Pablito
coco frío
He sounds like he has the same concerns as most regarding this camera.
Pablito
coco frío
But nevertheless his images from the camera are virtually indistinguishable from those he does with the M9, for those who know his work.
charjohncarter
Mentor
They look good to me, I found the AF problems interesting. I have the same problems with my AF cameras. Is this FF, I read that Sony was coming out with one? I hope it leads to a flood of them, well not a flood but some more.
MikeAUS
Well-known
For a '1st generation' camera the RX1 is pretty amazing, imagine what it will be like in the next couple of iterations. Sony are innovators. They created a silent, small, Full Frame camera with a brilliant sensor and lens. Thanks for posting the link. Pretty amazing to think someone from Magnum is looking at the Sony to replace an unreliable Leica.
Pablito
coco frío
If only they put a shutter speed dial on top of it instead of that idiot mode dial. Like the Fujis.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Really like that camera, but also pretty amazing is its current price tag
It's funny how that bothers some of us. I feel the same way, but at times I think I'm being ridiculous. That said, comfort and familiarity is everything when I'm out photographing.
charjohncarter
Mentor
I know, I can use aperture lens on my mirrorless. But I'm with you; shutter dial; and an EV gauge at the bottom (of the screen or green button). The more they are like an IIIf the better, well, a IIIf with electronics.
Bille
Well-known
Would you set speed manually on a camera like this? Just curious.
Pablito
coco frío
Of course. On all my dslr's too. It's how I work 98% of the time (M).
charjohncarter
Mentor
So would I, much much more than in auto.
mdwsta4
Matty Westside
As much as I wanted to like the RX1, it's not for me. The build quality is amazing, the results I'm able to get out of the camera are very good, and high ISO is something I can realistically use in almost any situation. But the ergonomics leave much to be desired (for me), and yes, I do wish it had a viewfinder built in. Low light focusing is a bear and battery life is very poor. The LCD screen is the best I've seen on a camera and I do enjoy the customization of the buttons.
I still have a few weeks to test it out, but after 2 weeks I'm not sold on it for the price. I seem to use it as more of a P&S and for the cost... that's hard to justify.
Really looking forward to the x100s. I know it's not full frame, but I loved the x100 and its quirks. Have one on preorder and cannot wait for it to compliment my M kit.
I still have a few weeks to test it out, but after 2 weeks I'm not sold on it for the price. I seem to use it as more of a P&S and for the cost... that's hard to justify.
Really looking forward to the x100s. I know it's not full frame, but I loved the x100 and its quirks. Have one on preorder and cannot wait for it to compliment my M kit.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
It seems odd that, for a person who claims an MP-4 is the ideal, he would be complaining about the buffer on the M9. Now, with digital, he HAS to be able to shoot more than 5 frames in rapid succession? And, his complaints that the EOS AF 'wastes time' don't quite make sense to me. As if he didn't have to focus the Leica? These seem like the complaints of someone who is using multiple systems and multiple types of cameras, but now that he's in the digital age, he doesn't feel like there should be any compromises or need to make small changes to how he works. These things are not magical, and wanting to take the RX1 into rain just seems like the precursor to another rant.
I hadn't even touched an RX1 until this weekend, when i found a Sony store and spent all of a minute and a half with one. It seems like a nicely built piece of kit, but like most everyone, i did not like the absence of a viewfinder. The Sony store did not have the accessory viewfinder (imagine that), but the salesman assured me it was of the same quality as the one in the top of the line SLR. I had a go with that, and its EVF was better than any of the ones i had previously seen, but i still don't like them. I wish the RX1 had the NEX7's optical VF, or better yet, something like the Fuji's hybrid. But, there i go, wishing for magic.
One day... the right digital will appear. My feeling, though, is that it won't ever be just ONE camera that is ideal. We'll have to get what we want from using a combination of cameras. Which will keep us in gear forums for the rest of our lives. Enjoy the comradery!
I hadn't even touched an RX1 until this weekend, when i found a Sony store and spent all of a minute and a half with one. It seems like a nicely built piece of kit, but like most everyone, i did not like the absence of a viewfinder. The Sony store did not have the accessory viewfinder (imagine that), but the salesman assured me it was of the same quality as the one in the top of the line SLR. I had a go with that, and its EVF was better than any of the ones i had previously seen, but i still don't like them. I wish the RX1 had the NEX7's optical VF, or better yet, something like the Fuji's hybrid. But, there i go, wishing for magic.
One day... the right digital will appear. My feeling, though, is that it won't ever be just ONE camera that is ideal. We'll have to get what we want from using a combination of cameras. Which will keep us in gear forums for the rest of our lives. Enjoy the comradery!
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
I don't think he is asking for anything magical or unreasonable with the buffer, just that it be able to keep up with some common situations. A film camera could shoot 36 frames without "freezing" (needing to be reloaded, in the case of film), so a digital camera should be able to work as fast. A few years ago, the Nikon D3S already offered something like a 36 or 48 shot RAW buffer, so it is not unreasonable to expect. Being able to shoot only 5 or 6 frames at only 2 fps is a significant downgrade from the film era. I believe an M7 with a motor winder could shoot 3 fps for 36 frames. Some 35 years ago, the motor drive for the little Nikon FM could do 3.5 fps until the end of the roll.
I do agree that the complaint about EOS AF doesn't make sense. "An AF camera mostly refocuses, and wastes time, for each frame." Why doesn't he use the ability to lock focus with an EOS camera? Use back-button focus or a shutter half-press. And of course a manual focus camera takes time to focus too.
I also agree that there will never be one ideal camera. Can't happen!
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I don't think he is asking for anything magical or unreasonable with the buffer, just that it be able to keep up with some common situations. A film camera could shoot 36 frames without "freezing" (needing to be reloaded, in the case of film), so a digital camera should be able to work as fast. A few years ago, the Nikon D3S already offered something like a 36 or 48 shot RAW buffer, so it is not unreasonable to expect. Being able to shoot only 5 or 6 frames at only 2 fps is a significant downgrade from the film era. I believe an M7 with a motor winder could shoot 3 fps for 36 frames. Some 35 years ago, the motor drive for the little Nikon FM could do 3.5 fps until the end of the roll.
I do agree that the complaint about EOS AF doesn't make sense. "An AF camera mostly refocuses, and wastes time, for each frame." Why doesn't he use the ability to lock focus with an EOS camera? Use back-button focus or a shutter half-press. And of course a manual focus camera takes time to focus too.
I also agree that there will never be one ideal camera. Can't happen!
Understood. It is ridiculous that the camera — at that price or at any price — should freeze when the buffer is taxed. My point was that it is uncommon to find any film Leica-M shooter that is accustomed to shooting film at frame rates anywhere near what the digitals offer. I kinda doubt this guy had a motor or Leicavit attached to his MP-4 — more likely he just expected his M9 to do things a Canon or Nikon did without hiccups.
I'm certainly not defending the M9. Leica (and its fanbase) tends to 're-frame'/spin its weaknesses, and i wouldn't be surprised to hear a retort of "it's a camera for contemplative photography, not machine-gunning. The buffer freeze is meant to be a warning — to slow down and think about your interaction with the subject."