sony rx1...yes or no?

sony rx1...yes or no?

  • seriously thinking about it

    Votes: 45 32.8%

  • no way

    Votes: 80 58.4%

  • i don't understand why they made it in the first place

    Votes: 19 13.9%
  • Total voters
    137
venchka said:
I'll say it: NO!
100% electronic cameras being what they are and given the brief lifespan of spare parts availability, the term Zeiss 35mm paperweight takes on real meaning.
Click to expand...

Found my very first all electronic (digital) camera in a drawer ... A palm camera .. Rigged it to my ancient palm v ... Works perfectly. That's what, 18 years old. My 2003 E-1 is also still going strong. Neither have ever needed service.

My 1982 Nikon FE2 is still also going strong ... All elctronic shutter and meter. The guy I sold it to ten years back is carrying it today while visiting me. Never been serviced either, and in perfect shape. Parts for it are almost nonexistent too.
 
This camera is not for me, but I have nothing against it. If it was IL, then I would have seriously considered it. Price and features seem ok to me.
 
no 🙂
The size of the lens and external VF pushes it out of the jacket pocket category where I want my fixed lens camera to be. Also I want corrected framelines with my VF.

Having said that I think it's a great technological achievement and I hope it sells well.
 
I will definitely get one. Not now, but a long latter when the price gets a bit lower. Although I am against cameras that do not have a viewfinder (people that shoot is lots of light will understand me), I like a lot of its features.
 
I voted yes, but the price is too high for me for the time-being. Will definitely try and get it later on as the price comes down. I don't have a problem with its fixed lens, nor lack of VF. Since this is an AF camera no VF is all right with me, provided that when I try it in the stores everything works to my liking. On paper though this camera fits a lot of my needs/wants.
 
I said no. If it had an integrated EVF or OVF, I would seriously consider it. As it is, this would end up costing near $4k once you buy an EVF or OVF plus spare batteries, cards etc. etc. For $4k, I got my XP1 plus the 3 native lenses plus cards plus spare batteries plus some other odds and ends.

Simon
 
I voted no.

But two years down the line, a version with an integrated VF, would tempt me. Still dreaming about that digital Hexar AF, and Sony do own those rights...
 
I voted 'no way', but only very reluctantly. This camera seems perfect for my needs (even better had it been a 40mm or 45mm). Fixed-lens cameras are my most used cameras... but there is something about a digital-fixed lens that is still unsettling to me. Here is what a wrote to a friend when he asked if I was interested (after forwarding me a Gizmodo article that stated it was the first fits-in-your-pocket full-frame camera)...


I don't know about "fits-in-your-pocket"... but its pretty ****ing small. That Panasonic GX1 used for comparison below is basically the same size as my Oly Pen and you've seen that little pancake 20mm before (40mm equivalent). It looks pretty awesome.

That said, something isn't sitting quite right with me from a value stand point... and I'm not even talking about the $2800 price tag! If it was going to be my one digital go-to camera -- aka my digital Plaubel -- it might be worth it. That Plaubel also cost $2K+ originally (in today's dollars), but after 35 odd years of use it is still running strong. Maintenance is pricy (as I found out), but it's still available... and I can always resell it for $1500+.

What is this Sony going to be worth in 5 years, let alone 35 years? If it breaks in 3 years, will it be fixable? Even Leica, who is known for servicing cameras WAY longer than anyone else, recently announced that they will no longer have some crucial replacement parts available for their M8. They can't get any of the old LCD screens anymore. So if the screen goes out on your $4500 (original price), 6 year old camera body -- you are now holding a paper weight. Luckily, your Leica lenses are still worth a ton and you can put them right on the latest body. Not so with the Sony's fixed lens.

Basically, it seems like the bodies/sensors are essentially being designed as disposable goods in the digital age. Seeing as how this new Sony has a fixed lens, the whole thing is going to be disposable. That is fine for pro photogs like you who use their cameras to make a living... it provides you income and you likely deduct the depreciation on your camera equipment within a few years of buying it (if you don't you should!). Upgrading is part of doing business. But for a casual shooter or an amateur, that is a helluva a price to pay for something you shouldn't expect to be functional in 5+ years or so.

Then again what the hell do I know. In 5 years from now when they stop producing film my Plaubel is probably going to be worth less than this Sony 😛

And one more thing... if you are going to make it a fixed focal length, please design it like your little Vitessa with a collapsable lens so I can toss the damn thing in my laptop bag and not worry about! That would be truly pocketable!

Rant over 🙂
 
Showpiece camera from Sony, and nothing against it. Quite pricey for a fixed lens camera, and personally only see the need for a full frame sensor when dealing with legacy system lenses. Doesn't really make any sense to put a full frame sensor in a fixed lens camera, imo.
 
back alley said:
what if the next wave of popular cameras are full frame point & shoots?
Click to expand...

I would be stoked!
Fixed lens cameras have always been my preference.
It started with using TLR's and my old and now sold contax t2.
Now with the x100. I just like the trimmer bodies and lesser weight of fixed lens.
Plus with digital you have the benefit of dust resistance.

In another note. I don't understand why this camera is considered expensive. Is a d700/d800/5dii with a Zeiss 2/35mm costing less?
This camera to me is too ugly to consider. But I do love the concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom