Considering the RX1's status as the first FF compact ... where is it?

[GaryLH]

To me, it seems a bit of a trophy camera, just like super speed lenses are trophy lenses for manufacturers. Something for Sony to beat its chest about, and roar out loud to other camera makers about. That's not to say its without its market, just that its a very small market, and an offering Sony probably makes a loss on overall. Of course, there is great value to Sony's reputation as a camera maker, something that is intangible but no doubt of invaluable benefit when it comes to selling Sony and its non-trophy camera wares to photographers.

Trophy camera maybe... But at end of the day if that is all it is there are going to be some directors and product line managers that are going to fired if that so called trophy camera does not break even at minimum or that they can prove that the camera has brought pull thru sales.

Someone had to get up there and show profit projections that made some sense.

Gary

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sony FF fixed-fixed lens P&S was wrong marketing decision at this price, IMO. But even if it is $1K, I don't need this very limited solution.

It looks like Fuji made right marketing choice with croppers fleet of X cameras.
If they make FF interchangeable lens body now, they will lose a lot more of profit from people who would re-use their old glass, or buy it used under low price, like old Fuji lens, or buy high-end Leica, Zeiss glass instead, but not Fuji glass, which is designed for croppers.

Most of manufactures are facing it. Make FF and no glass for it - not so much profit, or make FF glass with AF, but why, if they invested into crop format lenses manufacturing.

Same consumer market manufactures selling millions of P&S with very small sensors, with pictures which are far from to be good for large screen, but perfect to be twitted and FB or shared at Flickr, RFF and so on at 800 pixels size.
Those are nice, functioning, reasonably priced cameras.

If someone wants better IQ compared to their most common PS, they are more than happy to get cropper like X, G, NEX and so on. And pictures are better for larger size.

Here is no market for FF compact to be profitable, IMO.

 

[GaryLH]

This is why I think Fuji is smart to sit back and watch how Sony does in ff ilc.

Being first to market is only good if u got a good product.. A half baked one only looses customers. Coming in late but w/ a well fleshed out product can be better at times. Prime example is iPod was a good three years or more later to the market compared to the first music players released.

A ff p&s is debatable in terms of wrong or right. There had to have been some very good marketing analysis to have someone give the green light to it. But most definitely, given the price and everything, it was targeted to a small market segment.

Gary

 

[back alley]

i think the market for the rx1 is those shooters who would want a leica digital and only ever use a 35 on it...maybe with a 50 as a back up.
a limited market for sure but a real one.

 

[djonesii]

as too overpriced .....

as too overpriced .....

From all I have seen, it's priced pretty close to right ...

The used ones are floating in at $2200

A refurb D600 is 1600, add a 35 F2 for $300, and you are in the same ball park, but the 35 F2 is no match for the Sony lens. Add a refurb 28mm 1.8 and the price is near on the same.

Now it's down to preference, PnS, or DSLR?? As the English say horses for courses ....

When stripped of the "Use Case" the hardware pricing is in line with a reasonable expectation.

Dave

 

[f16sunshine]

Sony is supposedly bringing an SLR styled mirror less camera (ala Panny GH3).


Although initially it's to be an entry level model….If that ever turns into a FF model I might be interested.

All the Sony mirror less models to date are to damn Slippery in my opinion.
A slightly larger model with "traditional" styled controls would be great.
Imagine a GH3 with a Full Frame Sensor and M mount compatibility.
The Ergonomics of that model (Panny GHx) is very very good.

Smaller is not always better. Not everyone is street/stealth shooter.
When I work I need a camera that I can hold on to whether it's with a small 35mm/50mm or a 180mm/300mm.

The RX1 is cool because of it's great lens and IQ. In use I just can't see (or feel) it's a ideal or even practical package.

 

[GaryLH]

Slippery 🙂


Reason that companies like real right stuff can sell grips.

Gary

 

[Ko.Fe.]

i think the market for the rx1 is those shooters who would want a leica digital and only ever use a 35 on it...maybe with a 50 as a back up.
a limited market for sure but a real one.

Add Sony fanatics to this. Where are same kind of Sony consumers, similar to those who in stack with Leica. They think it must be Sony only. But still, small market.

 

[f16sunshine]

Slippery 🙂


Reason that companies like real right stuff can sell grips.

Gary

That's fair actually. I fondled one (RX1) at the shop without a grip and, I should say I'm a person who uses grips and half cases with a wrist strap.
Tiny cramped little cameras for big long fingers is a real issue.
Especially as my hands become more arthritic over the years.
It's just nice to have more space to work when using a serious camera.
The x100 is as small as I can go. The lay out on that camera is perfect considering it's tiny size (comparatively tiny 😀 ).

 

[GaryLH]

Tiny cramped little cameras for big long fingers is a real issue.
Especially as my hands become more arthritic over the years.
).

Yep getting there myself. Not too bad yet. I have rss grip on my x100 as well though. For the mass as well as making it easier to hold.

I put a franeic grip on my rx100. That is way too slippery without it.

Gary

 

[mbisc]

[*]The Fuji lens does not exhibit the severe barrel distortion of the RX1's Sonnar.

