yeah, like i want to change or collecting nex body like every years with same old lenses
kadardr: RX1 is an object of craving. Never buy one. I will get the NEX-7n with the Zeiss 24mm F1.8 instead (SEL24F18Z).
The price? Not much less. But EVF, better grip, fold-able screen are all check.
I have bad news for you, the Zeiss 24mm F1.8 lens has not much 'zeiss' character in it. Not like ZM, DSLR mount, or RX1 version, this zeiss lens have null character.
marike6: This RX1 is obviously very capable camera which I guess should get a Gold Award on IQ and implementation alone. But so too should have the Fuji X100 (and X-Pro1 for that matter) which at the time did not many peers in term of total package: Hybrid VF, build quality, IQ, except the much higher end Leica M9.
The original X100 had slow AF, but absolutely superb IQ. Sound familiar? Unlike the RX1, it had the innovative Hybrid VF. The VF, wonderful lens, IQ and beautifully crafted metal body alone deserved a Gold Award, but for some reason, Fujifilm doesn't get much love on DPR.
The last time I checked, x100 is excellent camera and i dont remember experiencing that 'buggy' software like many said. EVF/OVF combined with great sensor and lens pairing makes tag 'professional' on x100 very accurate.
Now, compare with RX1, obviously it have higher IQ as it should, but at what margin? If dpreview give this lack of EVF and 'cybershoot' style camera a gold award. Why didnt x100?
Deleted-pending: One reason I would never buy such a small camera : you are holding the lens and not the tiny camera !It looks like a sheet of paper holding a metal tube.
sony nex's short flange distance shouild benefit normal-wide angle lenses design, not telephoto. if you want to keep package compact, other than using nex's original lenses, use leica M/M39 lenses instead. Those lenses also designed for short flange distance too.
sproketholes: Why the Hell would anyone want to use Canon EF glass anyway?
leica M lenses is NEX's best friend :)
Henry M. Hertz: the 6D is a stupid camera for the clueless masses.
as a average joe customer your better of buying a 7D.you won´t notice the FF sensor in your 10x15cm prints but you sure notice the better AF for tracking your kids , dogs etc.
face it .. the people who waited for this camera (ambitious amateurs on a budget) will be dissapointed and the people who will buy it (soccer moms and rich but clueless DSLR starters) will not need it.
the ambitious amateurs will be screaming for a better AF... the clueless will only print 10x15cm or 13x18cm anyway.
FF is just not about printing, it's about bringing your glasses maximum result(sharpness, bokeh, focal view, noise, dynamic range etc). 'clueless' people, like you, might not notice that people even willing to trade all fancy AF, digital capability, just for FF size sensor
way to go canon!
ET2: cgarrard: "Every camera has a unique quality"
Sensor size is not just another "unique" quality. It's the most important part of of a digital camera. That's what makes the full-frame D600 different than the APSC D7000. That's what makes medium format hasselblad different from Nikon D800.
RX100 has a sensor that is 4 times larger than S100. That's a bigger difference than the difference between APSC vs FF, or the difference between FF vs medium format.
So RX100 is a new milestone in pocket cameras with zoom lenses. Time Magazine got it right.
Nikon 1 isn't a pocket cameras once you add a zoom lens to it. RX100 is smaller than J1 body-only.
As for other large sensor fixed lens cameras, they are either not pocket cameras or they have single focal length prime lens. The full-frame RX1 leads in that category.
"Wrong, wrong, wrong. WRONG! I hope I'm making my point.
THE LENS is the most important part of a digital camera."
no, you just point out how aggresive ignorant you are.
Smaller sensor makes lens design for similiar result more difficult and even impossible. In sharpness: Smaller sensor->raise pixel per inch->more lens sharpness required to project details to every pixel. Bokeh: smaller sensor->smaller capture area->need ultimate huge aperture to match bigger sensor and i hope you aware the difficulty designing lens that both wide aperture and sharp.
big sensor answer the question but but, the overall size usually got bigger and more expensive(more sensor area=more expensive). and thats where RX100 comes, big sensor, small body, well priced
Zvonimir Tosic: And when Nikon introduced V1, many spewed on it. Same sensor, same resolving power. Pity the resolving power of the brain of today journalism is at its all TIME low.
ups. i got confuse, fully retracted i mean fully unretracted=the maximum length possible, my bad lol
oh, and why on earth i want to pocket my camera when it's fully retracted?
try to unrectract nikon v1/j1, and its still huge, sorry to say:)
if i want to mount lenses to my camera, i choose NEX. why? APS-C vs 1'' sensor size!
