Made my own soft release. Ten cents and custom height for my long but not big hands.



Looks like I forgot to turn on lens distortion correction , sorry! Could be 28mm distortion otoh. Anyway. Nice because I won't care if it falls out.

Cool

Thanks...spare computer case screw and a dremel to cut the threads and polish. Five mins!

Ah, that is where I have seen that kind of screw before Great idea! Did you consider making it a bit less tall? I imagine that with its current height, it would have quite a bit of torque on the shutter release if pushed sideways.

Yes. I have. But. Otoh from palm to middle finger rip is just under 8 inches, so it's helpful. Ill crank out a smaller version

Dpreview have posted their review:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1

Thanks for the link.
I think they need to define what amount light they mean when they say it has trouble AFing in low light. My copy does well ss long as the subject has areas of different contrast, ie. Like other CDAF cameras it does not do well on all black subjects in the dark.
Also size of subject you are focusing on in dark matters of course..True the AF is slower than normal dslr so it is not the best for moving subjects.
This camera excells at night street shooting and with small unobtrusive size and silent shutter which even leica can not match.

To be fair to the DPR outfit, they do acknowledge the nichiness (TM me) of the RX1.

philip_pj wrote:
To be fair to the DPR outfit, they do acknowledge the nichiness (TM me) of the RX1.
Yeah, but you would have to be a dope not to see the very high IQ of the RX1 with top of line Sony sensor and zeiss lens combo.

I've found the RX1 AF pales in comparison to the OM-D across a broad range of conditions, particularly in low light - and even in the best conditions for CDAF, while the OM-D is almost clairvoyant in it's ability to quickly focus on exactly what I want the subject to be, I often disagree with the AF point selection by the RX1 in multipoint AF mode. Reminds me of my Nex 5n and 7 I used to have. And the OM-D AF is surprisingly good even in many low light situations - though this is VERY lens dependent. The OM-D taught me that while better sensor performance is great when everything comes together, having fantastic AF means a much higher proportion of keepers that compensates for some of it's disadvantages against larger sensors.

As I find RX1 AF too often frustrating, I'm working through my focus workflow and custom settings now. The RX1 is bringing me back to my 5D2 days, with center spot focus and recompose, and using AF-ON to manually trigger AF...

Probably going to go with MF with the 'C' or 'AEL' button on AF/MF Hold.

Loving the IQ, absolutely worth adapting to the camera for many of my personal use cases for a camera.

Some people are driven to value (above all else seemingly) either the fit of a camera in the hand, or the menu buttons; these factors are seen as huge positives/negatives for/against a camera, followed hotly by AF performance.

These are the talking points in many m4/3 user threads, see the present one 'First impressions' where the first four points deal with just these 'major' concerns.

At the other end of the spectrum are people who will tolerate merely very usable haptics to get the right image quality. My point: it is a matter of priority.

Do you favour the endless pleasure of viewing high quality final images or the process of the few seconds of shooting it took to get the images? Like how fast the AF motor worked? Is it that hard to work the lens yourself or take more care or time?

Personally I could never use a small sensor camera if given the chance of something like an RX1, for a host of IQ related reasons: dynamic range, tonal gradation, colour sensitivity, black and white capability.

Here is a link to a site where you can check and do easy assessments of the measurable variables:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/833%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/695%7C0/(brand3)/Fujifilm

Not touched on are the less measurable but very clear advantages the RX1 offers in the way of fabulous bokeh, focus fade, microcontrast, superb noise character, file size, print size enlargability, file manipulation. And versatility in type of usage and subject matter.

A lot of people are not going to see and/or value these things highly, and that is why m43 and similar cameras exist. Best wishes to them.

I'm still amazed by the IQ.
These RAW files are the most amazing I've seen on my computer yet. So flexible, great color and huge dynamic range.
There are quite some things I like better on my Fuji X-E1 (ergonomics, EVF, menu, ability to use timed trigger,...), but the IQ of the RX1 just can't be touched.
It's a pity I don't have any photo opportunities at the moment.

I personally find the ability to sync at up to 1/4000s incredibly valuable for street shooting with flash. F/8, set the focus distance to ~2m, forget it and gun away.

DXO Review of the RX1 lens: Is this the ultimate moderate wide-angle lens?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sony-Cyber-shot-RX1-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-2-35-Is-this-the-ultimate-moderate-wide-angle-lens/Comparison

Thankd Serhan for the link.
Wow sharper than new Sigma 35/1.4.
My portraits have been super sharp with my RX1.

I shelved plans to acquire Leica's very good 35/2 Summicron (~$1000), to be used for groups and close work, when I saw the quality of images here at FM and at getdpi, some of which just take your breath away. Now, because quite a lot people don't either see it themselves or lean heavily on the measure sites' views, a small quote from DxO via the Sony rumour site:

"DxOmark published the RX1 Zeiss lens performance test. And they write: “ Its optical performance is outstanding, and particularly noteworthy for its consistent sharpness and homogenous imaging across the frame. With excellent image quality at maximum aperture becoming outstanding at f/2.8 and on, the Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/35 is likely to become a classic, against which all others are judged. Of course the lens can only be obtained with the purchase of the RX1, a camera that is not entirely without its own quirks and shortcomings. In spite of this, if you have the money to invest, then close to perfect imagery is assured.”

And for all these people that do think the RX1 is too expensive read this: “With a high overall DxOMark score of 33, the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* is a superb performer optically. That score puts it comfortably ahead of the $1,850 manual focus Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/35 (35mm f/1.4) on a Nikon D3X, which achieved a DxOMark score of 30.”

The Shape of the Future:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50916744

2 good reviews from photographers:
http://www.peteradamsphoto.com/?page_id=3641
http://duncandavidson.com/gear/sony/rx1/

"I think that there’s some cognitive dissonance that comes from the fact that it’s a compact camera and the idea that it costs as much as a regular full-frame SLR just doesn’t make sense to some. It’s smaller! And the lens doesn’t come off! Both true. But, it’s just as capable as a Nikon D600 with a Zeiss 35mm f/2 lens—the sum of which adds up to around the same cost and which won’t fit in your jacket pocket nor be nearly as discreet. "

tulaev wrote:
The Shape of the Future:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50916744


Personally, I hope that the shape of the future will have a built-in EVF and a zoom lens. The RX1's concept is great, it just needs a little refinement...

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Zoom?! Unrealistic.