I don't think it will be $1000 in a year, but maybe $2000. At that price, I might start to consider it. At $2800 (or 3000 Euro in Europe), I am not interested. Too specialised.

I'm thinking under 1K in two years...and curious about the drop within a year.

Remember - there will be upgrades and such as well, and after that, it'll probably plummet. Well, I hope, anyway.

I does look like a great camera, but the price is pretty out there for a fixed lens cam.

wayne seltzer wrote:
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.

that looks much better than the test chart shots, probably because of the longer focus distance. you can still see a drop off in the very extreme corners (it seems worse in some corners than others) just as you can in the near infinity shots i've seen on flickr, but its nothing i would be concerned about in use. all the longer distance shots i've seen look better than the short distance test chart/scene IR shots (surprise surprise). overall i'm very impressed with what i've seen so far and don't understand the complaints. i'd love to see another $1000 or under 35mm lens that can compete with it at f/2 and f/8 (or even just f/2) because i can't think of any.

Another set. This camera has > 3000 exposures on it, so perhaps a loaner from the pre-production pool.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dai_nagakura/sets/72157632040951744/with/8195304529/

The camera should appear in Europe next week. I have preordered one.

Warning, Enthusiasm Alert - Steve Huff has a production camera now and has published his first update on the camera since the October marketing event put on by Sony. If anything he's more enthusiastic.

michaelwatkins wrote:
... Steve Huff has a production camera now [...] If anything he's more enthusiastic.


When was Steve Puff not enthusiastic about any camera, especially Sony made cameras that get hand delivered to his door because his such a good reviewer [salesman]...

Call me when this body comes in a 20-24mm equiv lens. Looks real nice, but FOV is a deal breaker for me.

timpdx wrote:
Call me when this body comes in a 20-24mm equiv lens. Looks real nice, but FOV is a deal breaker for me.

I feel the same way but in the opposite direction. Would love to see a 50mm f/1.4 on it. I'm guessing they chose 35mm to split the difference.

Steve Huff might be enthusiastic but I think he has every reason to be. Realistically there isn't much wrong with this camera other than cost. If you've got 3k to spend on it, my guess is that you are going to enjoy using it.

davewolfs wrote:
Steve Huff might be enthusiastic but I think he has every reason to be. Realistically there isn't much wrong with this camera other than cost. If you've got 3k to spend on it, my guess is that you are going to enjoy using it.

I pretty much agree. I'd love to have this camera as a complement to my m4/3 kit...that small camera I can use when I need wide depth of field and a FF sensor. However, the cost makes it prohibitive. Makes a lot more sense for me to just buy a Nokton 17.5/0.95... If the price comes down a bit, though, it might tempt me.

I have a D700 that sleeps in a closet right now. I've got some great lenses too, 24mm 1.4 35mm 1.4, 24-70mm 2.8. They sleep a lot too. I'm not a pro, I shoot for fun.

I lugged my 35mm/24mm 1.4's around with me across 10 countries and got some fantastic photos. Did I enjoy carrying them, not really but I'm also a pretty big guy.

I consider the RX1 as a camera that I would probably take everywhere.

What are the options here:

Fuji XE1 - 23mm on it's way. No RAW. Not the greatest focus.
Oly OMD, haven't shot with it, but seems like a great camera. Not the greatest ISO. 35mm equivalent on it's way.

I might just kick the boot and bite the bullet. I don't agree with the cost from a value perspective, if I'm paying $500-$1000 more than what everyone thinks is fair value. I think I'm ok with that for something I would really enjoy. I've done worst before.

Exdsc wrote:
When was Steve Puff not enthusiastic about any camera, especially Sony made cameras that get hand delivered to his door because his such a good reviewer [salesman]...

He's in the enthusiasm business but there's nothing wrong with that per se. His persona in his videos tends to be a little more sedate and often he's a good source for information about newer products.

But I don't agree that he's always pro any camera he gets to look at. For an example, check his reviews and comments on the NEX-7 - you can tell he wanted to like the camera but it didn't really grab him, and since then he has never really warmed to the camera.

Huff, like all of us, definitely has preferences and among small non-Leica compacts, the OM-D appears to win his heart more than most.

davewolfs wrote:
I have a D700 that sleeps in a closet right now. I've got some great lenses too, 24mm 1.4 35mm 1.4, 24-70mm 2.8. They sleep a lot too. I'm not a pro, I shoot for fun.

I lugged my 35mm/24mm 1.4's around with me across 10 countries and got some fantastic photos. Did I enjoy carrying them, not really but I'm also a pretty big guy.

Sounds familiar. I've come to the conclusion that the best camera I want to own has to be the smallest, small enough to come with me everywhere.

I'm strong and fit enough to carry a tripod and 40 pound pack full of medium format gear (did this for years) but I don't really enjoy lugging the stuff around nor the process of stopping, unpacking, setting up, shooting, repacking, and moving on. Yes, I'd sometimes wander with body and a wide angle lens in my hand. Good for arm muscle tone. If I didn't take to the switch to digital, a Mamiya 7 might be the alternative I guess.

