What does $2000 more get me with the RX1 that I don't get with the EPL5?

This isn't a troll. I recently purchased the Oly EPL5 as a travel camera and I am very happy with it following my first trip. It is wonderfully compact, produces fantastic images, takes all the m43 lenses plus many other lenses with an adaptor, etc.

I admit I am intrigued by the SONY RX1 and I looked at it (on paper) before purchasing the EPL5 but for the life of me I can't determine what I would get for that additional $2000. Better bokeh? I concede that but for $2000 I can live with what the the EPL5 delivers.

I am also convinced that, within a year, other manufacturers will produce a "FF" compact along the lines of the RX1 that will probably have interchangeable lenses and will sell for less than half the cost. So it would appear that $2700 is paying the R&D freight on the SONY.

Or am I way wrong?

You get a full frame sensor and a name with an X and a 1 in it. That's pretty fancy.

unless your producing large prints on a billboard, or using it for print work, then its probably falls in "the Vanity" department.

Factor in a lens of suitable quality and the price diffidence is less than $2K.

Well, you can make a direct comparison if you use the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95. So the E-PL5 plus the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 would be about $1900, or $900 cheaper (give or take).

What would the $900 get you? Better dynamic range, more resolution, but no better low light performance. The biggest marks in favor of the RX1 would be size (the Nokton 17.5mm is pretty big) and (obviously) autofocus.

Worth $900? And the downside of not being able to re-use the lens? I dunno. The RX1 is certainly a neat thing, but at the price it's a little difficult to swallow.

Hi,

I am not buying one b/c of the absence of an EVF but

. . . the lens alone may be worth it.  A Zeiss 35mm lens in M mount is worth at least 1200-1500 by itself (even the Asian versions)  The Zeiss 35mm F2 is competitive with the Leica 35mm summicron (+/- ASPH) and new ones go for $3k; even used non-ASPH go for upwards of $2K

. . . the sensor and processing.

Output likely rivals or surpasses the M9 + 35mm for 1/3 price with AF/video/pocketability.

YUou may not want it but to those who understand/need it, it may not seem unreasonable.  Personally I own an M9 + lenses but I am largely replacing its functionality with the Fuji XE/P 1 + 35 1.4 (and soon 23 1.4),  IQ is close to M9 +AF, similar handling feel.

When the price drops to $2K I may be interested, even more so with an RX2 with built in EVF

hope this helps,

Ed

Fixed lens cameras were more attractive in the days of film. The body didn't really become obsolete and a good lens continued to be a good lens. Today, you're dropping $2800 for a great lens and a great sensor, but in five years, you won't be able to move that great lens to a newer sensor. Fundamentally, as bodies become more and more disposable--and they are already--fixed lens cameras become less attractive.

So I guess my answer to your question is: Not much.

--
--Mike

I have read other comparisons of the RX1 to the M9 with  various lenses but that is a false comparison since the M9 is capable of taking many other lenses while the RX1 is not. In my opinion it cannot be compared to an interchangeable FF camera of any make since it does not possess that feature. Okay, its IQ and its DR is as good as the M9 and better than the EPL5. But by an appreciable margin?  And at $2700, is the "photographic enthusiast" its intended market? Or is it only the wealthy photographic enthusiast.

I have also read the comparison of the zeiss lens which, alone, would cost some astronomical amount which then brings down the relative cost of the RX1 because look at what a great lens you are getting. Again, false comparison because with the RX1 it is the only lens you are getting. If I spent $2000+ on a zeiss lens I damn well better be able to use it on something other than a fixed lens camera with no viewfinder. Again, at $2700, what is the intended market?

What I am driving at is what more do I get for the extra $2000 that I am not getting with the EPL5?  Or is this one of those "you can catch as many trout with a $25 rod as you can with a $2500 rod" type of  products? I think it must be. Like one of the posters said, it is a fine camera for the vanity market.

But I am not even convinced the RX1 fits easily into the $2500 fishing  rod category given its limitations. I could see spending the money it takes to have a Leica rangefinder system. In fact, I have done that in the past and I was very happy with the images I produced and not once did I think I spent way too much for what I got. Regarding the RX1, I can't imagine not thinking that.

Beyond the obvious that you have clearly listed (DR, resolution, AF, size), there is the lens quality. The Nokton wide-open is noticeably worse than the Zeiss wide-open, particularly off-center. Stopped down the difference is much smaller but I expect the Zeiss to be still somewhat better.

You're getting a sensor which is 4 times larger. You're looking at the future.

this is the smallest "full frame" sensor with 2/35 lens you can buy.  the other options are full frame DSLRs/SLTs with 2/35 lenses (comparatively huge), or a leica M with 2/35 (still pretty large compared to an RX1, and no AF and such).  if you are looking for something with RX1 specs specifically, then this is a good buy (aka the only available option).

the RX1 from sony's standpoint is that they wanted to show that they could make such a product.  similar to their XEL-1 OLED TV (wafer-thin 11-inch screen that came out in 2008 and cost $2500) and numerous other products, it is sony selling niche products that cater to the ones that want cutting-edge technology that is a bit early for the mass market.

the cost isn't too unreasonable, considering the sensor and glass, but not practical unless this is the only camera you'll need for a long time, or money isn't much of an issue for you.

captura,

I agree that you are looking at the future. But I think it will be here before you know it. I predict compact,  interchangeable FF sensor cameras with EVF at significantly less than $2700 within 12-18 months.  So I guess my answer is that $2700 allows you to be the first on your block to have it now. (without the interchangeable lens or the EVF, of course).

