RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii

Started Jun 13, 2013 | Discussions
1JB
1JB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,069
Like?
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii
In reply to Karl Gnter Wnsch, Jun 14, 2013

Karl Gnter Wnsch wrote:

halfmonkey wrote:

I would probably say that my primary focus at this point is taking pictures of my little kids. They're 5.5, 4, and 6 months.

The one thing that should hold you back from the RX1 is the abysmal autofocus performance it exhibits. When will your kids not be moving when you want to take their picture? Basically never - so the RX1 will never really cut it for your subjects!

-- hide signature --

regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

I would hardly characterize the autofocus performance of the RX1 as abysmal.  Under normal lighting conditions, including lights on inside a house, the use of autofocus with single point focus tracking works quite well at tracking the subject and capturing the shot in focus.   Add to that the use of auto iso  to set your aperture and speed along with the clean images at high isos and it's a very effective camera.   Is it among the top cameras for tracking a moving subject, certainly not but it is perfectly capable of traking a subject.

As i think about the comparison between the 5D and the RX1 another consideration is the quality of the video.  I have not been impressed with the quality of the videos I have taken wiht the RX1.  I may just not be using the correct codec.   My RX100 seems to do a much better job when it comes to video and I would expect the 5D is better by far.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EduPortas
Regular MemberPosts: 167
Like?
Re: As the father of two grown kids......
In reply to sean lancaster, Jun 14, 2013

The RX1 also has an optional optical VF, fwiw.

You are correct, sir. Still, it's really expensive and cumbersome.

At leaste that's what I've gathered from the web.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
b0k3h
Regular MemberPosts: 202
Like?
Re: As the father of two grown kids......
In reply to EduPortas, Jun 14, 2013

EduPortas wrote:

The RX1 also has an optional optical VF, fwiw.

You are correct, sir. Still, it's really expensive and cumbersome.

At leaste that's what I've gathered from the web.

no parallax lines, no focus points, no exposure/info reading, no playback?  no thanks

and for the 600$ or whatever zeiss wants for it... why not just eyeball the shot handheld.

not sure if fuji doesnt want to license out their hybrid viewfinder or if other companies are behind on development....it truly is the best of both worlds

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Fazal Majid
Contributing MemberPosts: 857Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii
In reply to halfmonkey, Jun 15, 2013

halfmonkey wrote:

Actually, my kids do pretty well when we ask them to stop so that I can take a picture. Granted the moment is a quick moment but they do stop. So when I say that I'm taking pictures of my little, it's not like I'm running behind them trying to take action shots all day long. I use the camera to take pictures of our family and of the kids in the moment. Yes, sometimes, they are random shots where I try and capture of moment of whatever it is they're doing and other times, I'll ask them to stop for a second so I can take a picture of whatever it is that's of interest.

If you do that, you'll only get staged photos, it's the unguarded snapshots that are the most precious.

Compact size, full frame, fast AF - pick 2.

It looks as if a big heavy DSLR is not going to work out for you as you can't tolerate the bulk and are already leaving it behind. This means you should reconsider full-frame and opt instead for a camera that is both light and has autofocus. As I mentioned, the Fuji X100S is a good choice (my everyday camera), as is the Sony RX100 (my wife's). The recent Olympus are pretty good as well, and the next-generation Fuji X-Pro will most likely be.

-- hide signature --

Fazal Majid (http://www.majid.info)

 Fazal Majid's gear list:Fazal Majid's gear list
Sony RX1 Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Leica M Typ 240 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jrdu
Forum ProPosts: 20,584
Like?
In favour of shooting with a fixed lens
In reply to halfmonkey, Jun 15, 2013

I had a full frame Sony a900 for a couple of years, and I used only a 50 mm lens on it.  It got so that I knew exactly where I needed to stand before I put the camera to my eye.

When you consider that a person shooting with a zoom lens needs to fiddle with the zoom after they get the camera to their eye, then it is definitely a speed benefit to use a fixed lens.

