This adapter isn't a new idea or genius. NEX / E mount shooters have long been buying the Hawk Helicoid adapter (somewhere < $200, ebay) which does exactly this.
The Hawk adapter isn't finished as nicely as the CV adapter appears to be, but as far as function, it offers exactly the same capabilities. Fantastic.
Let's correct a few other bits of miinformation in the comments:1) So far, the only semi-comprehensive look at rangefinder lenses on the A7 cameras was done by Ron Sheffler using only the A7.
2) Lenses of wider angle and of symmetrical degisn (like the Zeiss Biogons, a number of other degins from Leica and CV) generall perform worse on the A7 than longer focal lengths or telecentric / retrofocal design.
3) Even on the A7, there are going to be a number of lenses that work exceedingly well, and a larger number that work well enough to meet user expectations in many cases.
4) The story on the A7r is as yet untold. Don't guess, wait for testing. Will happen soon.
Nuno Souto: Memo to all companies who pretend to "redefine" the mirrorless market:the market is micro-4:3rd. Full stop. Don't waste any more time with "parallel streams" and other such marketing devices to make you waste money and resources. And FIRE the nincompoops who keep telling you to "redefine" the market!No? OK, keep running to the edge of the abyss...
A sensor size does not "define" the mirrorless "market".
A lack of a mirror.
sroute: Pentax ought to have run the design past a bunch of real life users - take a random selection of folks here as a good start - before committing to building it.
They'd have saved a bunch of money and could have used that time for something else, something... saleable.
No EVF = not that usable with full size lenses, certainly not for my purposes.
Like I said to Anthony above... of course the camera will appeal to some. BTW, when I spoke of the design I really wasn't speaking of the Newson tweaks but of the brick like design which is barely smaller than the K-5 by virtue of having the same back focal length.
Sure, it might be a good body for someone who already has a K-5 and wants a second, or has a collection of Pentax lenses, but as a primary camera it lacks some, at least for most. We don't need to argue about this - the camera did not sell well due to comments like mine - the market spoke. Buyers didn't like it. I betchya a nickel they didn't like it because of the size... they wanted a nice small "compact" mirrorless.
Anthony, any camera can be a great fit for some. Don't take criticism of the camera personally. The K-01 isn't a commercial success because it doesn't appeal to enough people and like it or not, consumer oriented camera makers can't afford to design products of limited appeal.
If Pentax wants to dig a hole for itself and bury their future, they should design more cameras like the K-01.
The camera isn't a failure due to the Newson design; it's a failure commerically because it is too big for a "compact mirrorless camera". The K-01 is almost as big as the DSLR it purports to replace or augment. Because of this, there isn't a space in the bag for this camera for most potential buyers.
I bet if it had a built in EVF it would have sold much better, but perhaps not well enough to be considered successful.
Pentax ought to have run the design past a bunch of real life users - take a random selection of folks here as a good start - before committing to building it.
Mike604: Canon G15 best all around IMO!
Judging all the cameras ONLY on the wide angle shot, the P7700 to me looks like it is delivering the best optical performance, nudging out the RX100 by a hair or nose or some other body part.
Haven't looked at other image comparisons yet.
Richard Franiec: $2800.00 compact with fixed lens? Sure, why not. Taking into account the full frame and pairing it with what looks like good lens into smallest yet package is an engineering feat by itself.
Is RX1 a bold statement on Sony's part? Perhaps. Kudos for them for taking risks and plowing the way forward. Should it be noticed by other manufacturers and potential users? I have no doubt about that.
I really admire DPReview lust for innovation and progress in digital imaging.Being excited about every significant breakthrough and bringing the news and analysis to us is much appreciated.Thank you!
Hi Richard, add me to the interest list...there's 101 or more now. I'll be interested in a grip if you deem it worth making and possible.
DaytonR: Oh wow , this camera is set to become a classic !
Der Steppenwolf, There is nothing to complain about. A leaf shutter is a highly sought after *advantage* for a small journalist/street friendly camera. Basically silent. 1/2000th second shutter speed wide open is one stop faster than the much-loved Fujifilm X100, and the Sony also allows you to pull the ISO back to ISO 50 (X100 limited to ISO100, but has a built in switchable 3 stop neutral density filter.)
At f/2 in bright lighting conditions where this will all matter, without the ND filter the RX1 has a 2 stop advantage; with the X100 ND filter engaged the X100 has a 1 stop advantage.
On the other hand the RX1 has a narrow depth of field advantage at *every* stop, so you can stop down the RX1 one stop from f/2 and at f/2.8 @ISO50 1/2000th of s econd you'll have the equivalent exposure capability as the X100 @ISO100 f/2 1/1000th with the ND filter swiched on AND you'll still have a narrow depth of field advantage.
RX1 has a 1/4000 top shutter speed vs X100 1/2000th. All good.
babola, the Leica M-E is exactly the same size and weight as the Leica M9; the M-E is *not* smaller as you are trying to suggest.
Leica M-E dimensions: (W x D x H) approx. 139 x 37 x 80 mm 585 gLeica M9 dimensions: (W x D x H) approx. 139 x 37 x 80 mm 585 g
The Leica M9 or M-E eqiupped with a Summicron 35/2 or a Zeiss ZM35/2 will be bigger in every dimension and close to twice the weight.
