Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: RFPhotography on June 22, 2013, 07:51:37 am

Title: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 22, 2013, 07:51:37 am
How can Sony justify charging nearly $3k for  P&S camera?  Yes, I know it has a full-frame sensor.  But it has a fixed lens and no viewfinder.  You have to pony up another $600 for the companion finder (others are available for less).  Does this make sense to anyone?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: palpman on June 22, 2013, 07:59:47 am
I don't really care, if I don't like it, I just don't buy it... why all the fuss?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on June 22, 2013, 08:08:55 am
Hi,

It makes a lot of sense, at least for Sony. It is not on my shopping list. Would it cost 300$US it would still not be on my shopping list.

Best regards
Erik


How can Sony justify charging nearly $3k for  P&S camera?  Yes, I know it has a full-frame sensor.  But it has a fixed lens and no viewfinder.  You have to pony up another $600 for the companion finder (others are available for less).  Does this make sense to anyone?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 22, 2013, 08:56:11 am
I don't really care, if I don't like it, I just don't buy it... why all the fuss?

It's a photography forum.  When did it become forbidden to ask about a camera?  I'm perplexed by the product and I'm interested in other viewpoints.  What's wrong with that?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on June 22, 2013, 09:05:58 am
Hi,

It is OK. The reason it is not on my shopping list is the fixed lens and also the size. I have a Sony RX100, that camera is pocketable.

If you want a fixed lens camera with full frame sensor and a fast lens, it will not be pocketable, it will be expensive and it will not appear on my shopping list.

I actually think the camera could be a decent value, Leica quality at 1/3 of the price.

Best regards
Erik

It's a photography forum.  When did it become forbidden to ask about a camera?  I'm perplexed by the product and I'm interested in other viewpoints.  What's wrong with that?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Paul2660 on June 22, 2013, 09:30:52 am
It's definitely what I would call a niche market player.  Reports of the images from it are very good, and the optics appear to be excellent. 
The one I am waiting to see is the Nex-9, which is reported to be full frame also, (I assume it will have the same sensor as the Rx1). 

Paul Caldwell
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: palpman on June 22, 2013, 09:39:43 am
Well, you're asking if it makes sense. I guess every camera that you can use makes sense in the end, it is a tool to create art, which is universal. We could also wonder if Lomography products make sense, so in the end I don't see the point in debating if a camera makes sense or not. Also, I've seen so many topics and people on the internet ranting about cameras they've never even touched, and I'm just tired to see this kind of topics emerging... the RX1 has made a lot of buzz when it came out already, it seems to be a great camera, I actually was considering buying it. It's all a matter of affordability and wants... I ended up with the DP2- and DP3 Merrill, which are considered as even more nonsense. In the end, markets define prices, not products.

Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: michael on June 22, 2013, 09:56:38 am
For the same reason that GM makes an expensive two seater sports car, the Corvette, and a hundred other examples of niche products that may not appeal to the mainstream.

It's a big world. There are 7 Billion people, and we all have different needs and tastes.

As for the RX1 specifically, if one can afford it, it's a fantastic choice. I'm using it to shoot my son's wedding this weekend, and there isn't another camera that I'd rather use, since it combines a fast high quality lens, a great sensor and is small enough so that no one will confuse me with the official photographer. :-)

Michael
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: allegretto on June 22, 2013, 09:59:08 am
-compact, discrete. Perfect street camera
- great, clear images and color. Will take cropping to extreme sizes and not give up the image
- stunning low light capability
- great build and feel
- logical, useful controls
- spot-on AF, even in low light

There is something also liberating about a fixed lens. No debate about which lens to use and no dust on the mirror.

To the OP, have you used one yet? It's well past the time to be asking these questions in a vacuum. Everyone wants one with interchangeable lenses, adapters etc. And now the NEX may go full frame. Of course it will be much larger, heavier and in the end, it's an NEX which some love and some don't.

I happen to think the RX-1 is a great camera, with some limitations based upon design parameters. Yes, some features were deleted, and it isn't cheap. But for certain situations it's about the best camera on the market. Easily rivals an M with an asph 35mm for a third of the cost. In another league from the M-8 and M-9 insofar as image quality.

Import some ARW's to LR or C1 and you just gotta giggle that such complete images are coming from this little thing...

I am tempted to get a DP-3 for the low tele range. May not need a big rig for much...

Don't see where Sony is "trying to kid" anyone. It's a great camera, just maybe not for you and some others...

Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: LKaven on June 22, 2013, 11:35:01 am
How can Sony justify charging nearly $3k for  P&S camera?  Yes, I know it has a full-frame sensor.  But it has a fixed lens and no viewfinder.  You have to pony up another $600 for the companion finder (others are available for less).  Does this make sense to anyone?

It's a reasonable question, Bob.  Let me turn it back to you.  What do you think is the cost of a (i) body with full-frame sensor, and (ii) a Zeiss 35 f/2 lens?  The lens is no slacker, apparently testing among the best in its class.  I think it might be hard to make and sell this for less than $2k.  

The question is whether this is a reasonable price for the capability?  I think most of us are more interested in a FF NEX, or a FF X Pro, that allows us a choice of lenses on a FF camera in a small package.  I'd like to see this anyway.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Rob C on June 22, 2013, 11:54:07 am
For the same reason that GM makes an expensive two seater sports car, the Corvette, and a hundred other examples of niche products that may not appeal to the mainstream.

It's a big world. There are 7 Billion people, and we all have different needs and tastes.

As for the RX1 specifically, if one can afford it, it's a fantastic choice. I'm using it to shoot my son's wedding this weekend, and there isn't another camera that I'd rather use, since it combines a fast high quality lens, a great sensor and is small enough so that no one will confuse me with the official photographer. :-)Michael



Boy, is that one gig I wouldn't want to be anywhere near as an official snapper!

Be gentle, Michael; give peace a chance.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Rob C on June 22, 2013, 12:02:19 pm

There is something also liberating about a fixed lens. No debate about which lens to use and no dust on the mirror.




That's a flawed notion: every interchangeable lens camera offers you that choice: it's up to you to know which lens you want to put a lead on and take out to exercise in the park. Admittedly, you won't need a polly bag to clean up after either, but a brown paper one looks very BlowUpish.

Despite a plethora of dedicated camera bags, I have now adopted the cunning ploy of using two polly bags, one within the other for added security.

Rob C
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 22, 2013, 01:25:46 pm
I'm not disputing it's a very good camera.  It tests nearly identical to the D800 according to DxOMark, which is very impressive.  I know it's been out for a little while, but not that long.  It's the price point for what's on offer that I'm a bit perplexed about. 

The lack of a viewfinder is, to me, very strange.  Shooting at arm's length off the LCD isn't compatible with the highest image quality due to greater potential for camera shake, although it does have stabilisation but that's not a silver bullet.

Luke, I think you may be right that the real driver of the price is the lens.

Michael, are you using it with or without a viewfinder in the shoe?

Erik is right, I don't think, although it is small, it can be considered pocketable, despite Sony's description.  The RX100, to me, makes a little more sense.  It is, truly, pocketable, it's got a good lens, apparently performs well and is much more reasonably priced.  But, again, no viewfinder and no shoe to put one in.

Part of the reason I asked as well is that I'm looking for a decent quality compact, so both the RX1 and RX100 came onto my radar when I started looking. 
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 22, 2013, 01:30:43 pm
That's a flawed notion: every interchangeable lens camera offers you that choice...

That's a flawed notion: every interchangeable lens camera forces you to make that choice


P.S. Oh, god, no... Now I am sounding like Isaac ;D
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: michael on June 22, 2013, 01:53:57 pm


Michael, are you using it with or without a viewfinder in the shoe?

...

Part of the reason I asked as well is that I'm looking for a decent quality compact, so both the RX1 and RX100 came onto my radar when I started looking. 

I use it with and without the VF. Depends on the situation and my mood.

The RX1 and the RX100 are in different worlds. One's a great little pocket camera and the other is a world-class instrument for a wide range of types of photography.

Michael
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Telecaster on June 22, 2013, 02:36:57 pm
Bob, your original post did have a bit of a ranter's edge to it. The whole "How dare anyone have tastes/opinions/preferences different to mine!" thing has gotten way old. But given that you seem to be inquisitive rather than inquisitional...the RX1 interests me for a couple reasons.

First, the 35mm lens. After many years of using mostly long-ish lenses, I've recently rediscovered my fondness for slightly wide fields-of-view. Second, while I can of course mount a 65 degree (or so) diag. FOV lens on any camera and treat it as non-interchangeable, as a lens geek I'm easily distracted by other possibilities.   :D  The fixed lens helps eliminate those distractions. Fuji's X100s is appealing for the same reasons...maybe moreso due to the built-in EVF.

The RX1 certainly isn't inexpensive...and there's a fetishistic aspect to the desire for "full frame" cameras that I just don't relate to. But in the end, if a camera fulfills my wants & needs I'll buy & use it regardless of format. I haven't made up my mind as to which fixed-lens camera I'll get...or even if I'll get one at all. Still looking and pondering.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: eronald on June 22, 2013, 03:37:13 pm
I had a 35mm film Minox - small, expensive, good, and a Contax T.
Just wish there were a digital version.
Or better a digital Plaubel Makina - that I would gladly pay a few k for :)

Edmund
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 22, 2013, 04:20:55 pm
Michael, I wasn't suggesting the two cameras are comparable.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: TMARK on June 22, 2013, 04:31:33 pm
It's a great little camera. IQ is great. It's not for me. I prefer the IQ from my M9 with v3 summicron 35 to the RX1. Not saying its better, just different. I also need a VF.