I think that after you have been using the RX1 for a while, you will know where to go to get the image you want, and you will be able to get it just as quickly as a DSLR user.

John Dunn
Portraits:http://www.fototime.com/users/jrdu@yahoo.com/Portraits

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rick Knepper
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,881Gear list
Like?
24-70 II is the best zoom lens I have ever used.
In reply to halfmonkey, Jun 15, 2013

And beats many primes (and I've owned some good primes). I'm waiting for Sony to release this cam with a 3x zoom 28, 35 50 maybe and lower the price. Ten, I'll buy it as an addition to my DSLRs.

halfmonkey wrote:

I'm in the market to finally upgrade to full frame and I've narrowed down my choices to either the Sony RX1 or the Canon 5D iii. I know these two cameras are in completely different categories and that's what making the decision so difficult. I guess I wasn't really even considering the RX1 at first because of the fixed 35mm. It was the quality of the pictures and the size that drew me in. If I buy the 5D iii, I'd purchase the 24-70 ii lens with it to start off.

So I know that deciding which camera to pick will ultimately fall to my style of shooting but I'd like to ask for your guys' opinion or suggestions on things to consider when deciding between the two cameras.

I would probably say that my primary focus at this point is taking pictures of my little kids. They're 5.5, 4, and 6 months. I guess one of the main things holding me back on the RX1 is the fixed 35mm lens. I know it's generally considered a walkaround lens, maybe a little on the wide side but non-the-less, a usable walk around lens.

I've compiled my list of pros and cons for each. Please feel free to give feedback to suggest things to consider for each.

RX1...

pros:

1. small - I guess the first rule of taking a great picture is to have the camera with you in the first place.

2. cheaper than the 5D iii

cons:

1. fixed 35mm lens; non-changable - not necessarily the best for shots of kids

2. accessories are extremely expensive

5Diii...

pros:

1. interchangable lens - allwos for flexibility

cons:

1. heavy and large - there not as portable as I'd like. Can't just throw in a bag or wife's purse or pocket

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy. TJ said, "Every generation needs a new revolution".

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Nikon D3X Nikon D800E Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
utomo99
Regular MemberPosts: 355
Like?
RX100 MarkII Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii
In reply to halfmonkey, Jun 15, 2013

Please check RX100 Mark II

It maybe suitable for your purpose

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nofumble
Senior MemberPosts: 1,225
Like?
Stupid comparison
In reply to halfmonkey, Jun 15, 2013

That is just how I feel, and i don't bother reading all the posts.

They are two different cameras for different purpose. I want to own both if I can afford them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
b0k3h
Regular MemberPosts: 202
Like?
Re: In favour of shooting with a fixed lens
In reply to jrdu, Jun 15, 2013

jrdu wrote:

I had a full frame Sony a900 for a couple of years, and I used only a 50 mm lens on it. It got so that I knew exactly where I needed to stand before I put the camera to my eye.

When you consider that a person shooting with a zoom lens needs to fiddle with the zoom after they get the camera to their eye, then it is definitely a speed benefit to use a fixed lens.

I think that after you have been using the RX1 for a while, you will know where to go to get the image you want, and you will be able to get it just as quickly as a DSLR user.

John Dunn
Portraits:http://www.fototime.com/users/jrdu@yahoo.com/Portraits

"knowing where to stand", or understanding the FOV, is the answer to a non-existant question.

the purpose of a zoom isnt to waste ones time "fiddling" around.  its to allow creative control of depth of field, and relative size of fore-vs-background.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DFPanno
Senior MemberPosts: 2,672Gear list
Like?
Zooms should be called "multi-focal-lenght primes"
In reply to b0k3h, Jun 15, 2013

1.  Envision what you want to produce.

2.  Twist the zoom ring to the necessary focal letgh.

3.  Walk to where you need to be.

4.  play a bit +/- a couple of degrees to compose (truth is that we all do that a bit) OR be a purist and take a couple of mini steps fore or aft to fine tune your composition.

