jlindstrom
Established
I too had a lot of interest for this camera. I'm sure people will be making fantastic photos with it. BUT for me the pricing is prohibitive. It's outrageous in the US and in Finland, where I live, it's from another galaxy.
The US list price is expected at 2800usd which translates to roughly 2300€. That's a lot.. but for Europe and Finland they have special surprise! The list price is 3200€ or close to 4000 usd!!
What is wrong with Sony?! The uplifts in prices for different regions are ridiculous. For me it would be cheaper to fly to US, spend vacation there and take my photos with US bought RX1. Problem of course is that warranty is lost when back home..
They need to wake up and smell the coffee. I will rather use the same money to get the X2 + upgrade my 35 biogon to 35 Summicron for the M9..
So camera is fine, I can understand lack of built-in vf and live with it, but the price.. totally upsetting.
//Juha
The US list price is expected at 2800usd which translates to roughly 2300€. That's a lot.. but for Europe and Finland they have special surprise! The list price is 3200€ or close to 4000 usd!!
What is wrong with Sony?! The uplifts in prices for different regions are ridiculous. For me it would be cheaper to fly to US, spend vacation there and take my photos with US bought RX1. Problem of course is that warranty is lost when back home..
They need to wake up and smell the coffee. I will rather use the same money to get the X2 + upgrade my 35 biogon to 35 Summicron for the M9..
So camera is fine, I can understand lack of built-in vf and live with it, but the price.. totally upsetting.
//Juha
Jaans
Well-known
Yawn. Another tedious example/website of a photographer preening his high ISO camera without a care for the content in his frame. Yipee.
Just starting to wonder where this is all heading? Perhaps within a year that same photog will be posting examples of shots taken at ISO 100,000 or thereabouts, yet his artistic decisions with regard to framing, choice of content and timing will inevitably be lagging far behind. In short, the technology has left this particular photog stuck in the 20th century. The technology is light years ahead of his progression as a 'photographic artist'>
Just starting to wonder where this is all heading? Perhaps within a year that same photog will be posting examples of shots taken at ISO 100,000 or thereabouts, yet his artistic decisions with regard to framing, choice of content and timing will inevitably be lagging far behind. In short, the technology has left this particular photog stuck in the 20th century. The technology is light years ahead of his progression as a 'photographic artist'>
Kent
Finally at home...
The RX1 surely is a great cam.
But not for my taste. No internal viewfinder and way too expensive.
But not for my taste. No internal viewfinder and way too expensive.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
I think the reason the camera is exciting is where it suggests that we are going in terms of image quality rather than what is being done with this particular chip in this particular box. Five years ago, the Nikon D3 really bust the then-existing high-ISO barrier producing clean (or acceptable files) at ISOs of 1,600 and 3,200. That level of performance has trickled down to consumer cams and the high-ISO performance of the current crop of DSLRs is even more impressive. Now Sony is showing off what their FF chips can do in a small package -- the point of this camera is not to sell a million units, it is to showcase their current tech. And the point of the Steve Huff review is not to produce Art (with a capital A), it is to convey his sense that this sensor delivers even when pushed.
The take-away, then, for those who have missed it, is that in 3-5 years anyone who can pull together $1,700-2,000 will be able to produce good quality files with a non-superspeed lens in some very challenging low-light situations.
Oh, and if I had $3,000 lying around panting to be spent, I'd stuff it in an envelope and send it off to B&H to get a copy of this thing.
Ben
The take-away, then, for those who have missed it, is that in 3-5 years anyone who can pull together $1,700-2,000 will be able to produce good quality files with a non-superspeed lens in some very challenging low-light situations.
Oh, and if I had $3,000 lying around panting to be spent, I'd stuff it in an envelope and send it off to B&H to get a copy of this thing.
Ben
I will admit to knowing what the Sony one even looks like, but when I used the EVF on the Leica x2, it would unfold too easily at all the wrong times (going from "eye" level to "waist" level for lack of better words). Hated that. After using the fuji x series, I cannot go back... Except maybe for the sigma dp2 Merrill.
. With regard to external OVFs on a AF camera, have fun finding the focus point at large apertures.
lynnb
Mentor
the linked images are not about photographic vision or art
the linked images are not about photographic vision or art
Dear Jaans, I suggest you re-read the page referenced in my original post. The pictures shown have nothing to do with content, framing, art or timing. They're just amongst the first high ISO samples from this new camera. It's not "his" camera - it is a loaner from Sony, one of only 11 currently in the world according to the journalist - made available to photographer/journalists to evaluate, along with Sony's other new models the NEX-6 and A99 DSLR.
Street shooters are interested in high ISO performance, and these image samples are some of the first that point towards the new camera's potential as a competent street shooter.
Journalists invited to the Sony PR event in San Francisco have just a few days to take turns making test shots with the new cameras and they cannot take them away to play with at leisure. Under those circumstances, the site does meet its objective to give a first glimpse of high ISO IQ.