My tastes in what and when I like to shoot have changed markedly over the years although I still prefer 28 - 35mm focal lengths on 135 format. What hasn't changed is that I still want to have at my fingertips the potential for very high quality results, but I don't want it to require a backpack or roller case full of equipment.

Instead of upgrading my DSLR to the latest and greatest decided to hop aboard the compact camera train and man am I ever glad I did that. Since then I've also learned that I don't have to replicate every focal length and perspective I have on my other system, so I'm keen on the RX1 (kinda wish Ricoh made it though) and welcome the opportunity to further simplify and rationalize my small gear.

And... I hate to jinx the outcome by thinking this, but the combination of features and sensor and output capabilities in the RX1 look to me like a good stopping place for at least five years or more. Maybe much more. Will buy some spare battery packs and freeze them I guess!

michaelwatkins wrote:
He's in the enthusiasm business but there's nothing wrong with that per se.

Maybe but when he's getting free weekend getaways from Sony along with free wining and dining I have a hard time thinking he can be totally objective. Nothing wrong with that either but he sells himself as a reviewer...

A good example of 'over-enthusiasm' with the RX1 was that NONE of the previewers from the special 'wine and dine' weekend with Sony mentioned the sluggish AF and it was the FIRST thing anyone who bought the camera with their own hard-earned cash mentioned...

Kind of makes me wonder what other things aren't being mentioned you know?

Plenty of wining and dining happens in the consumer electronics industry. Huff writes about all brands and his own personal favourites have not been Sony - he loves the OM-D and his Leica's. Yet Sony brings him out - why? If I had to take a guess I'd say it's because Huff decided to specialize and write about small compacts, is approachable to his readers, puts out a steady stream of content (doesn't matter if it is Sony or not) so they'll get more eyeballs looking at their stuff, even if he isn't always fully complimentary to their products.

Is Huff misleading people about the camera? That's not my impression at all.

Is the AF sluggish? Could be. What are we comparing it to? What Huff wrote about focus back in October is what I've remembered so far:

Its fast enough for just about anything you would shoot with a 35mm. Faster than the Leica X2, faster than any Fuji X series (by quite a bit), faster than the NEX-7..not as quick as the NEX-6 with certain lenses but it is very fast. Not OM-D fast but not Fuji or Leica X slow. I had no problems with focus speed.

Chris Gampat (Phoblographer.com) back at that same event in October wasn't as enamoured with the focus, but everyone has different expectations and tastes depending on where they are coming from. He loved the manual focus and preferred to use that.

Two photographers, two different opinions. No surprise there!

My take away from this first look was that I should expect the RX1 to focus faster and more reliably than the Fujifilm X100, which is a good thing indeed, and be roughly comparable to the NEX-5N, which I'm familiar with. If it does at least that well, I'm a happy camper. More importantly, the manual focus features are solid - an AF compact that has good manual focus support is something I've wanted.

One poster on DPR wrote write about his experience with his new RX1 - he's finding it slower in bad light and low contrast situations, but he's quick to point out that his comparison camera is the m4/3 Oly OM-D which is known for fast focus. I've heard it said that Contrast Detect AF can be slower as the sensor size increases. Maybe there is some truth to that. Presumably whatever processing load exists to calculate focus just gets bigger as the sensor size increases.

At this point there doesn't seem to be enough info out to suggest that the camera is more sluggish than the cameras Huff compared it to (X100, X-Pro 1, NEX-7).

Huff - quick look at AF indoors

Extensive night time auto focus demonstration shot by recent owner of RX1 (
Source)

Based on the worst case situation as depicted in the second video, I don't know that I can bring myself to call the AF sluggish.

So I ask again, is Huff misleading people? Doesn't seem so.

michaelwatkins wrote:
So I ask again, is Huff misleading people? Doesn't seem so.

Since Huff makes money by people buying the products he reviews (directly from the review I might add...) I'm not sure if he doesn't mislead people a little bit.

BTW - I have the RX1 on pre-order and will review it myself once I get it, with no benefit whatsoever to myself.

Yes, Huff makes a token amount of referral fees when people buy cameras or diapers from his Amazon and other affiliate links and he's very open about that. Given that he openly discloses his pecuniary interest, I've no problem whatsoever with him monetizing his efforts nor do I have a problem or care about others who attempt to monetize their reviews of gear. I'm not willing to subscribe to fee for service gear review sites, because I enjoy doing my own research.

Even with all of Huff's enthusiasm, I can't imagine many people would purchase a RX1 without a certain amount of their own due diligence, but maybe some have ample discretionary cash to allow them spend now, ask questions later. These affluent care-free people must be protected from Rock Huffwell!

I like Huff and the enthusiasm he has when writing articles. It's a lot less boring to read than all those technical reviews IMHO.
The camera looks excellent (as I expected), but at 3000 euro I'm not interested.

Exactly. I am very curious about this camera, but 3000 Euro is too much for a curiousity. And I have two of the best 35/1.4 lenses ever made, so I would really not get much from this, other than size.