5. Press the button.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfpanno/

 DFPanno's gear list:DFPanno's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Toccata47
Senior MemberPosts: 2,189
Like?
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii
In reply to halfmonkey, Jun 16, 2013

halfmonkey wrote:

I'm in the market to finally upgrade to full frame and I've narrowed down my choices to either the Sony RX1 or the Canon 5D iii. I know these two cameras are in completely different categories and that's what making the decision so difficult. I guess I wasn't really even considering the RX1 at first because of the fixed 35mm. It was the quality of the pictures and the size that drew me in. If I buy the 5D iii, I'd purchase the 24-70 ii lens with it to start off.

So I know that deciding which camera to pick will ultimately fall to my style of shooting but I'd like to ask for your guys' opinion or suggestions on things to consider when deciding between the two cameras.

I would probably say that my primary focus at this point is taking pictures of my little kids.

Stop here. The rx1 is not for you. Really.

If you need to catch a subject that moves faster than a walking pace the rx1's autofocus can't keep up. You can use pre-af techniques like presetting your focal distance with the lens set to a narrow aperture and presetting your exposure, adjusting on the fly...but is that what you really want to do?

My guess is no.

The mkiii is just about designed for shooting kids. It's an all purpose camera that leans a bit more to the sport shooting side than the landscape side, like a d800. It's af is faster and can reliably track even erratic motion with accuracy.

Yes, it's larger than an rx1 but there are work arounds to ameliorate that without bending the laws of physics. The first is don't buy the 24-70. It's freaking huge, heavy and really not all that much more interesting than the 40mm pancake lens imho. The pancake extends about 1" and looks almost like a lens cap. That said, it's a pretty useful focal length and a quality lens. I was surprised by it. If you could be happy with the rx1, you will be happy with the 40mm on the mkiii.

If you were only interested in image quality at 35mm, this would be a no brainer. The rx1 is pretty much unrivaled there. Add moving subjects, fast af, frame rates and buffer depths come in and mixes things up. While the rx1 may look slightly better when in focus your kids shots will be in focus far less often than with the mkiii, and really, who cares about dynamic range when your kids are blurry.

Lastly, get a camera bag. Your wife doesn't want to carry your camera. Have you seen what else they carry in those things? You don't want your camera anywhere near that crap.

Ps- I own an rx1, am a dad of 2 under 3 and finished a shoot on tuesday with a mkiii.

They're 5.5, 4, and 6 months. I guess one of the main things holding me back on the RX1 is the fixed 35mm lens. I know it's generally considered a walkaround lens, maybe a little on the wide side but non-the-less, a usable walk around lens.

I've compiled my list of pros and cons for each. Please feel free to give feedback to suggest things to consider for each.

RX1...

pros:

1. small - I guess the first rule of taking a great picture is to have the camera with you in the first place.

2. cheaper than the 5D iii

cons:

1. fixed 35mm lens; non-changable - not necessarily the best for shots of kids

2. accessories are extremely expensive

5Diii...

pros:

1. interchangable lens - allwos for flexibility

cons:

1. heavy and large - there not as portable as I'd like. Can't just throw in a bag or wife's purse or pocket

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jeremiah_rubix
Forum MemberPosts: 76Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii
In reply to ultimitsu, Jun 16, 2013

jeremiah_rubix wrote:

I would not take any notice of image quality arguments. The 5d3 plus 24-70 is a combo used by pros, so the image quality is good enough.

Used by "pros" does not mean IQ is great, it merely means IQ is good enough for those pro's customers.

For studios shots that has no contrasty DR, 5D3 is adequate. For newspaper and low quality magazine printing, 5D3 is also adequate. For internet blogs showing 600 x 400 px current affair pictures, 5D3 is more than adequate.

