p.34 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
i'm curious as to how rugged this thing is. Very interesting. I think it was a great move on sony's part. Depending on the success... I bet they go the fuji route. Maybe we'll see another like-model with interchangeable lenses, or even a tele or normal lens model like the older fuji MF rangefinders... who knows.
p.34 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
zhangyue wrote:
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.
i definitely prefer this size body to an m sized body (or nex-7) sized body for a fixed 35mm prime. if i could put other heavier lenses on it maybe i would prefer NEX-7 sized (but still not m sized).
what i'd really prefer is if they gave it a tilt screen and made it f/1.4, and got rid of autofocus to keep the lens size the same.
i guess i wouldn't mind a slight increase in width if it allowed a built in evf. but i think tilt lcd + detachable evf might be better. in any event, i'm not totally happy. will have to handle one to decide if it's worth it.
The comparison bothers me because seeing it - and having owned and used the X100 - I know 1)the RX1 will be just way too small to comfortably use AND 2)Sony could have made it the same perfect size as the X100 and included a really nice finder. Their priority would seem to have been to make the RX1 as small as possible to flex their technological muscle while considering the photographer and how he uses it last. It really comes off as a design exercise - something engineered by non-photogs because they can.
p.34 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
This is the fastest growing thread!!! I have been reading this thread with great interest
This RX-1, seriously looks like a great FF camera, and some of the initial shots that have been leaked are amazing. Full kudos to Sony for raising the bar.
IMO, we may reach a point where how much better do we need IQ with a FF, as this may well peak for most amateurs and even pro's. For most, imaging is presented on screens and websites. There are also the hard core that print on fine art and need high MP shots for stock.
What I do feel will be more important are the ergonomics of whether the camera works for the original intent of taking shots. IMO the size feels right, but I do hope the ease and layout of the controls match the abilities of this FF beast.
The cost is high, but I accept that if we want a smaller FF package with an excellent fixed lens. If this is not acceptable, there are so many other choices now At least with the fixed lens, there is no choice about another lens, adding further to the cost of the system!
If this camera gets you out taking shots with incredible IQ with ease, and you are having fun and it works for you, it will be worth it. This is somewhat like the RX100, fun, surprising IQ for a P&S, but still not quite there in IQ and ergonomics. Still does not take away a great little cam
p.34 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The comparison bothers me because seeing it - and having owned and used the X100 - I know 1)the RX1 will be just way too small to comfortably use AND 2)Sony could have made it the same perfect size as the X100 and included a really nice finder. Their priority would seem to have been to make the RX1 as small as possible to flex their technological muscle while considering the photographer and how he uses it last. It really comes off as a design exercise - something engineered by non-photogs because they can.
strongly disagree on all points.
for me the x100 is oversized, the viewfinder is a waste of space, and the controls are poorly placed for using with your eye to the finder.
p.34 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
sebboh wrote:
i definitely prefer this size body to an m sized body (or nex-7) sized body for a fixed 35mm prime. if i could put other heavier lenses on it maybe i would prefer NEX-7 sized (but still not m sized).
what i'd really prefer is if they gave it a tilt screen and made it f/1.4, and got rid of autofocus to keep the lens size the same.
i guess i wouldn't mind a slight increase in width if it allowed a built in evf. but i think tilt lcd + detachable evf might be better. in any event, i'm not totally happy. will have to handle one to decide if it's worth it....Show more →
All make sense to me as this really down to the personal preference.
p.34 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
36mp puts a heavy burden on lenses from what I read of the d800. this 24mp sensor should be around for a while unless there's a massive breakthrough in lens technology.
p.34 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Is the Cybershot group really that separate from the Alpha group within Sony?
If so, then I'm not sure you can read too much of the "Nex future" into (or out of) this camera. They may be largely independent. Surely someone high up would be tasked with making sure they don't both do exactly the same thing, more or less.
One interesting thing to note is that neither this camera, nor the RX100, had much "lead time" in terms of rumors/leaks. Both hit pretty suddenly. Whereas the Alpha/Nex stuff leaks quite a bit.
p.34 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Why does that not surprise me! With the thumbs up grip on the X100, the camera is ergonomically perfect to me - in all ways.
I'm a little in between. I like most of the X100's layout, but I actually don't love the placement of the shutter, even though it is in the classic place. The NEX-7 grip fits my hand more comfortably.