Really? I don't own an RX1, but when it was first announced it struck me as a digital version of my Contax T3 (which most certainly does not have "sever barrel distortion," nor do any of my other Carl Zeiss wide angle lenses...)😕

 

[Addy101]

If the logo on the camera would have said Nikon instead of Sony, a lot more people here would have loved it. It partly is just dislike of Sony it seems.....

If you look around the internet you will find enough working professional photographers using it. The price seems right as a DSLR with a quality 35mm lens is about the same price. People who used it say the build quality is superb. And we all have seen the pictures :-D

I would love one, but €2500,- for a hobby is a bit steep....

 

[semilog]

Really? I don't own an RX1, but when it was first announced it struck me as a digital version of my Contax T3 (which most certainly does not have "sever barrel distortion," nor do any of my other Carl Zeiss wide angle lenses...)😕

The design parameters for a digital lens are not the same as for a film lens.

Correcting aberrations always involves trade-offs. Push here, something sticks out there. Correct them all and you may end up with a lens that is big and heavy, or that requires such tight tolerances that it cannot be manufactured at a feasible price.

In digital, geometric distortion is one of the easiest aberrations to correct during RAW conversion, and by loosening that constraint, other parameters can be optimized. For this reason many quite good digital lenses have significant barrel distortion (e.g., Panasonic 20/1.7). The penalty is some loss of resolution in the peripheral zones of the image.

In Fuji's case, the extremely light and compact 18/2 has a lot of intrinsic barrel distortion, which is corrected in RAW development. The heavier, bulkier, more expensive, slower 12/2.8 has almost none. I'm expecting/hoping the 23/1.4 will be more like the 12mm: a lens optimized for no-compromise performance on the XTRANS sensor, even if at some cost in size, weight, and price.

 

[Eric T]

The price isn't too bad compared to a single Leica 35mm Summicron or Summilux lens.
Full frame just doesn't provide a great advantage anymore.
And I am no longer enamored by traditional Bayer sensors. Fuji taught me that with the x-trans sensor. Now I use mostly Sigma foveon X3. I can't wait to see the next generation of the foveon sensor and Sigma cameras. Faster image transfer and higher ISO in color are the next improvement needed.
Meanwhile - what is Apple doing? I am expecting big photo ideas from them in the next year or two.

 

[GaryLH]

+1 sort of

I mainly agree. I still think there is a place for Bayer but only because it is in a camera type/style I can't get from fuji or sigma. Like Eric, I mainly shoot w/ fuji and sigma cameras. Where I still use Bayer sensor cameras are
- pocketable p&s like rx100 or gr
- omd for tele work because no one has as good of ibis as they do
- ricoh gxr m module - outside of Leica no one supports rf lenses as well
Several camera makers in last couple of years have patents on foveon style sensors, fuji along w/ Panasonic are working on the organic sensor. Interesting times. If your shooting style does use razor thin dof for subject isolation or super high iso or looking for a ff alternative for your Leica rf lenses, ff is not as big of a deal as it used to be IMHO.

Gary

 

[aeturnum]

I rented an RX1 after my XPro-1 was stolen. It's a great camera (is it even possible to buy a bad camera these days?), but I did not buy one of my own for a variety of reasons:

• Completely subjective, but I don't like the "look" from sony sensors on high ISO.
• The lens is f/2, which loses you a stop, though the fuji x-series doesn't closely follow the ISO standard, but you still get a bit more light.
• I don't really like the form factor. It was small enough that holding it was fairly awkward.
• For the price, it was not very versatile. I love 35mm, but I like some 50mm in there as well. Same reason I sold my M9.
• I really disliked where the EVF was placed, using it felt awkward. I may have been able to just use the rear screen because of how small the camera is, but due to the other points against it I decided not to.

There were some features I quite liked - sony's focus peaking is fantastic, the responsiveness is excellent. It really is tiny with great image quality.

 

[rolfe]

No question a bigger sensor is better -- the question is how much bigger and how much better?

The EOS-M with an APS-C sensor at $299.00 with lens seemed like a great price. It is the same electronics that are in the 7D. Is the Sony that much "better" or any "better"? With an APS-C sensor, you can already do high ISO and throw backgrounds out of focus, etc. I can put almost any lens, including any of my Leica M mount lenses on the EOS-M. With the Canon adapter, you can use any EOS compatible lens. Is there a similar Sony solution?

 

[hausen]

Think there is certainly some Sony snobbery. If Leica had the technical know how to produce this camera it would be three times the price.

 

[jsrockit]

Think there is certainly some Sony snobbery. If Leica had the technical know how to produce this camera it would be three times the price.

Do you really think Leica would charge $8400 for this when its own M 240 is $7000?

 

[Michalm]

nex ?

nex ?

No question a bigger sensor is better -- the question is how much bigger and how much better?

The EOS-M with an APS-C sensor at $299.00 with lens seemed like a great price. It is the same electronics that are in the 7D. Is the Sony that much "better" or any "better"? With an APS-C sensor, you can already do high ISO and throw backgrounds out of focus, etc. I can put almost any lens, including any of my Leica M mount lenses on the EOS-M. With the Canon adapter, you can use any EOS compatible lens. Is there a similar Sony solution?

Nex is the answer.