I don't think the original poster is wanting the camera for studio use. He wants to shoot his kids. If anyone believes the 5diii is only suitable for blogs and low quality magazine work they probably should rely less on reviews and forums and DXO and more on real world results. Check stugibson.net or http://wolfgangglowacki.com.au/ or hobartimaging.com photographers who print large images for sale, shoot for high quality magazine and all bar one (myself a99 rx1) own and use the 5d3. Its image 'scores' may not be as high scoring as a Nikon or Sony rx1 but it's still a very good camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Toccata47
Senior MemberPosts: 2,189
Like?
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii
In reply to ultimitsu, Jun 16, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

Used by "pros" does not mean IQ is great, it merely means IQ is good enough for those pro's customers.

For studios shots that has no contrasty DR, 5D3 is adequate. For newspaper and low quality magazine printing, 5D3 is also adequate. For internet blogs showing 600 x 400 px current affair pictures, 5D3 is more than adequate.

The good news is that the customers for whom the 5d3 is "good enough " for include, Cosmopolitan, Vogue, Time, People and Sports Illustrated. It also is currently used in television production, but that water is murky and I have no experience using it in that capacity.

Of course, pixel peeping internet hobbyists know the camera is rubbish but they've kept that secret from art directors...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Crevasse
Regular MemberPosts: 291Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii
In reply to Toccata47, Jun 16, 2013

Our daughters are 20 and 21. I have thousands of photos of them and their friends from birth to the present. Some were taken with film SLRs and film compact cameras, while the recent ones were taken with digital SLRs and digital compact cameras. The overwhelming majority of my photos did not require sports-level AF. I haven't been paying quite as much attention to young kids as I used to, but am I to understand that kids today are in constant, erratic motion so that only the fastest, best-tracking AF will do? I mean, how active and fast are these kids?

Maybe it's just me, but my favorite photos of my kids are when I catch them in a quiet moment and they are unaware that they are being photographed, or when I place them in the context of an environment or activity.  Few such images require sports-level AF. At least, not in my experience.

My recommendation to the OP is that he get the camera he is most likely to have with him and use.

 Chris Crevasse's gear list:Chris Crevasse's gear list
Sony RX1 Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DFPanno
Senior MemberPosts: 2,672Gear list
Like?
Bingo
In reply to Toccata47, Jun 17, 2013

The depth of the 5D3's presence in professional photography is simply incredible.

Impressive to have people on DPR whose needs and abilities transcend the 5D3's potential.

 DFPanno's gear list:DFPanno's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,575
Like?
Re: Bingo
In reply to DFPanno, Jun 17, 2013

DFPanno wrote:

The depth of the 5D3's presence in professional photography is simply incredible.

Impressive to have people on DPR whose needs and abilities transcend the 5D3's potential.

The word "need" is truly magical. uptil 100 years ago no human being"needed" photography full stop,  yet they lived just happily just the same.

Photography is a hobby, all it does is making you happy. What exactly is wrong with people wanting better image quality because it makes them happy is beyond me - all for less money at the same time too.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Toccata47
Senior MemberPosts: 2,189
Like?
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii
In reply to Chris Crevasse, Jun 17, 2013

Chris Crevasse wrote:

Our daughters are 20 and 21. I have thousands of photos of them and their friends from birth to the present. Some were taken with film SLRs and film compact cameras, while the recent ones were taken with digital SLRs and digital compact cameras. The overwhelming majority of my photos did not require sports-level AF. I haven't been paying quite as much attention to young kids as I used to, but am I to understand that kids today are in constant, erratic motion so that only the fastest, best-tracking AF will do? I mean, how active and fast are these kids?

Maybe it's just me, but my favorite photos of my kids are when I catch them in a quiet moment and they are unaware that they are being photographed, or when I place them in the context of an environment or activity. Few such images require sports-level AF. At least, not in my experience.

My recommendation to the OP is that he get the camera he is most likely to have with him and use.

It's the meds. Have you seen what these kids can do with a belly full of "attention focusing" drugs? Think back to diet pills of the early 80's. Add to that the soaring obesity rates amongst parents.