For the money in my opinion the x100s can't be beat.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: gbillett on June 22, 2013, 05:14:42 pm
I was excited as soon as it was announced.  Its a game changer in my eyes;  full frame,  high quality lens and small enough for a photographer to remain mostly unnoticed.  I'd get one in an instant if I could afford it.  It would definitely suit my style.  Some going cheaper on ebay though with all the caveats.  Waiting for the Nex full frame to be announced.  I need a smaller camera and would temporarily be happy with a fixed lens ( the little Fuji's appeal too ) but know I would would  want interchangeable lenses on a full frame so current alternatives would ultimately be frustrating.  Just need to be patient.  Value and need though are unique and money in short supply.  I think its great there is a wider choice with cameras than for a long time. 
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on June 22, 2013, 05:29:17 pm
I would probably own one if AF were faster.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: KirbyKrieger on June 22, 2013, 05:43:41 pm
Me, obviously   :D .

With Sony alpha-mount bodies and lenses, I have all my needs covered, except two:
  • high-quality files recorded in low-light, and
  • a silent, inconspicuous (or socially non-interupting) camera.

The RX1 is a near perfect complement to what I already own.

If I could get the first (high quality in low-light) in all my Sony bodies for the same price, I might do it.  But that still leaves me with nothing easily-carried and inconspicuously-used.

If I could get the second (inconspicuousness) in all my Sony bodies for the same price, I wouldn't do it.  First, my a-mount lenses are too big to achieve this.  Second, I would rather spend my money on being able to record high IQ files in low light.

I have quibbles with the RX1 design -- for me, the lack of an articulating LCD is first, followed by all the others mentioned by reviewers including our esteemed Michael -- but they are secondary to its primary qualities (high IQ files, exceptional low-light recording, silent & inconspicuous) and are not flaws fatal to my decision to purchase.

Me aside, I think Michael has twice put it very well in this thread (and much more succinctly than I would be allowed):
Quote
{It is} a world-class instrument for a wide range of types of photography
Quote
{I}t combines a fast high quality lens, a great sensor and is small enough so that no one will confuse me with the official photographer. :-)
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Jim Kasson on June 22, 2013, 06:02:55 pm
I would probably own one if AF were faster.

I love my RX-1 (IQ, weight, almost-inaudible shutter, decent ergonomics, reasonable buffer size) but not the AF. My main problem with the AF is not that it's so slow, but that the AF area is so large that I often don't know where the camera is focusing. Eyelash, iris, nose, eyebrow; it's a mystery. If there's time and the subject is fixed, manual focusing works OK except for the software-mediated focusing ring, but a lot of the time I want the AF.

Still, what it does well, it does really well.

Jim
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 22, 2013, 06:43:36 pm
It's a great little camera. IQ is great. It's not for me. I prefer the IQ from my M9 with v3 summicron 35 to the RX1. Not saying its better, just different. I also need a VF.

For the money in my opinion the x100s can't be beat.

That seems to be where my initial investigation is taking me.  It's a little more than I'd like to spend, but if I go check it out in store and like it, it may do the trick.

Jim, interesting comments on the focusing of the Sony.  It doesn't have adjustable focus points that are highlighted in the LCD?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: BJL on June 22, 2013, 07:03:21 pm
There is something also liberating about a fixed lens. No debate about which lens to use and no dust on the mirror.
I have read this argument countless times and it still makes no rational sense to me: it sounds like what motivates some people to join authoritarian religious cults. You can get the same "liberation" by simply buying a suitable combination of camera body and one lens, and carrying just that (as I did with my first SLR and 50mm lens for several years.)

If one wishes to avoid even the possibility of one day being tempted to buy and try a different lens, there is always superglue.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Jim Kasson on June 22, 2013, 07:43:06 pm
Jim, interesting comments on the focusing of the Sony.  It doesn't have adjustable focus points that are highlighted in the LCD?

Bob, it does indeed, but they are larger in size than the equivalent ones on, say, a D4 or D800, and the AF seems to adjust focus to maximize the overall contrast within the fairly-large rectangle. Thus, if there are image elements at varying distance within the rectangle, the focus point will be determined by the contrast and the distance of the various elements.

Jim
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: LKaven on June 22, 2013, 07:47:48 pm
I suspect a fixed lens might somewhat reduce the size and cost of the entire package.  That's the only reasonable user benefit that I can think of.  

I think the imagined benefit in terms of forced choice plainly gives way to the alternative -- simply put the lens of choice on your interchangeable lens camera and leave it there.  It really isn't bad to work with one lens for a while, but there's no benefit in having the choice be a forced one.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: scooby70 on June 22, 2013, 07:50:44 pm
How can Sony justify charging nearly $3k for  P&S camera?  Yes, I know it has a full-frame sensor.  But it has a fixed lens and no viewfinder.  You have to pony up another $600 for the companion finder (others are available for less).  Does this make sense to anyone?

I think you'll find that if you compare the price of the RX1 with other similar full frame cameras (+ a decent lens) in its class the Sony is the cheapest. Oh hang on a minute... the Sony is the only camera in its class  ;D
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 22, 2013, 09:17:14 pm
OK, got it Jim.

Luke, the advantage is size and weight.  And, often sound volume.  Even a Panny GH3 or Nex7 with lens become fairly substantial cameras.  As far as I'm finding in my reading thus far, many of these rangefinder options are completely silent.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: theguywitha645d on June 22, 2013, 11:55:58 pm
It's a photography forum.  When did it become forbidden to ask about a camera?  I'm perplexed by the product and I'm interested in other viewpoints.  What's wrong with that?

From your OP, you don't sound like you are interested in anybody's viewpoint accept your own.

(Owning an RX-1, I can say it is worth it.)
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: theguywitha645d on June 23, 2013, 12:01:05 am
I suspect a fixed lens might somewhat reduce the size and cost of the entire package.  That's the only reasonable user benefit that I can think of.  

I think the imagined benefit in terms of forced choice plainly gives way to the alternative -- simply put the lens of choice on your interchangeable lens camera and leave it there.  It really isn't bad to work with one lens for a while, but there's no benefit in having the choice be a forced one.

The optical engineers can also make a lens specifically for the camera, and, from the results and tests, it looks like they did a great job.

The idea that somehow you are limited in your photography with a fixed lens camera is really false--you can actually own more than one camera. And no one is forcing you to do anything, let alone buying an RX-1.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 23, 2013, 12:17:13 am
From your OP, you don't sound like you are interested in anybody's viewpoint accept your own.

(Owning an RX-1, I can say it is worth it.)

So I'm not allowed to ask a question and state my opinion at the same time?  What a pantload.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: LKaven on June 23, 2013, 12:38:55 am
The idea that somehow you are limited in your photography with a fixed lens camera is really false--you can actually own more than one camera. And no one is forcing you to do anything, let alone buying an RX-1.

I don't know what you think I was saying.  I have nothing against the RX-1.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: allegretto on June 23, 2013, 12:50:45 am
I have read this argument countless times and it still makes no rational sense to me: it sounds like what motivates some people to join authoritarian religious cults. You can get the same "liberation" by simply buying a suitable combination of camera body and one lens, and carrying just that (as I did with my first SLR and 50mm lens for several years.)

If one wishes to avoid even the possibility of one day being tempted to buy and try a different lens, there is always superglue.

this POV would be perfectly reasonable if I had only one camera.

But I have a couple of Nikon bodies and a bunch of different glass for situations. So when I want that kind of flexibility, it's there too. Just that a close focusing 35 f/2.0 is great for many things.

Different horses...

My AF seems very good actually. Maybe I got lucky
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Rob C on June 23, 2013, 04:26:17 am
That's a flawed notion: every interchangeable lens camera forces you to make that choice


P.S. Oh, god, no... Now I am sounding like Isaac ;D



No; you can choose to buy it with a single lens.

Isaac. What infuriates about Isaac at times is that he's usually right and able to express why.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Rob C on June 23, 2013, 04:45:58 am
The RX1 is brilliant and crap.
 


I know less can be more, but I wish you'd elaborate, Keith!

What I would add, is that there was a time decades ago when I put the 2/50 Nikkor, a wonderful lens, back in the box and there it lay for years on end, the 2.8/35 and the 3.5/135 Nikkors handling about 99% of all my 35mm workload. My recently acquired 2/35 has given me lots of pleasant moments since I bought it, so perhaps lens choice is something that goes round and round in the psyche... but I'd hate being without the ability to swap when it suits me.

Another point: with the advancing years, squatting down to shoot low isn't that easy or comfortable anymore; it would be nice to have a reflex screen available - oh, wait - isn't that 500 Series territory again? Ironically, the more uncomfortable getting low is, the more I find motifs that include low, OOF foreground elements... so they go unshot, with cellphone or camera. No, I don't think a flipping screen would help much: can't see anything much on electronic screens in the sunshine.

Rob C
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Ligament on June 23, 2013, 05:13:10 am
The RX1 is a great camera and I really liked the optional EVF. The lens is excellent. It simply did not fit my personal needs.

I returned mine as I found it too bulky for me when I already have a D800e. The RX1 is too large and heavy to fit in a pocket comfortably, so I'd simply to prefer to carry my DSLR instead. If I did not own a DSLR I'd have kept the RX1. I now also have the Ricoh GR for an ultra-portable pocket camera with great image quality and wonderful street shooting capabilities, which fits in my pocket very well and is very light.

Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on June 23, 2013, 06:18:58 am
The lack of a viewfinder is, to me, very strange.  Shooting at arm's length off the LCD isn't compatible with the highest image quality due to greater potential for camera shake, although it does have stabilisation but that's not a silver bullet.

