itai195 wrote:
True enough. If that's the tradeoff being made then I'd point out that the value of an image quality advantage is a fleeting thing. A few years from now, your Fuji lenses are likely to still be useful on newer Fuji bodies, but the RX1's image quality will not be at the top of the heap anymore.
Assuming your still going to be shooting Fuji a few years into the future of course, which around here at least, would be a hard beat to make.
I mean look at how many here have gone m4/3 then NEX, then Fuji-X, then _______, sometimes more than once
My NEX glass is all long gone, my NEX glass is all long gone, and now my X glass is gone as well, but who knows what the future will hold.
Nice thing about glass is that you can generally sell it for decent prices, and if you buy it used, break even, as I did with my m4/3 kit when I rebought it all from my GH2 days upon getting the OM-D, and then ended up selling again.
Additionally, as far as the X system goes, while the lens are quite good, I can't see them being able to cover a FF image circle should Fuji come out with a FF X body. Probably would all new lens, no ?
So in a way, no matter how great of APS-C sensor is in a future Fuji body, if your still using the current glass it will look darn good, but its not going to render the same as the Zeiss lens on a FF sensor.
That to me is what buying the RX1 is about, that unique combination and the way the Sonnar design renders. Its a matter of taste but if you like the Zeiss contrast and focal transition its very much in this lens.
Again, that isn't to say the Fuji are bad lenses, I like the 35mm very much and was just about to order the 14mm, when I did a 180 and sold the Xpro and bought the RX1 instead.
It just had that unique look to it that I've always loved. Loved it when I was shooting a M9 and now got it again in a smaller package with AF and much better high ISO.
Might not be the best next year, but I'm going on a 10 day trip around the islands next week, so what I'm interested in is what will give me the images I like the most right in the here and now.
I can't argue against the RX1's image quality, being infatuated with it myself.
I like to make purchase decisions with at least the intent of keeping the gear for a while, even if that's not what ultimately happens much of the time. Others may have different priorities, of course.
millsart wrote:
...I'm going on a 10 day trip around the islands next week, so what I'm interested in is what will give me the images I like the most right
in the here and now
.
"in the here and now" is where you live, where you interact, and where you take photographs. What you capture is courtesy of your equipment, but completely dependent on your choices; where you look, when you push the button...
I'm also a fan of buying for the long term. Chasing upgrades is a losing battle, as corporations are in the business of sowing discontent.
I've always been in the spirit of buying as few things needed to get the job done. My wife and I ran a wedding photography business (this is our last year). I shot (and shoot) most weddings with nothing but a 35/2 lens. The idea of using lots and lots of lenses appeals to some folks, but it's too much choice for me. I like the simplicity of a fixed lens, as it's very hard to lose : D. I like the simplicity of a smaller camera, as I'm more likely to take it everywhere and use it all the time.
However, I also want one that works quickly, the way my D700 does, and it's hard to find small cameras that are also highly responsive. Oh, and I need a viewfinder. And I like the ability to control DOF while retaining a large field of view. So basically, the x100 / s sounds like the closest thing to my ideal camera out there. The RX1 gets eliminated with its lack of a viewfinder and rather large front lens; it's no longer pocketable, so I'm much less likely to take it with me everywhere.
I've got about $500 saved now, which is almost enough for an x100, and almost halfway to x100s land. Just one more month of saving...
Just FYI if you've never held on in person, but the X100/s is far from pocketable, save for something like a jacket pocket (which also fits the RX1)
I have been able to get my X100 into some baggy cargo shorts pockets before, but it was still pretty tight and hard to get in/out. Wasn't possible with jeans or dress slacks.
Ricoh GR looks to be the best solution if you want something you can always carry in a pocket as the lens retracts.
The X100 lens stick out about 1" from the body. The RX1 lens while looking big compared to the very small RX1 body is actually only 1.5" deep.
There is about .5" difference in total depth of the camera's, as the X100's eyepiece sticks out the back a bit, and the RX1's lens is deeper.
In the winter either would happily ride in a ski parka, but when its summer and you've got just shorts/jeans and a polo shirt or whatever, both are going to need to be worn around a strap or in a small bag.
RX100 is my choice for a true always with me pocket camera, but the X100s and/or RX1 both certainly can do a number of things it can't
millsart wrote:
Just FYI if you've never held on in person, but the X100/s is far from pocketable, save for something like a jacket pocket (which also fits the RX1)
I have been able to get my X100 into some baggy cargo shorts pockets before, but it was still pretty tight and hard to get in/out. Wasn't possible with jeans or dress slacks.
Ricoh GR looks to be the best solution if you want something you can always carry in a pocket as the lens retracts.
The X100 lens stick out about 1" from the body. The RX1 lens while looking big compared to the very small RX1 body is actually only 1.5" deep.
There is about .5" difference in total depth of the camera's, as the X100's eyepiece sticks out the back a bit, and the RX1's lens is deeper.
In the winter either would happily ride in a ski parka, but when its summer and you've got just shorts/jeans and a polo shirt or whatever, both are going to need to be worn around a strap or in a small bag.
RX100 is my choice for a true always with me pocket camera, but the X100s and/or RX1 both certainly can do a number of things it can't...Show more →
I'm okay with it fitting in a jacket pocket; I can't fit a DSLR that way. My main issue with the RX1 is the lack of a built in viewfinder; I'd take it far more seriously if it had one (even if it were simply an EVF).
