Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News and Rumors' started by christilou, Oct 14, 2015.
O boy. Just sold a camera and a few lenses. The RX1 has always intrigued me. Now this. 1+1+1?
anyone else here fear how long we will be waiting for 100 42mp photos to download to lightroom? i mean i only have so much time left on earth, ya' know?! ):
*licks chops and begins monitoring used RX1 prices*
Same here , and I've found some new ones at quite reasonable prices
The sharks circle. (I'm glad I'm in good company)
I already got an open box one for only £150 more than the old and well used one I traded in plus a mint evf for just over half price so I'm happy. I would love to have this and I would also love the Leica Q but I would have to trade in my Leica M and I feel that would be a retrograde step...... however, never say never!
looks very tempting
Of course, the new one looks pretty nifty. Not intrigued by the MP count, but the built-in EVF makes this a much nicer camera
I wonder if this model will still be able to take the clip on EVF from the first one. I've tried the little EVF in the RX100 (III and IV) and, in a word, hated it. EDIT: Just saw pics of this one and it looks larger than the one in the RX100 models, and with the eyecup shown in one of the photos, it might just be a fine thing to have built into this camera. I'll reserve judgement...
I like the flip screen in the newer model and I'm quite sure it'll have the same improved auto-ISO setup as Sony's other recent releases and these are BIG plusses to me. But I really don't want anything to do with a 42mp sensor - I more or less put up with the 24mp in the original, but prefer the 16mp sensor in my DF most of the time. 24 is OK, but 36 and 42mp simply have nothing to do with how I shoot.
So I'll definitely give this a pass in the near term. Once it's out in the wild for a while and the user reports all come in and once used prices start dropping, who knows. Or if used Leica Q cameras start showing up at reasonable prices (and if Leica adds the one firmware feature I'd need to get the Q - it's in their other models, so it seems likely they'll add it to the Q), I might go that direction. I'd probably just snap up a used RX1 from the first generation, but I kind of swore I'd never buy another camera without good shutter speed control in the auto-ISO setup and the first RX1 didn't have ANY... Nothing near term, MAYBE something down the road, but maybe not. I'm not really wanting for anything as it is...
It's full-frame like the Leica Q, but look at the measurements:
Sony: 113.3 x 65.4 x 72 mm -- 533.5 cc's.
Leica: 130 x 80 x 85 mm --- 884 cc's.
Edit: Sony lens == 35 mm FL(?).
Leica Q == 28 mm FL
As with the original RX1, the Leica Q is considerably larger and heavier. Not to say it's big, but the RX1 is kind of a marvel of miniaturization. Too small for some people, but I was OK with it out of the box, and even better with one of the fotodiox grips, which didn't add much bulk. Also, the Leica is more to my liking at 28mm, but the RX1 lens is marketed as 35mm, but is actually closer to 31.5 or 32mm, so I actually got along with it really well - better than any other 35 I've used. And I LOVE the rendering of that lens - as nice as anything I've ever shot with and nicer than anything except my Zeiss 21mm, which is pretty much the same level, but different...
i think people are overestimating the joy they will get out of using what appears to be a small and kinda flimsy evf, and at the same time vastly underestimating what a PITA it will be to download 42mp images. these surely will not matter to some, but i think they will end up mattering to a lot more. if nothing else, this camera will be very instructive on the marketability and useability and necessity of a 42mp camera.
I tend to agree. I'm keeping an open mind about the EVF - there's some indication it's a good deal larger and better than the pop-up in the RX100 models. If it's as good or better as the removable EVF from the original RX1, I'd probably just stick the eye-cup on it and leave it open almost all the time, similar to the way I left the EVF on the first model pretty much all the time.
But I don't see any upside to a 42mp sensor. I'm sure computer tech will improve to the point that the size and processing speed won't be issues at all, but what for? Where's the benefit. For those obsessed with resolution, that's an upside in and of itself, but I'm not at all. I was OK with the 24mp sensor in the original and in the D610 / D750, but ultimately prefer the 16mp sensor in the DF. And I never saw anything I preferred about the 36mp sensor in the D810 over the 24. So I'm really dubious about where the benefits to that large a chip is for those of us who don't view our stuff on 100 inch monitors or print at mural size...
