Never even held a L****. Have photo-journ opportunity. Use Sony FF. Take RX1?

[KirbyKrieger]

Ahoy.  I have a nearly complete Sony FF system, including excellent lenses, used a lot for studio work and somewhat for nature.  I have no photo-journalism (or sports) experience.  I am likely going to have a unique opportunity to observe/record/document a non-US election campaign from very close range.  Should I spring for the RX1 for candids, close proximity, and evening/night recording?  (I want much-better-than-Web quality.)

Pluses I already see (over Sony FF DSLR set-up):
 - small, discrete, silent
 - excellent in low light
 - excellent IQ at 1/8th the size/weight/obtrusiveness.
 - I am comfortable with the brand's operation controls/quirks (Sony).

Minuses:
 - cost.  Ouch, but bearable.  I have started looking for a used one, and would certainly consider renting or buying and re-selling.
 - cost pt. 2: I don't see this camera retaining it's value on the second-hand market (a strong argument that it is priced too high, imho).
 - no articulated LCD.  I'm with Michael on this (see his review), but feel even more strongly about it.  Imho, every >$1,000 camera should have a fully-articulating LCD.  I am skilled at using one surreptitiously, and am considering taking either a Sony a77 (have, but do not like the files it produces), buying and taking an a99, or buying a MFT body with a fully-articulating LCD (have some MFT lenses).
 - no VF.  I _really like_ an optical VF.  I find all EVF's provide less information that I would like.

Accessory Q's:
 - VF.  ?? No idea.  If the LCD were articulated, I would use it exclusively.  The "stuck to the back of the camera" is pretty much the least useful position as far as I'm concerned.  During use I am likely to keep it turned off.  If the EVF tilts up (iirc it does) I might find this configuration useful.  Any "camera at my eye" configuration is useful.
 - batteries, third-party charger?  220 V?
 - thumb grip?
 - other?

Thanks in advance.  I have about ten days to prepare.

[theguywitha645d]

I have an RX-1. I love it. I also have a Voightlander 28mm optical finder for it.

However, after reading your post, I would not recommend you buy one. I think a Fuji X-Pro1, X100s, Sony Nex 6/7, Olympus OMD/EP-5 would be a better match for you. Or just stick to your Sony DLSRs.

[KirbyKrieger]

I have an RX-1. I love it. I also have a Voightlander 28mm optical finder for it.

However, after reading your post, I would not recommend you buy one. I think a Fuji X-Pro1, X100s, Sony Nex 6/7, Olympus OMD/EP-5 would be a better match for you. Or just stick to your Sony DLSRs.

I can imagine why -- and I could imagine wrongly.  Can you expand a little on your reasoning?  Thanks.  I am considering all the cameras you mentioned (though in MFT would likely get a Panasonic for the fully-articulated LCD and the in-body stabilization), but each presents a (significant to me) step down in IQ.

[scooby70]

I can imagine why -- and I could imagine wrongly.  Can you expand a little on your reasoning?  Thanks.  I am considering all the cameras you mentioned (though in MFT would likely get a Panasonic for the fully-articulated LCD and the in-body stabilization), but each presents a (significant to me) step down in IQ.

Just a quick point... to date no Panasonic Micro Four Thirds camera has in body IS. Panasonic use lens IS. It is rumoured that the next Panasonic rangefinder style camera will have in body IS but that's yet to be confirmed.

[KirbyKrieger]

Scooby70 --   I'd forgotten that the combination of IBIS and fully-articulated screen was still unavailable in MFT -- one of the reasons I haven't returned to the format since selling my G1. Thanks for the correction.

[theguywitha645d]

I can imagine why -- and I could imagine wrongly.  Can you expand a little on your reasoning?  Thanks.  I am considering all the cameras you mentioned (though in MFT would likely get a Panasonic for the fully-articulated LCD and the in-body stabilization), but each presents a (significant to me) step down in IQ.

You seem already annoyed with the RX-1. I am not sure if you are ready to work with it. You only have ten days. All of the cameras I mentioned certainly exceed the "better-than-web-qualiy" you are after. I just believe going on an important assignment with gear you are unsure about.

I think you will find your Sony DSLRs will work just as well for you--just stick a fast 35mm lens on it. I imagine if this is an election, you are not going to be shooting in silent libraries. Your camera won't be a distraction. Actually, no matter the size of the camera, holding a black box up to your face is going to be conspicuous regardless of the size of the box. I have done documentary work with 6x6 and 6x12 film cameras and have not found camera size to be as important as my approach.

[NancyP]

Take the camera you know by heart, don't waste brain time thinking about "where's the button". You need all your attention on observing.

[KirbyKrieger]

Thanks for the further reply, and for sharing your experience.  Fwiw, I'm tempted to say I am not annoyed with the RX1, but then I remember agreeing with Michael (a deservedly rooted authority vs. my weediness):

From a functional point of view I only wish that the rear LCD was articulated. I know that Sony's engineers struggled mightily to put a full frame sensor into a camera this small, but I believe that a simple tilt hinge wouldn't have added that much.

_If_ the RX1 had a fully-articulated LCD I'd already own it (and know how to use it).  As it is, I still need an excellent low-light camera; a small, portable camera, and a quiet, unobtrusive camera.  And I _want_ the RX1.

Fwiw, IME --
 . MFT does not give me the luminance range I want.
 . I cannot get consistent color from my Sigma DP2M (I am, citing the same authority as above, "a pussy".)
 . I have no experience with the X-Pro1.

Thanks again.  I am (tonight at least) swayed by your and NancyP's argument that this is not a good time to learn _any_ new equipment.  But the low-light ability of the RX1 calls to me from the darkness.

Kirby.

[KirbyKrieger]

Take the camera you know by heart, don't waste brain time thinking about "where's the button". You need all your attention on observing.

Truly.  Thanks for the important advice.   

[theguywitha645d]

If you really want it, then get it. It can be a very simple camera to use. I use the rear screen for 99.9% of my work. The most complicated thing is setting it up, but you can also ask other RX-1 users how they set up and use their cameras. GetDPI has a good group of RX-1 shooters and a number of interesting threads. The Fun with the RX-1 thread will show you lots of varied work.

With my RX-1 I got the screen protector, 28mm optical finder, a 49mm to 37mm step-down ring as a lens hood plus a 37mm lens cap, 49mm UV filter for protection, the Sony charger kit with spare battery.

I assigned AF/MF to the C button to use AF in MF mode. I assigned ISO, WB, and drive modes to the four-way controller. I have the live image with no icons (the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO is displayed below that) and with the level and the square grid display. I limit the display to that and then just the camera setting with no live view. Color space to Adobe RGB, date format for folder names, and audio signals off.

Some folks like shooting manual exposure with auto ISO.

[kirktuck]

I shoot a lot of events and corporate reportage and I would much rather have a couple of a99's and a range of good glass for that camera (I shoot with the a99's and 850). The a99 is smaller, lighter and much better in low light. The electronic first curtain shutter is quiet and the camera has built in IS. A 35mm and an 85mm and you're just about there. In my opinion the a99 is easier to hold and use than the RX1 and obviously more flexible.

[AFairley]

Take the camera you know by heart, don't waste brain time thinking about "where's the button". You need all your attention on observing.

+1.  These days' just about any camera has enough IQ for for non-specialized photojournalism.