Do you think your head on the VF can beat a 3-stops camera stabilisation system?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 23, 2013, 07:01:46 am
Do you think your head on the VF can beat a 3-stops camera stabilisation system?


That is a specious argument that misses the point.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: KirbyKrieger on June 23, 2013, 07:32:04 am
No, I don't think a flipping screen would help much: can't see anything much on electronic screens in the sunshine.
Rob C

Which have you tried?

I have always been able to see enough to record the data I want.  On cameras that have LCDs that do not fully articulate, I use the FlipBac (http://flipbac.com). Neither elegant nor slick, but a useful tool that makes my tools more useful.  Will likely require an hour or more of use to develop the coordination to use effectively.

Some cameras in the near future will have either removable LCDs, or will communicate with other personal electronic devices (smart phones), allowing the user to see the sensor image and operate the camera from a distance.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on June 23, 2013, 08:12:26 am
That is a specious argument that misses the point.

What is a specious argument?. Anyway, I just meant that the absence of VF can be compensated and improved with the stabiliser in this camera, that's all.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 23, 2013, 08:20:58 am
Which have you tried?

I have always been able to see enough to record the data I want.  On cameras that have LCDs that do not fully articulate, I use the FlipBac (http://flipbac.com). Neither elegant nor slick, but a useful tool that makes my tools more useful.  Will likely require an hour or more of use to develop the coordination to use effectively.

Some cameras in the near future will have either removable LCDs, or will communicate with other personal electronic devices (smart phones), allowing the user to see the sensor image and operate the camera from a distance.

The future is now.  There are numerous apps that will allow controlling many cameras via a wired connection and a couple that allow for wifi connections.  Moreso in the Android space than Apple because Apple doesn't allow the iPhone to act as a USB host and severely limits USB host functionality on the iPad.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/531758_10151570166038200_124906453_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Rob C on June 23, 2013, 09:23:31 am
Bob has elegantly illustrated what's amiss with modern cameras. That piccy says it all.

Rob C
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: allegretto on June 23, 2013, 09:55:44 am
and, subject material too...
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Jim Kasson on June 23, 2013, 10:38:44 am
...squatting down to shoot low isn't that easy or comfortable anymore; it would be nice to have a reflex screen available - oh, wait - isn't that 500 Series territory again? Ironically, the more uncomfortable getting low is, the more I find motifs that include low, OOF foreground elements... so they go unshot, with cellphone or camera. No, I don't think a flipping screen would help much: can't see anything much on electronic screens in the sunshine.

Rob C

The RX-1 EVF flips up so that you can look straight down on it, kind of like a Hasselblad SLR or Rolleiflex TLR with the waist-level finder and the magnifier flipped up. That solves the not-being-able-to-see-the-screen-in-the-sunshine problem, but you'll still have to bend more than with a waist-level finder used at arm's length.

Jim
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: BJL on June 23, 2013, 11:09:39 am
this POV would be perfectly reasonable if I had only one camera.
You previous claim was for a "liberating" _advantage_ to not being able to change the lens on a camera.

My reply is that there is no advantage (one can get the benefits you claimed by buying and carrying a camera with a single lens, whether or not that camera allows the possibility of changing the lens.)

The option you now mention of owning other cameras does nothing to support your previous claim of an _advantage_ to the non-changeable lens option; at most it mitigates the disadvantages.

P. S. I agree that for now, the RX-1 offers a combination not reproducible in any "system camera", so there is a legitimate market niche for it. I also expect that niche to shrink or vanish if and when camera makers like Sony offer new mirror-less systems with 36x24mm sensors and changeable AF lenses designed for that system. (Bodies that rely on manual focus rangefinder lenses or SLR lenses do not count.)
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 23, 2013, 11:12:24 am
and, subject material too...

You have zero idea what the subject matter was.

Rob, yeah, but one person's problem is another's solution.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Jim Kasson on June 23, 2013, 11:21:55 am
The one I am waiting to see is the Nex-9, which is reported to be full frame also, (I assume it will have the same sensor as the Rx1). 

One of the great virtues of the RX-1 is the quiet shutter. Small digital cameras with interchangeable lenses usually (universally?) have focal plane shutters. The alternative is to put a shutter in every lens, a la Hasselblad 500. Focal plane shutters are pretty noisy, at least compared to leaf shutters. The NEX-7 is moderately noisy, and the shutter mechanism is smaller than it would be on a FF camera.

There is electronic shutter technology on the horizon that could make the noise/lens interchangability tradeoff go away, though.

Jim
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: maxgruzen on June 23, 2013, 11:46:16 am
It's a reasonable question, Bob.  Let me turn it back to you.  What do you think is the cost of a (i) body with full-frame sensor, and (ii) a Zeiss 35 f/2 lens?  The lens is no slacker, apparently testing among the best in its class.  I think it might be hard to make and sell this for less than $2k.  

The question is whether this is a reasonable price for the capability?  I think most of us are more interested in a FF NEX, or a FF X Pro, that allows us a choice of lenses on a FF camera in a small package.  I'd like to see this anyway.
I don't know. The lens on my DP2 is probably as good a lens as I've ever owned. I have owned a hell of a lot of high dollar glass. DP2 $799.00
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: theguywitha645d on June 23, 2013, 12:26:35 pm
You previous claim was for a "liberating" _advantage_ to not being able to change the lens on a camera.

My reply is that there is no advantage (one can get the benefits you claimed by buying and carrying a camera with a single lens, whether or not that camera allows the possibility of changing the lens.)

The option you now mention of owning other cameras does nothing to support your previous claim of an _advantage_ to the non-changeable lens option; at most it mitigates the disadvantages.

P. S. I agree that for now, the RX-1 offers a combination not reproducible in any "system camera", so there is a legitimate market niche for it. I also expect that niche to shrink or vanish if and when camera makers like Sony offer new mirror-less systems with 36x24mm sensors and changeable AF lenses designed for that system. (Bodies that rely on manual focus rangefinder lenses or SLR lenses do not count.)

And if I never change the lens, then there is no advantage to an interchangeable lens camera. Looks like a lose-lose option.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: theguywitha645d on June 23, 2013, 12:28:37 pm
Here is a lens test for the RX-1

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sony-Cyber-shot-RX1-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-2-35-review-Is-this-the-ultimate-moderate-wide-angle-lens
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: theguywitha645d on June 23, 2013, 12:33:33 pm
So I'm not allowed to ask a question and state my opinion at the same time?  What a pantload.

Sure, if you want to troll, go right ahead. I get to comment on it as well. We don't have you put up with your rubbish either.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 23, 2013, 01:36:04 pm
Sure, if you want to troll, go right ahead. I get to comment on it as well. We don't have you put up with your rubbish either.

Stuff the name-calling.  This was a reasonably productive discussion till you came along.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: theguywitha645d on June 23, 2013, 01:57:42 pm
Stuff the name-calling.  This was a reasonably productive discussion till you came along.


Bob, you are a hoot. You set the tone, but don't like it when others call you out on it.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Telecaster on June 23, 2013, 02:54:02 pm
As to the benefits of deliberate limitation...I mentioned my own reason earlier on for desiring this. But to restate: by nature I'm easily distractable. When presented with multiple options, my initial impulse is to choose all of them simultaneously.   :D  My ideal state-of-being would be one of fully aware quantum superposition.

Pic-taking with a fixed-lens camera is simply a way of reducing distraction. It doesn't mean I'm in any danger of becoming a drooling cultist.   :o  But what works for me might not work for someone else. That's okay.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: allegretto on June 23, 2013, 03:01:28 pm
As to the benefits of deliberate limitation...I mentioned my own reason earlier on for desiring this. But to restate: by nature I'm easily distractable. When presented with multiple options, my initial impulse is to choose all of them simultaneously.   :D  My ideal state-of-being would be one of fully aware quantum superposition.

Pic-taking with a fixed-lens camera is simply a way of reducing distraction. It doesn't mean I'm in any danger of becoming a drooling cultist.   :o  But what works for me might not work for someone else. That's okay.

-Dave-

+1

And Bob... I am sure..
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 23, 2013, 04:04:16 pm
Bob, you are a hoot. You set the tone, but don't like it when others call you out on it.

Sod off.  You're the one reading into what isn't there.  One more response like the last two and I won't just lock this thread, I'll delete it entirely.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Isaac on June 23, 2013, 04:32:43 pm
Lord, have mercy!
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Telecaster on June 23, 2013, 04:46:50 pm
Hey, as long as we're (well, some of us are) moving into the subject of deliberate limitation...who among us has actually taken photos over an extended period of time with just one lens on one camera? How was the experience?

I did this in the Middle East in 1983-85 with a Canon AE-1 & 50mm lens. Not exactly by choice...I was young and ca$h was tight, but I also wanted to travel light. Worked out quite well. I'd never actually used a 50mm lens previously...grew up with a 35/90mm pair on a Leica M2. Then in late 1994 I spent ten days in Grand Canyon National Park. My 70-200mm zoom jammed up on day one and I was forced to fall back on a 90mm macro as my sole lens. This worked out great...I sync'd up with the lens right off and never missed the zoom. In fact I'm sure I saw better due to the lack of zooming capability/distraction. I ended up sticking with the 90 for months afterward too. I've done the same sort of thing a few times since then by choice, but it doesn't work as well for me when I know I have other lens options available.

I've included two photos, the first taken by my Nederlander friend Kees deGroot in February 1984 (of me, using the AE-1/50mm combo, on Kodachrome 25) and the second (a selfie!) at the Grand Canyon with the 90mm (on Provia 100). Any intimation of self-absorption is quite unintentional.   ;)

-Dave-
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: allegretto on June 23, 2013, 08:11:25 pm
You previous claim was for a "liberating" _advantage_ to not being able to change the lens on a camera.

