p.43 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
fotografur wrote:
Grammar police
Don't worry, we're all friends here. I'm very fond of Benjamin (AhamB), and learned something new about "showstopper". And to think English is supposed to be my first language!
p.43 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
We all go on about wanting interchangeable lenses but if those lenses cost close to the same or more then the "package" RX FF deal, what's really the difference in the end!
If IQ is there, maybe not a lot of meaningful difference. A different experience to be sure, but change is not always something to fear. I've not missed manually winding film for some time, although I did at one point actually miss the film advance lever. That feeling/thinking just seems silly to me now.
On the other hand many of us appreciate subtle and not to subtle differences between various lenses, and an interchangeable system like M or E mount allows for a great deal of experimentation for those who are on a quest for a certain rendering from their lenses. I'm not on an endless search myself but have rejected or lived with and swapped out optics and been happy I could do so without switching systems.
The RX1 and other fixed lens cameras are a -- you're gonna like what's behind door A because there is no door B -- proposition. That can be tough to take. As I tend to like a lot of what Zeiss puts out, the RX1 doesn't scare me as much as the leap I took with the X100.
I'd hope that the RX1 sensor/lens coupling works well and has a similar rendering my ZM35/2 delivers. If so it could be a keeper. While I'm not sure I want to take that leap of faith with a $3,000+ system, I keep thinking about it, mostly because I know that catch and release early on should be possible with little or no loss of value.
p.43 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
This could appeal to owners of the Canon Canonet QL 17 GIII who are still waiting to switch to digital.
The Canonet was under $100 but you had to pay for film and processing in addition. Adjusting for inflation and the added cost of Zeiss lens, the jump from $100 to $2800 is not totally insane. That would be my reasoning if I bought one. Gulp!
p.43 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
JonasY wrote:
A very nice thing is that it is indistinguishable from a $350 point and shoot.
Here's a $350 dollar point and shoot on Amazon:
Canon PowerShot S100
12.1 MP
Sensor dimensions: 7.44 x 5.58 mm (massive!!!)
Sensor area 41.52 mm
ISO 100-1600
Has a zoom! (f2 - f5.9)
Has image stabilization!
No hotshoe
No cable release
No viewfinder(s)
No exposure control on body
No aperture ring
Provides for manual control of exposure settngs through menu diving and possibly button assisgnment
Sony Cyber-shot RX1
24MP
Sensor dimensions: 24x36mm (paltry!)
Sensor is 864 sq mm (only a teeny 21X larger than the S100)
ISO 100-25600
Standard hotshoe
Cable release
Optional viewfinders
Manual aperture setting
Dedicated exposure compensation dial
They sure do seem like the same camera to me with no material differences to explain the $2,450 price delta between them. After all, the sensor differences are hardly noticeable.
Maybe "point and shoot" needs a better definition, because one could argue that any camera employing autofocus and some form of auto exposure is a point and shoot camera, or has at the very least, point and shoot modes.
Does a camera with a fixed lens automatically become a point and shoot? Should it? Or is a point and shoot camera simply any camera that doesn't have a mirror swinging from one position to another during exposure? Or one that doesn't have an optical viewfinder?
If we are going to use a term in a pejorative fashion shouldn't the term have an agreed upon meaning?
Yup, the RX1 is expensive and limited to one lens. I get that. So is the X100 (price delta between $350 S100 and $1,199 X100 is only $849), But I don't think "point and shoot" when I look at the RX1 or X100.
p.43 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
michaelwatkins wrote:
Maybe "point and shoot" needs a better definition, because one could argue that any camera employing autofocus and some form of auto exposure is a point and shoot camera, or has at the very least, point and shoot modes.
I was not sarcastic. Maybe I chose the wrong word, after all I'm not a native English speaker, but according to my lexicon indistinguishable means "not able to be identified as different or distinct".
Which is exactly what I meant. No one can see that the RX1 is a $3k camera, you'll look as any other tourist with a $350 P&S camera (especially when using the LCD for framing). Which is a very nice thing in my book. Carrying a huge DSLR, which any FF DSLR qualifies as, is in many places unwise or even dangerous. You'll stand out in negative sense, and you will keep looking over your shoulders - which attracts wrong people even more.
But even in safer places it's nice to "blend in", carrying a huge camera scares away people [as in motifs]. Leica owners usually claims this is as an advantage, but frankly, I think a lot of people recognize the red dot and the camera is really not that small.
p.43 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
JonasY wrote:
I was not sarcastic. Maybe I chose the wrong word, after all I'm not a native English speaker, but according to my lexicon indistinguishable means "not able to be identified as different or distinct".
Which is exactly what I meant. No one can see that the RX1 is a $3k camera, you'll look as any other tourist with a $350 P&S camera (especially when using the LCD for framing). Which is a very nice thing in my book. Carrying a huge DSLR, which any FF DSLR qualifies as, is in many places unwise or even dangerous. You'll stand out in negative sense, and you will keep looking over your shoulders - which attracts wrong people even more.
But even in safer places it's nice to "blend in", carrying a huge camera scares away people [as in motifs]. Leica owners usually claims this is as an advantage, but frankly, I think a lot of people recognize the red dot and the camera is really not that small....Show more →
Agree...and it's a very good point as to why a serious photographer might choose the RX1, beyond the other practical considerations.
p.43 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Ok Jonas, I do understand your thinking now.
I know a street photographer that by choice uses the live view rear LCD of his camera even though a viewfinder is available, preferring this view both for his own creative purposes but also to blend in with others and not stand out as a pro.
I've tried this and was surprised to find that it works in many situations if the camera isn't overly big, threatening or interesting looking.
p.43 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Still, Sony should have added the additional 1/25" for one of their articulated LCD's! That is the biggest oversight in my book with the RX1. It would have made a HUGE difference in the cameras useability/ versatility.
p.43 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Still, Sony should have added the additional 1/25" for one of their articulated LCD's! That is the biggest oversight in my book with the RX1. It would have made a HUGE difference in the cameras useability/ versatility.
p.43 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Still, Sony should have added the additional 1/25" for one of their articulated LCD's! That is the biggest oversight in my book with the RX1. It would have made a HUGE difference in the cameras useability/ versatility.
p.43 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
+1
+2
It's always puzzling when Sony includes some useful features in the lower end model, yet decides to omit them on the higher end model for the reason of being more "pro".
p.43 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
michaelwatkins wrote:
Ok Jonas, I do understand your thinking now.
I know a street photographer that by choice uses the live view rear LCD of his camera even though a viewfinder is available, preferring this view both for his own creative purposes but also to blend in with others and not stand out as a pro.
I've tried this and was surprised to find that it works in many situations if the camera isn't overly big, threatening or interesting looking.
I'am starting to notice this too. Especially here in NYC people seemed to just think i'am a tourist.
p.43 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Yeah, the tilt evf on my 5N had more of the "spirit" of a 45 degree prism to me, rather than a waist level finder, because I usually didn't tilt it up all the way. Granted, when you do tilt it up all the way, I guess it is a little like using a waist level finder with a magnifier.
I'm very fond of Benjamin (AhamB), and learned something new about "showstopper". And to think English is supposed to be my first language!
