Mammolo02: My one humble question is: "What is the problem Sony believes it is solving by this complex firmware contraption"? Because they *must* believe they are solving some problem, right?
My guess is they're addressing the performance bottleneck between sensor and SD card. Compressing the image means less data to buffer while the processor waits for slow SD card writes, which translates to longer periods of burst shooting before having to wait for the buffer to clear.
bobbarber: First, don't get me wrong. The RX1 looks like a fun toy. If anybody wants to send me one as a gift, I'll happily shoot pictures with it.
However, the recently announced and much villified Pentax Q10 (which I will not be buying either, too expensive) fills more of a need than the RX1.The 5.5x crop factor of the Pentax Q10 gives it digiscoping capabilities. The Q10 is also pocketable in some configurations
What is so groundbreaking about the RX1? Most of the time f2.0 is TOO shallow on my Panasonic GH2. And the RX1 is not pocketable.
Oh, that's right! The "enthusiasts" will be able to bleat, "FF!" As if FF were anything but an arbitrary designation. We are not talking the temperature at which water freezes here, folks. FF is made up, invented. What you're interested in is what the different sensor sizes do, not what they're called.
Personally, I prefer small-sensor cameras for street photography. I have this odd notion that the subject of my photos should be in focus.
Nice straw man argument. So what if 35mm is an invented standard? It will still (all things equal) produce a better image than an identical APS-C sensor.
Oh and- f2.0 is TOO shallow? That's what the aperture ring is for. Take a deep breath, get a grip on yourself.
mcm49: The historically tiny "full frame" 35mm format is just another "format" - it's not at all state-of-the-art anything in photography. What the manufacturers do with it is what makes it what it is, just like what they do with sensors today makes all the difference. Leica showed the world how small a camera could be with their 35mm cameras of the 50's; the camera producing exquisite results rivaling the medium format cameras of the day. It's all in "what they did with it"; coupling the best lens possible with the small format to get the fine results, which is why the world of amateur photography blossomed. Today, it's the same; the "format" is not as important as what the company does with it. Putting a 35mm format sensor in an otherwise $999 fixed lens point and shoot camera is not impressive whatsoever. Without an EVF and full manual controls, it's just hype over artful function.I don't understand dpreviews high praise here of this camera; it's very premature at best.
What a bizarre argument you feel compelled to post over, and over again.
Why would you even question larger format leads to greater image quality? 35mm didn't replace medium format because of IQ, it replaced it because of ease of use and portability. f/8 and be there.
We should applaud the advances allowing such a large sensor in such a compact body.
Panoramics are so hard to judge in this format. I would have liked to see it uncropped.
and color. Well done.
I had such a hard time capturing the majesty of those canola fields. That yellow just isn't the same in a digital capture, is it? I could never get the color, and the vastness of that color inside my camera.
cropped to 4x6 at the bottom right. As a panoramic there's just not enough interest.
Maybe have the person a little more prominent in the foreground.
to give it a sense of scale. As someone unfamiliar with that spot it's unclear to me what's going on in the photo.
But with all the time to line up and frame the shot, I'm not sure this was the best composition you could have chosen.
and a great story to go with it!
I loved it!