Tracking down a kid on speed while you're toting around an extra hundo or two? Yeah, you need a sports cam just to catch them when they're sleeping. Times are crazy.

Of course you don't need anything special to catch a quiet moment, well, aside perhaps from a pair of soft shoes. For more frenetic moments it's easier to rely on good af, but you don't have to have it. It really comes down to what tradeoff tastes best. The risk of missing the moment or carrying around a larger camera? Quite frankly, iphone video mode works best.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hawaii-geek
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,869Gear list
Like?
As a D800 + 24-70 f2.8 shooter and RX1
In reply to halfmonkey, Jun 17, 2013

halfmonkey,

As a D800 + 24-70 f2.8 shooter for work (I shoot Nikon a lot and for pay) also have a99 + 24-70 f2.8 zeiss , and a RX1 user for almost everything else.

Here is my experience.

From the time I started shooting with the D700 and then D800 I have NOT carried my DSLR with me daily. much less the sb900 flash. that combo is heavy. You will quickly start limiting when you bring it out with you.

As a father, you will NEVER know when a "Moment" will happen. and if you take frequent trips , dragging that heavy combo will feel less and LESS worth it.

What I noticed is , FAMILY pics happen up close ... 35mm of the RX1 covers it. with 24mp you can easily cover 70mm on a crop. What makes the RX1 different is it's Superior Sensor and LENS that allows you to crop and still have a great shot.

What I just noticed on my recent Las Vegas trip is ... the Internal Flash at 35mm , and f2 thru f4 , at iso 1600 and above is CRAZY Good! You just need to comp DOWN the flash power at night.

I am now convinced, As a "FAMILY" camera the RX1 with 35mm is NOT Limiting in ANY WAY. As a TRIP camera SUPERIOR. and as good if not better than ANY Full Frame camera you can buy at any price. And that is purely on a IQ (Image Quality) Level.

Now, ADD in it's SMALL size ... PRICELESS !

I have been on many, many TRIPS with my D800/D700 + 24-70 f2.8 combo ... and I can tell you without Reservation that on my last trip with the RX1 I had ZERO , ZERO thoughts of my DSLR. The 35mm PRIME of the RX1 did not feel limiting at all. Period. The Focus , Good enough. In fact DMF AF with Manual Focus zoom with Peaking is MORE than Enough. Seriously.

imho, there is NOTHING that I felt would have been better served with a DSLR + 24-70 zoom. Now, "outside" of a trip ... say a soccer match, well you need a different tool.

For FAMILY pics ... SIZE and the ability to have it with you when a MOMENT happens is Priceless!

NOW, add in the FACT that you are carrying in your belt bag (in my case) a Full Frame camera with a Ziess f2 lens ... There will be NO Regrets ... YES, the RX1 is that GOOD !

imho, "only" a full time D800 shooter with top PRO f2.8 glass (or it's C equal) can tell you that on a Image Quality level , it "basically" the SAME.

And Bottom Line, is that not what you want to have with you ... ALL THE TIME ?

For me it's a NO Brainier, and for a surprisingly high amount of D800 shooters.

This is a RX1 Test gallery ... that I have pics from my recent Las Vegas trip , with some Tourist shots and family shots , and 2 video ... 10 day trip with "only" the RX1. Trust me, I did not think of my D800 not once. Yes the RX1 is "that" GOOD !

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/28812065_ggbNN6#!i=2567846040&k=89ZB3V9

Hope this helps,

HG

halfmonkey wrote:

I'm in the market to finally upgrade to full frame and I've narrowed down my choices to either the Sony RX1 or the Canon 5D iii. I know these two cameras are in completely different categories and that's what making the decision so difficult. I guess I wasn't really even considering the RX1 at first because of the fixed 35mm. It was the quality of the pictures and the size that drew me in. If I buy the 5D iii, I'd purchase the 24-70 ii lens with it to start off.

So I know that deciding which camera to pick will ultimately fall to my style of shooting but I'd like to ask for your guys' opinion or suggestions on things to consider when deciding between the two cameras.

