Sony full frame point and shoot...35/2 Zeiss

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Seems there are many here fine with no internal VF? Full frame trumps this for many of you?

its a nonstarter for me, and im sure many others. as for FF, i personally find it kind of irrelevent in a fixed lens canera. IQ in available light up to iso 3200 is so excellent with present crop of fixed lens and interchangeable lens apsc, i cant figure out what advantage can be obtained from FF fixed lens cam, except one sttop DOF when compared to other 35/2 lenses.

add to this the, imo, disappointing results from sonys present crop of 'zeiss' lenses, lack of vf and price and i'm honestly left scratching my head at this specific camera. to me this is only of interest in what it portends for the future of FF mirrorless offerings that other companies might now feel compelled to offer in response.

[Paul T.]

Personally, comparing the output of my X100 with my old GF1, and the output of the D700 with the X100, I think sensor size affects way more than simple DOF. It just gives a different look. A far superior look, I think, not just to do with better lowlight speed either.

I do agree that, personally, we need a proper VF. EVF will be fine, so I hope there's a connector on there.

I won't buy it, but how terrific that Sony has thrown down the gauntlet to other manufacturers. And doubtless there will be an interchangeable lens version.

And I'm sure they've factored in that you Can't Please All The People All OF THe Time.

[BMacW]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

i cant figure out what advantage can be obtained from FF fixed lens cam, except one sttop DOF when compared to other 35/2 lenses.

If it's that simple, why do you think people shoot medium or large format? Bigger sensor and pixel is just better.

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by BMacW

If it's that simple, why do you think people shoot medium or large format? Bigger sensor and pixel is just better.

its not 'that' simple--certainly not as simple as 'bigger is just better'--and i didnt say it was. i said i dont see any advantage to a FF sensor in a fixed lens camera that costs $3000 when people are getting awesome results from fixed lens apsc at a third of that price. thats not simple, its based on a whole bunch of comparisons, and its an opinion.

so are you saying that ANY FF sensor is 'just better' than ANY apsc sensor? or to take it further that there exists NO smaller sensor that can outproduce ANY larger sensor? 'cause thats flat wrong.

paul t's point is more realistic, that FF results may have a different 'look' to them beyond DOF. i agree with that, but only to a point. my x100 outperforms my much loved but now gone FF 5d and any 35 lens i ever used with it, and outperforms it imo in every IQ respect. at low iso's it was close; at 800 and above it wasnt.

i also agree that at a given point on the technology curve, a state of the art FF sensor should outperform a state of the art smaller sensor. ('should'--compare lowlight/high iso results from the vaunted m9 with my lowly x100) my point was that the sense in paying for that extra quality decreases at some point on the price continuum, and that point is reached more quickly when we're talking about a fixed lens camera.

and, just as an aside to further show how 'not simple' this stuff is, i'll happily match IQ results from my 35mm hassy xpan with results from any other comparably priced medium format gear.

[dreilly]

The leaked prices are ALWAYS higher than the actual MSRP, which is always higher than the real prices at stores when the thing actually ships (not pre-order, not ebay first-adopter bait). I'm pretty sure the strategy is to soften people up...set expectations ridiculously expensive, and then every nods eagerly when it turns out to be only borderline preposterously expensive.

So anyway, it should be less than the leaked price. Is it worth it? Might be if the lens is awesome, sensor is awesome, has finder arrangements to make everyone happy. I will say Sony is producing some innovative cameras.

Does this one have stabilization? I will say that stabilization is what makes hand-held LCD framing usable for me. I had trouble with the Nex 5N avoiding fine-detail smearing from camera shake. Never had that problem with an M43 camera with IBIS. For me that's an important feature.

[sanmich]

Without getting into the details, are we looking at the very first 24x36mm non-reflex digital camera??

If it is so, I think it's an important milestone, whatever one thinks about the camera specs.

[bensyverson]

Originally Posted by sanmich

Without getting into the details, are we looking at the very first 24x36mm non-reflex digital camera??

If it is so, I think it's an important milestone, whatever one thinks about the camera specs.

No, you're thinking of the M9.

[digitalintrigue]

It's an important milestone as there is no other way to get a new 35/2 Zeiss AF on full frame.

