Steve Spencer
Online
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced! | |
sebboh wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
sebboh wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
chez wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
chez wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
sebboh wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
sebboh wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
sebboh wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
curious80 wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
architekt wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
I will weigh in here, even though a fixed lens camera isn't my thing. I think Sony should have used the A7C II/A7Cr body and added the RX1r lens. This would have resulted in a bigger camera, but it still would have been smaller than a Q3. They then could have easily had IBIS, and a very nice tillable LCD. I think that would be a more useful camera and since they already have that body, I don't think it would have had to cost any more. It would also make it clear what you are paying for is the lens, which is very nice and doesn't come cheap. Ideally they would up the viewfinder to 3.7 K dots, and update the lens with new motors, but even if they didn't it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Obviously that would be a bigger camera, but I don't think the miniaturization that is required to make the camera as small as what they produced is worth it. For those who want that miniaturization this camera will be well received, but those who really want what making it just a big bigger would allow I don't think will or are happy with the camera.
RX1R lens is directly glued to the sensor while e-mount has a 18 mm flange distance. I am not sure how to put that lens on A7C II/A7Cr. May be I am missing something?
Obviously what I am suggesting wouldn't be a E mount camera, and they would have to modify the mount area of the A7C II/A7Cr body to accommodate the RX1R lens, but given that the lens is fixed and the A7C II/A7Cr body is bigger that should not be that much of a challenge.
So just to be clear you are still talking about a fixed-lens camera but just asking for a larger body which can accommodate the additional features?
Yes, a body based on the A7C II/A7Cr body and I am suggesting that the fixed lens could have been the one from the RX1R with maybe a few modest upgrades (better focus motors, better polishing of the aspherical elements).
given that the lens is basically attached to the sensor, making IBIS work would be difficult, can't just use the same IBIS module as the the a7cr.
Of course that is true, and they would have to work out how to make IBIS work (perhaps lens based IS or a hybrid of lens and sensor IS), but with the body I am suggesting they would have some room to do it. In the super tiny body of the RX1R series and keeping the camera and lens below 500g, asking for IS is simply too much. I would rather have the camera be a bit bigger and a bit better featured.
why not just get an a7cr then. the advantage of a fixed lens is you can make it smaller.
Making it smaller is one potential advantage, but I don't think it is the only one and I don't think that advantage is worth leaving out the other features--a useable tiltable screen and image stabilization in particular.
Another main advantage of a fixed lens camera is that you can tune the lens to the sensor is a way you cannot with an interchangeable lens camera. The 35mm lens for the RX1R is a great example of what you can do with lens design if you aren't constrained by making the lens interchangeable. It is that advantage that I want them to keep and personally I don't think the advantage of making it smaller is worth the sacrifice in other features, but of course, YMMV.
i suspect if they went that route we'd just have an a7cr with GM 35 on but a tiny bit smaller and a tiny bit better corrected. personally, i'm not really interested in that, but maybe there are more people who are?
I don't know. An A7Cr plus a GM 35 f/1.4 is over 1000g and much bigger than either of the Leica Q3's. I suspect that Sony could make the camera which I am suggesting with a body much like the A7Cr, but with a much smaller fixed lens like on the RX1R and keep it under 650g and be 10mm less wide than the Leica's and 5mm less tall. Such a camera would be a bit smaller, and cheaper than the Leica Q3s. It would have much of the same features, but a bit smaller EVF, meaning it would have image stabilization, and a titlable LCD. It would likely have better AF, but not as good MF. I think the lens on the RX1r is better than the lens on either Leica as well. I think just like the Leica Q's are pretty popular with a lot of folks, there would be a good market for a slightly smaller, better in some ways, and cheaper Sony that addresses much the same market. Maybe I am crazy, however, I am not the market for this type of camera. I like being able to change lenses. I am just speculating and I could easily be wrong.
The Leica brand has a lot to do with the q3 popularity. Why would Sony want to make a camera that has competition when it can make a camera that has nothing equal at it’s size.
I think the RX1R III competes with the Leica Qs either way. We are talking a fixed lens luxury camera no matter whatever size it is. And the fact it sells for $5,000 makes it a luxury item. The question is what is the best feature set to compete. Size is one way to compete, but so is features. I think having expected features like IS and a tillable screen are more important than shrinking a camera from 650g to 500g. The camera I think would be better could beat the Leica Q's on size, price, lens, and AF. The Leica would be just a little bigger have a better EVF and better MF. I think the Sony stacks up pretty well in that competition, but less so if it also doesn't have IS and it has a fixed screen. My point is I would trade some of the size advantages for a few more features, but you are free to think otherwise.
If someone wants all those features, there are many ways to get them. If someone wants a nice compact full frame, there is the RX1R series of cameras.
Personally an A7cr with a nice Sony 40mm competes very well against the Q3 at a fraction of the price.
Let's compare:
Leica Q3 43 - 43mm f/2 lens, 772g, 5.8 million dot EVF, 1.8 million dot 3" tillable LCD, lens based IS, AF and an excellent implementation of MF, MFD of 26.5 cm with .25X magnification, 60 ish MP sensor.
Sony A7Cr with 40mm f/2.5 G lens, 688g, 2.4 million dot EVF, 1.0 million dot 3" tillable LCD, IBIS, excellent AF and good implementation of MF, MFD of 25cm with .23X magnification, 60 ish MP sensor.