My reply is that there is no advantage (one can get the benefits you claimed by buying and carrying a camera with a single lens, whether or not that camera allows the possibility of changing the lens.)

The option you now mention of owning other cameras does nothing to support your previous claim of an _advantage_ to the non-changeable lens option; at most it mitigates the disadvantages.

P. S. I agree that for now, the RX-1 offers a combination not reproducible in any "system camera", so there is a legitimate market niche for it. I also expect that niche to shrink or vanish if and when camera makers like Sony offer new mirror-less systems with 36x24mm sensors and changeable AF lenses designed for that system. (Bodies that rely on manual focus rangefinder lenses or SLR lenses do not count.)

I never underpack. Just like I never arrive late. Just not me. So taking the Sony and leaving a DSLR body and 2-3 lenses at home sure as heck liberates my shoulders...!
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: eronald on June 23, 2013, 10:02:40 pm
I've given up trying to take something light. Now I just grab one of the big SLRs and either 50 or 90, the one which is not mounted has a chance to go into my pocket. A big SLR (Nikon, or Canon pro model) with a 50/1.8 is very fast and pleasant to use.

Interestingly I've found that whether people get angry with me for taking pictures depends more on my haircut than on the camera.

Edmund
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: BJL on June 23, 2013, 10:14:45 pm
... taking the Sony and leaving a DSLR body and 2-3 lenses at home sure as heck liberates my shoulders...!
But as I have said several times, there is the middle way of taking a camera body with a single lens attatched.

To answer Telecaster:
a) my first few years with an SLR were with a single lens, a 50mm. I found this rather limiting, but in those days my budget rather than my back was the biggest limit.
b) some years later, I made do with just a 28-105 for several years on my last film SLR, unwilling to buy more lenses until I decided what to do about this new digital thing. That was mostly quite satisfactory, and I am still happy most days with a single lens --- but I almost always want it to be a zoom, like the 12-50 on my E-M5. That kit keeps my back very happy.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on June 24, 2013, 04:21:52 am
If you are looking for an affordable, but still very good, sort of compact camera with large sensor (albeit not FF), look no further than the Canon EOS M plus the 22 f/2 lens (equivalent to 35mm in FF). Much cheaper than the Sony and the Fuji X100S.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: ripgriffith on June 24, 2013, 05:09:04 am
who among us has actually taken photos over an extended period of time with just one lens on one camera? How was the experience?

Leica M(3,2,4 and finally, 6), Summi(cron,lux)35mm. And one film, tri-x mostly at ASA 400 (does anyone remember ASA instead of ISO?).  Does 20 odd years count as an extended period of time?  The experience was fine, albeit limiting (but that's the point, isn't it?)
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 24, 2013, 08:31:44 am
If you are looking for an affordable, but still very good, sort of compact camera with large sensor (albeit not FF), look no further than the Canon EOS M plus the 22 f/2 lens (equivalent to 35mm in FF). Much cheaper than the Sony and the Fuji X100S.

Haven't read a lot of good things about the M.  And philosophically I don't think I could buy a Canon product again. 
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: BJL on June 24, 2013, 10:47:24 am
If you are looking for an affordable, but still very good, sort of compact camera with large sensor (albeit not FF), look no further than the Canon EOS M plus the 22 f/2 lens (equivalent to 35mm in FF). Much cheaper than the Sony and the Fuji X100S.
Once you accept the EOS-M's sensor size and complete lack of EVF (not even available as an accessory), lots of other options arise, like even the cheapest NEX models, 3N and 5R. And why would someone contemplating paying $2,800 for the RX1 choose instead to pinch pennies on the now heavily discounted EOS-M rather than paying a bit more for something like a Fujifilm X model, or a high end NEX with EVF, which have a far more impressive selection of lenses that are designed for and function well with the bodies?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 24, 2013, 11:33:15 am
Once you accept the EOS-M's sensor size

It's an APS-C sensor, so there really isn't a whole lot to 'accept', is there?  

Quote
and complete lack of EVF (not even available as an accessory)

The lack of a viewfinder, optical or electronic is a killer, even optional in the shoe (as with the RX1).  Problem with a shoe option is no way to link it to the angle of view of the lens, unless it were electronic and signals were sent through the shoe contacts in some fashion.

If I were going to go for an exchangeable lens option in a smaller, 'streetable', carry around camera, I'd probably look at the X Pro 1, X-E1 or the Nikon 1 (despite its smaller sensor), the Nex line, or maybe M4/3 although some of those are a bit larger.

The idea of being limited by a single focal length is, as others have said, a misleading viewpoint.  It can be seen both ways.  Limiting and liberating.  Also challenging from the standpoint of testing one's ability to create compelling images with a single lens.  Who isn't up for a challenge?

I just picked up a 'Texas Leica' for not a bad price to mess around a bit with MF film again.  Same consideration wrt a fixed lens.  There were plenty of those sold 'in the day', in a variety of formats. 
Title: RX1 enthusiasts clearly see APS-C sensor size as inferior for such a camera
Post by: BJL on June 24, 2013, 12:03:07 pm
It's an APS-C sensor, so there really isn't a whole lot to 'accept', is there?  
The topic of this thread is the RX1, and one of its main selling points is that is has a 36x24mm sensor rather than the 60% smaller "1.6x crop" "APS-C" sensor of the EOS-M: of course there is an issue of whether people contemplating the RX1 would accept any such "APS-C" alternative.

Quote
The idea of being limited by a single focal length is, as others have said, a misleading viewpoint.  It can be seen both ways.  Limiting and liberating.

I keep asking this and no-one answers:

1) How is a permanently attached lens any more "liberating" than fitting a system camera body with a single lens?
(Which many of us have done from time to time over the years.)


2) How is

a) owning a fixed lens cameras and also another system camera with multiple lenses, and sometimes _choosing_ to carry just the fixed lens camera

any more liberating than

b) owning just the a system with several lenses,  and sometimes _choosing_ to carry that camera with just one lens?
The "Devo" argument that "freedom from choice is what you want " clearly fails in this scenario, due to the same level of choice involved in both options.

The only liberation I see from a permanently fixed lens design is through reduction in weight or cost or such -- which the RX1 offers in comparison to other current options with its sensor size, but not if APC-S size is acceptable.
Title: Re: RX1 enthusiasts clearly see APS-C sensor size as inferior for such a camera
Post by: RFPhotography on June 24, 2013, 12:40:10 pm
The topic of this thread is the RX1, and one of its main selling points is that is has a 36x24mm sensor rather than the 60% smaller "1.6x crop" "APS-C" sensor of the EOS-M: of course there is an issue of whether people contemplating the RX1 would accept any such "APS-C" alternative.

Yes, but, as with many discussions it has morphed and mutated into something broader and includes discussion of other options. 

Quote
I keep asking this and no-one answers:

1) How is a permanently attached lens any more "liberating" than fitting a system camera body with a single lens?
(Which many of us have done from time to time over the years.)

It's not the camera system.  At least, I don't look at it that way.  It's the idea of a single focal length lens.


Quote
2) How is

a) owning a fixed lens cameras and also another system camera with multiple lenses, and sometimes _choosing_ to carry just the fixed lens camera

any more liberating than

b) owning just the a system with several lenses,  and sometimes _choosing_ to carry that camera with just one lens?
The "Devo" argument that "freedom from choice is what you want " clearly fails in this scenario, due to the same level of choice involved in both options.

The only liberation I see from a permanently fixed lens design is through reduction in weight or cost or such -- which the RX1 offers in comparison to other current options with its sensor size, but not if APC-S size is acceptable.

I can't speak for anyone else but in terms of liberating, it's not just weight.  It's somewhat freeing to be unburdened by the choice of focal length for composition.  You have a single choice which frees you to concentrate on the actual image and not the multitude of ways you could render the scene with different lenses or focal lengths of a zoom lens.  That's also the challenging aspect of working with a single focal length.
Title: carrying just a camera with one prime lens: be it interchangeable or not
Post by: BJL on June 24, 2013, 02:27:10 pm
It's not the camera system.  At least, I don't look at it that way.  It's the idea of a single focal length lens.
...
I can't speak for anyone else but in terms of liberating, it's not just weight.  It's somewhat freeing to be unburdened by the choice of focal length for composition.  You have a single choice which frees you to concentrate on the actual image and not the multitude of ways you could render the scene with different lenses or focal lengths of a zoom lens.  That's also the challenging aspect of working with a single focal length.
I have no problem with people sometimes wanting to do this; I have even chosen to do it myself, though very rarely. (And I used to do it often, but due to financial limits, not choice.)

But this is simply a matter of carrying just a camera with a single prime lens, regardless of whether that lens is permanently attached to the body or not.

My disagreement is with the separate claim that it is somehow superior for it to be impossible to ever change that lens on any occasion.
Title: Re: carrying just a camera with one prime lens: be it interchangeable or not
Post by: RFPhotography on June 24, 2013, 03:03:35 pm

My disagreement is with the separate claim that it is somehow superior for it to be impossible to ever change that lens on any occasion.

I'm not sure anyone is making that argument.  At least I'm not.  The other considerations, which may be advantages for some, are size/weight and possibly noise.  That's where it may be superior to carry the small camera with the fixed lens.  Smaller, lighter and in some cases extremely quiet to silent.  Good for situations where some measure of unobtrusiveness is a benefit. 
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Rob C on June 24, 2013, 03:40:08 pm
Leica M(3,2,4 and finally, 6), Summi(cron,lux)35mm. And one film, tri-x mostly at ASA 400 (does anyone remember ASA instead of ISO?).   Does 20 odd years count as an extended period of time?  The experience was fine, albeit limiting (but that's the point, isn't it?)

