I have to agree with Steve's review. This thing is amazing. I went back and compared photos from my Olympus PEN to this and the RX1 absolutely puts it to shame. Also my 5D is no match for this either. The only way I'll get rid of this camera is if Sony came out with an interchangeable lens version. I'd sell this camera and every other piece of photo gear I own to switch.

For those who might have missed the info, Sony said that an E-mount camera with a FF sensor is in fact doable, and they are thinking about it. But the issue is not the camera, it is the lenses. While I agree that such a camera would be desirable, I add a significant qualification. It would be desirable only if it can be used with a variety of lenses, not only with Sony and/or Sony/Zeiss lenses, because mating to such a system requires especially tweaked lenses. With that in mind, I am not holding my breath, and will get my RX-1 without prejudice over what might or might not happen later. It will have to offer significantly better IQ than my NEX 7 and Leica Elmar 24, though (and not just more speed, or AF), and that is not a given IMHO.

carsten, perhaps few serious photographers would regard a modern Sony 24Mp sensor, the latest CZ 35/2 lens and state of the art video all in a tiny 482 gram package as 'a curiosity'. It also weighs within 50 grams of the Leica 35/1.4 R (before one adds a giant body to it).

The sensor is very good, and CZ were designing with a known target and a large per unit budget, rather than the mass market compromised fixed lenses so depressingly omnipresent in small cameras.

philber, the Sony person interviewed about this possibility stated they 'were looking at it', but really Sony is looking at just about everything at the moment, and the comment was quite hypothetical in nature. Witness their problems getting Zeiss to produce E mount lenses, it's been a long winded affair, still far from complete, and met with huge disappointment.

And they have to lose several of the charms of the RX1, and also need to have different FL lenses produced with both heavily constrained size/weight criteria (some even think the RX1 too large) and add a mount and decide registration distance. It's a tall order. And people will want to both get DLSR level AF in native lenses and also stick their Leica M lenses on it, so why do it, as it will cannibalise the NEX series market?

Just as likely is an integrated EVF model, the only real complaint most reviewers have had thus far. And perhaps 1-2 more such cameras with different FLs, with maybe the bigger (D800) sensor. Such a sensor would add neither weight nor size.

philip_pj wrote:
philber, the Sony person interviewed about this possibility stated they 'were looking at it', but really Sony is looking at just about everything at the moment, and the comment was quite hypothetical in nature. Witness their problems getting Zeiss to produce E mount lenses, it's been a long winded affair, still far from complete, and met with huge disappointment.


Frankly, Philip, I don't know what to make of the Zeiss announcement that they will sell 3 "pure Zeiss", as opposed to Sony-Zeiss AF lenses in native E-mount. oies it means that Sony recognize the high-end potential of the NEX system, and trust that they couldn't do as good a job as Zeiss supplying high-end lenses for it (unlikely IMHO)? Or is it a sign that Zeiss are no longer as constrained in what they can sell on Sony bodies (more likely, methinks)?

philip_pj wrote:
carsten, perhaps few serious photographers would regard a modern Sony 24Mp sensor, the latest CZ 35/2 lens and state of the art video all in a tiny 482 gram package as 'a curiosity'. It also weighs within 50 grams of the Leica 35/1.4 R (before one adds a giant body to it).


the camera and lens would fit inside the R lux too if i'm not mistaken.

philip_pj wrote:
carsten, perhaps few serious photographers would regard a modern Sony 24Mp sensor, the latest CZ 35/2 lens and state of the art video all in a tiny 482 gram package as 'a curiosity'. It also weighs within 50 grams of the Leica 35/1.4 R (before one adds a giant body to it).

If you leave the price out, you are probably right, but to me this camera is interesting in the same way a Phase One IQ180 is interesting. If I really wanted to have one enough to make compromises, I could, but I don't. Okay, the Phase is a lot more expensive, but it is the same sort of emotions aroused in me. I own a D800 with a modern Sony 36MP sensor, the Leica and ZF.2 35/1.4 lenses, and state of the art video, all in a package which is small enough that I carry it nearly every day. The 482g is not a selling point for me, really.

Witness their problems getting Zeiss to produce E mount lenses, it's been a long winded affair, still far from complete, and met with huge disappointment.

Do we know they have been trying? Recent comments on Sony engineer's feeling that the Sony G lenses were better than the ZA lenses would rather indicate the opposite, that the Zeiss lenses are only made as a marketing tool, bait and switch. Get people into the system with the promise of a Zeiss lens, then hook them with the G lenses.

carstenw wrote:
I own a D800 with a modern Sony 36MP sensor, the Leica and ZF.2 35/1.4 lenses, and state of the art video, all in a package which is small enough that I carry it nearly every day.
If it's a pleasure for you then nothing to argue.

Right. I should make one note: simplicity I do find very attractive, and if this camera had pure and simple operation like an M9, it would be a lot more interesting to me. However, Sony is not about simplicity (other than the fixed lens), and haven't been for decades now, and I know that I would get a camera with many buttons and a menu system with several hundred items, so at this point I lose interest again. If the price were lower (below 2000 Euro), I might try one, once they start appearing used.

carstenw wrote:
However, Sony is not about simplicity (other than the fixed lens), and haven't been for decades now, and I know that I would get a camera with many buttons and a menu system with several hundred items, so at this point I lose interest again.
It's about Sony cameras generally or specifically about this?
I haven't found any unnecessary complexity in RX1.

tulaev wrote:
carstenw wrote:
However, Sony is not about simplicity (other than the fixed lens), and haven't been for decades now, and I know that I would get a camera with many buttons and a menu system with several hundred items, so at this point I lose interest again.
It's about Sony cameras generally or specifically about this?
I haven't found any unnecessary complexity in RX1.


it's got a shutter button, focus ring, an aperture ring, a shutter speed dial, and and an iso dial. anything else you do with the camera is complexity introduced by you not by sony.