The cheapest configuration, in a new camera and lens will be about double the cost of a RX1+viewfinder, but yes, will be a more flexible camera, if lens flexibility is important to the photographer for a go-everywhere compact full frame camera.
The closest performance configuration is the new M "Milestone", shipping next year, and similarly equipped that will set you back 8500 - 10,500 depending on lens choice. You'll probably want to buy an EVF for that one too. ;)
The RX1 isn't a Lecia killer but it does represent the first real competition for a narrow slice of the Leica flavoured pie.
babola, there is no other full frame compact camera in this size class that offers live-view, autofocus, close focus, a modern high ISO high detail CMOS sensor, and a lens, all for a reasonable price compared to the closest competitor which offers only manual focus for close to 10K all configured (the new Leica M with a decent lens on it).
The Leica M9 or M-E is a completely different camera; manual focus, CCD sensor therefore no live view and therefore no easy macro/close up photography. It's a solid camera to be sure but not the same class at all, and costs more.
iRadio07: Comparing the RAW, the Fuji X-Pro 1 is still better and sharper, especially in hight ISO
You might wish to download raw files for both, process them the same way in your tool of choice; then down sample the RX1 images to the same resolution as the X Pro. Then comment.
I've done it. At 200 ISO the RX1 looks superior to me, and at 3200 ISO the RX1 continues to deliver more detail and less mush, if you want to pixel peep.
That all said, would the difference be visible in a print? Not nearly so readily probably.
Digiman69: Hi-iso Jpg are impressive, clean and reach of details, but looking at raw's (iso3200/6400) it seems this camera has quiet an hard AA filter, if so it's a pity.I really think nowadays with all the extended capabilities of all photo SW to manage moirè and chromatic aberrations they all should go (industry) for mid to hi-end cameras without AA filters (and not ask more money for the version without AA filter).
More likely you are seeing the result of noise reduction and smoothing at high ISO. My impression after looking at quite a few RX1 images now is that it has a medium/light AA filter.
In fact I don't really care one way or the other, having had the benefit of extensively shooting over the course of the past 12 months a camera with no AA filter and high resolution lenses.
If this is a response to NEX, my feeling is that Sony continue to sell a lot more NEX cameras. Will they sell these to existing Nikon users? Sure.
It may be spec'd well for "soccer moms" but I see more full sized APS-C DSLRs at the soccer pitch than compacts. Most soccer moms and dads (guilty) would be better off carrying something like an RX100 in their purse - at least they'd have the camera with them at the next "big" game.
A RX1 is pretty close to perfect for me. What would have made it "perfect" are:
* Two accessory lens adapters making the fixed 35mm lens a 28mm and 75mm respectively, but I'd be willing to go with any useful combo of somewhat wider than the fixed 35mm, and slightly longer than normal perspective (75, 85, 90).
It should be possible to add these to the existing camear, while retaining optical quality, depending on the lens and lens barrel design. It isn't a new idea - in the past one could find many camera "systems" that offered such adapters. In the present, Fujifilm added a wide angle adapter for the X100 long after the camera's introduction
If Sony comes out with that accessory, for me, the RX1 could be a one and only one camera setup. That would make it perfect enough for me.
sadwitch: To me, images from the DP2merrill were more stunning. With the partnership in effect, think Sony should quickly harness Olympus JPEG engine and apply it to their cameras.
If the DP2 Merrill was a similar camera it might make sense to compare it, but the two cameras are so far apart in terms of overall functionality and handling it just doesn't make sense.
Barend: Just wait one year and there will be an interchangeable lens version just like Fujifilm did with the X100 and X-PRO1.
I am not so sure about that. Remember, the X100 was the first of Fujifilm's high IQ larger (APS-C or bigger) sensor cameras. What do you do for an encore in that case? You build an interchangeable lens camera off the same model.
Contrast the Fujifilm situation with Sony - NEX preceded RX1, and NEX is getting quite mature now. Sony Alpha has a full frame DSLR.
Sony doesn't need to produce a full frame interchangeable lens compact camera to compete with Fujifilm and it seems unlikely they will pattern one off the RX1 even if they did decide to produce a full frame NEX -- and therefore a new line of full frame NEX lenses in the process because honestly, who wants a LEAx adapter with Alpha lenses just to shoot full frame in a compact camera?
maxnimo: No wide open shots lead me to assume this lens is a piece of krappe wide open.
Flaw in your logic: Others have posted images produced with the lens wide open.
ggsphoto: Is this really iso 16000 ? is this a typo - surely 1600 ?
The camera provides for sensitivity up to ISO 25,600 and that's not a typo. It is surprisingly usable from the looks of it.
mmcfine: Honestly, I find most cameras this days produce more or less the same image quality. The glass makes the art not the chip or sensor.It's amazing how much money and time we spend on comparing nonsense.
Mostly it's about the lens, and for the most part, it always has been.
Richard - could you folks report on (and shoot some sample images of course) the utility of the 1.4X "smart teleconverter"? The idea of having a virtual APS-C camera with a 50mm lens goes along way, if it works well, to making this an ideal carry-everywhere high IQ camera for me... and probably for many others.
I'm quite ok with 35mm on 35 only; but virtual 50 if the remaining resolution is sufficient certainly sweetens the deal.
Thanks for putting these first images up so quickly!