Thread: Sony RX1 Full Res Samples Posted on Flickr

Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonyele.../tags/sonyrx1/

They look really good, don't they? Superb resolution, beautiful colors, lovely bokeh...

If not for the price, I'd be standing on line outside of my local Sony Style Store on release day.

no surprise. Big sensor photos look lovely. The big question is who will dare to make one that is priced for the masses?

Originally Posted by Luke

no surprise. Big sensor photos look lovely. The big question is who will dare to make one that is priced for the masses?

A key question.

Interchangeable lenses are a must for me. So even if the price were half, I would have no use for this camera. Which of course leads to the question of lenses. To buy in to a system I would want outstanding lenses. Developing FF lenses for a smaller camera is a big bet for a company.

FF lenses on a body that small.....I just can't ever imagine it feeling good in hand. One thing I have learned is that I don't really care for interchangeable lens system cameras in general. Let me explain that though. I just dislike changing lenses when I'm out and about. I find it really slows things down. What I miss about my old X100 is that contrary to what one might think (that I didn't always have the right lens on for the job) was that I ALWAYS had the right lens on for the shot.

I think my ultimate kit (and this kit doesn't exist yet which is why I keep switching stuff around) would be a camera like this for around half the price and the best superzoom that exists (and weatherproof it). Two cameras, no lens switching. The 35mm would be my everyday camera and the superzoom would be for travel, the zoo and some action shots or those few times where a view other than that what the human eye normally sees doesn't suffice.

Originally Posted by Luke

FF lenses on a body that small.....I just can't ever imagine it feeling good in hand. One thing I have learned is that I don't really care for interchangeable lens system cameras in general. Let me explain that though. I just dislike changing lenses when I'm out and about. I find it really slows things down. What I miss about my old X100 is that contrary to what one might think (that I didn't always have the right lens on for the job) was that I ALWAYS had the right lens on for the shot.

I think my ultimate kit (and this kit doesn't exist yet which is why I keep switching stuff around) would be a camera like this for around half the price and the best superzoom that exists (and weatherproof it). Two cameras, no lens switching. The 35mm would be my everyday camera and the superzoom would be for travel, the zoo and some action shots or those few times where a view other than that what the human eye normally sees doesn't suffice.

I hear you. From my perspective there is no need for the camera to be so small. As long as the overall system is not too bulky I am fine.

Originally Posted by Luke

no surprise. Big sensor photos look lovely. The big question is who will dare to make one that is priced for the masses?

I wish Samsung would. They have all the technology to build such a camera on their own, they have no significant market share to protect, and they could get recognition much more easily in the enthusiast market than with consumers or pro, as long as they deliver a good product. But I don't think they really know what they are doing with their mirrorless products. If I had to bet my money would be on Sony.

Originally Posted by Pelao

I hear you. From my perspective there is no need for the camera to be so small. As long as the overall system is not too bulky I am fine.

To me the RX1 doesn't look like it'll be too small to handle well.




I often walked around all day with the X100 in hand - the NEX-5N while not as nice a looking camera in my eyes, was more comfortable even with a heavy Zeiss lens on it. I manage ok with the GXR.

This camera at 482g is substantially lighter than the GXR/M + ZM35/2 (370 + 240 = 610g) but is very slightly heavier than the X100 at 445g. NEX 5-9 with Zeiss ZA24mm is 494g. By comparison the much larger M9 weighs 585g without lens.

Sure, it'd have been nice to see a slightly larger camera with an integrated EVF and a tilt rear LCD and all that for the same price. :)

October 8th we'll see the first reports of how it handles in the hands of photographers and reviewers.

Originally Posted by Luke

I think my ultimate kit (and this kit doesn't exist yet which is why I keep switching stuff around) would be a camera like this for around half the price and the best superzoom that exists (and weatherproof it). Two cameras, no lens switching. The 35mm would be my everyday camera and the superzoom would be for travel, the zoo and some action shots or those few times where a view other than that what the human eye normally sees doesn't suffice.

I just realised about 10 seconds before I read your comment, that this would be my ultimate kit too!

I love the image quality that I'm seeing so far, but I was already questioning the value of this purchase based on the original specs and MSRP. Now that Sony has revised the specs for the RX1 (getting rid of continuous AF and adjusting the maximum shutter speeds at given apertures) I really doubt I'll buy this ... unless I buy it many years from now for much less on the used market. I know leaf shutters typically have problems opening up to the widest aperture at high shutter speeds because of the way they work in the lens, but being limited to 1/2000 at any aperture wider than f/4 REALLY stinks ... particularly at this price point.

Part of the beauty of full frame sensors is the classic shallow DOF that you get from a physically larger sensor. We lose some of that advantage in bright environments if we can't regularly use the widest aperture. Sure, there are ND filters, but being "forced" to use an ND filter is sort of a lame solution to a problem that shouldn't exist when you're paying $2800 for a fixed-lens camera.

Originally Posted by JJJPhoto

Part of the beauty of full frame sensors is the classic shallow DOF that you get from a physically larger sensor. We lose some of that advantage in bright environments if we can't regularly use the widest aperture. Sure, there are ND filters, but being "forced" to use an ND filter is sort of a lame solution to a problem that shouldn't exist when you're paying $2800 for a fixed-lens camera.

I understand your disappointment, but there's some things you just can't change. There's many great old cameras that don't get faster that 1/500 and people took great shots with them. Putting an ND filter on your camera isn't the end of the world.

But I'm with you. I'll own this camera in a couple years when the used marketplace is littered with them because there's been 3 newer greater cameras introduced.