Understanding that these are straight out of camera JPG images without any noise reduction, one would expect RAW capability to be even better.
Regards,
the linked images are not about photographic vision or art
Dear Jaans, I suggest you re-read the page referenced in my original post. The pictures shown have nothing to do with content, framing, art or timing. They're just amongst the first high ISO samples from this new camera. It's not "his" camera - it is a loaner from Sony, one of only 11 currently in the world according to the journalist - made available to photographer/journalists to evaluate, along with Sony's other new models the NEX-6 and A99 DSLR.
Street shooters are interested in high ISO performance, and these image samples are some of the first that point towards the new camera's potential as a competent street shooter.
Journalists invited to the Sony PR event in San Francisco have just a few days to take turns making test shots with the new cameras and they cannot take them away to play with at leisure. Under those circumstances, the site does meet its objective to give a first glimpse of high ISO IQ.
Understanding that these are straight out of camera JPG images without any noise reduction, one would expect RAW capability to be even better.
Regards,
I will admit to knowing what the Sony one even looks like, but when I used the EVF on the Leica x2, it would unfold too easily at all the wrong times (going from "eye" level to "waist" level for lack of better words). Hated that. After using the fuji x series, I cannot go back... Except maybe for the sigma dp2 Merrill.
This RX1 is nearly halfway to the cost of the new Leica Milestone which is going to have very good high ISO performance, a great viewfinder like most RFs (with an option of EVF) and it will mount a zillion different lenses.
No fixed lens point and shoot without a viewfinder should cost this much ... I don't care if it can produce noise free files at 112,000 ISO. I think we're losing sight of what actually is value for money here and just riding a consumer driven technology wave.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I guess I must be alone in thinking while OK these aren't worth all the WOW comments, it seems the in camera jpgs are nice without being outstanding. I think quite a lot of FF cameras would be able to give similar results this camera represents a consolidation or possibly small evolutionary step for low light digicams not something I found 'OMG AMAZING' just a little bit better than average.
Of course YMMV as they say on the www
Of course YMMV as they say on the www
Kent
Finally at home...
Very true!
Which full frame is the size of the Sony? That is the key that many seem to forget.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I don't care what the size is, I was talking about the quality of the image at high ISO and the fawning comments on the website like 'seeing the output at 6400 gave me a boner'.
They're OK quality wise not AMAZING, I don't care about the EVF/Size/Colour or whatever I'm judging the quality of noise at high ISO which seemed to be the thrust of Mr Huffs article.
The size is a great achievement no doubt but not the main thrust of the linked article.
lynnb
Mentor
Here's a photo of the full frame RX1 compared to the X100 (APS-C sensor), and the full frame M9 and 5D. Quite an impressive achievement by Sony engineers.
What I welcome in these new-generation sensors is the greatly increased capability to use motion-stopping shutter speeds in very low light. Coming from the Kodachrome and Tri-X generation, these capabilities are indeed amazing.
Even the original 5D - which I own - can do nothing to approach this. The ISO 25,600 samples posted look better than the 5D does at ISO 1600. The 5DII and then the Fuji X100 greatly expanded the capability to stop motion in low light. These early samples from the RX1 look very promising. The RAW files will tell the whole story.
What I welcome in these new-generation sensors is the greatly increased capability to use motion-stopping shutter speeds in very low light. Coming from the Kodachrome and Tri-X generation, these capabilities are indeed amazing.
Even the original 5D - which I own - can do nothing to approach this. The ISO 25,600 samples posted look better than the 5D does at ISO 1600. The 5DII and then the Fuji X100 greatly expanded the capability to stop motion in low light. These early samples from the RX1 look very promising. The RAW files will tell the whole story.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Lynn what was so amazing? I really don't get it. The street shot he posted at 25,000 were Ok a little devoid of shadow detail, the colour ones were low noise but dull.
I have shot film shots at 1600-50,000 EI that don't look much different.
Look at this Delta 3200 shot at 50,000EI developed for an hour.
Lighting source is a netbook on the ebay page 2-3m away to the subjects left.
This is at 6400EI
These are both made with 20 year old technology....
I've downloaded Mr Huff's samples and can honestly say I'm not 'amazed' more bemused by the responses.
I have shot film shots at 1600-50,000 EI that don't look much different.
Look at this Delta 3200 shot at 50,000EI developed for an hour.
Lighting source is a netbook on the ebay page 2-3m away to the subjects left.
This is at 6400EI
These are both made with 20 year old technology....
I've downloaded Mr Huff's samples and can honestly say I'm not 'amazed' more bemused by the responses.
lynnb
Mentor
Thanks for posting those samples Photo_Smith - they look great, and I can see your point. I have no experience of pushing film to those speeds. Mostly I have just shot bw at box speed, ISO 400 and occasionally 1600. I have a roll of Delta 3200 waiting in my fridge to play with.
My experience with digital at high ISO has been less than enthralling - way too much luminance and chroma noise, and NR just destroys shadow detail. Compared to the digital sensors I have used, the newer generation sensors do look impressive.