If we all had the money, or the need, or the shooting style that would benefit from the RX1..then perhaps. But many of us don't. When is good enough good enough for our needs?  It's true what others have said also, while the RX1 benefits from a large light collecting sensor (and a good lens), other cameras benefit from interchangeable lenses, a sort of balance in a weird way (and for a lot less money for the interchangeable lens side). Apples and oranges?...but depends which you like?

--
My Gallery is here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
Why so serious? :The Joker

I am dismayed at the negative comments in this thread. You didn't ask for negative comments, you asked to be educated about what the RX1 offers at its price point. I guess the small minds here cannot help themselves maligning that which they do not understand nor wish to explore.

So, put the Summilux 25mm f/1.4 on your E-PL5 body. The pair is about $1200 if you buy the body-only E-PL5. Now you have a lens of rather comparable image quality on the E-PL5. So for $1500 difference, what do you get on the RX1? (note: some of these points are related, but I list them separately)

• FF 24x36mm sensor
• Somewhat wider dynamic range
• Somewhat more resolution
• 1-2/3 more stops DOF control on the RX1 when compared to the 'equivalent' new Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 on the E-PL5. This is attractive to me.
• Wider ISO range (100-25,600). The ISO 100 is especially important to me.
• Take-anywhere small one-lens solution with fantastic imaging capabilities
• Easier raw files to manipulate. It appears the RX1 raw files have extraordinary malleability in post processing programs.
• Samples I have seen show a color shift on the E-M5 (and, therefore, the E-PL5?) when high ISOs (6400+) are used. The same color shift does not appear on the RX1.
• Exceptional Zeiss lens. Some consider that a plus, as I do. We do not have a comparable lens in m4/3. The Summilix 25mm f/1.4 comes closest, but the FOV is narrower. The jury is out on the Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, but early reviews seem to indicate that it is only very good, not stellar. The new Schneider 14mm f/2 (2013?) might bring us into the same arena as the Zeiss, albeit at $1500 or higher.

Is it worth the extra $1500 to $2000 USD? I think yes if you are a 35mm FOV enthusiast, as many are. The entire camera and lens is less expensive than a comparable new Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron lens. Many Leica shooters use the 35mm focal length as their primary go-to lens.
There are some limitations of the RX1, which many in this thread have been only too happy to point out. I'll leave you to consider those yourself.
 the lens will not allow for such a small package. Any FF "compact" interchangeable lens camera will be measurably and decidedly larger than the RX1. Additionally, the only credible rumor for such a camera system mentions Sony itself. I've heard no credible rumor of an imminent FF compact interchangeable-lens camera system from any other manufacturer. I apologize if I'm mistaken. Some say Fuji is likely to produce such a system, but Fuji says no, or at least not anytime soon.andAlso, I disagree with your assertion that a FF compact with interchangeable lenses is coming from other manufacturer(s) very soon. One reason the RX1 is so compact is that the lens is matched to the body and sensor and extends into the body farther than most. Adding a mount to the camera body
Are you paying for Sony R&D with the RX1? Certainly. Any first adopter of any kind of technology pays that premium. Some pay it gladly, others cannot bring themselves to do so. Both camps' point of view is relevant.
Jim Pilcher

Summit County, Colorado, USA

I've heard reports about lower expected prices for the RX-1. But Sony executives have slipped out 'news' that a great deal of development work is going on right now, to introduce a new line of FF interchangeable-lens mirrorless cameras, in the not-distant future. My guess is for next September.

Of course you are right, and Canon may soon break the $1000 barrier with the first sub-$1000 full-frame DSLR's. Canon was the first to break the sub-$1000 barrier in 2003, with the digital Rebel APS-C. (I just acquired one...not bad for 6.3 mpxl's).

I think it falls into the vanity department, period. It's a fixed lens camera. No one is going to use it for work.

Tom

www.kachadurian.com
Call me crazy. I happen to like photos of cats.

In what way does your e-pl5 not satisfy you? You seem to hint at wanting better control over depth of field, but remember, even though it's full frame, the RX1 is 35mm. Slap a nice lens like the 75mm 1.8 on your camera, and yours will go toe to toe with the pricier Sony.

E-pl5 plus kit lens $599, add 75mm 1.8 $899 = $1499.

Sony Rx1 = $2799

You could almost buy two of each for the price of one Sony. You're paying extra out the wazoo for the small technology luxury tax.

Why would it produce better pictures on a billboard?

--
www.flickr.com/photos/acam http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

I mostly agree with you. However, I don't think the case is so clear because there are also good arguments on the other side. In the days of film there was no such thing as having a camera designed for a lens: most importantly, the angle of incidence of light on film is irrelevant. With electronic sensors and their micro-lens arrays, having the lens and sensor designed jointly so that they work well together can be a very good idea and a substantial advantage for image quality.

The answer is it may.  Billboards are produced at 25 dpi final size. So a full frame camera gives you more native resolution to reach 25 dpi at final size.  This isn't a great example , however, because billboards can be produced at even lower resolution based on their viewing distance. Higher resolution at final size is much more critical as viewing distance decreases.