p.47 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
michaelwatkins wrote:
I've already put a pre-order in. Hey, cancellation is easy, what can I say, but at least I want to be in line while I think about this some more.
Edit: plus the image publishing embargo *will* be lifted before these babies ship in December or whenever they finally cross the ocean. We'll get a good measure of the beast well before our credit cards are dinged.
+1 It's always easy to cancel an early pre-order but sometimes difficult to get a hot item with limited availability later without the early pre-order..
p.47 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
uhoh7 wrote:
uhoh.....well that's 600 anyway If you are weakening, I'd bet this camera will sell. Which means there will be buyers remorse from a few...but is it worth say 3-400 in savings for warranty hassles? For glass it would be, but this is a complicated piece of kit where a lot could go wrong. More so than an M9, which far simpler--and with used prices on that soon to be below 5k--perhaps 4k--well it looks more attractive.
But it's big--relatively so you will not have it with you like this one.
A new 35/2 leica is 3195--perhaps that was the price Sony really wanted to beat
I would LOVE to have one also, but not to the point where I will go pre-oreder crazy. The Nex-7 has cured me of that (had it pre-ordered twice--and have no regrets at not having bought aside fromt the time wasted going back and forth)
One thing is becoming clear: this is the sexiest camera ever built--which is always a motivation for debate and campaigns against bolemia....Show more →
i have no interest in an m9. the camera is big and clunky (imho) and i hate rangefinders for anything other than casual snaps (where i really like them). so i would use it much less than i would use the rx1.
i've never preordered anything and i have no intention doing so now. i probably won't get the rx1 till next summer if i get it. i would prefer other people do my beta testing. i'd also probably buy used from one of those folks that get all the latest cameras and then sell them shortly after. if i can't get decent warranty coverage i guess i'd just see if i could get decent insurance coverage.
p.47 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
sebboh wrote:
i have no interest in an m9. the camera is big and clunky (imho) and i hate rangefinders for anything other than casual snaps (where i really like them). so i would use it much less than i would use the rx1.
i've never preordered anything and i have no intention doing so now. i probably won't get the rx1 till next summer if i get it. i would prefer other people do my beta testing. i'd also probably buy used from one of those folks that get all the latest cameras and then sell them shortly after. if i can't get decent warranty coverage i guess i'd just see if i could get decent insurance coverage....Show more →
Very sensible
Well, just in case, consider givin some love to the Pen while you have her.
p.47 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
This RX1 hits just as I'm planning to sell my DSLR gear and go all mirrorless... Maybe worth picking up just in case I feel nostalgic for full frame
It's expensive, but doesn't seem obscene to me. The X100 was priced like a midrange APS-C, and this is priced basically in the low-middle range for a full frame DSLR. The X100's accessories were also obscenely overpriced... I have a feeling the RX1 will be a cult classic type of camera just like the X100.
p.47 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
sebboh wrote:
that's the plan. i wouldn't think of selling it at all, but it looks like FF a csc may actually come some day and it is my only valuable aps-c lens.
OMG I forgot altogether its APS-C! I was going to remark, as you know, the lens is--at least my copy--quite crisp at f/8---I wonder how it would do in one of those stich shots?
Forgive the OT
(you have to wonder if the nexFF or similar will allow a manual crop to APS-c--or if it's even worth doing before PP, in a case like the 42)
p.47 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
uhoh7 wrote:
OMG I forgot altogether its APS-C! I was going to remark, as you know, the lens is--at least my copy--quite crisp at f/8---I wonder how it would do in one of those stich shots?
Forgive the OT
(you have to wonder if the nexFF or similar will allow a manual crop to APS-c--or if it's even worth doing before PP, in a case like the 42)
oh yes, it's quite sharp stopped down (really f/2 and smaller). it's not the best for stitches though because of barrel distortion (obviously one can correct this before stitching, but it's an extra step).
p.47 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
uhoh7 wrote:
(you have to wonder if the nexFF or similar will allow a manual crop to APS-c--or if it's even worth doing before PP, in a case like the 42)
It's likely to be manually selectable in general, but automatic and non-disableable for DT and E lenses. All the Sony FF bodies in A mount have had a manually selectable APS-C crop which is automatic for DT lenses (and not disableable either)
p.47 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Just wish Sony would shake photographic world once more with variable wideangle and tele converters. Imagine high quality 0,6-0,8 wideangle converter that matches Sonnar lens quality and another one teleconverter with, say 1,5-3 range. That would make RX1 heavier, but also more interesting to wider circle of photographers, from landscape to portrait, all with same f2 widest aperture. Technically it should not be too difficult task, since many lenses are in fact constructed as afocal converter in front with master lens behind.
p.47 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
bd, that's an interesting idea. Reminiscent of a twin lens reflex Yashicaflex I used for a decade, but better, given live view focusing / auto focusing.
If the results did not detract from IQ in an objectionable manner, the appeal of this or any fixed lens compact would become much broader.
