my D800E. Did you shoot with the distortion correction enabled? Supposedly default is not enabled.
You are exercising great constraint in not buying it on the spot after shooting with it.
10 min is way too short.
p.85 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Yes, distortion correction was enabled, I think. The dealer, whom I am on very good terms with, got one of the first batch of 10, and he called in many customers who had expressed interest. So he was grateful that I didn't take it immediately away, so he could continue to show it and book some orders.
But I need to see some RAWs before I can make up my mind, because the JPEGs are so overcooked as to make the shots useless. Am I the only one to feel this way so far?
p.85 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
What do you mean, Carsten? The JPEG was so overcooked I neede to seriously boost saturation and vibrance to bring the NEX RAW anywhere close. But I thought I should show the NEX SOOC as well as a yardstick. Which is why the last shot of the flower series looks so dull. Which is after all not so strange in December, when they are way past their prime... Is something wrong?
p.85 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Ah, I understood that the SOOC was first, and then the cooked version. I guess I read it wrong then.
About the colours, I guess it is hard to tell on a subject which you have not seen in person. It looks a little strong, but isn't there a neutral profile of some kind?
That's a feature that I desire very much.