Sony RX1

[Harry Lime]

I think one of the biggest questions for street shooters is how well zone / scale focus is implemented. If it's poorly executed it will just be a PS, albeit with a huge sensor.

 

[btgc]

Lookig at pictures I just realized red band around lens base stating "35mm full-frame CMOS image sensor" looks annoying. Like putting "6-cyl Otto cycle combustion engine" decal in dashboard to be seen each time you drive.

 

[bigeye]

Rockwell kind of hammers it. (He's an editor's nightmare, but technically quite reliable.)

-Charlie

 

[btgc]

Rockwell kind of hammers it. (He's an editor's nightmare, but technically quite reliable.)

I don't know what to think about his rant about .jpg color balance, doesn't sound like an adult person. But then, he makes interesting remarks like about "LCD quality" menu item, which is implemented automatic on some other compacts. Ken is like everyone other - biased on some points and true on others.

 

[Tobers]

I actually have an RX1 and it is superb. As a previous M9 owner the RX1 overcomes many of the problems with the Leica, and the best way to think of it is as a pocketable 5D with a top quality fast 35 lens on it.

I have used it professionally at two events in the last week where it was my second body (well, 4th actually as I had two remotes) and it turned in some beautiful images alongside my 1D IV bodies and L lenses.

Usability is great and some people simply havn't tried the camera and are talking nonsense. For example the shutter speed has a dedicated dial on the back, and setting the user memory settings took me 30 seconds. Menus are fine, way simpler than the OM-D, and the build quality is very ver solid.

If you are after a small full frame camera with a superb lens and cant afford an M and 35 cron then this is the one for you. If you are lucky enough to have a wodge of cash and can afford the Leica then thats great and I would have gone that route if I had the cash. If you can't afford the RX1 then you'll find the Olympus OM-D to be an admirable substitute (I have one of those as well).

Overall, a superb piece of kit.

 

[jsrockit]

For example the shutter speed has a dedicated dial on the back...

I think dedicated means you can only use it for one function... is that dial on the back only for shutter speed?

 

[Tobers]

There's two dials on the back - one is the obvious one with the button in the middle and the 4-way controller cabability. The other is horizontally situated above it and its this one which handles shutter speed.

It may be possible to reconfigure that dial but I haven't tried it yet as it makes sense to use it for shutter speed.

I'd prefer a top mounted shutter speed dial with visible markings though.

 

[hteasley]

Rockwell kind of hammers it. (He's an editor's nightmare, but technically quite reliable.)

-Charlie

He writes like an overexcited teen, and seems to not have much in the way of article to article consistency in his opinions. He strikes me as not very worthwhile to read for review information.

 

[hteasley]

Handled an RX1 yesterday at Newtonville Camera, and took some shots in the store... it's sort of incredible. Handles really well, controls are lovely, and really wonderful 3D pop in how it draws. Manual focus worked well, although the default settings caused the zoom-focus to snap out too quickly: it was hard to fine tune because it snapped out of zoom mode almost the instant you stopped manipulating the focus ring. Dunno if that's adjustable.

If I didn't have an M9, I'd get it in a heartbeat. I'd have to get the EVF for it: I just can't stand to hold the camera away from my eye. But wow, it is incredible.

 

[Paul T.]

Rockwell kind of hammers it. (He's an editor's nightmare, but technically quite reliable.)

-Charlie

His points about the program mode are very reasonable, if they're correct. How autoISO and preferred apertures/exposures are implemented are key, crucial areas (although, of course, this can nearly always be improved in Firmware, as was the X100.

Then I read to the bit where Ken Rockwell said "I'm an artist", laughed, and stopped reading.

 

[Griffin]

Interesting read. I enjoyed that. Perhaps if Sony would've handled my grd for a couple if days they would've made a killer legendary camera that would be reveered(?) for decades to come.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

This camera and the Leica MM seem like prime candidates for rental first (like Lensrentals.com) to see if you are happy with the machine. It's a lot of coin to part with if you are uncertain of how you will get on with the camera . . .

 

[nightfly]

Wondering what problems you had with the M9 that the RX1 overcomes. A used M9 or an RX1 would be my first two choices in a higher end digital camera. Would probably use the M9 with my 35mm Summicron most of the time so would love a comparison between the two.

Great to hear from someone who's actually used one.

I actually have an RX1 and it is superb. As a previous M9 owner the RX1 overcomes many of the problems with the Leica, and the best way to think of it is as a pocketable 5D with a top quality fast 35 lens on it.

I have used it professionally at two events in the last week where it was my second body (well, 4th actually as I had two remotes) and it turned in some beautiful images alongside my 1D IV bodies and L lenses.

Usability is great and some people simply havn't tried the camera and are talking nonsense. For example the shutter speed has a dedicated dial on the back, and setting the user memory settings took me 30 seconds. Menus are fine, way simpler than the OM-D, and the build quality is very ver solid.

If you are after a small full frame camera with a superb lens and cant afford an M and 35 cron then this is the one for you. If you are lucky enough to have a wodge of cash and can afford the Leica then thats great and I would have gone that route if I had the cash. If you can't afford the RX1 then you'll find the Olympus OM-D to be an admirable substitute (I have one of those as well).