I would probably say that my primary focus at this point is taking pictures of my little kids. They're 5.5, 4, and 6 months. I guess one of the main things holding me back on the RX1 is the fixed 35mm lens. I know it's generally considered a walkaround lens, maybe a little on the wide side but non-the-less, a usable walk around lens.

I've compiled my list of pros and cons for each. Please feel free to give feedback to suggest things to consider for each.

RX1...

pros:

1. small - I guess the first rule of taking a great picture is to have the camera with you in the first place.

2. cheaper than the 5D iii

cons:

1. fixed 35mm lens; non-changable - not necessarily the best for shots of kids

2. accessories are extremely expensive

5Diii...

pros:

1. interchangable lens - allwos for flexibility

cons:

1. heavy and large - there not as portable as I'd like. Can't just throw in a bag or wife's purse or pocket

-- hide signature --

http://tourist-of-light.blogspot.com/
Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

 Hawaii-geek's gear list:Hawaii-geek's gear list
Sony RX1 Nikon D700 Nikon D800 Sony SLT-A99 Sony Alpha 7R +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
halfmonkey
Regular MemberPosts: 143Gear list
Like?
Re: As a D800 + 24-70 f2.8 shooter and RX1
In reply to Hawaii-geek, Jun 17, 2013

Hawaii-geek wrote:

halfmonkey,

As a D800 + 24-70 f2.8 shooter for work (I shoot Nikon a lot and for pay) also have a99 + 24-70 f2.8 zeiss , and a RX1 user for almost everything else.

Here is my experience.

From the time I started shooting with the D700 and then D800 I have NOT carried my DSLR with me daily. much less the sb900 flash. that combo is heavy. You will quickly start limiting when you bring it out with you.

As a father, you will NEVER know when a "Moment" will happen. and if you take frequent trips , dragging that heavy combo will feel less and LESS worth it.

What I noticed is , FAMILY pics happen up close ... 35mm of the RX1 covers it. with 24mp you can easily cover 70mm on a crop. What makes the RX1 different is it's Superior Sensor and LENS that allows you to crop and still have a great shot.

What I just noticed on my recent Las Vegas trip is ... the Internal Flash at 35mm , and f2 thru f4 , at iso 1600 and above is CRAZY Good! You just need to comp DOWN the flash power at night.

I am now convinced, As a "FAMILY" camera the RX1 with 35mm is NOT Limiting in ANY WAY. As a TRIP camera SUPERIOR. and as good if not better than ANY Full Frame camera you can buy at any price. And that is purely on a IQ (Image Quality) Level.

Now, ADD in it's SMALL size ... PRICELESS !

I have been on many, many TRIPS with my D800/D700 + 24-70 f2.8 combo ... and I can tell you without Reservation that on my last trip with the RX1 I had ZERO , ZERO thoughts of my DSLR. The 35mm PRIME of the RX1 did not feel limiting at all. Period. The Focus , Good enough. In fact DMF AF with Manual Focus zoom with Peaking is MORE than Enough. Seriously.

imho, there is NOTHING that I felt would have been better served with a DSLR + 24-70 zoom. Now, "outside" of a trip ... say a soccer match, well you need a different tool.

For FAMILY pics ... SIZE and the ability to have it with you when a MOMENT happens is Priceless!

NOW, add in the FACT that you are carrying in your belt bag (in my case) a Full Frame camera with a Ziess f2 lens ... There will be NO Regrets ... YES, the RX1 is that GOOD !

imho, "only" a full time D800 shooter with top PRO f2.8 glass (or it's C equal) can tell you that on a Image Quality level , it "basically" the SAME.

And Bottom Line, is that not what you want to have with you ... ALL THE TIME ?

For me it's a NO Brainier, and for a surprisingly high amount of D800 shooters.

This is a RX1 Test gallery ... that I have pics from my recent Las Vegas trip , with some Tourist shots and family shots , and 2 video ... 10 day trip with "only" the RX1. Trust me, I did not think of my D800 not once. Yes the RX1 is "that" GOOD !