With much affection. But I seem to remember them running in parallel during the same period, ISO being a European measure and ASA the American which, of course, we all adopted. There was another European measure - Scheiner, or something like that, long-forgotten, of which 27 degrees was equivalent to 400ASA...

Rob C
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: woof75 on June 24, 2013, 03:44:50 pm
Anyone tried comparing prints from an RX100 and comparing to RX1 up to 11*14. I'm amazed at how good the RX100 is. Printed up to about 11*14 it's up there with anything. Crazy but true. Nice files too, not just detailed, great tonality, great colour. Just beautiful. I was going to get an RX1 until I started printing from the RX100 I have and I'm so impressed.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Jim Kasson on June 24, 2013, 04:29:42 pm
There was another European measure - Scheiner, or something like that, long-forgotten, of which 27 degrees was equivalent to 400ASA...

Rob C

DIN. Logarithmic, with a increment of three doubling the ISO/ASA speed.
Title: expensive cameras with permanently attached lenses
Post by: BJL on June 24, 2013, 04:40:11 pm
I'm not sure anyone is making that argument.  At least I'm not.
Maybe you and I are in agreement. After all, I was replying originally to allegretto's comment that "There is something also liberating about a fixed lens. No debate about which lens to use and no dust on the mirror" which seemed to be offered as an advantage of the RX-1's lens being permanently attached, not just the idea of sometimes working with only a single fixed focal length lens on one's camera.

So if no-one is actually claiming an advantage for the non-interchangeability of the RX-1's lens, let me return to the original topic of this thread:
1. I find that the inability to ever use anything other than one lens of one focal length on a camera costing US$2,800 is a severe disadvantage.
2. Compared to current alternatives with a comparable (36x24mm) sensor and lens combination, the RX-1 is for now justified for some users by a significant advantage in size and weight.
3. If and when something like a 36x24mm format "NEX" (and matching 35/2 lens) arrives, the RX-1 wil become obsolete, much as did its ancestor the Sony DSC-R1 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1) from the days before Sony made DSLR's.
Title: ASA = ANSI = ISO as fas as film speed standards
Post by: BJL on June 24, 2013, 04:52:53 pm
With much affection. But I seem to remember them running in parallel during the same period, ISO being a European measure and ASA the American which, of course, we all adopted.
Actually, the ISO standard for film speed is simply the adoption and maintenance by the ISO of the standard originally developed in the USA by ANSI (American National Standards Institute), with ANSI being a member of ISO. (The acronym ASA dates back to the earlier name "American Standards Association" for what later became ANSI.) By the way, the ISO film speed standard also includes the alternative logarithmic DIN scale from the German member of ISO (something like "Deutsch Industrie Norm".) So overall, the American (linear) scale eventually dominated over the European (logarithmic) one, not the other way around.

Are you seriously nostalgic over a simple name change for the same standard?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 24, 2013, 05:28:44 pm
... So if no-one is actually claiming an advantage for the non-interchangeability of the RX-1's lens...

I am.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: BJL on June 24, 2013, 06:52:04 pm
I am. [claiming an advantage for the non-interchangeability of the RX-1's lens.]
Great! Would you care to answer my questions in post #71 of this thread?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79645.msg642301#msg642301
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 24, 2013, 10:08:58 pm
... But this is simply a matter of carrying just a camera with a single prime lens, regardless of whether that lens is permanently attached to the body or not.

My disagreement is with the separate claim that it is somehow superior for it to be impossible to ever change that lens on any occasion.

The advantage of limited choice (including none) are one of those things in life that some intuitively grasp, while others remain eternally perplexed as to why. One of those things that you either "see the light" or you do not. Explaining it to someone who does not get it is rather futile, hence my reluctance to enter the fray earlier. And I do not mean it in a disrespectful way.

However, it has been a subject of numerous serious research papers, books, PhD dissertations, etc, in the fields of economics, psychology, philosophy, behavioral economics, including works (in part) of some Nobel Prize winners for economics (Kahneman). For instance, these books:

The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060005696/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d1_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1BR6HJ4TM1632VR2V5XE&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846)

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014311526X/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0RJEDVKPVNW51VSHDPDA&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846) (by two professors from my Alma Mater)

Some excerpts from The Paradox reviews (emphasis mine):

Quote
We normally assume in America that more options ... will make us happier, but Schwartz shows the opposite is true, arguing that having all these choices actually goes so far as to erode our psychological well-being.

Quote
We are, the author suggests, overwhelmed by choice, and that's not such a good thing. Schwartz tells us that constantly being asked to make choices, even about the simplest things, forces us to "invest time, energy, and no small amount of self-doubt, and dread." There comes a point, he contends, at which choice becomes debilitating rather than liberating. Did I make the right choice? Can I ever make the right choice?

Similar thing happened with the introduction of Leica Monochrom. Hordes of Internet know-it-alls ridiculed the concept with the simple "Ha! With my camera, I can always convert back to b&w in post and so much better" line of reasoning.

But forget psychology and economics for a moment. Let's go back to photography. Mike Johnston, over at The Online Photographer, argued "since forever" for a monochrome sensor, even before Leica came up with one. Basically arguing that the very absence of choice is a good thing, and yes, superior to conversion in post.  His eloquent reasoning can be found here:

Why Would a Digital Camera Have a B&W-Only Sensor? (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/10/why-would-a-digital-camera-have-a-bw-only-sensor.html)

Well worth a read, but here is one excerpt that seems pertinent to this discussion, given the aggressiveness with which the opposing views are met (emphasis mine):

Quote
Not everybody needs such a thing for their work. Only a small minority of people do. A small minority of those people are artists whose work might enrich the world. (And please, do me a favor here—if you're not amongst that small minority, have the flexibility of mind to acknowledge that that small minority exists, which is to say that other people might actually want choices you don't happen to want. I've acknowledged you; it's not too much to ask you to acknowledge me.)

Mike has also addressed a frequent argument mentioned here (emphasis mine):

Quote
Working with a camera that can convert color to B&W is not the same as working with a camera that cannot record color. The latter affects the way you see things when you're out photographing. When you know that B&W is all the camera will do, then you start to ignore colors and see luminances, tonal relationships, surface, and structure. It's a different way of seeing.

Now, let's address directly the line of reasoning that it "is simply a matter of carrying just a camera with a single prime lens, regardless of whether that lens is permanently attached to the body or not."

The question, in case it is a system with interchangeable lenses, immediately becomes a plethora of choices. Ok, which single prime lens? 28, 35, 50? Let's say you firmly know that it should be 35mm. But which 35? In case of Canon, shall that be 35/2 or 35/1.4?? Or perhaps 35mm with IS? How about Mark II version of the same lens? How about versions from third parties: Sigma, Zeiss, etc. And if Zeiss with C/Y mount, which adapter works best with my camera?

But lets say we've overcome all those hurdles and settled on one lens and we happily go around for years or months snapping with it. How could this be worse than just non-interchangable system. Here is why: the very possibility that you can change that lens will slowly eat you from within. Say you acquired Canon 35/2... but then Canon comes with its IS version, which, at the same time, has oh, so much better MTF reading than your lens. Or the new Sigma 35/1.4 which has oh, so cool bokeh. Choices, choices... and temptations.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Joe S on June 24, 2013, 10:58:55 pm
Anyone tried comparing prints from an RX100 and comparing to RX1 up to 11*14. I'm amazed at how good the RX100 is. Printed up to about 11*14 it's up there with anything. Crazy but true. Nice files too, not just detailed, great tonality, great colour. Just beautiful. I was going to get an RX1 until I started printing from the RX100 I have and I'm so impressed.


I sure agree.   I'm glad to have a point and shoot size camera that I actually make prints from.   Plus it's just a really likeable camera.  The only thing wrong with it is that it's "yesterday's news" and the attention span of the forums have moved on.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: K.C. on June 25, 2013, 12:02:46 am
Hey, as long as we're (well, some of us are) moving into the subject of deliberate limitation...who among us has actually taken photos over an extended period of time with just one lens on one camera? How was the experience?

When I bought a Hassy SWC in the late '80s I used nothing else for personal work for a year. The same has been true for the last year with the DP2M.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: bcooter on June 25, 2013, 02:46:26 am
The Sony, for me and my work would need some kind of viewfinder, interchangeable lenses or one amazing zoom to be workable.

I like a 35mm lens view point world, but not always and well, it's not just the cost, it's the usability.

I like smaller cameras, with the 4/3's system have grown to like them a lot.  

Even in professional production with two trucks of equipment, they offer some advantages.

Today was the first time I've used the 4/3's system in heavy production and learned a lot about electronic evfs, and smaller cameras.

I like em, they do some really great things, but I still went to larger formats for for their benefits, though picking up a Canon 1dx after shooting with an Olympus OMD and a Pana Gh3, the 1dx seemed bloody huge and almost too big.  Going to the RED's was like using a truck with a lens on the front.

The thing about evf's they're very good now, but quirky.  I shot a billion set ups today, with motion and stills and can't say I really have the hang of it yet.

Of course I'm using the smaller cameras mostly for their video aspect and the stills are just a big bonus, but also because when everything goes well, they're very quick to shoot, offer a different look and are highly manageable.

I find Sony just a strange company.   They obviously make Rolex quality cameras, but always seem to have a what if, stuck somewhere in their systems.  The FS100 video  I have could be great if the sensor or processing was better, (though the gh3 just roasts it),  the A99 I find very, very good, but not very, very great and the RX1 with changeable lenses, in body is, sound in and out, autofocusing of the GH3 quality would really get my attention.