So the Sony is 84g lighter and has better AF, but a 2/3rd of a stop slower lens a much lower res EVF, much lower res LCD. Is the Sony a better value? Sure, but is it a better setup? Well you have to care an awful lot about that 84g and AF, to give up the better viewing experience and clearly better lens of the Leica. To me it isn't close. The Leica is clearly a better setup. The Sony a better value and at the price point of considering the Leica (and the Sony RX1R III for that matter) value doesn't really come into play.
Now let's add the RX1R III - 35 f/2 lens, 500g, 2.4 million dot EVF, 1.0 million dot 3" fixed LCD, no IS, excellent AF and a weak implementation of MF, MFD 20cm with .26X magnification, 60 ish MP sensor.
The Sony now wins on size being 272g lighter and AF, and arguably wins on the lens, but clearly loses on the EVF, LCD, IS, and MF. To me it isn't competing that well. My take is that a more modest win on size and the prevention of the clear losses in LCD and IS would compete better. Again, YMMV, and probably does.
All these setups have pretty much the same excellent sensor and quite good close focus performance. If you wanted a one lens solution they all have some strengths, but for a luxury product which sells for over $5,000 I don't think the RX1R III competes very well.
if you aren't interested in buying a fixed lens camera than your preferences probably don't reflect the market. i'm not interested in the leica q because i can just put any number of lenses i like better on my a7cii and have a smaller package. i would rather use cv 40/1.2 than the q43 and i would rather use the g28 than the q28, but different people will have different lens preferences. rx1 has two big advantages: 1) it is significantly smaller than any other 35mm setup, 2) the lens is better than any other 35mm (imho). making it the same size as an ILC takes away one of its biggest advantages imo.
I agree about the lens being a big advantage and I agree that I probably don't reflect the market. I even agree with you about the Q3 cameras and not being interested in them because I can use lenses at those focal lengths I like better. I have tried to make it clear my views may not and probably don't reflect the market. Still, I am intrigued and always have been by the lens from the RX1R III and I can't help feeling that I would be a lot more drawn to a camera with that lens that was more like the Q3, a bit bigger with fewer compromises. Again I may not and probably don't reflect the market, but given the reaction to this camera I am not sure that putting that lens on a really small camera with lots of compromises will capture the market either. Perhaps it will. We will see.
i don't think there is a big market to capture. high priced fixed lens cameras are a niche item that only a small group of people will ever buy. the question is what is that those people willing to buy a fixed lens camera are looking for. i'm guessing it's not a camera just like their ILC but with a lens they can't take off. i would guess there are two camps (1) one who wants the smallest thing that can work and (2) one that wants a simplified (classic) user experience with the best optics around. i think leica has a clear knowhow advantage on 2 and sony has a clear knowhow advantage on 1. sony seems unable to build a camera that doesn't feel like a computer and leica doesn't seem able to miniaturize electronics very well. leica also has a brand name advantage for telling people they have made a purist camera with the best possible lens. personally, i think sony has a better lens and i think they could sell more rx1riiis if they didn't make it any bigger but made it feel more like a luxury item (give the lens a real focus ring and physical distance scale!) and gave it a better a more retro camera UI (i could totally be wrong).
Again, I mostly agree with you. There are clearly people in camp #1, but I wonder how big that camp is and if it is shrinking. My guess, and it is a guess, is a very expensive fixed lens camera probably sells to someone who has a pretty extensive photography kit, but wants something to take for those times they don't want to take their full kit. And I do think some of those people will just want as small as possible, but the those people do have other options. They can take their phone, which is obviously smaller and although I hate using my phone for photos and almost never do, a lot of people and increasingly more it seems are quite happy using their phones when they don't want to take their photography gear. Then there are things like the Ricoh GXR--I think they just released a version IV. It is way smaller than the RX1R, which is also smaller if you just want small. On size what the RX1R really competes with is the Fuji XV100 IV which is almost the same size. For luxury buyers who want this size the Sony does have a much better lens, IMO and a better sensor, so I think this camera will sell to some who focus on size, but I think that market is shrinking.
I would characterize camp #2 just a bit differently. I think they care about simplicity, but I think what they want is a camera with everything. They want a great user experience. That is where the simplicity comes in but also things like a great MF feel, and a great viewfinder, and yes a really good LCD that tilts. They also want a great sensor and a great lens. They also want small size. You might want everything, but of course that isn't possible and there are tradeoffs so what is really needed is getting the balance of features right.
I think you are right that Sony shot for camp #1, and I am arguing that they should have shot for camp #2. Again, I might be totally wrong in my analysis, but I think although Sony is good at camp #1, I think they are pretty good at camp #2 and have gotten better at it. I think the evolution of their mirrorless cameras can be seen as a move from camp #1 to camp #2. I am generally happy with that move as I more fall into camp #2 even though I don't want a fixed lens camera, but as someone who seems to favors camp #1 I suspect you are not. I guess in a general way, I am saying that I think Sony has evolved to a system and set of cameras that is more to my liking and has moved away from focussing on keeping things really small. I like that. This RX1R III doesn't in my view have that same sort of evolution. It has stuck very close to the vision of the first version.
I don't really care what Sony did with this camera as I don't want a fixed lens camera, but I think evolving this camera in a similar way to how their other camera systems have evolved would have been a good thing. I could easily be wrong, but what I really care about and hope Sony continues is embracing developing good balanced products that strive for excellence across the board with sensible and smart tradeoffs. I guess I am a bit disappointed that that they didn't develop this camera with more of that approach.
|
