Is the question we are trying or vying to answer: "is $2,500 too much for the RX1"?
Or is it "what digital camera offers ^ insert list of requirements ^ in a compact package? What alternatives are there to the RX1?"
Is it fair to compare the RX1 to a simple albeit good quality film point and shoot like this one:
As advanced as some of these advanced compact 35mm fixed lens cameras were, none of them come close to meeting what a camera like the X100 or RX1 offers. But... does it matter?
I'm wrestling with why I want one, trying to be honest with myself and also trying to figure out what limitations this camera has, other than the obvious, a fixed lens, that would drive me crazy down the road.
Ron, the more I think about this one, the more I like the idea, actually.
Reasoning goes like this: I am suspicious of the current small cameras due to the well discussed lens-sensor mismatches, adapters of varying quality, system lock-ins, tiny sensors and more. Frankly speaking it looks like a dog's breakfast to me. And I am a full frame person with all the lenses I need as a 'system'. But, I can see real benefits in an easy use, take everywhere camera of this size however, like most others here.
The lens-sensor dedication 'quality yield' should be very high, this from direct experience as outlined. Vignetting control, etc, as well as all of frame performance. We'll see soon enough.
Leaf shutters, Leica do not have, right? This shows they are very serious. I'm also not a fan of rangefinder focusing. And with CZ/Leica lenses, I have no interest in the legacy lenses you mention, frankly I am not impressed with their output generally.
Sony's latest and greatest FF sensor with no SLT. Huge DR likely, high ISO capability, good everything else that matters. Sensor has optimised microlenses etc. Sony told Huff the sensor was better than the D800.
Lens mount can be almost perfect, not close but virtually perfect - and strong, a big issue as we are getting into high precision these days, see the CZ blog for description of the new range for ZE/F. It's mostly about materials and construction, that as much as glass selection - Leica's secret also, of course.
I am primarily a CZ person, and this will very likely be a very good optic, its spec indicates so and fixed lens cameras live or die on the lens performance, it has nine blade aperture for good bokeh, special asph, latest CZ technology (very very good).
Output IQ good enough to permit a fair degree of cropping.
Bonuses like video, 14 bit, system accessories, cable release, tripod mount.
IQ beyond a reasonable threshold, so quite 'future proof'.
How much for a full frame body with state of the art sensor, plus two M lenses at the high level we may be seeing in this camera? If we figure on say $1400 for the RX1 body and the same for the lens, it looks to be (very) good value to me. People pay that much for a single top lens...and many NEX users will be eyeing off the new CZ lenses at $1000 each. It's going to add up. We'll see, but it would not surprise if IQ is as good as anything else...at 35mm of course ;-)
Personally, I'd really love to see a 28-70/4 version. This lens should be small enough and cheap enough to produce to keep the size, weight and price similar to the RX1. Make it collapsible and it'll sell like crazy.
Interesting and wide-ranging interview with Mark Weir, Senior Manager of Technology and Marketing for Sony Electronics Inc. A99, RX1, NEX and NEX-VG900 discussed.
From Weir's remarks it seems there'll be no RX interchangeable lens full frame camera. Furthermore he seems to nod to the sense some of us have felt that the RX1 might occupy a "classic camera" space for some time, meaning no successors on the immediate horizon.
If you were to create an RX10, what would that look like? But it’s sufficient to say that when Sony provides the 1 in the model name, it’s usually a pretty significant development. I mean, going back in history, the last non-interchangeable lens camera that we created with the impact of the RX1 or near the impact of the RX1 would be the DSC-R1 which was introduced in 2005. So seven years separating those models. I think the RX1 is a pretty timeless design.
I guess the question is does a rangefinder-style full-frame interchangeable lens mirrorless makes sense? But I think what those who are suggesting that a full-frame E-mount camera be developed is a full frame E-mount camera together with E-mount lenses that would operate with it and offer full frame coverage. And all one has to do is to look at the RX1 disassembled model and see the optical challenge that would represent.
Is the RX1’s sensor the same as the one in the A99? And if so, why is there no phase detect AF on the RX1? Well, the sensor is basically the same design, the same structure, the same generation of development, the same advantages in terms of sensitivity and dynamic range, it offers the 14-bit output. However, in the RX1, a variant of the sensor without phase-detection pixels was selected because the plan for the camera was for it to be contrast-AF from the beginning.
rscheffler wrote:
So you'll spend another ~$3K for that as well? Might as well just get the new M and a couple CV or ZM lenses, or $100 MD/FD/OM/K legacy lenses...
I can see the appeal based on the size and what should be a really good lens... but at this price point, it's a lot of money to be locked into a fixed configuration. Basically this camera duplicates film P&Ss that used to sell for ~$300, such as the Oly Sylus Epic, or Pentax Espio Mini (granted, those were f/2.8 lenses). Perhaps the Konica Hexar AF is a closer comparison... sure can buy a lot of film and scanning services for the difference in price....Show more →
a new M is $7000. a zm 35/2 is $1100, a zm 85/4 is $1000. this is 62% more than 2 RX1s.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Personally, I'd really love to see a 28-70/4 version. This lens should be small enough and cheap enough to produce to keep the size, weight and price similar to the RX1. Make it collapsible and it'll sell like crazy.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
a 28-70/4 would have to be much larger and much crappier in iq and build. also, being to stops slower would make much less useful in many occasions when you really want a small camera (eg social events).
sebboh wrote:
a 28-70/4 would have to be much larger and much crappier in iq and build. also, being to stops slower would make much less useful in many occasions when you really want a small camera (eg social events).