(Wow, first post since 2005, and this subject drew you out of the woodwork!)
p.47 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Fuji has already done this with the wide angle converter for the X100, and it is fantastic. I'm sure Sony could follow suit, although I'd imagine the converters would be pretty large.
p.47 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
beli_delfin wrote:
Just wish Sony would shake photographic world once more with variable wideangle and tele converters. Imagine high quality 0,6-0,8 wideangle converter that matches Sonnar lens quality and another one teleconverter with, say 1,5-3 range. That would make RX1 heavier, but also more interesting to wider circle of photographers, from landscape to portrait, all with same f2 widest aperture. Technically it should not be too difficult task, since many lenses are in fact constructed as afocal converter in front with master lens behind.
Yea, I think 35mm is just too restrictive to justify the price for me.
Now if was 35/50 or even better 35/50/85 that I could live with.
p.47 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I unfortunately can't remember the link, but I was reading about converters a couple of months ago, and someone gave a formula to calculate how big the converter needed to be in relation to the front element of the lens that the converter is being attached to. I don't remember the formula, but the converter would have to be considerably bigger around than the RX1's lens. The X100's front element is pretty small, so Fuji was able to make a converter that isn't crazy big.
p.47 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
Fuji has already done this with the wide angle converter for the X100, and it is fantastic. I'm sure Sony could follow suit, although I'd imagine the converters would be pretty large.
Since late winter I've been out of touch of new developments, purposely ignoring what makers have been doing until just before Photokina. Too busy using what I have, and renovating our home, among other things.
Didn't even know Fujifilm released the converter. Looks cool. 28mm. My favorite wide focal length. It looks good on the camera too, not that it really matters. And you say it works well... and I see now other positive reports. It isn't even priced outrageously high (unlike the hood, for what the hood is). That's very, very, cool.
I'd have bought one for certain if I had kept the X100.
Just because Fujifilm went this route doesn't justify hoping Sony will too, but I can't help myself and maybe just maybe they will follow suit. Doing so would not only give them incremental revenue stream for the RX1 without having to release entirely new bodies, but it would help sell the RX1, period, and certainly anything that makes the RX1 seem more of a system camera will help build the appeal of the camera.
p.47 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
I was reading about converters a couple of months ago, and someone gave a formula to calculate how big the converter needed to be in relation to the front element of the lens that the converter is being attached to.
It does look like the front element of the RX1 is larger than the X100, although the RX1 apparently takes a 49mm filter as does the X100 but how the filter to front of last element distance compares who knows. The RX1 lens body itself is definitely wider.
Measuring the front element width on the images posted at CameraSize.com, which we assume are all to scale, it looks like the element could be as much as 45% wider, or as little as 8% wider depending on where one measures from (not very scientific, I know). Maybe the real answer is closer to the 8% figure given the take the same filter size.
As the RX1 body is also wider to start, so perhaps the design team did this with the future in mind, so that converters could be be accommodated at that width?
p.47 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
michaelwatkins wrote:
It does look like the front element of the RX1 is larger than the X100, although the RX1 apparently takes a 49mm filter as does the X100 but how the filter to front of last element distance compares who knows. The RX1 lens body itself is definitely wider.
Measuring the front element width on the images posted at CameraSize.com, which we assume are all to scale, it looks like the element could be 45% wider.
Yet the body is also wider to start, so perhaps the design team did this with the future in mind, so that converters could be be accommodated at that width? ...Show more →
The thing about the X100 front element is that the outer third of it is opaque, so the usable area is even smaller than it looks. I'm guessing this could be due to the built-in ND filter.
p.47 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
When FOV flexibility is desired, the best technique for a fixed-lens camera is to design a set of prime lenses upfront. I say prime in the classic sense: a front optical component that is removable. This ensures acceptable performance for select focal lengths while keeping the rear section sealed. Advantages of that sealed configuration include keeping the camera innards clean, simplifying linkage to the aperture and (where applicable) the leaf shutter. A better known example is the Kodak Retina IIIc which offered three FLs - and it was a folding rangefinder! The rear optical component of three elements was used to support 80/4, 50/2.8 and 35/5.6 on 135 film.
p.47 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Meanwhile, the built in electronic zoom (17MP camera via simple crop in the case of 1.4x) makes the 35mm a 49mm.
Am I wrong in believing that this will look every bit as good as a good quality 35mm stuck on a decent APS-C camera?
Perhaps another way of looking at the RX1 is that it is, at least, three cameras.
A full frame format fixed 35mm lens camera.
An APS-C format fixed 50mm (effective) lens camera.
A 4/3 format fixed 70mm (effective) lens camera.
... all thanks to having the big FF sensor.
There won't be the same pixel density for the APS-C and 4/3 crops as is available on dedicated cameras but it'll still be high enough, and with the latest in sensor tech, to do well, particularly at APS-C crop (albeit only ~10 - 11MP (thanks artur)).
If you are weakening, I'd bet this camera will sell. Which means there will be buyers remorse from a few...but is it worth say 3-400 in savings for warranty hassles? For glass it would be, but this is a complicated piece of kit where a lot could go wrong. More so than an M9, which far simpler--and with used prices on that soon to be below 5k--perhaps 4k--well it looks more attractive. 