That said, I'd love to have had the RX1 with the new auto-ISO setup and the flip-up screen, so to me the only downside to this camera is the sensor, with the EVF an open question. If I see enough images that look right to me from the new version, maybe I'll buy a used one in a year or two. Or maybe not...
yes for some resolution is an end in itself. my interests are much more varied. the 24mp original sensor was more than enough rez for me, but i was not pleased with the overall look, so i sold it and now use the low rez rd1 as my go to rig. but more importantly than my personal aesthetics is the real fact that downloading those files were a PITA, and on a new mac! had i kept that cam, the download times were right on the edge of what i could stand--actually a bit more. so 42mps? no, not for me, i have a life i'd like to live outside of my computer room. ):
I remember back in the heyday of film when Kodak had Kodachrome and Ektar 25. The amount of information crammed into those frames was eye-watering, but they were beyond what I - and most people - needed. What I am seeing at the moment is the megapixel race kicking off again because it is technically possible to do so, not because there is a consumer-led demand. Big image files put a strain on your entire image chain, from lens through onboard processor to storage, both short and long term not to mention the grunt needed to manipulate using today's image processing software. I have no doubt that in the future storage and processing will be so fast, so cheap, that it won't matter but today this has become an unbalanced equation. I'll stick where I am for now, thank you.
OK, just for argument's sake, I'll say this...... you don't need to use the new version in 42MP mode all the time. Set it to capture at a lower resolution when you don't NEED the extra megapickles, but when you really want to go whole hog (for your ultra amazing landscape shot at Yellowstone..... or you want to count the fine hairs on the highest rez cat photo ever) you set it to 42MP. Also, it's another way of getting a few more usable focal lengths out of a fixed lens camera. As it is, one could already crop the original from 24MP to 6MP and still have PLENTY of "IQ". I have no idea what effective focal length that means your new crop is, but imagine that latitude it gives you when dealing a 42MP image.
Here's a simple average shot at 24MP from the "old" RX1 and a crop at 6MP.
DSC01895 by Luke, on Flickr
DSC01895 by Luke, on Flickr
Now despite that a few of those bratwurst are a little burnt, I would HAVE zero issues with that 6 MP image. So why not have the ABILITY to shoot 42MP when you want, and when you don't want (or need ) the 42, you don't need to use it. Don't get me wrong.....I'm firmly in the "12MP is more than enough" camp, but I won't hold the 42MP against the new model. Frankly, I'd be more leery of what may be a questionable built-in viewfinder. The old clip-on one was frankly amazing..... and while not an elegant design, I found the flip ability useful and left it attached most of the time. If it were my design choice, I'd have made the camera larger and built-in the viewfinder......not a pop-up one. Although to be fair, it remains to be seen how well the new one works.
But still, after saying all that and defending the new model, I'll likely be buying up a used original version for around $1000 when they hit that mark rather than the newest one for closer to $3K. But for anyone who wants the latest and greatest (and can afford it), I think the new one will be a "no-brainer".
Luke, we posted pretty well simultaneously. I was thinking of making the digital crop point, but I couldn't weave it in elegantly to what I had already written and you have advanced the argument far more eloquently than I. My first experience of a "sensible" and "usable" digital crop is the GR with it's 28, "35" and "47"mm capabilities and I can entirely see the argument for giving a single lens compact camera the pulling power of a zoom. 42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything, after all... I'm still standing pat for now, though, until the supporting technologies catch up.
Bill, I know you've been a champion of the in-camera crop of the GR. I think up until recently, people didn't consider using a digital camera at less than full resolution. But now, we are to an age where it is just another setting on the camera to consider. For a long time I have used lower resolution settings on my digital cameras for speed of processing when ultimate IQ didn't matter (taking photos of a couple hundred items to list on eBay for example). Batch processing of 200 items in Photoshop that were 3Mp instead of 12 MP was the difference between 30 seconds or a couple minutes. And maybe you're right, Bill. Maybe the processors, storage space and pure number-crunching abilities of our computers is one generation behind the new 42MP monsters. But the technology ALWAYS catches up. In a few years, I have no doubt that the point and shoot cheapo cameras will be 24MP and the latest and greatest full frame cams will be over 100MP. I'm not sure at what point the camera companies will say, "hey, enough is enough" in the MP race. But as long as it continues, it really just offers photographers more options.
As I get older (and paunchier), I would prefer to get a smaller, better-tasting plate of food. But if the restaurant offers me better-tasting food AND a larger portion size (for roughly the same price), I'll just take home some leftovers.... it's a better value.
those are great points. and youre absolutely correct, i wouldnt have even contemplated not using the full mp count, but that certainly is an option. the original rx1 allowed for in cam cropping and framelines for 50 and 70mm fovs--only jpeg obviously--so i imagine same with the new one. but am i correct that choosing less than full mp count as an option (disregarding in cam fov cropping) would preclude using RAW? if so, i personally still see that as a real disadvantage, especially with sony jpeg quality. if i'm gonna shoot jpegs most of the time i will shoot fuji. but if you can shoot RAW at less than 42mps, i'm fully on board with your reasoning.
btw, those brats look great! do you cook 'em in beer?