zwarte_kat
Well-known
I almost bought the camera a few weeks ago, but I simply haven't been impressed by the images from it, either on the web or when I tried it in the store. I think Fuji renders images much nicer, and I prefer the images coming from the Xpro1, and even from the X100. RX1 images have that sony look, the digitallest of digital. They just lack atmosphere. I am sure some if it can be fixed in post with all the MP and Low light sensitivity headroom, but haven't seen much examples of that yet.
The big lens also ruins the size of the camera.
My X100 is more pocketable. And maybe full frame with a 35mm lens at 2.0 is simply not that impressive image wise. I think the reasons to shoot 35mm have little to do with the reasons to shoot full frame, because it is such an subject/story focussed focal length. For purely visually stunning images it is probably more effective to put either a much shorter or longer lens on a camera like the Xpro or nex.
The big lens also ruins the size of the camera.
My X100 is more pocketable. And maybe full frame with a 35mm lens at 2.0 is simply not that impressive image wise. I think the reasons to shoot 35mm have little to do with the reasons to shoot full frame, because it is such an subject/story focussed focal length. For purely visually stunning images it is probably more effective to put either a much shorter or longer lens on a camera like the Xpro or nex.
35mm?I didn't expect this from Sony. Do market needs another 35/2 lensed compact? There's X100 already.
What did you expect instead though?
edge100
Well-known
I'm not interested in the RX1 itself, but as you say, I think it will have a major impact on the cameras we'll see coming out in the next few years.
For example, the XF mount Fujinon lenses (for the X-Pro1 and X-E1) project a FF-sized image. I'd love to see the RX1 begin to drive other manufacturers (such as Fujifilm) to produce commercially viable FF systems that are compatible with existing lenses.
That said, I have no really issue with APS-C. But it certainly would be nice to have access to true wide angles, and to be able to adapt M-mount glass without a crop penalty.
btgc
Veteran
well, fast 24-45mm (maybe even up to 70mm if one would insist, but 45 is enough for me) zoom would be more logical step. I see, a lot of people would like to see it as a 24mm fixed focal length and I can agree that would be terrific alternative to 35mm.
Probably I simply can't recover from using 35mm for years. Not that I hate it. But it's neither there or here. It's a pasta or pizza. RX1 will be loved by people who like pasta or pizza.
Paul T.
Veteran
I think the RX1 looks great. It will indeed be interesting to see how the full frame, its big USP, balances out against a good viewfinder, the X100's USP.
I've messed around long enough with the GF1 and an separate finder. It's like going back to the 30s, and is too much of a compromise for me. Even using centre focus, you'll simply get too many mis-focused shots - and what's the point of having full frame quality when your subject is not in focus?
Nonetheless, it's great the RX1 is here and I look forward to the next iteration from Sony, or another rival.
Incidentally, Fuji look to have backtracked on the "statement" that their existing lenses are full-frame.
I've messed around long enough with the GF1 and an separate finder. It's like going back to the 30s, and is too much of a compromise for me. Even using centre focus, you'll simply get too many mis-focused shots - and what's the point of having full frame quality when your subject is not in focus?
Nonetheless, it's great the RX1 is here and I look forward to the next iteration from Sony, or another rival.
Incidentally, Fuji look to have backtracked on the "statement" that their existing lenses are full-frame.
elverket
Member
Well, the RX1 actually made me do it: I sold my Leica kit. M8.2, cron 35mm v4 and 90mm are gone, and my RX1 is scheduled for delivery next week. Never thought I'd ditch Leica for a Sony, but I've been missing autofocus and the .7m focus limitation and lackluster ISO performance was driving me crazy. Gonna miss the bokeh, image "signature" and the sweet rangefinder, though...
Avotius
Some guy
If it had a good built in viewfinder ala Fuji X100 I would buy this. As it is now, no. I have lived with out a built in viewfinder on my EP1 long enough to know that I dont like shooting with a back LCD.
edge100
Well-known
Yes, that's quite curious. They either gave too much away in the first statement, or misspoke. I can't imagine that they'd misspeak about something so fundamental, but you never know.
