I'm baffled by why Sony is putting so much effort into building great full-frame cameras yet is neglecting the issues created by lossy raw compression. It makes no sense to me. Then again, I've been shooting raw since I acquired my first raw-capable camera in 2005, and I've post-processed thousands of RX1 files in the nearly three years I've owned that camera -- and in all that time, I've never noticed artifacts from Sony's lossy compression. This is not to say they are not there, but, for my purposes, they've never "ruined" any of my images. Still, as a long-time dedicated hobbyist, I would prefer to at least have the option for lossless compression, so I can only assume that Sony's obtuse stubbornness is driving away at least some potential customers, especially some professionals. I just can't understand Sony's thinking on this issue.
Vladik: Pretty amazing photo quality. I want one :)
How, I have used the RX1 since January, including in dim-light, high-ISO situations. I've never noticed the banding of which you speak. My internet searching also failed to uncover samples of the banding or even mention of it in any of the many RX1 reviews. If such banding is easily created and undisputed, one would think there would be evidence of it somewhere. But if there is, I can't find it.
How, can you show us an example of this easily-recreated banding?
The writing on the front of the lens looks Photoshopped to me. Between that and the lame specifications, I suspect this is a hoax.
Pablo4: To my eyes, at base ISO (where I shoot 90% of shots) the camera produces mushy RAW pictures. There is definitely some NR going on, or the sensor/lens isn't that great as fanboys would like. Just look at it and compare to the NEX 5N, 7, Olympus XZ-1 or M5. All cameras I had are sharper. Yuck, no thanks.
R. Butler is mistaken. DOF is the same, within small percentages, for all focal lengths given the same aperture, framing, and sensor size. If anything, a wider lens shot close to a target will give slightly greater DOF than a longer lens shot farther away from the target. This can be confirmed by the DOF calculator of your choice. I agree with Zdman that the background and foreground will appear different with different focal lengths, but the DOF will effectively be the same.
"Have you taken the DoF into account? A 35mm must be shot closer to the scene, which gives a shallower DoF. Since the test setup isn't flat, you get larger areas out of focus."
Not true, unless the aperture varies. Given the same aperture, framing (without cropping), and sensor size, the DOF of all focal lengths is the same.
HowaboutRAW: I just handled a Sony RX1 again this afternoon. And I was reminded of a big annoyance: To mount a filter, say simply to protect the lens, one needs to purchase 180usd lens shade/filter mount.
Not cool, how like Leica, and well the RX100 which doesn't have an official filter mounting system. (Yes, I know there's an after market one that can be glued in place.)
HowaboutRAW, the lens on the RX1 has filter threads. No special device comes with the RX1 or needs to be purchased to allow you to mount a filter (or a hood, or a step-up ring, or anything else) with 49mm threads. I have a 49mm threaded filter mounted on mine, and no special equipment was required to accomplish that. And I would say it is extraordinarily unlikely that some RX1s have filter threads, and some don't.
Moderator, it is impossible to tell which of the Panasonic or Sony RX cameras you have chosen in the "Compared to" pull-downs. Please either expand the pull-downs or eliminate the "Lumix" and "Cybershot" names from the camera titles. They're not needed anyway. Thanks.
Thanks for the link, dpreview, and for the other valuable information you provide.
Because it strikes me as odd that Canon would make a pancake lens apparently designed for full-frame cameras when their current full-frame cameras are not at all small, is this new lens perhaps an indication that Canon has a compact, full-frame, mirrorless camera (in other words, my ideal camera) in the works?