But Sony always seems to play to the beat of their own drum.

For some that's great.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: ASA = ANSI = ISO as fas as film speed standards
Post by: Rob C on June 25, 2013, 03:36:39 am
Actually, the ISO standard for film speed is simply the adoption and maintenance by the ISO of the standard originally developed in the USA by ANSI (American National Standards Institute), with ANSI being a member of ISO. (The acronym ASA dates back to the earlier name "American Standards Association" for what later became ANSI.) By the way, the ISO film speed standard also includes the alternative logarithmic DIN scale from the German member of ISO (something like "Deutsch Industrie Norm".) So overall, the American (linear) scale eventually dominated over the European (logarithmic) one, not the other way around.

Are you seriously nostalgic over a simple name change for the same standard?


Nostalgia is my middle name.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Rob C on June 25, 2013, 03:43:43 am
The advantage of limited choice (including none) are one of those things in life that some intuitively grasp, while others remain eternally perplexed as to why. One of those things that you either "see the light" or you do not. Explaining it to someone who does not get it is rather futile, hence my reluctance to enter the fray earlier. And I do not mean it in a disrespectful way.

However, it has been a subject of numerous serious research papers, books, PhD dissertations, etc, in the fields of economics, psychology, philosophy, behavioral economics, including works (in part) of some Nobel Prize winners for economics (Kahneman). For instance, these books:

The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060005696/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d1_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1BR6HJ4TM1632VR2V5XE&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846)

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014311526X/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0RJEDVKPVNW51VSHDPDA&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846) (by two professors from my Alma Mater)

Some excerpts from The Paradox reviews (emphasis mine):

Similar thing happened with the introduction of Leica Monochrom. Hordes of Internet know-it-alls ridiculed the concept with the simple "Ha! With my camera, I can always convert back to b&w in post and so much better" line of reasoning.

But forget psychology and economics for a moment. Let's go back to photography. Mike Johnston, over at The Online Photographer, argued "since forever" for a monochrome sensor, even before Leica came up with one. Basically arguing that the very absence of choice is a good thing, and yes, superior to conversion in post.  His eloquent reasoning can be found here:

Why Would a Digital Camera Have a B&W-Only Sensor? (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/10/why-would-a-digital-camera-have-a-bw-only-sensor.html)

Well worth a read, but here is one excerpt that seems pertinent to this discussion, given the aggressiveness with which the opposing views are met (emphasis mine):
 
Mike has also addressed a frequent argument mentioned here (emphasis mine):

Now, let's address directly the line of reasoning that it "is simply a matter of carrying just a camera with a single prime lens, regardless of whether that lens is permanently attached to the body or not."

The question, in case it is a system with interchangeable lenses, immediately becomes a plethora of choices. Ok, which single prime lens? 28, 35, 50? Let's say you firmly know that it should be 35mm. But which 35? In case of Canon, shall that be 35/2 or 35/1.4?? Or perhaps 35mm with IS? How about Mark II version of the same lens? How about versions from third parties: Sigma, Zeiss, etc. And if Zeiss with C/Y mount, which adapter works best with my camera?

But lets say we've overcome all those hurdles and settled on one lens and we happily go around for years or months snapping with it. How could this be worse than just non-interchangable system. Here is why: the very possibility that you can change that lens will slowly eat you from within. Say you acquired Canon 35/2... but then Canon comes with its IS version, which, at the same time, has oh, so much better MTF reading than your lens. Or the new Sigma 35/1.4 which has oh, so cool bokeh. Choices, choices... and temptations.



Slobodan, a change of diet might help you!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 25, 2013, 04:30:11 am
Slobodan, a change of diet might help you!

Not if someone gives him a menu, though.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on June 25, 2013, 04:51:31 am
Once you accept the EOS-M's sensor size and complete lack of EVF (not even available as an accessory), lots of other options arise, like even the cheapest NEX models, 3N and 5R. And why would someone contemplating paying $2,800 for the RX1 choose instead to pinch pennies on the now heavily discounted EOS-M rather than paying a bit more for something like a Fujifilm X model, or a high end NEX with EVF, which have a far more impressive selection of lenses that are designed for and function well with the bodies?

Well, the OP was challenging Sony for the high price of the RX1. I just pointed out that for someone who is looking into large sensor compact cameras that have an equivalent 35mm f/2 lens, the EOS M provides that option. And at the current discount price, it is a great value. The camera operates smoothly in Av mode, and the 22mm lens is very good. And if you are keen on shoe mount VF, you can always mount an optical one with a 35mm angle of view. Sure it is not full frame sensor, but the quality of the files is very good.

I could also ask you why would someone looking for a RX1 would buy a NEX? For its impressive selection of lenses? Someone looking into a RX1 couldn´t care less for this, since it would be someone that really likes the 35mm focal length. I do like 35mm focal length, and do like the RX1, but unfortunately can not afford it. So I just shared that for people like me, there are other cheaper options, that actually have very high quality.

And I am speaking from experience, since I have two of these little EOS M.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 25, 2013, 07:01:57 am
Slobodan, what Johnston says about seeing in black and white when shooting monochrome also applies when shooting colour and I'd suggest that if people went out with a colour camera and the intent to convert to colour from the outset, thereby forcing themselves to think in shades of grey that their b&w conversions would improve immensely.

I too am an advocate of monochrome sensors and would love to see some affordable options.  Not going to happen though.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 25, 2013, 08:39:41 am
Slobodan, a change of diet might help you!

How so?

I mean, I should surely take seriously any advice from someone who's been keeping us abreast with his own trials and tribulations with dietary choices and indigestion ;)
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Rob C on June 25, 2013, 12:47:05 pm
How so?

I mean, I should surely take seriously any advice from someone who's been keeping us abreast with his own trials and tribulations with dietary choices and indigestion ;)


You've answered your own question very well indeed. Trust me: relax, step aside gracefully and let endless arguments (they are not debates) carry on until they bore themselves to death. Not a soul wants to listen, be converted or admit to being wrong about anything. It could be the season, disappointment with the summer so far, who knows the reasons, but it's noticeable that more and more ill-natured exchanges are taking place here these weeks.

;-(

Rob C
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Telecaster on June 25, 2013, 04:45:05 pm
IMO Slobodan's long post above is dead-on-the-mark. At least as regards the more distractable amongst us (such as myself).   ;)

This thread got going a bit wrong-footed but seems to have righted itself now.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Ray on June 25, 2013, 11:20:32 pm
Slobodan certainly makes a strong point that the limiting of choice may have a beneficial effect on the  creation of certain photographic images. I can well appreciate that in certain circumstances carrying only one camera with a fixed lens, when out shooting, might result in certain images having an appealing perspective as a result of the photographer having to change his position and distance to the subject in an attempt to fill the frame.

Using a zoom instead of one's feet will inevitably result in a different perspective. (I take it we all know by now that changing position changes perspective.  ;) )

There may also be other advantages in respect of higher resolution resulting from that lack of choice. For example, if one is unable to step back far enough to fit the composition into the frame, then instead of taking a single shot, which one might have taken using the wide-end of a zoom if one had the choice, one might be forced to take a number of shots for stitching purposes, resulting not only in a higher resolution image but possibly an even wider composition with more potential for creative cropping during post processing.

However, there are also disadvantages in having a fixed lens. By the time one has farted around trying to fit the composition into the frame, the interesting moment may have passed. Stitching images to create a wider composition my not be practicable if the subject is moving, and shots that require a significantly longer focal length may be missed entirely.

The advantages of the fixed lens have to be offset against the disadvantages. It's a personal choice.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 25, 2013, 11:44:06 pm
... The advantages of the fixed lens have to be offset against the disadvantages. It's a personal choice.

Indeed personal, Ray.

The trouble with this debate is that people insist on absolutes: either, or and... for everyone. I was just pleading for understanding that some people can find it advantageous, without necessarily shoving it down the throats for everyone else that it must be advantageous for them too (or vice versa).

My position can be summarized like this: if you think that a fixed lens is advantageous, you are right... if you think it is disadvantageous, you are right just as well ;)
Title: lens choice decidophobia
Post by: BJL on June 26, 2013, 10:45:05 am
Slobodan,

    Thank you for at last trying to answering the questions that I actually posed. Let me repeat that I am solely interested in the specific comparisons of permanently attached lens vs interchangeable lens, and have no dispute with the more general idea that _sometimes_, less choice is an advantage. In particular, I agree that when in the field with a camera, some people, some times have perfectly good reasons for preferring to have only a single lens of a single focal length with them.

So the only part of your response that relates to my questions is the last part:
Now, let's address directly the line of reasoning that it "is simply a matter of carrying just a camera with a single prime lens, regardless of whether that lens is permanently attached to the body or not."

The question, in case it is a system with interchangeable lenses, immediately becomes a plethora of choices. Ok, which single prime lens? 28, 35, 50? Let's say you firmly know that it should be 35mm. But which 35? In case of Canon, shall that be 35/2 or 35/1.4?? Or perhaps 35mm with IS? How about Mark II version of the same lens? How about versions from third parties: Sigma, Zeiss, etc. And if Zeiss with C/Y mount, which adapter works best with my camera?

But lets say we've overcome all those hurdles and settled on one lens and we happily go around for years or months snapping with it. How could this be worse than just non-interchangable system. Here is why: the very possibility that you can change that lens will slowly eat you from within. Say you acquired Canon 35/2... but then Canon comes with its IS version, which, at the same time, has oh, so much better MTF reading than your lens. Or the new Sigma 35/1.4 which has oh, so cool bokeh. Choices, choices... and temptations.