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/28812065_ggbNN6#!i=2567846040&k=89ZB3V9

Hope this helps,

HG

halfmonkey wrote:

I'm in the market to finally upgrade to full frame and I've narrowed down my choices to either the Sony RX1 or the Canon 5D iii. I know these two cameras are in completely different categories and that's what making the decision so difficult. I guess I wasn't really even considering the RX1 at first because of the fixed 35mm. It was the quality of the pictures and the size that drew me in. If I buy the 5D iii, I'd purchase the 24-70 ii lens with it to start off.

So I know that deciding which camera to pick will ultimately fall to my style of shooting but I'd like to ask for your guys' opinion or suggestions on things to consider when deciding between the two cameras.

I would probably say that my primary focus at this point is taking pictures of my little kids. They're 5.5, 4, and 6 months. I guess one of the main things holding me back on the RX1 is the fixed 35mm lens. I know it's generally considered a walkaround lens, maybe a little on the wide side but non-the-less, a usable walk around lens.

I've compiled my list of pros and cons for each. Please feel free to give feedback to suggest things to consider for each.

RX1...

pros:

1. small - I guess the first rule of taking a great picture is to have the camera with you in the first place.

2. cheaper than the 5D iii

cons:

1. fixed 35mm lens; non-changable - not necessarily the best for shots of kids

2. accessories are extremely expensive

5Diii...

pros:

1. interchangable lens - allwos for flexibility

cons:

1. heavy and large - there not as portable as I'd like. Can't just throw in a bag or wife's purse or pocket

-- hide signature --

http://tourist-of-light.blogspot.com/
Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

The main thing holding me back on the RX1 is really just the fixed 35mm lens. I'm currently using a Canon S95 and an old Canon Xti with kit lens so I know that buying any currently camera will be a step better than what I currently have. I've been messing with the RX1 in the Sony stores and I love the camera. The price is shocking and the accessories is out of this world really for no other reason than because they can charge those prices for the accessories. I understand why the RX1 is priced as is and although it is expensive, it does seem to be priced about what I would expect something like this to sell for. I'd personally like it to come down to about $2k.

As far as your points, like I said, the first rule of taking a great picture is you have to have the camera in the first place. This goes to what you're saying and what I've been thinking. Even if the RX1 doesn't fit all scenarios, it'll fit most of what I want because I'll have it with me and I'll be able to take some kind of picture at great quality even if it's not the best of the best from a DSLR where I can customise the lens to fit the situation.

Yes for sports and such, it will not work and worse case scenario, I still have my XTi. It's not a great camera but it is relatively small and I can still use it to take decent pictures when more of a zoom is needed.

This past weekend, I was using my S95 and taking pictures all on the wide end trying to keep the aperature open as much as possible without using the flash to get an idea of what the image may look like if I were to take the picture using the 35mm fixed on the RX1. It's definitely a different process. Obviously, first off, you're closer to the subject.

I know people have dissed the AF on the RX1 but seeing that I'm coming from an S95 and XTi, I'm going to saying that with registered face recognition, 25 points of focus, full frame sensor, and better ISO performance, I'll still get more usable pictures than what I'm currently getting from my current cameras.

After reading all of the responses to my question this weekend, it got me thinking that maybe I was limiting myself and so I looked at the Fuji Xpro-1 Nikon V1, Canon M, and Sony Nex7. After doing some looking, I've kind of ruled those out simply because, the lens on them weren't of very high quality and they didn't receive the same rave reviews as the RX1. Out of all of them, the Nex7 was the one I looked at the most. Even in its kit form, it would be better than my S95 and more than likely better than my XTi but the changable lens system is still developing and they're very much holding the camera back. I know you can add the A lenses wth an adaptor but then I get back to my original concern which is size and bulk and then witht he cost of the adaptor and A lens and Nex7, I'm pretty much right where the RX1 is.

