p.54 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
No, you aren't the only one to think that philber. I'm exercising control in an attempt to remain purely objective about this camera. I already know I want to like it because I love the idea and promise of the ideas within, but I don't want it to disappoint me and leave me standing empty handed like a jilted lover. :P
IMO you both nail it - at this price point this camera has to knock one out of the park to be worth the trade-offs inherent in its design.
p.54 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
philber wrote:
I agree with all that Philip writes, but would like to add this. If RX1 doesn't best the iQ of a Alpha 99 plus ZF 35 f:2.0, then it won't sell that well. Because, let's face it, the absence of lens interchangeability is a major impediment. Yes, there are contrevailang bebfits (no dust issue etc...), but they are small. So, if all the company as to offer is small size, it will be very much of a niche product IMHO.
Very strange thinking, the size is what is making this a unique product. It's like complaining that you can't take a Porsche 911 off road.
No one is going to choose between a RX1 and a DSLR. The only reason to buy a RX1 is if you want a small camera with a full frame sensor. The only option is Leica M which is both much more expensive and heavier, and lacks autofocus. Look at the X100, it was a success despite its shortcomings and fixed lens. The RX1 will target the same market, or at least the top of that market which can afford it.
You seem to forget that most people see the 1.5kg of clumsiness of a A99 or similar plus a matching lens as a "major impediment". From a historic POV, I'd say that a monster SLR (which any FF DSLR will qualify as) is a much more niche product than a small camera with a fixed lens. And as others have point out, in practice it will work nice as a 35-50 mm camera with "digital zoom"/cropping.
p.54 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
The problem with the RX1 is the same as with the Leica X1/X2 - it's simply not small enough. It won't fit in the pocket of your trousers, which means that to carry it comfortably in summer time, you'll have to carry a bag. And in that case you might as well bring a somewhat larger system such as the Leica M.
p.54 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
denoir wrote:
The problem with the RX1 is the same as with the Leica X1/X2 - it's simply not small enough. It won't fit in the pocket of your trousers, which means that to carry it comfortably in summer time, you'll have to carry a bag. And in that case you might as well bring a somewhat larger system such as the Leica M.
I disagree. If that's the case, one could scale that even further and say that, if one were to carry an M, they may as well just carry a D600. The differences in size and weight between the mirrorless cameras is noticeable to me, whether on a strap or in different sized bags. Even if my camera did fit in my pants pocket, there's no room, because of keys, cell phone, etc. My pants pocket camera will always just be my phone.
p.54 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
denoir wrote:
The problem with the RX1 is the same as with the Leica X1/X2 - it's simply not small enough. It won't fit in the pocket of your trousers, which means that to carry it comfortably in summer time, you'll have to carry a bag. And in that case you might as well bring a somewhat larger system such as the Leica M.
Personally I often carry the camera on me, not in the bag, so I disagree. And when it is in the bag, I'll have more room for other stuff or I can just use a smaller bag.
And then again, a Leica M with a 35/2 is much, much more expensive. Especially if you want live view.
I'm planing to purchase the new M and still, I'm very interested in RX1. To me it's a different kind of camera.
More like my "fun" camera. "No bag needed" camera. Just grab it and enjoy. Plus it will be my only AF camera...
And for me the size difference is quite huge.
The first samples look quite great IMO
p.54 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
denoir wrote:
The problem with the RX1 is the same as with the Leica X1/X2 - it's simply not small enough. It won't fit in the pocket of your trousers, which means that to carry it comfortably in summer time, you'll have to carry a bag. And in that case you might as well bring a somewhat larger system such as the Leica M.
My NEX 5N with M adapter and Nokton 40 1.4 fits in the pockets of my trousers.
p.54 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
philip_pj wrote:
'I'm very curious to see how an a99 with a converted ZF 35/2 will stack up against the RX1. I'm really hoping one of our deep-geek gearheads will make that happen.'
Me too. I predict a knockout victory rather than a TKO - to the RX1. Why? That is a very nice ZF, but is one of the least impressive technically, and that combo will lack sensor/lens (and maybe electronics) tuning, is a generation down on lens design, suffers the SLT impost, and has the inherent slop at the mount shared by all ILCs.
Of course, it always will weigh 1400 grams against 482 grams, costs a thousand bucks more (but less with VF), lacks AF therefore spontaneity, needs a chip for IBIS, needs a much heavier tripod, has stopdown metering, needs a new mount (extra hundred and some work), needs a larger bag, is much larger overall in every direction, has a noiser/more vibration-prone focal plane shutter, and I doubt bokeh will be comparable, not to mention CA or sensor dust issues. It won't look very cute either, though I concede this is personal preference. ...Show more →
For me, a 2.8K camera with a fixed prime lens represents very bad value-for-money, even if it is small and light. Similarly, I regard a 2.8K for a DSLR as good value-for-money, and it's mainly because of the interchangeability and VF.
p.54 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
JonasY wrote:
Very strange thinking, the size is what is making this a unique product.
Not really, merely being an autofocus mirrorless full frame compact camera makes it unique in all the world.
More seriously, given this camera probably represents, within a few percentage points here or there, about the smallest full frame camera we are ever likely to see, the camera automatically wins on size points. If you love 35 on 35 and want small size, this camera is for you. This camera might be for you even if you own an M. Trade in a Summicron 35 and get autofocus and a second body in return.
Size alone isn't enough for me, the IQ has to be there before I can even contemplate whether the value proposition makes it worthwhile to me, and the camera must handle well or it just won't get used enough and therefore should not be bought. If the camera can run that gauntlet of criteria then it is time to decide if the product offers sufficient utility and value to me to spend the money.
The closest alternative from a portability perspective is a much different camera of course but the other choices are even more distant for comparison purposes. A Leica M9(M10 now) with a Summicron 35/2, is larger in every dimension and weighs another 100 grams. It'll cost you more than $10K new, or about $8K with a Zeiss ZM35/2, if bought in Oregon to save on taxes. Depreciation of the M camera itself will over the life span of the RX1 would probably pay for at least one RX1. For some this camera-lens combination represents better value even at three times the cost.
A Nikon D600 plus lens will come in at more than a kilogram, is huge compared to the RX1.
(Yes, that's a DX lens, it's the only 35mm CameraSize.com has on file)
Unlike Bif I am not a real man because I just won't carry a DSLR around with me 24/7 even though physically I'm definitely up to it. A 2.8K DSLR even with a single lens in a small bag would get carried less. I know it. Been there done that. There is no doubt that each downsizing in equipment has returned to me more productivity and pleasure.
Value for money means different things to us all. One aspect that tends to be important to me is whether I am getting regular use out of equipment. A camera I'd use every day is one I'm willing invest in and perhaps overlook other aspects of value that I'd normally want to take into account such as lens interchangeability or compatibility with lenses I already own.
Maybe one day an interchangeable lens full frame compact camera system will make the comparison and value for money discussion easier to have. For now, the RX1 represents the least expensive entry point for a compact system but offers the least flexibility of all the available alternatives. As with the X100, many simply won't care about reduced flexibility if this bundle of features offers what they need.
p.54 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Agreed, Michael and Makten, although I do wish that Sony would have made this camera slightly larger by adding a tilt LCD and/or built-in EVF. Something the size of a NEX-7 with a FF sensor and fixed lens still would have been small enough for me to be excited.
p.54 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
Agreed, Michael and Makten, although I do wish that Sony would have made this camera slightly larger by adding a tilt LCD and/or built-in EVF. Something the size of a NEX-7 with a FF sensor and fixed lens still would have been small enough for me to be excited.
Yeah, the lack of tilt-screen is the only thing I don't like about it and it might hold me back. My OM-D is great and although I'm not 100% satisfied with the IQ, I really like the camera and I can get sort of what I want from it. Tilting screen is very addicting, so I'm on the fence even if I've pre-ordered an RX1 for now.
p.54 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Makten wrote:
Yeah, the lack of tilt-screen is the only thing I don't like about it and it might hold me back. My OM-D is great and although I'm not 100% satisfied with the IQ, I really like the camera and I can get sort of what I want from it. Tilting screen is very addicting, so I'm on the fence even if I've pre-ordered an RX1 for now.
Yeah, if this camera had a tilt LCD and/or built-in EVF, as well as a standard-ish prime, I would have definitely pre-ordered it. In fact, I may have pre-ordered it with just one of those three things, but as it stands now, it's just a little too far off from what I'd like. I love the concept, though.
p.54 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
+1 Douglas. Anything approximately the size of the X100 there abouts would be fine with me. Or a M9 even but I'm not unhappy with a more compact size.
When looking at the comparisons above on CameraSize.com I was surprised to discover the RX1 at 782g is only 88g lighter than the M9 with Summicron (870g).
If the numbers are right (and each includes power packs) the RX1 heft likely speaks positively about build quality and materials.
p.54 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
michaelwatkins wrote:
+1 Douglas. Anything approximately the size of the X100 there abouts would be fine with me. Or a M9 even but I'm not unhappy with a more compact size.
When looking at the comparisons above on CameraSize.com I was surprised to discover the RX1 at 782g is only 88g lighter than the M9 with Summicron (870g).
If the numbers are right (and each includes power packs) the RX1 heft likely speaks positively about build quality and materials.
p.54 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, if this camera had a tilt LCD and/or built-in EVF, as well as a standard-ish prime, I would have definitely pre-ordered it. In fact, I may have pre-ordered it with just one of those three things, but as it stands now, it's just a little too far off from what I'd like. I love the concept, though.
I think I can live with cropping to about APS-H at about 16 MP for standard FOV.
Judging by the summicron lens sizes, wouldn't a longer focal length also give a longer lens? Man, it is difficult to please everybody with a camera like this.
p.54 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
alundeb wrote:
I think I can live with cropping to about APS-H at about 16 MP for standard FOV.
Judging by the summicron lens sizes, wouldn't a longer focal length also give a longer lens? Man, it is difficult to please everybody with a camera like this.
If I cropped to get a standard-ish field of view, I may as well just use my NEX-7 with the Sigma 30 or the upcoming NEX standard lenses from Sony and Zeiss, and then I'd have more resolution, a tilt LCD and a built-in EVF.
The size of a standard lens would be dependent on a lot of things, but I don't think it'd be significantly larger. Either way, I think that 35mm was the right choice for most shooters. I just happen to prefer a little bit longer focal length.
p.54 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
If I cropped to get a standard-ish field of view, I may as well just use my NEX-7 with the Sigma 30 or the upcoming NEX standard lenses from Sony and Zeiss, and then I'd have more resolution, a tilt LCD and a built-in EVF.
I understand. With a camera like this, light gathering per size/weight is paramount to me. Resolution is second in priority. The Sigma lenses on NEX would be too slow, and the NEX 7 uncomfortably larger. If there was a 24 mm f/1.4 pancake-ish lens for NEX, I would get it instead, with my NEX 5N, despite that the lens aberrations would be much worse.
p.54 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
alundeb wrote:
I understand. With a camera like this, light gathering per size/weight is paramount to me. Resolution is second in priority. The Sigma lenses on NEX would be too slow, and the NEX 7 uncomfortably larger. If there was a 24 mm f/1.4 pancake-ish lens for NEX, I would get it instead, with my NEX 5N, despite that the lens aberrations would be much worse.
Sure, but there would be no light gathering difference between the NEX-7 and RX1 cropped to aps-c, and a barely mentionable difference with the RX1 cropped to APS-H. If I preferred the 35mm focal length, I would certainly consider the RX1. If I have to crop to my preferred focal length, no thanks.
As far as size, since there is no tilt LCD, I'd leave the EVF attached all of the time, which adds considerable size to one dimension, as I found with my 5N.