Overall, a superb piece of kit.

 

[Tobers]

Really enjoying my RX1. For me, as an ex M9 user, it is a very worthy successor. Image quality is fab, the lens is excellent, and it pops into a coat pocket very easily so goes with me more than my M9 did.

Focus on anything moving at f/2 is pretty useless. Static subjects are fast to focus on, not as quick as my OM-D but faster than I could with my M9.

White balance is accurate. Exposure in aperture priority is usually spot on. You can get rid of all non essential info from the display and keep things simple with aperture, iso and shutter speed. But its also really nice if you want to be "lazy" or hand the camera to someone else and let it sort itself out.

And it is very very quiet, doesn't stand out so is very discrete. I'll be playing with the 1/2000th flash sync in the next week or two on a couple of upcoming jobs.

Three examples from yesterday at a nearby outlet mall...


Bored by Tobers, on Flickr


Burberry by Tobers, on Flickr


Bags by Tobers, on Flickr

 

[Tobers]

Wondering what problems you had with the M9 that the RX1 overcomes. A used M9 or an RX1 would be my first two choices in a higher end digital camera. Would probably use the M9 with my 35mm Summicron most of the time so would love a comparison between the two.

Great to hear from someone who's actually used one.

Sorry - missed that question initially. My main problem with the M9 was that I needed a load of cash for a new motorbike so had to sell it :bang:. That being said, I loved using it - a delightful camera amd the Zeiss 2/50 I had on it was gorgeous. However, I just couldn't afford a set of Leica lenses that I wanted.

Also, with a brace of Canon 1DIV bodies with nice L lenses already working for me, the M9 was a real luxury purchase. With poor high ISO, dodgy white balance (fixable in post I know), and a tendency to my corrupt SD cards (happened to me 3 times losing images on the cards), I found I couldn't rely on the M9 as I would have liked in professional shoot situations. And I couldn't pocket it either, so took a bag with me making things just a bit more awkward.

Thankfully I sold the M9 before the announcement of the M so "only" lost £1000 on it. I see a couple of M9s in my local dealer going for £2,700 so that's at least a £2,000 loss on new. Yikes. Still I could have a used M9 for the price of the RX1 which I considered long and hard, but I'd need to spring another grand for a decent lens.

Be in no doubt that if I had the money I'd have a new M and a 24 1.4 and 50 1.4, and probably a 75 as well. And a spare M as changing lenses is such a drag. But I don't, and in my opinion the RX1 is a very very worthy substitute, much more so than a 5D for example which is so much bulkier with 35 f/2 on.

Oh, I also have an Olympus OM-D as well which is excellent, but cant match the RX1 for image quality. It's a very good little camera with some great lenses, but oh so fiddly and confusing to use with a bonkers menu system.

Hope that helps.

 

[Archiver]

Tobers, very interesting observations and experiences about the RX1. I use the M9, 5DII, OM-D, GXR and X100, and the M9 has a certain quality and look of image (Kodak CCD + no AA filter) that only the Ricoh GXR comes close to matching. But every camera has its pros and cons - the OM-D is currently my primary camera due to the speed of operation and versatility of lenses, while I bring out the M9 when I know I want that 'M9 look'. The 5DII is my A-cam for video production, etc.

How do you see the RX1 image 'look' and quality when compared with the M9? Do you see the actual images as being more 5D than M9?

 

[jsrockit]

Man, the hype died down on this one...

 

[thejameskendall]

Rockwell kind of hammers it. (He's an editor's nightmare, but technically quite reliable.)

-Charlie

"Shot in Professional ("P" mode) and Auto ISO, as I and my pro friends always shoot..."
Oh for god's sake Ken.

 

[Marc G.]

biggest dealbreakers for me:

-obvious barrel distortion (lesser reason but as I like to get it right in the camera it would annoy me)

-pretende to have the controls of the manual cameras with aperture ring and so on but doesnt even have a shutter speed dial on the top. instead it has a point and shoot program dial. I'd conclude this point to the fact that sony tried to create something professional, like fuji did with the X100. but failed as it is still too much Sony for being like that (i specifically mean the lack of a built in viewfinder, the dial issue and the fact that it even feels as a point and shoot in my big hands)

-too expensive for a fixed lens point and shoot. very subjective but I'd rather get a X100 (which are dirt cheap by now but still an awesome camera) or X1/2 and a huge trip for the money. the benefits of the bigger sensor are there but if you want the detail to make bigger prints I think a camera with interchangable lenses would be a better thing, not to speak of medium format


there is a market for this kind of camera, but I dont think that people who shoot a leica for what it is (small, rangefinder, great IQ e.g.) would ditch it for the RX1. nor do I think that professionals used to zoom lenses would pay their hard earned money for a hobby point and shoot.

the future might proof I'm wrong and all I said is bollocks but when the hype ends people might wake up and see that there are other cameras that give about the same thing but with better controls, a better design or which is just more affordable...

we'll see

 

[GaryLH]

FYI - initial impressions post from at serious compacts

FYI - initial impressions post from at serious compacts

Fwiw serious compacts forum posting on initial impressions
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f111/thoughts-sony-rx1-15435/

Gary

Ps. Forgot to mention that someone mention how he purchased to rx1 w/ a discount.