To be honest, I have never really understood the mindset of people who think that treating a camera as if it is simple is as good as having a simple camera. It is like trying to have a Bauhaus experience in a chateau full of Rococo furniture. Not the same.

I am not sure I agree with your statement, Carsten. After all, what is the difference between going out with a fixed-lens prime camera, or with an interchangeable-lens camera where you only mount the same prime all the time? One is simpler than the other, yet the result is the same.

You don't need many settings? Set up once and don't touch more. What's the problem?

philber wrote:
I am not sure I agree with your statement, Carsten. After all, what is the difference between going out with a fixed-lens prime camera, or with an interchangeable-lens camera where you only mount the same prime all the time? One is simpler than the other, yet the result is the same.

For example, today I am carrying the ZF.2 35/1.4 and 85/1.4. I will probably only use the 35, but I might use the 85. I am not sure that answers your question though.

In essence, I don't value small that much. I am not a huge and strong guy, but carrying a 1.5 kg load (camera with lens) is the least of my worries. If the camera was cheaper, I could justify it in my mind as being for a single purpose, although the wealth of buttons and menu items contradicts this, but at this price, it just makes more sense to me to choose between my D800 and E-PL3 (soon to be E-PL5), depending on the situation. In fact, I find small cameras annoying to operate, often, The E-PL3 is okay, because it has relatively few buttons, and the Olympus menu system is very good at being set up once and forgotten. The other thing is that every time I switch from one camera to another, I am working against being completely fluid with one. Something always carries over from one camera to the other in the mind. Adding an RX1 would give me a third system, but it would not enable me to ditch either of my existing systems, just adding to the disconnect.

carstenw wrote:
To be honest, I have never really understood the mindset of people who think that treating a camera as if it is simple is as good as having a simple camera. It is like trying to have a Bauhaus experience in a chateau full of Rococo furniture. Not the same.

disagree, i've used genuinely simple cameras that were terribly designed for simple use and complex cameras that were excellently designed for simple use. for me, the options you don't use aren't important, it's how well implemented the options you do use are.

tulaev wrote:
You don't need many settings? Set up once and don't touch more. What's the problem?

If you don't see the difference between a camera with few buttons and settings and one with many buttons and settings which you set up once, then I cannot explain it to you. But there is a difference. Not to you, but to me.

sebboh wrote:
carstenw wrote:
To be honest, I have never really understood the mindset of people who think that treating a camera as if it is simple is as good as having a simple camera. It is like trying to have a Bauhaus experience in a chateau full of Rococo furniture. Not the same.

disagree, i've used genuinely simple cameras that were terribly designed for simple use and complex cameras that were excellently designed for simple use. for me, the options you don't use aren't important, it's how well implemented the options you do use are.

I am of course hoping for a simple camera which is well designed...

carstenw wrote:
sebboh wrote:
carstenw wrote:
To be honest, I have never really understood the mindset of people who think that treating a camera as if it is simple is as good as having a simple camera. It is like trying to have a Bauhaus experience in a chateau full of Rococo furniture. Not the same.

disagree, i've used genuinely simple cameras that were terribly designed for simple use and complex cameras that were excellently designed for simple use. for me, the options you don't use aren't important, it's how well implemented the options you do use are.

I am of course hoping for a simple camera which is well designed...

and i would like to ride a unicorn to work for my daily commute...

davewolfs wrote:
Realistically there isn't much wrong with this camera other than cost.

I respectfully disagree. Really good AF and really good EVF/OVF are a must for me. AS would also be nice.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

philber, Sony seem to realise that Zeiss on NEX is a big drawcard especially given they owe the system's popularity to alt lenses in large part. Note that CZ also 'own' the three new lenses, but you find very little if anything on the ZA lenses on the CZ website.

And if as good as the 24/1.8 then they will surely satisfy. Look, it might be that Sony is feeling overwhelmed by lens demand at present, they are still playing catchup with the rivals who have decades head start in 135 on them. They have users on their back in the 35mm FF sphere, the APS-C market, NEX and now people want a RX1 ILC...with nice CZ optics of course.

I am very glad to have gone with Contax, Sony are also fooling around rebadging the 28-75/2.8 and need to redo the main portrait lenses - 135/1.8 and 85/1.4 to make them suitable for video, whereas the MF ranges of ZE/F are there already and always have been excellent, all of them are strong.

Maybe the RX1 and new NEX CZ lenses got them back believing CZ is a good bet for them, and they can back off the 'we can do better than Zeiss' meme. They look exposed for releasing a D800 competitor in my view, lens wise. Anyone buying that type of camera wants a good solid selection, and won't be prepared to futz with manual focus like many of us here.

I get your view on Sony carsten, but really once you know their approach you can ignore the non-essentials and set them up quickly. Nothing gets in the way pretty much. But you have already copped some flack, I see, lol.

I almost wrote that the AF complaints about the RX1 look weak when you consider it is aimed at the Leica enthusiast audience and that lens looks very user friendly for manual focus, deliberately...but Sony are in a rock and hard place scenario and end up trying to please everyone...I tend to give them marks for that kind of market responsiveness. I feel you will be surprised at the RX1, when was the last poor CZ lens, even the RX100 delivers..