p.33 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
"It is not a 1500$ lens attached to a body. It's a point and shoot camera with an oversized sensor. If I have a 1500$ Zeiss lens, I want to use it on several bodies and keep it for many years. "
"I think you really have to think of this camera as a semi-disposable camera after 5+ years, so it's a debate about whether cutting edge tech/small size are worth $600 a year."
+1000 to these statements. When they have an interchangeable lens system with high quality primes I will be interested.
The common criticism of fixed lens cameras is "I don't want to be limited to one focal length". The criticism less frequently stated, but the one that is a bigger issue for me is "I don't want to have to junk the awesome lens in a couple of years when the body is obsolete".
p.33 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
RudyProj wrote:
The common criticism of fixed lens cameras is "I don't want to be limited to one focal length". The criticism less frequently stated, but the one that is a bigger issue for me is "I don't want to have to junk the awesome lens in a couple of years when the body is obsolete".
The A900 wasn't replaced until now, so it had a 4 year run, and many people happily shoot away Canon 5Ds, Nikon D700s, etc. If this camera checks all of the boxes for you, you'd likely use it for a long time.
p.33 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
FlyPenFly wrote:
The guy who shoots the models in America's Next Top Model uses an A900 because he prefers that rendering.
Yeah, we're really getting to that point where just about all of the sensors are good, and buying newer sensors is somewhat akin to buying the new Portra 400 over the older Portra 400NC, or whatever. Most film users stick with a film or two for a long time.
p.33 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
KaaX wrote:
Consider that this camera is presumably aimed at serious photographers. This means it's not expected to be a person's only camera. Most serious photographers already have an interchangeable-lens system and a decent 35mm lens to put on it.
So, if your existing system is full-frame, you're paying $2800 (and lose flexibility) for size. And if your existing system is small (NEX or m43), you're paying $2800 for the FF sensor, but still lose all flexibility.
I have to wonder, how large is the market of people who want to shoot 35mm and only 35mm on full frame..?
Kaa
I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, but another way to look at it might be, if you're a serious photographer who already has a full-frame SLR with a ZE/ZF 35/2 or equivalent: this camera wouldn't take much more space in your bag than that ZE/ZF lens. You could sell that larger lens for $1K, and use the RX1 alongside your SLR as your dedicated 35mm focal length and backup body. And then in situations where you do want to travel light, of course you can just carry the RX1. That, to me, is more flexible, not less flexible. For a net cost of $1800, which is not peanuts, but is justifiable.
I'd still agree that the overall market for this camera doesn't seem like it's there, but for a small, well-defined population of users, this camera checks a lot of boxes.
p.33 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
The RX1 only becomes obsolete if or when there are more choices in this class of camera. At present there is little zero competition in this specific class - autofocus full frame compact mirrorless.
If an autofocus fixed lens implementation of a full frame digital compact camera doesn't meet your needs, what are your options? There are no other full frame compact autofocus cameras, at any price. For that reason alone this camera should have some longevity unless of course Sony themselves obsolete it with future interchangeable lens offerings.
Ignoring the major difference - autofocus vs rangefinder focus - the closest alternative would be a Leica full frame M series. Do those cameras hold value partly because there is no other alternative in their class? Partially at least.
A closer alternative in terms of price would be a full frame DSLR with a comparable lens, but you'll pay for that additional flexibility in both price and size dimensions.
But this camera isn't aimed at someone making an either or decision on a DSLR, is it? More likely Sony intends this camera to take away business from Leica. Offering a very traditional 35mm focal length on a 35mm film equivalent sensor size seems very much like a shot across Leica's bow. A modern sensor and what hopefully is a great Zeiss lens implementation should mean the camera will remain very competitive from an IQ perspective for many years, certainly longer than a current Leica M9 user shooting a ZM35/2 and certainly for much less than a M9/Summicron|lux equipped photographer.
At any rate, for this class of camera, Sony currently has no competition. If that changes then prices will come down and, ideally, there'll be an expansion of choices in full frame compacts. Right now we have only a fixed lens implementation or Leica's. Hopefully from Sony or others an interchangeable lens camera will be among those new choices.
In the meantime, this camera appeals to me enough to keep thinking about it.
p.33 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
We all need to get a RX1 for dinner parties and social events. The new X100/Leica like fashion accessory. Would love to have one of these and can't wait to see the image quality from this monster.
It's a very impressive achievement but to compare it to an interchangable-lens camera designed to work with lens line that has had the same register for nearly a century hardly seems fair to either camera.
p.33 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Is size really that important factor once it reach some threshold? Would you prefer a Iphone sized camera with fast 35mm lens? Lets put regular size D700 A900 and 5D's advantage aside, I like smaller size camera like NEX7 for its nice design, but I much prefer a camera at size about Leica film body. Which is very slim and easy to hold. It has almost perfect balance on hand.
p.33 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
corposant wrote:
Anybody want to take a stab at what the typical production run will be? 5,000 units? More? ken.vs.ryu wrote:
How many lenses can Zeiss make a year?
Depends on:
1) what you mean by "lens"
2) what you mean by "Zeiss"
:-)
Regarding the camera, I'd guess between 5-10,000pcs. But that's a risky guess. What makes this camera beautiful from a production economy perspective is that the sensor no doubt will continue in production for at least a year from now - something quite rare these days. This gives them the option to start another batch Q2 next year if the camera sells well.
The tooling is paid after the first 5k and will just be pushed into the back of the shop, glass is a totally different matter. Ideally you would want to order all the special elements at once. The elements in less rare glass types and moderately ordinary dimensions and curvatures you can always order anew with rather short lead times.
What really surprised me seeing the Leica M9+35 beside the RX1 was just how thick the M9 body alone is. So much so that the RX1 as a package is thinner than the small Summicron 35 on the M9. Yes, the ZA 24 looks ridiculously large, as always, in this comparison.
p.33 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
What really surprised me seeing the Leica M9+35 beside the RX1 was just how thick the M9 body alone is. So much so that the RX1 as a package is thinner than the small Summicron 35 on the M9. Yes, the ZA 24 looks ridiculously large, as always, in this comparison.
