Nothing is perfect. I think one would be a happier person if one spent time and energy about what is good rather than what could have been slightly better. I'm sure the RX1 will help produce awesome photography in the hands of a good photographer.

Emacs wrote:
So, the camera has dumbiest user interface.
What about image quality? Well, the sensor is excellent: I love smooth transitions, nice tones at base ISO, low noise levels at high ISOs, it's really great.
Second, lens resolution in the center and its rendition is really great as well IMO. But distortion is noticeable and more pronounced than one of Fuji X100, which is far from perfect.
And resolution at borders doesn't look good even at f5.6.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonyelectronics/8028159648/sizes/o/in/set-72157631631658271/
It's smeary. I don't know what part is guilty for that: lens, or sensor, or both, but for these money (in Europe it costs twice more than Leica X2) they could do much better.

i agree a lot about the interface, though i don't care about autofocus (would be nice if it has a good face detection algorithm though...). the lack of flip up lcd is my biggest complaint from what i've seen so far. the comparison to the leica x2 is kind of silly since that has an f/4 equivalent lens. the sonnar on this seems to have zeiss's typical U field curvature where the corners are focused further than the center. near infinity image quality doesn't seem to be degraded enough in the corners for me to care from the full sized samples i've seen (though it does look like autofocus can't be trusted at infinity).

Face detect and smile shutter are in the rx1 too

onpaws wrote:
Face detect and smile shutter are in the rx1 too

don't care about smile shutter. the question about face detect is whether it works well enough to be useful at f/2. can it, for example, pick out the nearer eye to focus on? is it decently quick?

sebboh wrote:
the lack of flip up lcd is my biggest complaint from what i've seen so far.

that's why I decided not to get it. I love everything about the camera,
but this thing makes it so much less interesting and as I'm so used to using the tilting lcd now,
I would be really not comfortable not using it... The tiling evf is great on a very sunny day,
but most of the time I'm used to focus with a tilting lcd...

Wow that is a tall order to expect the camera to figure out the closer eye and be focusing to that. Don't know but sounds hard. No other full frame competing slr has face detect and the x100/xpro1 only has face detect on playback. This one has face detect and face registration (register your family's faces for priority face recognition).

This thread makes me really wonder how Ansel Adams got a shot off without perfect corner sharpness, an articulating LCD, and face detect.

By the way, according to the dofmaster.com DOF calculator, 35mm at f2 has a depth of field of about 6 inches with a subject distance of 4 feet. Unless your subject is actually not facing you and/or has eyes significantly more than 6 inches apart.

I don't think it'll be a considerable issue for this camera given that you can still be in spot focus select to remedy such rare cases. This is a 35mm f2, not a 85mm f1.2L or 200mm f2vr.

Asw02, keep on takings hose great photos. I am not sure how others would be fully satisfied but I am still looking forward to having the RX1 as a worthy complement to my d3+35mm1.4. Those high ISO nightshots are highly competitive with the output from my current setup (dare I say potentially even better with some RAW tweaking)

onpaws wrote:
Wow that is a tall order to expect the camera to figure out the closer eye and be focusing to that. Don't know but sounds hard. No other full frame competing slr has face detect and the x100/xpro1 only has face detect on playback. This one has face detect and face registration (register your family's faces for priority face recognition).

i just said it would be nice, not that it needs it. i've heard other mirrorless cameras can do that, but i've never experienced it as a manual focus only guy. from an computer vision perspective it shouldn't be too hard but i don't know what kind of processing power cameras have to devote to that.

onpaws wrote:
By the way, according to the dofmaster.com DOF calculator, 35mm at f2 has a depth of field of about 6 inches with a subject distance of 4 feet. Unless your subject is actually not facing you and/or has eyes significantly more than 6 inches apart.

I don't think it'll be a considerable issue for this camera given that you can still be in spot focus select to remedy such rare cases. This is a 35mm f2, not a 85mm f1.2L or 200mm f2vr.

sounds to me like you haven't taken many portraits at 35/2. dofmaster.com just gives you the distance things look kinda in focus, maybe for some that's ok for landscape (but i find it useless for that as well). at 35/2 shooting the subject from the waist up turned ~30 degrees away the camera having the wrong eye in focus is blatently obvious in a 4 x 6 print. with an 85/1.2 or 200/2 you have to worry about the eyelash being in focus rather than the eye (or vice versa depending on taste).

also, i won't be using any spot autofocus because i have never found one that comes close to manual focus. if face detect doesn't work as i'd like i'll manual focus just like always. i just thought it would be nice feature for shooting without really looking at the screen.

navyasw02 wrote:
This thread makes me really wonder how Ansel Adams got a shot off without perfect corner sharpness, an articulating LCD, and face detect.

Most of his subjects didn't move?

michaelwatkins wrote:
navyasw02 wrote:
This thread makes me really wonder how Ansel Adams got a shot off without perfect corner sharpness, an articulating LCD, and face detect.

Most of his subjects didn't move?



if i was just interested in taking ansel adams types shots i wouldn't be interested in this type of camera. also, for what it's worth, AA's camera had a few of options the rx1 one doesn't. as always, it pays to pick a camera for the job you want it to do.

navyasw02 wrote:
This thread makes me really wonder how Ansel Adams got a shot off without perfect corner sharpness, an articulating LCD, and face detect.

He didn't know what he was missing? Once you know, you simply ... know

Maybe that's my issue as well, my other cameras don't have these features so they're not missed

wayne seltzer wrote:
This is the specific image I was talking about earlier. It is at f2.8 on a planar subject and it looks excellent across the frame includinfg corners. A RAW file with good sharpening for web should look only better.

wayne seltzer wrote:
wayne seltzer wrote:
This is the specific image I was talking about earlier. It is at f2.8 on a planar subject and it looks excellent across the frame includinfg corners. A RAW file with good sharpening for web should look only better.

Derek, here is the link to the page where you can access original/full size:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/shunsuke_onji/8190070353/sizes/l/in/set-72157632017415536/

This image doesn't have FC at this distance at f2.8.

Looking at the camera build itself, and some images I've seen (that aren't bad test images), I would love to have this camera....but I do still think the price is way up there considering it's fixed lens. I'm wondering what this will go for in a year or two. My guess is WAY less. Like under $1K used.

I don't think it'll go below $1000 in a year. Maybe around $1900. The X100 has been pretty good at keeping value for a fixed lens camera.

Jman13 wrote:
I'm wondering what this will go for in a year or two. My guess is WAY less. Like under $1K used.

Really? That seems like an overly pessimistic (or optimistic if you are in the market for a used one) guess.

In my area the cheapest used X100 is currently listed on Craigslist for $770 with a hood and leather case. That is a big drop off the original retail price here - 40 - 45% depending on where one bought it. New they are still selling at the main line photo shops for $1,200 in Canada, not that I'd pay that much now for one given other avenues for purchase.

There are a ton of APS-C compacts to choose from - that and the age of the X100 must contribute to the prices on the used market.

As there is currently only one camera like the RX1, shouldn't that uniqueness help it hold on to value a little longer?