I'll play with my S95 more at the wide angle lens to simulate 35mm and see how I like that to help determine if I'd be able to work with the fixed 35mm on the RX1.

Again, if you have any thoughts or suggestions on what to look for, please let me know. I think I'll look at the new Leica to see if maybe that might work since it does have a little bit of a zoom lens but it doesn't appear to be fast at all.

 halfmonkey's gear list:halfmonkey's gear list
Sony Alpha 7
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robgo2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,506
Like?
Re: As a D800 + 24-70 f2.8 shooter and RX1
In reply to halfmonkey, Jun 17, 2013

halfmonkey wrote:

The main thing holding me back on the RX1 is really just the fixed 35mm lens. I'm currently using a Canon S95 and an old Canon Xti with kit lens so I know that buying any currently camera will be a step better than what I currently have. I've been messing with the RX1 in the Sony stores and I love the camera. The price is shocking and the accessories is out of this world really for no other reason than because they can charge those prices for the accessories. I understand why the RX1 is priced as is and although it is expensive, it does seem to be priced about what I would expect something like this to sell for. I'd personally like it to come down to about $2k.

As far as your points, like I said, the first rule of taking a great picture is you have to have the camera in the first place. This goes to what you're saying and what I've been thinking. Even if the RX1 doesn't fit all scenarios, it'll fit most of what I want because I'll have it with me and I'll be able to take some kind of picture at great quality even if it's not the best of the best from a DSLR where I can customise the lens to fit the situation.

Yes for sports and such, it will not work and worse case scenario, I still have my XTi. It's not a great camera but it is relatively small and I can still use it to take decent pictures when more of a zoom is needed.

This past weekend, I was using my S95 and taking pictures all on the wide end trying to keep the aperature open as much as possible without using the flash to get an idea of what the image may look like if I were to take the picture using the 35mm fixed on the RX1. It's definitely a different process. Obviously, first off, you're closer to the subject.

I know people have dissed the AF on the RX1 but seeing that I'm coming from an S95 and XTi, I'm going to saying that with registered face recognition, 25 points of focus, full frame sensor, and better ISO performance, I'll still get more usable pictures than what I'm currently getting from my current cameras.

After reading all of the responses to my question this weekend, it got me thinking that maybe I was limiting myself and so I looked at the Fuji Xpro-1 Nikon V1, Canon M, and Sony Nex7. After doing some looking, I've kind of ruled those out simply because, the lens on them weren't of very high quality and they didn't receive the same rave reviews as the RX1. Out of all of them, the Nex7 was the one I looked at the most. Even in its kit form, it would be better than my S95 and more than likely better than my XTi but the changable lens system is still developing and they're very much holding the camera back. I know you can add the A lenses wth an adaptor but then I get back to my original concern which is size and bulk and then witht he cost of the adaptor and A lens and Nex7, I'm pretty much right where the RX1 is.

I'll play with my S95 more at the wide angle lens to simulate 35mm and see how I like that to help determine if I'd be able to work with the fixed 35mm on the RX1.

Again, if you have any thoughts or suggestions on what to look for, please let me know. I think I'll look at the new Leica to see if maybe that might work since it does have a little bit of a zoom lens but it doesn't appear to be fast at all.

I realize that the purpose of threads such as this one is to allow the OP to think out loud, while receiving feedback from others on the forum, but this one seems to be going nowhere. It is clear that you want the small size and outstanding IQ of the RX1 but are hesitant because of price and slowish AF (notice that I did not say "slow"). You can keep this thread going and even start a new one on the same subject, but at some point you have to make a decision, which may be to do nothing except continue using your current gear.

If I were in your situation (which I was several months ago), I would take the leap and get the RX1. Use it for several months and see if it suits you. If it does not, you should be able to sell it for only a few hundred dollars less than what you paid, but believe me, once you get used to the IQ, it will be hard to let go. Since you are considering some expensive cameras, I presume that you could absorb the loss. I also suggest that you use the following as your mantra: It's only a camera.

Rob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads