p.8 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think we are likely going to see a larger than FF, mirrorless ILC from Hasselblad in a week or so - and one that may use a Sony sensor! Can you imagine the performance of a larger than 35FF Sony Cmos sensor? Of course, we probably don't want to imagine the price.
Hey, I thought you were trying to save me some coin?!?!
p.8 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I think it's just the matter of designing a couple of E mount lenses that can cover FF. I don't believe it's that difficult to make shifted micro lenses and remove the AA filter. If a stone age company like Leica, and a no body like Ricoh can do it, Sony can do it too.
p.8 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think it's just the matter of designing a couple of E mount lenses that can cover FF. I don't believe it's that difficult to make shifted micro lenses and remove the AA filter. If a stone age company like Leica, and a no body like Ricoh can do it, Sony can do it too.
Well, Sony seem to be ignoring that issue with their aps-c lenses, which are already large. The Ricoh implementation worked for M lenses with much larger image circles than aps-c, but it's tough to say how that would translate to FF.
p.8 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I don't think this camera will come in sub $2K. Typically, a lot of the 35mm f2.0 Zeiss lenses by themselves cost around $1,000. With cost of a newly introduced full frame sensor, I have a hard time seeing that this will be less than $2000.
I think this is just a product to measure the market response to smaller full frame camera. I guess it can be described as a "halo" product like Fuji's X100. I believe that Sony will eventually put out an interchangeable full frame mirrorless camera within the next 2 years if not next year.
p.8 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
mawz wrote:
I should note one thing on the RX1's price, it's not that much more than a NEX-7+ZA24 and it's noticeably more compact and likely to deliver better IQ (due to the larger sensor). The RX1 seems to be the camera for those who would have bought an X100 except for the Fuji quirks.
this is my thinking right now. should i sell my NEX-7 and a few lenses to get this and just use a NEX-C3 or whatever for those times when i need a longer lens (i never need a wider lens).
Jacob D wrote:
By the way, regarding the screen, SAR said: "It has the same A99 3 inch screen but without the smart three way tilting system."
Maybe that means it has a different tilt screen, I read it as saying it's a fixed screen. Maybe it means nothing at all since this is in the rumor stage, until tomorrow or whenever we get specs.
the a99 (and a77) have very different tilt screens than the NEX cameras, it just means this has only the 2-way tilting system that the NEX has rather than the 3-way of the slts.
p.8 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
Well, they seem to be ignoring that issue with their aps-c lenses, which are already large.
The lenses I understand, but the sensors I don't. They seem to insist on thick glass covers, strong AA filters and non shifted micro lenses. However, to make the rx1 possible, I'm sure they had to adapt, or copy what Leica and Ricoh have done.
p.8 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
The lenses I understand, but the sensors I don't. They seem to insist on thick glass covers, strong AA filters and non shifted micro lenses. However, to make the rx1 possible, I'm sure they had to adapt, or copy what Leica and Ricoh have done.
everybody has shifted microlenses as far as i know (even sony).
p.8 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
The lenses I understand, but the sensors I don't. They seem to insist on thick glass covers, strong AA filters and non shifted micro lenses. However, to make the rx1 possible, I'm sure they had to adapt, or copy what Leica and Ricoh have done.
Perhaps that's why Sony/Zeiss are using a Sonnar design - to make the lens more telecentric - unless the name means nothing here.
p.8 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
The lenses I understand, but the sensors I don't. They seem to insist on thick glass covers, strong AA filters and non shifted micro lenses. However, to make the rx1 possible, I'm sure they had to adapt, or copy what Leica and Ricoh have done.
I believe most all cameras have offset micro lenses these days. It's really about the sensor toppings, I think, and my suspicion is that Sony's interest in fighting video aliasing is part of the issue.
p.8 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
According to theSuede, most all cameras have offset micro lenses. It's really about the sensor toppings, I think, and my suspicion is that Sony's interest in fighting video aliasing is part of the issue.
So there is a logical reason after all
Having seen what the GXR can do with the ZM lenses, I don't think I can go back to AA filters.
p.8 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
jonrock wrote:
I don't think this camera will come in sub $2K. Typically, a lot of the 35mm f2.0 Zeiss lenses by themselves cost around $1,000. With cost of a newly introduced full frame sensor, I have a hard time seeing that this will be less than $2000.
But the cost to build and market them together as a single piece is significantly less than that of building and marketing them separately. $2000 is a reasonable price for this. Might go to $2200, but it is hard to see how Sony can price this in excess of a Leica X2 -- specially considering the price premium charged for the Leica name and the higher cost of production due to significantly smaller volumes associated with the X2 (not to mention less efficient marketing and distribution compared to Sony). A better camera than the X2 for the same price, might be an effective strategy for Sony here.
p.8 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Lotusm50 wrote:
But the cost to build and market them together as a single piece is significantly less than that of building and marketing them separately. $2000 is a reasonable price for this. Might go to $2200, but it is hard to see how Sony can price this in excess of a Leica X2 -- specially considering the price premium charged for the Leica name and the higher cost of production due to significantly smaller volumes associated with the X2 (not to mention less efficient marketing and distribution compared to Sony). A better camera than the X2 for the same price, might be an effective strategy for Sony here.
p.8 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Perhaps that's why Sony/Zeiss are using a Sonnar design - to make the lens more telecentric - unless the name means nothing here.
That is probably the case. And I don't think Zeiss names lenses arbitrarily, that the Sonnar name does indeed mean something, even if its effective meaning might have got broader over time.
p.8 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Lotusm50 wrote:
But the cost to build and market them together as a single piece is significantly less than that of building and marketing them separately. $2000 is a reasonable price for this. Might go to $2200, but it is hard to see how Sony can price this in excess of a Leica X2 -- specially considering the price premium charged for the Leica name and the higher cost of production due to significantly smaller volumes associated with the X2 (not to mention less efficient marketing and distribution compared to Sony). A better camera than the X2 for the same price, might be an effective strategy for Sony here.
Consider that the X2 commands an approximately $1000 premium over a comparable DSLR. The RX1 on the other hand commands no premium over a comparable DSLR/SLT, it's expected to be the same price as the A99, which shares its sensor (and likely a fair bit more).
If this was an RX10 with a fixed ~24mm lens, I'd expect it to come in around $1500. But we are talking an FF camera for a price smack dab in the middle of FF DSLR territory.