Well, one may hope.... Though I love primes, I like them to be interchangeable. You give me fixed lens? Make it a zoom. Even a modest one.
And about being bigger, I have no problems with it. On the contrary. I often find small cameras uncomfortable to shoot. Heck, the RX1 is similar in size to the E-P3!
Well, one may hope.... Though I love primes, I like them to be interchangeable. You give me fixed lens? Make it a zoom. Even a modest one.
And about being bigger, I have no problems with it. On the contrary. I often find small cameras uncomfortable to shoot. Heck, the RX1 is similar in size to the E-P3!
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
The problem is that it's not so much the camera that will be way bigger, but, rather the lenses. So, at that point, if the lenses are near SLR sized, anyways, one has to wonder the advantage over something like a D600.
For me, a single prime is perfect in a small camera, although, since it is 35mm, rather than 50mm, I'm probably going to skip the RX1.
I was initially of the "awesome, but not for me" mindset.
But the more I look at my shooting habits and image quality desires....the more tempted I become.
Biggest hang up is focal length. 50mm...even 40mm would have been more suited to my style. But I ended up being challenged and taking some great shots with the X100....expect the RX1 would challenge me in the same way.
Joseph Marney wrote:
I was initially of the "awesome, but not for me" mindset.
But the more I look at my shooting habits and image quality desires....the more tempted I become.
Biggest hang up is focal length. 50mm...even 40mm would have been more suited to my style. But I ended up being challenged and taking some great shots with the X100....expect the RX1 would challenge me in the same way.
That's about exactly where I'm at. I also have the X100, and, while I like the camera, the focal length just isn't my style, so I'm frustrated to end up cropping more than I'd like. For me to spend 3 grand for a fixed lens camera, I need a lens that I really like. Still, I understand Sony's decision to go 35mm.
I'm almost relieved that the RX1 isn't 50mm. I'm just going to buy one (or both) of the upcoming standard primes for the NEX-7 and be done with it.
douglasf13 wrote:
That's about exactly where I'm at. I also have the X100, and, while I like the camera, the focal length just isn't my style, so I'm frustrated to end up cropping more than I'd like. For me to spend 3 grand for a fixed lens camera, I need a lens that I really like. Still, I understand Sony's decision to go 35mm.
I'm almost relieved that the RX1 isn't 50mm. I'm just going to buy one (or both) of the upcoming standard primes for the NEX-7 and be done with it.
Maybe the DP2M will call your name - the price is certainly right in comparison!
Yakim Peled wrote:
Well, one may hope.... Though I love primes, I like them to be interchangeable. You give me fixed lens? Make it a zoom. Even a modest one.
And about being bigger, I have no problems with it. On the contrary. I often find small cameras uncomfortable to shoot. Heck, the RX1 is similar in size to the E-P3!
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
i don't understand the point of putting a slow zoom on a camera like this? what is the point of putting a FF sensor inside if you're not going to have any image quality, dof, or size advantage over an aps-c csc?
with the zoom you have to either trade away iq and speed or size.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Now that is what I'm talking about. And it's even better than I expected (24mm, f/2.8). Now, who said it will be too big?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
but that lens will look terrible on a FF digital sensor unfortunately – 6 elements in 5 groups with an extreme angle of light on the corners. also, it's f/5.6 at the long end.
sebboh wrote:
i don't understand the point of putting a slow zoom on a camera like this? what is the point of putting a FF sensor inside if you're not going to have any image quality, dof, or size advantage over an aps-c csc?
with the zoom you have to either trade away iq and speed or size.
If you have APS-C MILC with a constant f/2.8 collapsible zoom in that size I'm all ears. The closest thing we have is the 12-35/2.8 for MFT.
Lets assume we use the same sensor and a good lens so IQ is not compromised. Now it's only an issue of DoF and size. As the lens is collapsible and close to the sensor (not interchangeable) you can make it relatively small. DoF? Well, it won't be the same as the current 35/2 lens but OTOH, you'll have several FL's to choose from. As someone who shoots with 40D/7D + 17-55/2.8 IS for almost 6 years I can tell you I'm fine WRT shallow DoF.
Yes, it's all a matter of trade-offs. I'd like the RX1 to be slightly bigger, to have integral EVF, to have a collapsible 28-70/4 zoom lens (or 24-50/2.8 ) and a bit more buttons.
sebboh wrote:
but that lens will look terrible on a FF digital sensor unfortunately – 6 elements in 5 groups with an extreme angle of light on the corners. also, it's f/5.6 at the long end.
Party spoiler. O.K. I'll stick to my original plan.
I'm just going to buy one (or both) of the upcoming standard primes for the NEX-7 and be done with it.