Hi everyone, This is RogerC, actually. I am trying to keep track of the aliases I have online so I am "regularizing" them to one. Since I couldn't update my previous username, I made a new account and this account is now attached to an email I use frequently so it is better monitored. Now, to the point. Yes. This is yet another “a year with” type of review. However, I thought I would lay out here some of the productive aspects of the RX1 here and what has it actually done with me throughout this past year. I make my living as a photographer. I work in reportage and since the Contax G2, I have always loved compact yet powerful cameras. In my experience of the G2, a small camera has a big advantage when working in people’s homes for extended periods of time. People don’t mind you as much and you look less professional (i.e. you are working) and it helps in establishing a more personal connection with those who you are shadowing. I am sure your mileage will vary but I am not a tall or big individual and bigger cameras look massive when I am using them. The RX1 is only the second generation of digital cameras that I bought into looking to get what the Contax G2 provided; big guns in a small package. The first of these was the NEX 7 and the NEX 5n, both excellent cameras still. While I believe Sony’s engineers have done an outstanding job in making this camera, I still remain perplexed as to why a newer version of the passive/active AF system of the G2 is not implemented in today’s cameras. You see, the G2 was an AF rangefinder. It used a rangefinder mechanism to attain focus. This was the “active” AF system. When the light was too low, the “passive” system would kick in. This was an infrared light that measured the distance between the subject and the camera by measuring the time it took the infrared light to bounce back (similar to those laser measuring instruments) This system (at 3m or less) effectively made the G2 a camera that could focus in any light (since darkness was not an issue for the infrared light) The RX1 can focus fast-ish in good light. I still believe that my former G2 was faster (if someone has both, can you please confirm or deny this?) The RX1, however, struggles a bit in dim situations (f2 1/60 ISO 3200) and you are better off using MF. Which, by the way, is very very good, excellent even when compared to the MF system of the G2 which was simply stupid. That is the only complain I have and I wish Sony would release a FW update to give the camera a more confident and faster autofocusing. It will be greatly appreciated. Also, I am yet to really find out whether Flexible Spot or Centre AF are the better ones of the bunch. Sadly enough, the tracking mechanism (while very clever and incredibly useful) is too slow in its reaction. If this worked fast enough, there would be no point in using Flexible Spot. Besides the AF concerns, the camera has excelled at producing great work with me. As I said, my main work is in reportage but I also shoot anything because I like to shoot almost everything (except weddings) I can tell you now, the RX1 passes the QC of stock agencies (which can be very stringent) easily and I am able to submit to a stock agency with confidence. The same goes for two other print-on-demand services I have recently joined. No magazine has complained about the work I submitted with an RX1 or previously my NEX 7 and 5n. Actually, printed files from the RX1 look amazing (the lens draws better than anything I had before including the 35mm Planar from the G2) The sharpness from centre to corner, starting at f2, is so reassuring that you can compose off-centre and even put your subject on the edge and know that they will be beautifully sharp. The RAW files are very malleable and allow you to achieve any colouring your want. With the last point in mind, I can’t say anything about the “colours” out of the camera. I shoot exclusively in RAW and therefore I never pay much mind to what comes out of the camera but rather what can be done with the files. If you shoot JPEG, however, I am afraid I can’t help you with an opinion. Only thing I can say about JPEGS from Sony cameras (I have owned NEX 7, 5n, RX100, RX1) is that they are too mushy and without any detail worth mentioning at any ISO above 400. The RX1 has proved to me to be a very good companion. Is it a worthy successor of my love from my Contax G2? Not yet. The photos themselves are way better than anything I could have gotten from the G2 and the 35mm or the 45mm. They are really that good. However, the AF is the only thing holding this camera back and I, again, truly hope that Sony would give this camera just a final push to improve this. As a matter of fact, it is the AF itself that has made me consider jumping to Fuji and their X-E1 and the 23mm lens (similar depth of field as the RX1 on a similar field of view) or the X-T1 but the lens alone forces me to stay with the RX1. Please, Sony, please gives us a better AF algorithm. Other than that, I hear that Sony is working on a newer version of the RX1 with a possibly 1.8 lens and a curved sensor. I can tell you this, though. However the next FF RX is, the current RX1 is such a workhorse of a camera that I can truly say I see no real reason (maybe ISO 3200 looking that today’s 400 on the RX1) to jump to a newer RX. The built-in EVF is a nice addition in the RX100 mark III, really. Those engineers at Sony better be living rock-n-roll style for feats like that. But the add-on EVF is great too and I have used it securely as shown in the “Show Us Your RX1” thread. All in all, if 35mm is your thing (The RX1 is a bit wider, though…like 32mm) then this is your camera. Once you roll with this, you’ll know. It is incredible value for money for what you get. The lens alone is really worth at least the price of the whole thing. If anyone wonders about some of the work I have done with the RX1, you can see it here: http://crated.com/thehexagonal If you are still on the fence about getting an RX1...do it.