You are now (correctly) moving the issue  away from what happens when you are out in the field with a camera, to arguing that there is an advantage to:

1) avoiding decisions about which lens to buy, or

2) avoiding decisions about which of the lenses that you own to take on a given outing.


Firstly, I suspect that you are by now arguing for the sake of arguing; I doubt that you really suffer such severe decidophobia (http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/library/decidophobia/) as first discussed by the philosopher Walter Kauffmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann_(philosopher)) in the book Without Guilt and Justice (http://www.amazon.com/Without-Guilt-Justice-Decidophobia-Autonomy/dp/088326059X) (see, I can cite academic sources too!)

But if you are serious, I have some bad news for you:

1) Decisions about which single focal length lens to buy still exist when the lens comes with a camera attached: Sony RX1, Leica X2, Sigma DP1, DP2, DP3 ... ? The addition of further lens purchasing options, in the form of lenses with cameras attached, does not simplify the purchasing choices; it just adds to the options that must be considered. All those upgrade temptations are still there too: have the original Sigma DP1 or DP2, get tempted by the new Merrill versions ...

2) If you succumb to the temptation of owning several lenses (each with body attached) for different outings, like two of those Sigmas for different FOV, then you have to choose which to take with you. In fact, I am sure that you do indeed already own multiple lenses, so that you already have to decide which lens or lenses to take with you on a given outing. Adding yet another lens, albeit it one with a camera permanently attached to it, will not save you from dealing with your decidophobia. The worst case scenario is that out of indecision, you pack two cameras, and then ....


Maybe you should consider instead putting the price of an RX1 into Energy Psychology therapy! (http://www.phobia-fear-release.com/decidophobia.html). But probably these forums provide an adequate support group for all of us with quirky equipment preferences.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: adrian tyler on June 26, 2013, 10:53:25 am
IMO Slobodan's long post above is dead-on-the-mark. At least as regards the more distractable amongst us (such as myself).   ;)

+1
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Telecaster on June 26, 2013, 02:59:45 pm

The advantages of the fixed lens have to be offset against the disadvantages. It's a personal choice.

Absolutely. There are no absolutes.   ;D

-Dave-
Title: ambiguity alert: lens permanently fixed to the camera vs fixed focal length
Post by: BJL on June 26, 2013, 03:11:09 pm
I can well appreciate that in certain circumstances carrying only one camera with a fixed lens, when out shooting, might result in certain images having an appealing perspective as a result of the photographer having to change his position and distance to the subject in an attempt to fill the frame.
...
However, there are also disadvantages in having a fixed lens. By the time one has farted around trying to fit the composition into the frame ...
I have no disagreeement with anything you say Ray, and AFAIK, nor does anyone in this discussion.

But I hope you realize that my questions are specifically and exclusively about the claimed virtues of having a lens that is permanently fixed to the camera body, not about carrying only a single lens of a single fixed focal length. So do you have any comment on that issue?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 26, 2013, 03:20:37 pm
BJL, it is not about eliminating all the choices in the world, it is about reducing them and reducing temptation. In the example of Sigma DPx, it is not really a temptation. You are either a single focal-lenght man or you are not. If you are, and you chose, say, 50mm then 75 mm or 28mm are not temptations. The fact that there are many people owning all three of them simply means they are not single focal-lenght people.

It is also not about me. I currently own (and had over the years) more lenses and cameras that I care to remember. I am certainly not a a single focal-lenght man. But I accept and respect that there are such creatures.

As for advantages of fixed lenses, apart from psychological, there is a least one technical: it allows a different lens or sensor design, the one that works extremely well in just that combination. Examples: Hasselblad SWC, Sony RX1, Sigma DP2M.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: BJL on June 26, 2013, 03:44:02 pm
As for advantages of fixed lenses, apart from psychological, there is a least one technical: it allows a different lens or sensor design, the one that works extremely well in just that combination. Examples: Hasselblad SWC, Sony RX1, Sigma DP2M.
Agreed on the possible technical advantages, though in all your examples, the advantage is compared to SLR alternatives, with their disadvantage of having a mirror box that interferes with optimal wide-angle lens design. Bring on the mirror-free 36x24mm systems with well-implemented live view!


(But I still think that if anyone truly suffers from having to choose which prime lens to buy, or which to carry, some therapy might help more than spending $2,800 on a 35mm f/2 lens with integral "choice prevention device".)
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: allegretto on June 26, 2013, 03:57:46 pm
this thread is mainly fun.

sometimes one lens will do, sometimes you're stuck without the "right" lens and have to make do with what you brought.

sometimes your shoulder hurts from all the extra and now too-obviously useless trinkets you brought to carry around all day

and on all too rare an occasion (for me anyway) you were perfectly outfitted for the shoot

but sometimes I'm really happy with my RX-1, it's perfect

now someone is saying that if you spent $2800 on a single lens camera you need therapy. Bet many here have spent more than that on just one lens they will use less than they would a 35mm fixed lens exquisite camera.

Must be something that causes folks to rail on about other's choices. If M4/3 suits you, an RX-1 isn't for you in the first place...
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 26, 2013, 03:57:59 pm
... (But I still think that if anyone truly suffers from having to choose which prime lens to buy, or which to carry, some therapy might help more than spending $2,800 on a 35mm f/2 lens with integral "choice prevention device".)

You must be a polygamist then. As you know, marriage is the ultimate "choice prevention device." ;D
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Jim Kasson on June 26, 2013, 04:39:12 pm
Another expensive fixed lens camera: The Rolleiflex 2.8 FX (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=261823&is=USA&A=details&Q=). Back in the days when they were mainstream, the Rolleis were still expensive.

The Hasselblad SWC is not made anymore, but used ones are pretty pricey.

I used a Plaubel Makina with a fixed Nikkor 80mm lens for many years with great satisfaction. It had some of the benefits of the RX-1: IQ, size, weight, quiet shutter. It folded up into a darned compact package.

Anybody want to take a swing at those cameras?

Jim
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: Telecaster on June 26, 2013, 05:33:32 pm
I have a grey Rolleiflex T...love it despite handling that makes rear-LCD-arm's-length shooting seem like an improvement. But you can always stop down, zone focus and use the sports finder!

-Dave-
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: RFPhotography on June 26, 2013, 05:57:34 pm
And I wouldn't pay the kind of money that a Rollei TLR or Plaubel go for now either.  But that's me.  Not when I can get a Yashicmat for a fraction of the price or an entire Mamiya C-series TLR and lenses for much less (past owner of a C220 and C330, not at the same time, and 4 lenses), or a Fuji GW670 (which I'm waiting for delivery of), or one of the other Fuji fixed lens MF rangefinders.

Title: Re: ambiguity alert: lens permanently fixed to the camera vs fixed focal length
Post by: Ray on June 27, 2013, 04:53:41 am
But I hope you realize that my questions are specifically and exclusively about the claimed virtues of having a lens that is permanently fixed to the camera body, not about carrying only a single lens of a single fixed focal length. So do you have any comment on that issue?

BJL,
The advantages of a fixed-lens camera as opposed to carrying just one interchangeable lens of fixed focal length, could be better lens/sensor quality, less weight and bulk of the system, and to a lesser extent the freedom from any annoying surprises in respect of blotches of dust that might appear on the sensor.

I personally would place image resolution at the top of the list of advantages, with the weight advantage as a bonus. However, for me personally, the advantages of the greater flexibility of an interchangeable zoom lens far outweigh the advantages of either an interchangeable prime lens or a fixed lens of fixed focal length.

Up to a point, I'm willing to tolerate the additional weight for the benefits of the greater flexibility. When I next go travelling on one of my photographic tours, I shall probably carry two cameras, each with a zoom lens attached, giving me a choice of focal lengths ranging from 24mm to 600mm with no gaps nor need to change lenses, ie. the equivalent of a single 25x zoom. I find I can handle multiple choices with great ease. It probably comes with maturity.  ;)
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: douglasf13 on June 27, 2013, 04:52:32 pm
Agreed on the possible technical advantages, though in all your examples, the advantage is compared to SLR alternatives, with their disadvantage of having a mirror box that interferes with optimal wide-angle lens design. Bring on the mirror-free 36x24mm systems with well-implemented live view!


(But I still think that if anyone truly suffers from having to choose which prime lens to buy, or which to carry, some therapy might help more than spending $2,800 on a 35mm f/2 lens with integral "choice prevention device".)

  There will still be a size advantage with a fixed lens camera, even without a mirrorbox, because you can make really large, rear elements that are placed very close to the sensor. The rear element of the RX1 is probably the largest one would ever see in 135 format, and it is very close to the sensor.   Have you seen how large the NEX 24/1.8 and Fuji X 23/1.4 are, and they're only for aps-c format?

  An interchangeable version of the RX1's lens would have to be either much larger or not as good of a performer across the field.  Trade offs.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: douglasf13 on June 27, 2013, 05:04:56 pm
How can Sony justify charging nearly $3k for  P&S camera?  Yes, I know it has a full-frame sensor.  But it has a fixed lens and no viewfinder.  You have to pony up another $600 for the companion finder (others are available for less).  Does this make sense to anyone?

I'm not sure what would classify the RX1 as a point and shoot.  I essentially sold all of my digital gear in favor of the RX1, including my M9+35/2 ASPH.  I've come to actually prefer the modular nature of the RX1's viewfinder setup, and here's why:

-  Amazingly, I find that a hotshoe OVF works really well, despite not being electronically connected.  The camera's AF always locks on, and the metering is great (you can de-link metering from the shutter.)  It works so well that I actually got rid of the EVF, because I never used it.  BTW, I bought a Voigtlander OVF for a fraction of the price of the Sony/Zeiss, and it is more compact.  I REALLY like it, and I find that my keeper rate is no worse than my X100s' OVF was.

