edwardkaraa wrote:
I am sure the price is much lower than 3000$.

At launch: X100 was £1000/$1200 . Leica X1 was £1300/$2000. Leica X2 was is essentially the same - dpreview says "$1995".

Surely these are the cameras it's competing against?

Sony being Sony, I'd expect it to be around the $2000 mark.

ricardovaste wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote:
I am sure the price is much lower than 3000$.

At launch: X100 was £1000/$1200 . Leica X1 was £1300/$2000. Leica X2 was is essentially the same - dpreview says "$1995".

Surely these are the cameras it's competing against?

Sony being Sony, I'd expect it to be around the $2000 mark.

That is my estimate too. Let's say 1800$

holy crap

douglasf13 wrote:
benee wrote:
love the concept. But... the lens looks awfully big compared to the body. i want w mirrorless for compact and light... this isnt it.

Keep in mind that this new Sony body looks to maybe be even smaller than the RX100. It is a very small camera body, so the lens looks larger than it is.


If we judge the hotshoe to be standard size, I'd have to guess the body would be 4-5" inches long.

Even if it was RX100 sized, at about 4" long though, the depth with the lens is still going to be about 2.5"

Just no way of carrying something in a pocket that is that deep without looking like your very happy to see someone lol

If it therefore needs to be carrying in a small shoulder bag or something, I think I'd rather have more versatility in that bag than a single focal length. XE-1 for example with the 21mm and 50mm equiv's would open up a lot more shooting potential for me, not to mention costing less as a system than this, assuming the price est is correct, and you'd also have a high rez EVF on the XE1

Likewise, if I was willing to carry a bit too large for a pocket type compact around, I think my money would be leaning towards a Sigma DP1m or 2 for just $1000

Again, that would be a camera I wouldn't use that often, but $1000 sure beats $3000 for a fixed lens thats going to sit my desk 9 days out of 10. At least the Sigma would give a bit of a unqiue look with its X3 sensor.

Really what is ironic about all of it when I think about it is that I've got a 35mm f2.0 and 35mm f1.4 for my FF Nikon already.

If I really had a desire to walk out the door and go walk down the street snapping away at 35mm focal length I have, and have had that ability for years now, yet I just don't do it.

Perhaps its a bit more than nothing but a silly case of GAS to even think that "oh, if I went and bought a $3000 35mm fixed lens compact I'd use it all the time"

I can't even remember last time I mounted those lenses onto my D3s

What an interesting development. I guess I partially worry about dust inside the mechansam. Because in the Canon G-series cameras I owned, which are also fixed lenses, after a few months some small dust particles would settle onto the sensor and it's impossible to clean as the cameras are fixed-lens, sealed bodies. You know how it is, when you take flash photographs and all this crap shows up in the image...

----

There is one comment on that web page that I find "interesting":
(name redacted, for reasons of politeness)

I think Sony is trying to Compete with Big Co’s Like Leica...

Which titan of the imaging industry are we talking about here? Tiny Sony taking on big-time behemoths like Leica? Man, that is a valuable brand name, Leica.
"ROFL"

looks pretty sweet, this would cover 80% of my shooting and is smaller than my NEX-7 (with presumably better IQ). lens is only big compared to the camera body. perfect focal length. shame about focus by wire.

Damn you Sebboh, I couldn't get my clean edit in. Arrrgh, you fast typist you.

sirimiri wrote:
What an interesting development. I guess I partially worry about dust inside the mechansam. Because in the Canon G-series cameras I owned, which are also fixed lenses, after a few months some small dust particles would settle onto the sensor and it's impossible to clean as the cameras are fixed-lens, sealed bodies. You know how it is, when you take flash photographs and all this crap shows up in the image...


i suspect the lack of zoom should reduce the amount of dust sucked in.

sirimiri wrote:
Damn you Sebboh, I couldn't get my clean edit in. Arrrgh, you fast typist you.

such is life

That's an excellent point! On my (correction, G11! They all looked the same) G12, I had veritable blobs...
sebboh wrote:
i suspect the lack of zoom should reduce the amount of dust sucked in.

Well, as the Contax T3 reincarnation as someone mentioned earlier, I think this camera will be very successful, if priced correctly. It has 2 things the competition doesn't, the FF sensor and Carl Zeiss T* lens. If I didn't already have my ZM lenses, and if I was still shooting with a large DSLR, this would have been my ideal everyday companion.

$3000 ?.

kewlcanon wrote:
$3000 ?.

No! ;-)

Sony is sure launching alot of great stuff, but a full frame P&S with a fixed lens? It's much too limiting to warrant a $3000 investment.

I'm sure it's a superb camera, and it'll produce gorgeous pictures, but only at 35mm. If it had exchangable lenses, I'd be first in line to get one. Fixed 35mm? No thanks.

If this has that new 24mp sensor in it, it'll be an amazing lowlight shooter.

Maybe Sony is using this camera to test the markets reaction to see if it's viable to add a FF NEX camera and develop FF E mount lenses.

The lack of any FF E mount lenses would also be another reason why Sony has chosen to go with a FF camera with a fixed lens while they develop new lenses (Look how long it's taking them just to release regular E mount lenses!).

$3000 would be way over priced, especially since Canon and Nikon are rumoured to be announcing budget full framed cameras soon.

briantho wrote:
Sony is sure launching alot of great stuff, but a full frame P&S with a fixed lens? It's much too limiting to warrant a $3000 investment.

I'm sure it's a superb camera, and it'll produce gorgeous pictures, but only at 35mm. If it had exchangable lenses, I'd be first in line to get one. Fixed 35mm? No thanks.

How many M9 users only owns one 35 mm lens and nothing more? Quite many I'd say. I don't see the problem really.

uhoh7 wrote:
ricardovaste wrote:
So just to check, this is what we're calling the "pro nex" camera that the likes of Steve Huff spoke of?


How can it be considered a nex?


Well just to follow up. SAR now say "no NEX PRO camera"... So it seems the two were perhaps mixed up in the rumour mill somehow.


http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/amazing-sony-rx1-mirrorless-leaks-and-so-new-a99-pics/

Makten wrote:
briantho wrote:
Sony is sure launching alot of great stuff, but a full frame P&S with a fixed lens? It's much too limiting to warrant a $3000 investment.

I'm sure it's a superb camera, and it'll produce gorgeous pictures, but only at 35mm. If it had exchangable lenses, I'd be first in line to get one. Fixed 35mm? No thanks.

How many M9 users only owns one 35 mm lens and nothing more? Quite many I'd say. I don't see the problem really.

I have no idea Makten, but me personally, I would be much to limited with a fixed lens. For others it may be the optimal camera.

EOS20 wrote:
Maybe Sony is using this camera to test the markets reaction to see if it's viable to add a FF NEX camera and develop FF E mount lenses.



Then they'll get the wrong message. From the top-down photo I am almost certain it has no VF; something that will keep a lot of prospective FF CSC purchasers away.