p.16 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
dcjs wrote:
I'd be surprised if there is a tiltable screen. Look how close the sensor plane indicator is to the back of the camera, and compare that with the Nex-7. It looks like there's hardly room for a screen at all, much less a tiltable one.
The screen on the RX1 does look a bit thin to be tiltable, but then again the entire camera is so compact that it wouldn't surprise me much if Sony managed to squeeze the tilt mechanism in.
p.16 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I don't know, I can't see how you could possibly fit a FF sensor into a similar body size of the RX100. I would think this is more in line with the X100 size.
p.16 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
FlyPenFly wrote:
I don't know, I can't see how you could possibly fit a FF sensor into a similar body size of the RX100. I would think this is more in line with the X100 size.
That's the beauty of Sony finally having a real hotshoe. We can make better guesses on size!
p.16 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Doug, do you really see it doing much more than your X100, which will surely be a more enjoyable user experience? Just curious, as the temptation is there for me too, but I don't think enough.
p.16 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
ricardovaste wrote:
Doug, do you really see it doing much more than your X100, which will surely be a more enjoyable user experience? Just curious, as the temptation is there for me too, but I don't think enough.
$100 bucks says manual focus and AF are both much better, plus it's more 'pocketable'.
p.16 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
ricardovaste wrote:
Doug, do you really see it doing much more than your X100, which will surely be a more enjoyable user experience? Just curious, as the temptation is there for me too, but I don't think enough.
That is certainly the debate that I'll be considering. I do still like shooting NEX with the tilt up LCD from time to time. I think of the X100 as a fake rangefinder in the digital world, and the NEX-5 as a fake TLR in the digital world, as far as usability is concerned.
As far as IQ, I'm sure the difference in my print size will only be subtle, judging by my current prints from the A900 and X100, although the RX1 will future proof me a little if I move up in printer size. Granted, with more crop ability, I could get a little more "tele" with the RX1. I would like the RX1's extra stop or so of shallow DOF, not so much for my artistic stuff, but for subject isolation in my personal, family shots.
Right now, the RX1 is certainly more of a want than a need.
p.16 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
uhoh7 wrote:
Think about it:
you are sony and you have two REALLY new cameras,
The RX-1 and the NEX small body FF.
Which would you release first?
This is the 40 buck appetizer
That's rich...and you're probably right. Although Fuji did the opposite in releasing the X100 first at what actually turned out to be a very good price (though most of us whined at the time) and then releasing the way overpriced X-Pro1 afterwards (imo of course).
p.16 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
If this thing doesn't have a tiltable screen I'll probably pass. Too bad, because it could be the camera I've been wanting for the last few years and I'd have no problem at all just ditching everything else for it. I don't even care about the price.
p.16 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Not tempting at all for me. If it were $700, it'd be tempting, as it'd make a great cam to grab to go out for the day, but I can't ever imagine spending that much on a camera that I can't change lenses on. I know noise performance and dynamic range will likely be excellent, but I'd rather just pop a Voigtlander 17.5/0.95 in my bag to go with my E-M5 than shell out nearly 3K for something that I would only use occasionally, or would take up way more space in a bag than just an extra lens.
Now, if this were a new interchangeable lens camera, and the lenses were kept that small, that would be incredible, but I don't think you can keep the lenses that small with a register distance that short and have AF and such.