-  As an OVF user, I don't have to deal with a built-in EVF that is in the way, and it also won't date the camera so quickly.  New hotshoe-based EVFs will potentially keep the camera up to date down the road.

-  If you do like an EVF, the tilt feature is great.  I used to own a NEX-5N and a NEX-7, and I actually preferred the modular, tilting EVF of the 5N much of the time.

-  When I do occasionally use the LCD, I don't have to shoot it at "arms length."  I can just put my arms at my side, with my elbows tucked, and shoot it at about chin level maybe 7"-8" from my face.  This is a very sturdy foundation for shooting.  Of course, I would probably prefer a tilt lcd, but the sensor is already at the back of the camera, and that would probably add noticeable thickness to the camera body.  The viewing angle of the current LCD is very good.

  I find the RX1 to be a fantastic camera, and a relative bargain, since it replaced Leica gear that was $10K when new.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: hjulenissen on June 27, 2013, 05:14:32 pm
  There will still be a size advantage with a fixed lens camera, even without a mirrorbox, because you can make really large, rear elements that are placed very close to the sensor. The rear element of the RX1 is probably the largest one would ever see in 135 format, and it is very close to the sensor.   Have you seen how large the NEX 24/1.8 and Fuji X 23/1.4 are, and they're only for aps-c format?

  An interchangeable version of the RX1's lens would have to be either much larger or not as good of a performer across the field.  Trade offs.
Why does making the lens removable constrain the size and proximity of its elements vs the image sensor?

-h
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: douglasf13 on June 27, 2013, 05:37:59 pm
Why does making the lens removable constrain the size and proximity of its elements vs the image sensor?

-h

  Making an interchangeable lens that has a rear element only a few millimeters from the sensor could easily cause damage if the lens was seated incorrectly, and the tolerances would be difficult to deal with.  The rear element of the RX1 is so large that, in interchangeable form, the mount of the camera would have to be relatively huge. 

  That's the problem that the manufacturers are going to run into if Sony or Fuji ever try to make a FF camera with their current NEX/X mount.  Without making the mount much larger, there will be mechanical interference problems that will essentially require lenses the size of the current FF lenses+adapters.  There's a reason that the mounts and lenses of NEX and Fuji X are so relatively large, despite being designed for aps-c sensors.   Same with m4/3.  Ever noticed how large the mount is in relation to the sensor? 

  Of course, there is the Sony VG-900 with a FF sensor, but Sony didn't make any native lenses for it.  You can squeeze a FF sensor in NEX's e-mount, but the lens design is the big problem to deal with if making a line of FF cameras (and that sensor performs terribly with Leica M wides.)


Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: BJL on June 27, 2013, 05:39:46 pm
 There will still be a size advantage with a fixed lens camera, even without a mirrorbox, because you can make really large, rear elements that are placed very close to the sensor.
Maybe, though with a mirror less design, the rear elements can protrude behind the lens mount and sit quite close to the sensor.

Have you seen how large the NEX 24/1.8 and Fuji X 23/1.4 are, and they're only for aps-c format?

An interchangeable version of the RX1's lens would have to be either much larger or not as good of a performer across the field.  Trade offs.
Since we are talking about a 35mm f/2 lens for a 36x24mm format mirror-less camera, how about the size of the Leica Summicron-M 35/2:
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/2181.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/msokal/3705386748/
It does not seem to be "much larger", so is it "not as good of a performer across the field"?

There are also multiple quite small MFT prime lenses with similar field of view and minimum f-stop like the Olympus 17/1.8 and Panasonic 20/1.7, so I am not quite sure why the Sony/Zeiss NEX 24/1.8 is so bulky.

(That Fujifilm X lens is one stop brighter at f/1.4, a substantially greater design challenge, so not a useful comparison.)


P. S. Seeing your latest reply, I agree that the current NEX mount is not suited to lenses with large rear elements that protrude behind the mount. In fact, I am skeptical that any 36x24mm format mirror-less system from Sony will use the same NEX mount.

On the other hand, there is a scaling advantage with a larger format. Instead of, for example, scaling the MFT mount up to double the diameter and double the depth for 36x24mm, the mount could be of the same depth (body still deep enough to hold stuff), and then it can have a less than doubled diameter while accommodating the same maximum angle for the incoming light cone. (I also suspect that backward compatibility with adaptor-mounted SLR lenses constrained the MFT and NEX lens mount designs.)
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: douglasf13 on June 27, 2013, 05:59:12 pm
Maybe, though with a mirror less design, the rear elements can protrude behind the lens mount and sit quite close to the sensor.
Since we are talking about a 35mm f/2 lens for a 36x24mm format mirror-less camera, how about the size of the Leica Summicron-M 35/2:
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/2181.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/msokal/3705386748/
It does not seem to be "much larger", so is it "not as good of a performer across the field"?

There are also multiple quite small MFT prime lenses with similar field of view and minimum f-stop like the Olympus 17/1.8 and Panasonic 20/1.7, so I am not quite sure why the Sony/Zeiss NEX 24/1.8 is so bulky.

(That Fujifilm X lens is one stop brighter at f/1.4, a substantially greater design challenge, so not a useful comparison.)


P. S. Seeing your latest reply, I agree that the current NEX mount is not suited to lenses with large rear elements that protrude behind the mount. In fact, I am skeptical that any 36x24mm format mirror-less system from Sony will use the same NEX mount.





  There is a big difference between rear elements protruding in other mirrorless cameras, and the huge rear element a few mm from the RX1's sensor.  Have you seen the rear element?  It would take a mount much larger than EOS to pass that thing, and the tolerances would be crazy.  The rear element looks as large as the sensor:   https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-aTKSKHgP7AI/UFCm-z9qp7I/AAAAAAAAEjI/akRlJvEF3nc/s0/sony_rx1_preview_10_2.jpg (https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-aTKSKHgP7AI/UFCm-z9qp7I/AAAAAAAAEjI/akRlJvEF3nc/s0/sony_rx1_preview_10_2.jpg)

  I just sold the 35mm Summicron ASPH, and, yes, it has a zone B dip and isn't as flat across the field as the RX1.  In fact, the 35/1.4 ASPH also has this dip.  This is all not to mention that Leica has to deal with designing sensors with unusual microlenses to deal with their lenses, since the mount was originally designed for film.

  You can't compare the size of lenses of like aperture on different formats and assume them to be equal.  An f2.8 lens on a P&S camera would obviously be much smaller than an f2.8 lens on medium format, to speak in extreme terms.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: BJL on June 27, 2013, 06:12:41 pm
You can't compare the size of lenses of like aperture on different formats and assume them to be equal.  An f2.8 lens on a P&S camera would obviously be much smaller than an f2.8 lens on medium format, to speak in extreme terms.
Of course not, but you can scale them up linearly to get a worst case scenario. Better yet, just scale up the optical part, since there is a _lot_ of space around the actual glass in those MFT designs:
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/single.html#i_017mm_f018_olympus
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/single.html#i_020mm_f017_panasonic

What fails completely is comparing to lenses of a lower minimum f-stop, where the design has to be different.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: douglasf13 on June 27, 2013, 06:25:00 pm
Of course not, but you can scale them up linearly to get a worst case scenario. Better yet, just scale up the optical part, since there is a _lot_ of space around the actual glass in those MFT designs:
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/single.html#i_017mm_f018_olympus
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/single.html#i_020mm_f017_panasonic

What fails completely is comparing lenses of different minimum f-stop, where then designs have to be different.

  A lot of the space is taken up with the electronics for autofocus and aperture in the m4/3 lenses (which Leica doesn't need to worry about, btw.)  Either way, you have to design the lens mount to accommodate the largest potential lens, which is another advantage for the RX1, since it can be optimized for just one.

  In terms of the different formats issue, relating to the complexity of the Fuji 23/1.4 design, that's my point.  With the RX1, you get a much smaller package, the equivalent field of view, and a slightly faster equivalent aperture.

  No matter how you slice it, a fixed lens design is going to have a noticeable size advantage over an interchangeable design, assuming you want the performance to be comparable.  Fuji X100, Ricoh GR, RX1, etc.  Are you saying that isn't the case?
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: BJL on June 27, 2013, 07:13:59 pm
No matter how you slice it, a fixed lens design is going to have a noticeable size advantage over an interchangeable design, assuming you want the performance to be comparable.  Fuji X100, Ricoh GR, RX1, etc.  Are you saying that isn't the case?
I agree that there is some size saving; it remains to see how much. From APS-C format mirrorless system versus fixed lens, it might be a matter of a centimeter here and 100g there, and if so, I doubt that many photographers serious enough to pay $2,800 for access to a single 35mm f/2 lens will be swayed by such modest savings in bulk.

A lot of the space is taken up with the electronics for autofocus and aperture in the m4/3 lenses ...
True, but that part does not increase so much in size when one scales up to larger format, and the same holds for the part of the lens mount that is electrical contacts and bayonet, around the optical opening.
Title: Re: Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?
Post by: douglasf13 on June 27, 2013, 07:39:53 pm
I agree that there is some size saving; it remains to see how much. From APS-C format mirrorless system versus fixed lens, it might be a matter of a centimeter here and 100g there, and if so, I doubt that many photographers serious enough to pay $2,800 for access to a single 35mm f/2 lens will be swayed by such modest savings in bulk.


Why?  Photographers sure spend a lot of money on a Leica M and 35/2 ASPH, which could also be considered a modest savings in bulk compared to something like a 6D and 35/2.  Plus, we shouldn't underestimate how good the RX1's lens is.