[dct]

Originally Posted by sanmich

Without getting into the details, are we looking at the very first 24x36mm non-reflex digital camera??

If it is so, I think it's an important milestone, whatever one thinks about the camera specs.

I think so, yes, if you'd add: with fixed lens.

[mugent]

Originally Posted by NeeZee

Don't really get it - why do you need FF in a compact digital camera when the lens is fixed anyway (and don't say 'bokeh', please!)? I've read a few complaints about the fuji x100 but IQ seems to be very good plus it has 2 types of VF's and this one seems to have none...

You don't need it, but that never stopped people from wanting something.

[bensyverson]

I think the reason for FF is that "good enough" is good enough, but "better" is better.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the images from an APS-C camera. They're getting better every year. But full frame still has the edge.

Ask Hexar users why they would want a FF fixed lens AF camera.

[rbelyell]

last time i looked the hexar rf wasnt $3000.

[DougFord]

Why a FF fixed lens digital compact? (milestone)
Because they can.
This camera is an engineering exercise, by a company with an incredible parts bin (lol)
World's most compact FF fixed lens digital.
Want'a take a guess at their nex milestone?

[bwcolor]

Should be an incredible camera with limited appeal. That alone requires a high price to pay for development. I would get a well healed fixed 35mm FF if it had great manual focus and the corners were well sorted when developing in Aperture, Lightroom, PS..etc.... I forgot, the other if is if my wife would stop reviewing my credit card statements.

[bensyverson]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

last time i looked the hexar rf wasnt $3000.

True, but the Hexar isn't digital... Some folks will pay $2400 over the cost of a Hexar to make it digital. The question is how many. Personally I think the RX1 will sell pretty well. I'll stick with my Hexar for now.

[Paul T.]

The Hexar AF was a very expensive camera when new. And processing slides from it today doesn't come cheap, either.

[emraphoto]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Seems there are many here fine with no internal VF? Full frame trumps this for many of you?

I had an experience recently wherein I discovered that LCD shooting can be a very positive experience. In short, putting a camera up to my face eliminates my peripherals and in this particular situation, that was a dangerous prospect. I spent a good deal of time shooting via the LCD and it soon became a very fluid and comfortable way of working. I also felt a whole lot safer.

[Keith]

Not that I'm defending the Sony but comparing it to a Hexar AF is pie in the sky stuff!

The Sony will have shutter speeds up to 1/4000 most likely and will probably provide clean images at 6400. I don't recall Freestyle having any 6400 film in stock currently and being limited to 1/250 can cramp your style.

But yes ... it does record images at 24 x 36mm.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Paul T.

The Hexar AF was a very expensive camera when new.

It was $600 US wasn't it?

[gavinlg]

The fact that it doesn't have an in-built viewfinder puts it way off in comparison to the hexar AF imo.

[btgc]

Whole VF/LCD fluff reminds me Norton Commander vs Windows Explorer. Some people just couldn't live without two panels with file lists. Who is using NC or it's knock-offs today?

[Archlich]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

It was $600 US wasn't it?

And it has a big bright viewfinder, with frame lines corrected for parallax and focus shift.

Sony is behaving like North Korea of the Cameradom. Out of the courses of normal reasons - you just don't know what's next it'll be up to. A good thing for a big company like Sony to venture, experiment and go completely wild with all the resources available to it, but for this particular camera, you'll have to pay for it anyway...pay for the engineering exercise.

More like purely stirring the scene up and force the big lazy guys to act, and it's indeed been stirring it well.

[sanmich]

Originally Posted by bensyverson

No, you're thinking of the M9.

Of course...
what I had in mind was that it's the first FF auto everything plasticwonder that is not an SLR.
Looks important to me...
A bit like when Nikon finally admitted that FF is the format for pros...

[sanmich]

Originally Posted by btgc

Whole VF/LCD fluff reminds me Norton Commander vs Windows Explorer. Some people just couldn't live without two panels with file lists. Who is using NC or it's knock-offs today?

Took me five seconds to remember what is NC (and only the comparison to explorer made me do it)

[zsas]

^Ha, I had to google it and I am a programmer!