My biggest issue with the X100, and my savior from the RX1, is the 35mm lens. I've really been trying to become accustomed to it, because I like shooting the camera, but shooting around 50mm is so much more natural for me, that I find that nearly all of X100 my pics are better with a little crop. I keep trying to step forward to fix it. Go figure! I preordered the darn NEX 35/1.8 lens to see how that goes on my NEX-7.
Fortunately, the 35mm lens on the RX1, combined with some other little things, is going to save me $3400...I think.
p.34 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
$3400 is a tidy saving
Another way of looking at the price. The a900 was launched at $2999.99 USD. 4 years on you can find it for £1000 GBP in great condition. So in 2016 I might acquire an RX1
p.34 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
ricardovaste wrote:
$3400 is a tidy saving
Another way of looking at the price. The a900 was launched at $2999.99 USD. 4 years on you can find it for £1000 GBP in great condition. So in 2016 I might acquire an RX1
Yeah, I paid $3k for the A900 when it came out, although I did manage to get around $2300 for it a couple of years later, which isn't too bad.
My other temptation this fall will be an M9 + ZM 50, assuming prices fall if/when the M10 is announced. I'd really like to shoot a rangefinder from time to time, but I still think the buy in isn't worth it to me, yet.
I really like this RX1. It just isn't quite right for me.
p.34 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
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.
That is only true if the camera breaks down. Otherwise, it is simply the never ending chase for gear that forces you to think this way. I am shooting with cameras that are over 5 years old and never think twice about that fact. I enjoy the images I get from and could care less about the age. The rat race for the latest gear is highly destructive to the spirit of photography when one has to constantly think of the fallacy that the next piece of gear is the missing component to why my pictures are substandard.
This Sony camera, should it last 10 years without breaking will still produce excellent images.
p.34 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
It would have been easier to accept the price if it had a built-in EVF, as I find it very annoying to shoot "p&s" style looking at the LCD. Even not considering the price, the accessory EVF is both ugly and clumpsy.
But IQ wise this is definitely something that will last for a long long time. Price is steep but it also a very unique camera. If you want FF and not a monster camera, it's either this or a M9. Although a used M9 + Biogon 35 is in the same ball park price wise as a RX1 + EVF.
p.34 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
I'm a little in between. I like most of the X100's layout, but I actually don't love the placement of the shutter, even though it is in the classic place. The NEX-7 grip fits my hand more comfortably.
My biggest issue with the X100, and my savior from the RX1, is the 35mm lens. I've really been trying to become accustomed to it, because I like shooting the camera, but shooting around 50mm is so much more natural for me, that I find that nearly all of X100 my pics are better with a little crop. I keep trying to step forward to fix it. Go figure! I preordered the darn NEX 35/1.8 lens to see how that goes on my NEX-7.
Fortunately, the 35mm lens on the RX1, combined with some other little things, is going to save me $3400...I think. ...Show more →
The shutter button on the X100 is not comfortable for me unless I use one of those deals that screws into it and raised it a bit. I also agree about the NEX-7. It's remarkably comfortable to hold and shoot given it's size.
Now about that $3400 you think your saving...Photokina has not even started yet! There may be one or two must have surprises.
p.34 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
rattymouse wrote:
That is only true if the camera breaks down. Otherwise, it is simply the never ending chase for gear that forces you to think this way. I am shooting with cameras that are over 5 years old and never think twice about that fact. I enjoy the images I get from and could care less about the age. The rat race for the latest gear is highly destructive to the spirit of photography when one has to constantly think of the fallacy that the next piece of gear is the missing component to why my pictures are substandard.
This Sony camera, should it last 10 years without breaking will still produce excellent images. ...Show more →
p.34 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
rattymouse wrote:
That is only true if the camera breaks down. Otherwise, it is simply the never ending chase for gear that forces you to think this way. I am shooting with cameras that are over 5 years old and never think twice about that fact. I enjoy the images I get from and could care less about the age. The rat race for the latest gear is highly destructive to the spirit of photography when one has to constantly think of the fallacy that the next piece of gear is the missing component to why my pictures are substandard.
This Sony camera, should it last 10 years without breaking will still produce excellent images. ...Show more →
Yeah, that's why I said 5+. I'm not so much worried about the camera breaking down as much as I am worried that I'll want whatever is new in 5 years. Either way, I'd buy this RX1 at this price if a few things were different about it. I think it is pretty awesome.
