Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/81

1       2       3              81      
82
       83              191       192       end

carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15048
Country: Germany

navyasw02 wrote:
Man this conversation has just gone down a ridiculous rabbit hole. Seriously now you guys are complaining about the simplicity of the camera? What's so hard about it, you set it up and you're done. You can customize every button on the back so you never have to go into the menu again. This camera is so easy mine isn't even in English and I can figure it out. Am I missing something?


Yep.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15048
Country: Germany

philber wrote:
I always feel a bit left out when someone writes : I won't spend 3000$/ on this camera that I otherwise would loooooove, because...... and then quotes something "I don't like the menu structure", or "the button layout and functions don't do it for me", or "it is not simple enough for me".
All this about a camera that (1) is unlike any camera ever produced (very small fixed-lens full-frame digital), and (2) has not been released yet, so this opinion is purely theoretical.

Lest anyone feels targeted directly, my examples are purely ficticious, and any resemblance with actual facts or individuals would be wholly accidental...


Right

But, that said, I don't know a single serious photographer that doesn't wish for, or have, a "smaller kit" to go alongside his "larger kit", unless he has already transferred over to the "small-is-beautiful" crowd.

So Sony decided to offer an envelope-pushing design to this market segment, which, if my limited experience is anything to go by, is large and affluent: people who want to take their camera everywhere, but still want IQ to be "right up there", as opposed to "almost up there".
With such a "different" positioning from anything else in the market, minor features will not matter IMHO. But, hey, that is just me. YMMV


I just realised (after seeing the various cameras seen from the top, posted above) that I find the X100 a lot more compelling. It has a shutter speed ring instead of a drive mode ring, it has a grip, and it has a built-in EVF/OVF hybrid. If the RX1 had those attributes, I would be a lot more interested. If they would tidy up the back a bit too, I might even pre-order one.



Spyro P.
Registered: Mar 24, 2008
Total Posts: 2822
Country: Australia

carstenw wrote:
I just realised (after seeing the various cameras seen from the top, posted above) that I find the X100 a lot more compelling.

yup



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10017
Country: United States

Spyro P. wrote:
carstenw wrote:
I just realised (after seeing the various cameras seen from the top, posted above) that I find the X100 a lot more compelling.

yup


ha, i feel the exact opposite when i look at the back of the x100 compared to the rx1. controls and grip look much better on the rx1. i do like the existence of the evf on the x100 though (the optical finder is a terrible waste of space for me).



Emacs
Registered: Aug 19, 2012
Total Posts: 183
Country: N/A

sebboh wrotethe optical finder is a terrible waste of space for me
+1
Useless gimmick with close to zero functionality



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15048
Country: Germany

sebboh wrote:
Spyro P. wrote:
carstenw wrote:
I just realised (after seeing the various cameras seen from the top, posted above) that I find the X100 a lot more compelling.


yup


ha, i feel the exact opposite when i look at the back of the x100 compared to the rx1. controls and grip look much better on the rx1. i do like the existence of the evf on the x100 though (the optical finder is a terrible waste of space for me).


I meant the top view. The back is messy, given.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10017
Country: United States

carstenw wrote:
sebboh wrote:
Spyro P. wrote:
carstenw wrote:
I just realised (after seeing the various cameras seen from the top, posted above) that I find the X100 a lot more compelling.


yup


ha, i feel the exact opposite when i look at the back of the x100 compared to the rx1. controls and grip look much better on the rx1. i do like the existence of the evf on the x100 though (the optical finder is a terrible waste of space for me).


I meant the top view. The back is messy, given.


i know, i'm just saying the two balance each other out.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15048
Country: Germany

sebboh wrote:
carstenw wrote:
sebboh wrote:
Spyro P. wrote:
carstenw wrote:
I just realised (after seeing the various cameras seen from the top, posted above) that I find the X100 a lot more compelling.


yup


ha, i feel the exact opposite when i look at the back of the x100 compared to the rx1. controls and grip look much better on the rx1. i do like the existence of the evf on the x100 though (the optical finder is a terrible waste of space for me).


I meant the top view. The back is messy, given.


i know, i'm just saying the two balance each other out.


Ah, but I am not trading here, just being a hopeless idealist The top of the X100, the back of the M9, with some minor changes.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5893
Country: United States

The main thing missing from the back of the M9 (and other Ms with A mode) is an exposure lock button for A mode. You have to re-meter and recompose between every shot in single shot drive mode. It doesn't affect me personally so much, since I'm only shooting the camera in Manual, but it would drive me nuts if I was an Aperture mode shooter with this camera. I get that the camera should remain simple, but, if Leica is going to add features by introducing A mode with the M7, they should have also included an exposure lock button.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15048
Country: Germany

Yes, an AE/AF lock button would be good.



michaelwatkins
Registered: Oct 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1688
Country: Canada

carstenw wrote:
I just realised (after seeing the various cameras seen from the top, posted above) that I find the X100 a lot more compelling. It has a shutter speed ring instead of a drive mode ring, it has a grip, and it has a built-in EVF/OVF hybrid.