But your samples certainly confirm to me that quality at high ISO has been around for a long time, and only now are sensors catching up.
My experience with digital at high ISO has been less than enthralling - way too much luminance and chroma noise, and NR just destroys shadow detail. Compared to the digital sensors I have used, the newer generation sensors do look impressive.
But your samples certainly confirm to me that quality at high ISO has been around for a long time, and only now are sensors catching up.
bwcolor
Mentor
I don't think this is a digital vs. film issue. I don't think that anyone would argue that you could produce largish prints and compare them and have film matching the latest sensor and for me, I prefer to shoot all but highest B&W EI on film.
That said, I take this camera as a clear sign as to where Sony is going. What will be interesting is their move to FF NEX in E-Mount. I'm sure that both Fujifilm and Ricoh are hard at work on a Leica 'M' alternative (minus the rangefinder). I've come to the point where I need to sell a lot of gear to buy more cameras, so I think that I just need to hold on until a camera shows that can use my 'M' glass full frame. Oh, that would be the Leica 'M'. That's a lot of gear for sale to fund that one, but honestly... the 'M' reviews are the next big event. This little Sony has set the bar pretty high.. at least if we are talking EI.
That said, I take this camera as a clear sign as to where Sony is going. What will be interesting is their move to FF NEX in E-Mount. I'm sure that both Fujifilm and Ricoh are hard at work on a Leica 'M' alternative (minus the rangefinder). I've come to the point where I need to sell a lot of gear to buy more cameras, so I think that I just need to hold on until a camera shows that can use my 'M' glass full frame. Oh, that would be the Leica 'M'. That's a lot of gear for sale to fund that one, but honestly... the 'M' reviews are the next big event. This little Sony has set the bar pretty high.. at least if we are talking EI.
raid
Dad Photographer
This is all out of my range of interest since I always aim at the lowest ISO possible for my photography. I can see the usefullness for journalists and street photographers who want the capability to take photos at night. I was used to using Fujichrome 50 as my standard film and Fujichrome 100 as my fast film for many years. Now I surprise myself by occasionally setting the M8 to ISO 1200 or greater.
Adanac
Well-known
I'd be interested in knowing your definition of a "point and shoot" camera.
That term gets slung around as a weapon quite often around here (and elsewhere to be fair). In this case the context doesn't fit the term.
The RX1 is a full frame fixed lens camera.
back alley
IMAGES
to be fair, the rx1 is a point & shoot camera...but one that changes the game completely...day one and it is king of the p&s kingdom!
Adanac
Well-known
For fun only, I'll take a stab at a working definition of a point and shoot ...
Point and Shoot: A photographic device designed principally to be aimed and triggered with no operator intervention.
Proper Camera: A photographic device offering readily accessible controls allowing a photographer to modify any dimension of exposure (sensitivity, aperture, shutter speed). Better versions of Proper Camera will allow for useful manual override of auto-focus.
Or, how about this, a definition I've used before:
Many Proper Cameras can be configured as need be to operate as a point and shoot camera for associates / friends / family of the photographer.
A Point and Shoot camera can't be configured to act as a proper camera.
If not the definition(s) above, I want to know what makes a "point and shoot" camera, so that I can aim slurs appropriately.
Is it a lack of viewfinder in line with the lens? My 6x6 cameras do not have "viewfinders" (of the sense that we use the term for the RX1) but no one would call a Rolleiflex SLR or TLR a point and shoot camera.
Is it autofocus? Surely not, but I bet we can find a curmudgeon somewhere that would. Heck, I might have been such a person at one point in my life.
Here's a penultimate point and shoot:
The RX1 shares no characteristics with that camera other than they both have a vaguely similar rectangular shape.
Yes, I realize someone is bound to point out that the $4 disposable camera had a viewfinder.
Point and Shoot: A photographic device designed principally to be aimed and triggered with no operator intervention.
Proper Camera: A photographic device offering readily accessible controls allowing a photographer to modify any dimension of exposure (sensitivity, aperture, shutter speed). Better versions of Proper Camera will allow for useful manual override of auto-focus.
Or, how about this, a definition I've used before:
Many Proper Cameras can be configured as need be to operate as a point and shoot camera for associates / friends / family of the photographer.
A Point and Shoot camera can't be configured to act as a proper camera.
If not the definition(s) above, I want to know what makes a "point and shoot" camera, so that I can aim slurs appropriately.
Is it a lack of viewfinder in line with the lens? My 6x6 cameras do not have "viewfinders" (of the sense that we use the term for the RX1) but no one would call a Rolleiflex SLR or TLR a point and shoot camera.
Is it autofocus? Surely not, but I bet we can find a curmudgeon somewhere that would. Heck, I might have been such a person at one point in my life.
Here's a penultimate point and shoot:
The RX1 shares no characteristics with that camera other than they both have a vaguely similar rectangular shape.
Yes, I realize someone is bound to point out that the $4 disposable camera had a viewfinder.