Frontman
Well-known
I tried out the RX1 today, and found it quite interesting. My only complInts were the size, the body was a bit small for me, and the AF seems no faster than the X-Pro. IQ was great, and I had fun doing some wide open shooting with it.
umcelinho
Marcelo
as soon as they start selling for $400 in the used market i'll be all over one 
as soon as they start selling for $400 in the used market i'll be all over one
Yep, me too. I might even do it at $800.
GaryLH
Mentor
gustavoAvila
Established
Actually, the RX-1 is approaching M9 money!
If one includes the cost of the EVF (non-optional for many potential buyers), a used M9 ($4,000 on the low end) is a reasonable alternative to consider.
(Assuming, of course, that a lens purchase is not required for the M9.)
Paul T.
Mentor
I don't think that's really a fair comparison, when you consider you're getting a Zeiss lens as part of the deal - and you're comparing new with used. We have second hand Zeiss lenses sell on here for $1000 plus. And the M Biogon is easily the equal of the V4 Summicron in rendition (sibjective I know), but with this camera you have the compactness that we all love of the 'Cron and M combination.
I don't see price hampering the success of the RX1; it's probably subpar AF speed and EV that will be the most likely objections for prospective buyers.
I don't see price hampering the success of the RX1; it's probably subpar AF speed and EV that will be the most likely objections for prospective buyers.
gustavoAvila
Established
Of course it is not a fair comparison.
(How many camera purchases are really based on logic to begin with?)
The fact remains that the RX-1 is a very expensive camera.
For potential buyers who already own one or more M mount lenses, a used M8 (or M9) body is a comparably priced alternative to the RX-1.
As to whether the RX-1 will be a mass marketing success, my guess is no. (And I doubt this is Sony's intention.)
My very biased opinion is that the only justification for a full-frame, mirrorless camera is to mount M lenses!
The cost/benefit ratio (for a fixed lens, FF sensor body) simply does not compare favorably with smaller sensor options (such as the Fuji X100 or Leica X2).
While the Sony may sell "reasonably" well, it will never, ever fly off the shelves at Best Buy!
(How many camera purchases are really based on logic to begin with?)
The fact remains that the RX-1 is a very expensive camera.
For potential buyers who already own one or more M mount lenses, a used M8 (or M9) body is a comparably priced alternative to the RX-1.
As to whether the RX-1 will be a mass marketing success, my guess is no. (And I doubt this is Sony's intention.)
My very biased opinion is that the only justification for a full-frame, mirrorless camera is to mount M lenses!
The cost/benefit ratio (for a fixed lens, FF sensor body) simply does not compare favorably with smaller sensor options (such as the Fuji X100 or Leica X2).
While the Sony may sell "reasonably" well, it will never, ever fly off the shelves at Best Buy!
David_Manning
Well-known
I almost pulled the trigger on the RX1 last week.
I instead purchased an RX100, it's little brother. It has the same "user" experience (arm's length shooting, menu-driven), but has a useful zoom range and is eminently more pocketable...in fact, it fits in my Contax T3 case. I'm much more likely to carry the little RX100 everywhere than an NEX-sized camera with a large-ish lens.
Also, the RX100 has very good low-light capabilities. I guess if I constantly want bokeh in every shot, I'll pull out the 5DmkII and 50 or 85.
For what these cameras are, I just found the RX100 a bit more flexible and useful than the RX1. I still like it, though...but I don't see myself ever owning one after enjoying the RX100.
I instead purchased an RX100, it's little brother. It has the same "user" experience (arm's length shooting, menu-driven), but has a useful zoom range and is eminently more pocketable...in fact, it fits in my Contax T3 case. I'm much more likely to carry the little RX100 everywhere than an NEX-sized camera with a large-ish lens.
Also, the RX100 has very good low-light capabilities. I guess if I constantly want bokeh in every shot, I'll pull out the 5DmkII and 50 or 85.
For what these cameras are, I just found the RX100 a bit more flexible and useful than the RX1. I still like it, though...but I don't see myself ever owning one after enjoying the RX100.
Richard G
Mentor
Agree ++ and ten characters more.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Your Avatar remins me how much the small body and large lens combo of RX-1 looks like Dr Solomon's Ermanox
apodeictic
Established
If you want "50mm" or "75mm" you can always use the in-camera crop option. It's not a perfect solution, but there's a dedicated button which allows you to switch between 35, 50 and 75 equivalents. The file size does go down, but given the clarity of the images I've seen from the camera, it looks like a viable option.
And for me, it's the exact opposite: full frame, at least in a compact body like this, is far more advantagous in the wideangle department to minimize distortion. Wideangles on crop bodies give that weird distortion in the corners that give people football shaped heads. One of the reasons I went from digital to film, aside from loving the aesthetic, was that I could shoot at 35 or 28mm and the image just "breathed." It didn't feel like looking through peephole. If I wanted to shoot full frame with long lenses, I would just go for an SLR, which is going to balance better with the lens anyway.
gustavoAvila
Established
This has nothing to do with cropped sensors and everything to do with software barrel distortion correction.
To satisfy consumer demands for "pancake" sized lenses, designers accept huge amounts of native barrel distortion.
This barrel distortion is corrected using software algorithms.
While two dimensional surfaces can be adequately corrected, the same is not true for three dimensional shapes (such as human faces).
This is the reason for the gross facial distortions seen in software corrected, wide angle lenses. (Humans are very sensitive to facial features.)
Finally, every mirrorless wide angle lens is software corrected to some degree (including that on the RX-1).
CaptZoom
Established
I'd like to see a tele prime RX1x...than istead of changing lenses, I can change camera bodies...it would make event photography sweet.
Ruhayat
Well-known
That's interesting to know. I still say they should have gone with a 50mm, though. Simpler to design, maybe it would have been smaller and cheaper, too.
Adanac
Well-known
The Smart Teleconverter function is optional and must be assigned to a button to enable this feature. The crop affects in-camera JPG only, so you could use the feature to change the "brightlines" while still leaving a full sized raw file for cropping otherwise in post should the need arise.
An APS-C sized crop to 50mm would leave ~ 11MP in resolution - very usable.
Or just crop in post off a full sized JPG or raw file.
I'm a former owner of the X100 and do not feel this camera duplicates the X100 except at a superficial level; surely there is room for more than one 35mm or equivalent fixed lens compact on the market. Each has their own strengths and the differences are not inconsequential if of course the differences are meaningful to an individual photographer.
PS: I'm glad they went with 35mm. If it was a 50mm optic I'd not have spent even a second considering the camera as much prefer the moderate wide view and opportunities to crop tighter when the situation fits.
Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
Only other focal length which would have made more sense to me (and would have been WAY WAY more preferred then 35mm would have been true normal, as in diagonal length of the sensor). Other then that, I'm all drools here. Considering this against XPRO-1 system or OMD system...
AM*shoots*SF
Newbie
This is a fascinating camera, though flawed: no EVF and yes to useless mode dial (how about shutter speed?). Though the full size sensor and Zeiss lens are very attractive. But at the end ofthe day, I wonder how better the photos will be in jpeg (what I shoot), given the excellent jpeg engine in the x100. At this point I'm sticking with my fuji x100, but I am keen to see the inevitable comparisons to the x100. We will need to see plenty of A and B photo comparisons to truly judge the new Sony. This should be interesting!
Maiku
Maiku
I picked one up the other day a camera store. I did not like the balance. The lens barrel seems way out proportion to the body. It just felt awkward. Have some kind of viewfinder would be nice.