I'll grant you that a built in finder would make the RX1 more compelling to me too.

But having used the X100 extensively, I do not find it more compelling and I've since sold it. I bought the camera based on the visual promise that in use it would feel much like one of my small film cameras. Although physically it shares some traditional camera traits, the implementation feels somewhat crude and for me, just didn't work well.

While I like a marked shutter speed dial on the top deck too, I like such a thing because traditional controls if done right can make camera operation both simpler and faster. That advantage is lost if a camera actively works against speed of operation and in a number of ways the X100 does do just that.

The X100 has an annoying trait that it would randomly but often enough lock up when certain settings were changed - perhaps not speed but white balance or some other menu accessible function - while still writing to the card. An X100 owner soon learns not to rush things lest the camera lock up, which requires a battery pack removal to "reboot". Perhaps card write speeds have improved to help minimize this issue, although start up times are on the slow side too.

The on-lens aperture ring sits too close to the body for comfortable use - for me, and I have medium sized hands - and the little tabs Fujifilm put on the ring do not ameliorate this design flaw. When reading complaints about Sony's design decision to make the RX1 small, I am reminded of the X100 - had they made the lens just a little deeper they could have made the aperture ring more user friendly for all and dropped the tabs altogether.

As there is no distance and depth of field scale marked on the body of the lens, having manual controls top deck and on the lens doesn't help the shooter that uses zone focus - she/he must still look at the LCD or finder for that. Now you have two places to look rather than one = no efficiency savings, if that's truly important to a Manual-oriented photographer. Advantage lost.

The "OK" button in the control pad is a fiddly affair that is difficult to operate accurately without depressing one of the nearby controls, and feels so cheap, that one can hardly imagine how the component was ever approved on what was then seen as a very high end camera of its class. Fire the person that approved that control.

Autofocus works "OK" but wasn't great. Usable but not really acceptable. Fortunately for X100 owners this has been improved quite a bit in recent firmware. It'd be ok to have sometimes-sucky autofocus if the manual focus implementation worked well, but it didn't and doesn't. First word that comes to mind when manual focussing the X100? Abominable. Focus can be a time-suck with this camera, but I'll allow that maybe the firmware updates have improved it to the point that it wouldn't frustrate me now. Or maybe it still would.

As for the OVF vs EVF vs Hybrid choice, I liked the hybrid nature but used the EVF far more often than not, despite it being quite mediocre, because framing using the OVF is often quite "approximate" despite the camera's attempts at parallax correction of the framelines. Obviously an optical finder has certain advantages, but for my purposes I can get by without those advantages. Others mileage will vary.

Despite various issues, the X100 was ground breaking, looks sweet, and is a fine camera just the same. But nice as it is, for some it will always be in their way. While I loved the camera, I hated it as well, and it had to go. Those that have kept their cameras and love them to death probably won't agree with my conclusion, but I find the promise of the X100 is quite a bit better than the actual execution. Maybe a future X200 will hit all the high notes.



michaelwatkins
Registered: Oct 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1688
Country: Canada

A second instalment of a "shooting report" from Photo Yodobashi, this time with images from Medina.

Vol 2 http://photo.yodobashi.com/gear/sony/cameras/rx1/index2.html | Google Translate

In case you missed the first:

Vol 1 http://photo.yodobashi.com/gear/sony/cameras/rx1/index.html | Google Translate



millsart
Registered: Apr 29, 2009
Total Posts: 4638
Country: N/A

I think the RX1 needs to be thought of as a P&S camera, one that is expensive, can shoot in very low light, and that has some real DoF control.

Trying to make it/think of it as a RF or anything else probably will end up in disappointment.

Fuji X100 etc is much more of a "photographers" camera and for its quirks, feels like using a "real" camera, a tool, you have to get to know and master, in a familiar format

RX1 is familiar too, but for the p&s crowd. I enjoyed my X100, and currently enjoy my RX100, which I use like a p&s snapping vacation snaps, handing off to family members etc.

RX1 I think is going to be more of the same, snapshooter that just so happens to allow some great IQ.

I don't think it will satsify if you want to feel like your using a "real" camera or have to outfit it with a bunch of add on parts

I think if you think of the RX1 just as a camera to set to auto ISO and pull from your jacket pocket and take some snaps anyone would be quite pleased with what it can offer in terms of IQ

For me, the X100 was honestly a bit of love/hate

Sometimes I loved how it felt like shooting the camera I grew up and took some skill to use

Other times darn if I didn't hate missing a shot because I used the oVF and didn't realize where the focus point was, or handing it to a family member to get a shot and ending up with a blurred or OOF shot

Sometimes I'd just like something simple enough for anyone to use, and that can take a nice natural light shot in a restaurant etc.

RX1 should be great at that, only downside really is the price $2800 is a darn expensive P&s camera lol



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4042
Country: Sweden

millsart wrote:
I think the RX1 needs to be thought of as a P&S camera...


Heh, why on earth would one do that? The only thing that keeps me from buying the RX1 instantly is the lack of a tiltable screen. For 90% of my work, which have never been close to "P&S" (rather the opposite), I haven't needed anything more than what the RX1 offers.