To be honest, FF is not a huge deal to me. Would be nice, but I can live with APS-C for the time being. 35mm film is "FF", anyway.
bwcolor
Veteran
I just need to hold out long enough that I can convince myself that the next generation is just around the corner. Honestly, it amazes me that some of you purchase every new high end non-dslr camera that hits the market. The above approach replaces a twelve step program. Yes, I want (shoot mostly 35mm lenses), but when I remove the emotion, I'm quite happy with my NEX-7, X100, 1DMKIII and lots of film cameras. Just need to repair my scanner. BTW.. went through this with thinking of replacing the Canon (shoot soccer) with the 5DMKIII, but have held out so far. Fact is, the old MKIII still produces excellent images.
bigeye
Well-known
Homer: "Mr. Burns, you're the richest man in the world. You OWN EVERYTHING!"
Mr. Burns: "Ah yes, but I'd give it all up for just a little bit more."
.
Mr. Burns: "Ah yes, but I'd give it all up for just a little bit more."
.
Dralowid
Michael
I have only just realised how damned expensive this camera is...as someone else said, this is M8.2 money...
Ruhayat
Well-known
35mm?
I have to agree. Either a short zoom or prime 50mm f2.0 would have been more of an alternative to the existing Leica X2, Fuji X100 etc. I think full frame makes more sense in the telephoto, portrait range where the shallow DOF is desirable.
CaptZoom
Established
I'll take the dynamic range of a full frame sensor any time I've cropped frame sensor.
I'm also glad Sony went with a prime...zooms are cumbersome (not to mention difficult to fit on such a tiny body). To keep the size of the zoom some what manageable, they'd either have to give up on a fast fixed aperture or make the lens a variable aperture lens. Regardless of the route, there'd be equal amounts of discontent people. Keeping to a classic prime focal length (which are easier to design well) helps ensure the image quality. Image quality is what's going to bring people over to purchasing the camera. All other concerns are secondary. The RX1 could be the greatest camera in the world, but without the IQ no ones gonna pay $3K for it.
I'm also glad Sony went with a prime...zooms are cumbersome (not to mention difficult to fit on such a tiny body). To keep the size of the zoom some what manageable, they'd either have to give up on a fast fixed aperture or make the lens a variable aperture lens. Regardless of the route, there'd be equal amounts of discontent people. Keeping to a classic prime focal length (which are easier to design well) helps ensure the image quality. Image quality is what's going to bring people over to purchasing the camera. All other concerns are secondary. The RX1 could be the greatest camera in the world, but without the IQ no ones gonna pay $3K for it.
btgc
Veteran
What's so wrong with variable aperture zooms as long as you don't use it all the time in manual mode or with manual flash? If long end isn't terribly slow (f/11 like on old film compacts) which applies considerable restrictions I'm not worried - AE does it all for us, humans.
Say, Sammy EX1 aka TL500 had 24-72/1.8-2.4 zoom. At longest end this zoom is slower than at wide end. Is it a real drawback, considering miniscule difference?
In fact if Samsung would come out with a model like this but with APS-C sensor (instead of tiny 1/1.7") good part of RX1 audience would step back. Only true fans of prime lenses and real Zeissites would stay strong
Lss
Well-known
For most people (who want a zoom anyway) that sounds great. But when it turns into a 3.5-5.6 or something worse and you could have an f/1.4 or f/2 prime instead, it is much more of a drawback. The problem is not so much losing a stop or two at the long end, it is the fact that you lose it on a lens that isn't particularly fast even at the wide end.
CaptZoom
Established
Btgc, that's thing man I rarely use the auto mode. I'm pretty much handicapped when it comes to auto anything.
btgc
Veteran
Sounds reasonable. But then, how about auto focus?
CaptZoom
Established
No auto focus! Apart from P&S cameras with huge depth of fields, I can never get auto focus to focus where I want! I always focus and recompose...maybe that's got some thing to so with it. I almost never miss with manual focus. It's obviously not the cameras, rather there's some thing wrong with me! It's not just photography, I only drive manual cars, don't own a microwave, etc.
CaptZoom
Established
Incidentally I just realized that the RX1 costs about the same as a new 35 'cron! Doesn't sound so expensive now
sepiareverb
genius and moron
In fact if Samsung would come out with a model like this but with APS-C sensor (instead of tiny 1/1.7") good part of RX1 audience would step back. Only true fans of prime lenses and real Zeissites would stay strong
Maybe. The benefits of FF are real for me. And as the sensor gets bigger the lenses tend to get slower- just as it was in the film days.