I looked at the Ricoh GR, but it also doesn't have a viewfinder, so it's out. Ditto with the RX100, which would probably be very high on my list if it just came with an EVF or OVF (I'd like an APS-C or FF sensor, but would be willing to go smaller).
Interestingly, I have a 7 year old Lumix FZ7 that I still use now and then because, despite the antiquated image quality and ISO performance, it's small, offers a 35mm focal length, and has an EVF. However, it's very slow to turn on, slow to focus, and isn't usable beyond ISO 400, so I need something better as an all in one camera.
Tobicus, with a little practice, I've found my Voigtlander OVF to be about as reliable as my X100s' OVF, in terms of AF, and the camera's metering is so good that exposure really isn't an issue, either. If there's a particularly tricky AF or metering situation, I can just use the LCD, but that is rare. The camera remains small with the Voigtlander OVF, too, so you may want to check that out.
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad that Sony left off the built-in EVF in the RX1, as it saves me in both cost and size.
douglasf13 wrote:
Tobicus, with a little practice, I've found my Voigtlander OVF to be about as reliable as my X100s' OVF, in terms of AF, and the camera's metering is so good that exposure really isn't an issue, either. If there's a particularly tricky AF or metering situation, I can just use the LCD, but that is rare. The camera remains small with the Voigtlander OVF, too, so you may want to check that out.
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad that Sony left off the built-in EVF in the RX1, as it saves me in both cost and size. ...Show more →
... till the VF slips out of the hotshoe, as you're taking the RX1 out of your pocket, and falls down to the concrete pavement and scratches the optics.
Plenty of ways to affix it quite firmly into the hotshoe, such as wedging a business card under it for a really tight fit, or a piece of gaffers tape, or even a dab of nail polish all will make it a non issue.
I've got the VC35mm on mine and its really quite firm as is, but plenty of easy ways to give a little extra protection if its something worrisome.
To boot, it just looks really cool with the VC on there, and its a much smaller size than the Zeiss OVF, and less than 1/3rd the cost
sflxn wrote:
... till the VF slips out of the hotshoe, as you're taking the RX1 out of your pocket, and falls down to the concrete pavement and scratches the optics.
My guess is that your RX1 would break long before anything fell off if carried in a pocket. It's difficult to image anyone putting an RX1 in their pocket with or without a finder attached. Oh wait, are cargo pants back in style... It really does not matter how big the pockets are even with a huge jacket or baggy pants as an RX1 would not be very comfortable in any pocket given it's size and almost cube like dimension with finder atop , not to mention how vulnerable to easy damage your 3K camera would be carried like that.
sflxn wrote:
... till the VF slips out of the hotshoe, as you're taking the RX1 out of your pocket, and falls down to the concrete pavement and scratches the optics.
You must not have seen my posts about how solid the Voigtlander OVF is, and how I've attached it. I can basically swing the camera around by only the OVF.
Well, Fuji will soon release the 23/1.4, giving you "35/2.0" full-frame framing and depth of field - the same as the Sony, but a lot cheaper (guess the Sony is around 4000 and the 23/1.4 will be around 400$)...
I would save that money and see what happens in 2014 instead...
ceder wrote:
Well, Fuji will soon release the 23/1.4, giving you "35/2.0" full-frame framing and depth of field - the same as the Sony, but a lot cheaper (guess the Sony is around 4000 and the 23/1.4 will be around 400$)...
I would save that money and see what happens in 2014 instead...
FWIW, the 23/1.4 would be closer to "35/2.1" full-frame equivalent, and likely more expensive than the 35/1.4, which is $600.
It is an interesting reflection on the changing photographer expectations, discussing the fixed lens VS lens mount cameras; I remember when I started photography in the film days, I would mostly shoot with a fixed RF, most of the time with a 50 on it. The inability to change FLs was not considered a handicap, as much as part of the available tool offering.
Probably that is why the idea of an X100 or RX1 is very inviting in it's simplicity to me. Not to say one way is better than the other, just an observation
tobicus wrote:
How do you get 2.4 instead of 2.1? Isn't the crop factor 1.5?
The area of a FF sensor is nearly 2.4x the size of an aps-c sensor. I did make a mistake in that post, though. I meant f2.2, not f2.4 (Canon's aps-c would be f2.3.) I'll fix it, thanks.
douglasf13 wrote:
The area of a FF sensor is nearly 2.4x the size of an aps-c sensor. I did make a mistake in that post, though. I meant f2.2, not f2.4 (Canon's aps-c would be f2.3.) I'll fix it, thanks.
That's not how that works, though. You've got rounding errors in all levels here that compound. A 23mm f/1.4 on Fuji will have the same FOV and depth of field from the same framing as a 34.5mm f/2.1 on full frame...essentially f/2. (I highly doubt ANYONE could reliably tell the difference between two shots differing by 1/6 stop in depth of field).
Jman13 wrote:
That's not how that works, though. Remember that f/stops already take that into account with the factor of sqrt(2). If that were the case, you'd have to multiply m4/3 by 4 instead of by 2. A 23mm f/1.4 on Fuji will have the same FOV and depth of field from the same framing as a 34.5mm f/2.1 on full frame...essentially f/2. (I highly doubt ANYONE could reliably tell the difference between two shots differing by 1/6 stop in depth of field).
Go to the bottom of this page and enter in all the equivalents you'd like. It's a great guide: link
Come to think of it, the RX1 sensor isn't a full 24x36, but, rather, 23.8x35.8, and the Fuji sensor is a tick larger on the short side than NEX, so it is actually just f2.1. I'll edit again.
