thanks for taking note of previous winners. i was about to ask, because it does give some perspective to how much value the award actually has.
just to remind dpr, however: you did waffle by giving the rx1 79 (below the line for ff, i would say) plus a gold.:):):)
isn't this kind of thing getting to be the norm? if i recall correctly, there was a brouha awhile back over a nature photography photo that turned out to have been staged. maybe it just shows you can have talent - surely the reputations of these photographers were not based on one photograph - without integrity. nothing new there.
Mssimo: I would think the fixed lens quality would influence the overall score of the camera. Still 79%?
@wcguy: the ways of dpr can be mysterious. but thanks for reassuring me that it wasn't just a senior moment. or maybe we both need aluminum foil hats!
i would swear when the review first went up it said 80%, but that must have been a senior moment. does it matter? even if it said 90% and it didn't appeal to me - for any variety of reasons that might not have to do with just iq - i wouldn't buy it.
cheetah43: A viewfinder is a must. Sony should discard the flash. Available light photographs from RX1 have been demonstrated to be good. But vignetting is a serious flaw. Post-processing is not ideal. Sony's work is cut out if they want to sell RX1 in numbers. Why should a pro have to carry a separate viewfinder for RX1? He will want the RX1 for its quality and compactness.
who says pros are the intended buyers?
Trollshavethebestcandy: I liked the size, weight, responsiveness, quality feel to it but it felt like a premium PS camera. What is the niche? This is not for soccer moms. This is not an ideal travel camera. This is not a "Pros" cam. This is not an enthusiast camera due to cost. This is a camera geek camera. It is a nice camera but I think double the price of the Fuji X-100S for probably a 10-15% performance of output advantage is not that much of a return. If you have to spend another $1,000 on a viewfinder and hood ect you might as well get the XPro1 and a handful of their best lenses for the same cost. Basically I am saying this camera should be about $2,000.
it's fine at the price if you're coming from a leica m8 or m9, where a top of the line lens alone runs in the $3k to $6k range (even used) depending on speed and focal length. to a great extent, the niche is that part of the leica niche that does not make available af and low light capability.
Timmbits: So is this made in China then, with the sensor speckles and all?
made in japan. apparently assembled by hand, as with leica m.
Ray Sachs: This camera could appeal to a lot more of those "decisive moment" shooters if it had one of two things - faster AF or some sort of decent distance scale to allow use of zone focus. The first would require a re-engineering of the whole AF system. The second would require a relatively simple firmware upgrade. Sony really limits the market for this otherwise fine camera to highly contemplative shooters who are mostly shooting stationary stuff. It's got so much potential as a high end street or photojournalism camera that it could realize so easily, but doesn't. The RX100 has the same limitation in an entirely different category. People love Leicas for street work despite the lack of AF because zone focus with their manual lenses is such a pleasure to use. That won't work with this lens, but a good electronic distance scale in the LCD/EVF would accomplish much of the same thing, as in the Fuji cameras. Focus peaking is great for critical focus, but useless for critical moments.
i don't shoot street normally, but coming from both an m9 and and x1, i suspect that once people really learn to use the rx1, the complaints will diminish. the rx1 focuses more quickly at this time (at least imo) than the x1 did when it first came out. a firmware fix (not a total re-engineering of the af system) did bring improvements to the x1 and if sony does the right thing by its customers a similar fix should help with af issues on the rx1.
the section on menus confused me a bit. all of a sudden it appeared that the a99 was begin discussed.
RogerCooke: All well and good, but I miss the LX7. I am a very satisfied user, and its cratering price should have earned it a spot in the line-up
the most interesting thing about this thread is the insistence by some that their favorite be on someone else's list. it's just a list, not the word from on high. a lot of cameras make no one's top 5 list and are wonderful for the user. enjoy, enjoy!
i don't find this list strange. the fact is that whilst looking for a smallish camera with a zoom lens i looked at three of these - the fz200, the xz-2 and the rx100. all three have something to offer given my basic criteria of smaller and lighter than my k5, generally more convenient for grab and go than my m9 and better in low light than my dlux4. i opted for the rx100, but if it doesn't work out, the xz-2 (which is just a tad bigger than the dlux) could be the one. i must be one of the few who is not enamored of canon colors, so the canon would not make my list at this time. this is a good starting point list if you recognize that it's for those who want a camera with a zoom lens that is not a dslr. after that, caveat emptor!