Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?

[BernardLanguillier]

I would probably own one if AF were faster.

Cheers,
Bernard

[KirbyKrieger]

Me, obviously   .

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):

{It is} a world-class instrument for a wide range of types of photography

{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. :-)

[Jim Kasson]

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

[RFPhotography]

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?

[BJL]

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.

[Jim Kasson]

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

[LKaven]

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.

[scooby70]

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 

[RFPhotography]

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.

[theguywitha645d]

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.)

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[RFPhotography]

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.

[LKaven]

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.

[allegretto]

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

[Rob C]

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

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

[Rob C]

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

[Ligament]

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.

[Guillermo Luijk]

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?

[RFPhotography]

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.

[KirbyKrieger]

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.