This is seriously getting very ridiculous. Why must a camera be able to do "everything" to appeal to serious photographers?

Edit: By the way, I didn't like the X100 and one of the reasons was that it did NOT feel "real". It was a camera that tried to be everything (just like 99% of all other cameras) and therefore was not perfect for anything. Just a mess of functions of which none was good, like the hybrid viewfinder. Why would you want a mediocre OVF and a mediocre EVF, instead of just one of them being really good?



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15048
Country: Germany

michaelwatkins wrote:
carstenw wrote:
I just realised (after seeing the various cameras seen from the top, posted above) that I find the X100 a lot more compelling. It has a shutter speed ring instead of a drive mode ring, it has a grip, and it has a built-in EVF/OVF hybrid.


I'll grant you that a built in finder would make the RX1 more compelling to me too.

But having used the X100 extensively, I do not find it more compelling and I've since sold it.


I have to agree with you here, I didn't mean that the X100 is more compelling than the RX1, quite the opposite. But the top view (including shutter speed ring and grip) are more compelling to me than the same parts of the RX1.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15048
Country: Germany

millsart wrote:
I think the RX1 needs to be thought of as a P&S camera, one that is expensive, can shoot in very low light, and that has some real DoF control.


? Have you handled one yet?



navyasw02
Registered: Mar 09, 2008
Total Posts: 251
Country: Japan

millsart wrote:
I think the RX1 needs to be thought of as a P&S camera, one that is expensive, can shoot in very low light, and that has some real DoF control.



Absolutely incorrect. If this is a P&S then so is a Leica.



navyasw02
Registered: Mar 09, 2008
Total Posts: 251
Country: Japan

Ive seen many comments about a built in EVF and while I think that's a great idea on this camera, accessories is what adds to the profit margin. It is something that's not really needed and is a nice to have add on (sometimes). What would be the best of both worlds is a pop up EVF that someone suggested.



michaelwatkins
Registered: Oct 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1688
Country: Canada

millsart wrote:
I think the RX1 needs to be thought of as a P&S camera


My first reaction is to bounce back: If the RX1 is a point and shoot then so is the GXR/M.

My second thought is... to ask you: Why?

Because it has no built in viewfinder? That's actually incorrect, the camera ships with one built-in finder - the high resolution, use-in-bright sunlight capable, high-tech ground glass called a LCD screen. More accurately put, the RX1 has one finder and two optional finders. Many may not find the rear LCD acceptable as a finder, but it is in fact a finder.

There are tons of finder implementations. I won't bother linking in view cameras with ground glass (a reasonable analogue to the rear LCD finder in such cameras) but how about some other portable small cameras? How is the RX1 with the optional optical viewfinder different than this folding camera?






It has a simple spring loaded piece of glass and metal that pops up, offers inaccurate framing, no focus confirmation, no information whatsoever. The camera has a fixed lens.

Is this Zeiss Ikon viewfinder (and all such manual controlled viewfinder cameras) a point and shoot?


The RX1 has one finder and two optional finder types.
The X100 has three finders - integrated optical and electronic, and the rear live view "ground glass".
The M9 in contrast with no live view capability in contrast has one integrated finder as the rear screen can't be used for focus and composition.






Same question for all integrated viewfinder and rangefinder cameras? The former is an aiming mechanism only - you can do that with the RX1 with no external finder. The latter is an aiming an focusing mechanism and again you can do that with the RX1 with no external finder or with one attached.

Because it is a fixed lens camera? Are any of the following fixed lens cameras "point and shoot" cameras?


I have a few of these, but need to take my own photos of them I see! (Thanks Rockycameras.com for letting me, uh, borrow it)







In my mind this is a point and shoot camera:


Canon PowerShot A1300 - no aperture or shutter priority, no manual settings. Fully automatic point and shoot.

... as is this:







... as is this:







These are not point and shoot cameras

Leica V-Lux 30 - full control over exposure if you want it.

Nor is this:

Leica Minilux - full control over exposure if you want it, tortured process though it may be.

Nor this:
[.img]
Ricoh GXR /M with Summicron 50 mounted

Nor this:

Sony RX1

IMO a point and shoot camera is one designed for fully automatic operation and nothing but.

A flexible camera - call it a serious photographic tool if you want - can often be configured to act like a point and shoot camera, but the reverse is not true.


_julian_
Registered: Aug 21, 2012
Total Posts: 175
Country: N/A

navyasw02 wrote:
millsart wrote:
I think the RX1 needs to be thought of as a P&S camera, one that is expensive, can shoot in very low light, and that has some real DoF control.



Absolutely incorrect. If this is a P&S then so is a Leica.


It's not possible to change the lens. It comes without a viewfinder. And it's marketed under SONY's own Cybershot p&s brand. Saying that it's a P&S and acknowledging the limitations (and benefits) this implies is a reasonable statement. If SONY ever decide to plug the gap with a big sensor NEX then then the RX1's status will become even more clear.



1       2       3              81      
82
       83              191       192       end