1'' sensor size is too damn tiny for interchangeable camera. imagine putting legacy lenses, dslr lenses, leica lenses on front of this sensor. the 2.7 crop factor while make these lenses seems like telephoto range lol.
With sony's APS-C sensor, i could emulate 2.7 crop factor by simply cropped resulted image myself. The thing you can't with 1'' sensor.
So no, tiny sensor should be built with fixed lens, it is more make senses
bobbarber: Guys, I made a "negative" comment further down. I'm going to defend it.
Sony deserves a lot of credit for being innovative. They are one of the most innovative camera companies currently, and I think it is a lot of fun even for those of us who aren't Sony owners to see what they'll come up with next.
The flaw in this camera is the lens. It sucks compared to the lens in the XZ-1, and a few other compacts. Look at the comparison tool. Go to the watch, the hair next to the watch, or anything else sort of near the edges. This lens sucks.
THE QUALITY OF THE LENS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SENSOR SIZE. YOU CAN NOT PUT A $50 F8 500MM LENS IN FRONT OF A NIKON D800 SENSOR, AND EXPECT BETTER PHOTOS THAN YOU GET OUT OF A PANASONIC FZ150, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST BECAUSE THE SENSOR IS BIGGER.
Sorry to shout, but Good God, people are talking about the size of the sensor as if it absolutely, positively is the one spec that most defines image quality, and it absolutely, positively IS NOT, the LENS IS.
yes, i can agree about the lens, but i just want to comment your statement that "the quality of lens is more important", at some degree it's true but remember that bigger sensor is the reason behind SLR's sharpness, dynamic range, and ultimately, bokeh. It's very hard to match result from APS-C + 50mm 1.4 lens with sensor with only 1' sensor size. Technically speaking, smaller sensor raise pixel-per-inch in sensor's capture area, so require the lens to be ultimately sharp enough to project the image to every pixel. As for bokeh, its require 28mm f/0.78 to match APS-C 50mm 1.8
compared to XZ-1, LX5, RX100 have pros and cons. I dont like sony's 'plastic' color either.
@ozarktroutfisher yes, you could say i am nikon 1 hater. no, i am not working for anyone, i am long time fans of nikkor lenses, nikon color, nikkor legacy lenses and much(i use D400). for mirrorless i use sony nex, fuji x100, and oly pens. sony nex is good, but i dont like 'plastic' color and unbrilliant metering. for these two thing, x100 and oly are the best.
so sorry, your assumptions are all wrong, but i am happy finally somewhere, someone get that 'humor' ;)
99ISO: What' the point of a camera with the size and price of a DSLR and the sensor of a compact?
higher pixel density only gives you CHANCE to make better image if lens is good(sharpness>nyquist limit). If lens sharpness isn't good, increasing pixel density will not improve everything, just like resize your image to a bigger size with photoshop.
Digital Suicide: I think many people know Sony better for TVs, walkmans, or other electronics.But look at the NEX series, RX100, then RX1... At least Sony is reading your moans and is trying to make cameras of your dreams. Guys from Fujifilm as well.Yes, they are still not perfect and pricey, but they are not cheap to make. And at this price point, you can't expect it to be best-seller.Look at Canon and Nikon, still playing market leaders and trying to convince you with crap cameras. Actually, they are doing nothing now.Big up for Sony.
in sum, sony gives you small body, big sensor, and moderate-value cameras. while IQ might arguably not the best out there, but at least one of the tops.
nikon? nah, they gives us mirrorless that neither gives great result, small size, and good starting price. Nikon seems dont want to mess with their well-established DSLR market.
So I am agree, sony deserves some awards
funny,with bigger sensor size even the mediocre lens will gives you better result. sharpness, dynamic range, so on. bigger sensor=more money to make it.
the smaller the sensor, the more difficult to build lens with similiar performance that is sharpness, bokeh, and so on. easy math
limlh: A game changer that symbolizes the development of digital photography. While other companies are pandering to conservatism and imitating old film cameras, Sony is not afraid to thread new ground and make full use of available technology. That is why RX100 represents the invention that is digital photography, and not Sigma that tried to squeeze a big sensor into an outdated body. Nor Fujifilm although it is also very innovative with sensor tech.
still, nikon 1 is unjustified huge for such tiny sensor. what the point of fast AF if depth-of-field is wide(because of tiny sensor) that everything seems on focus :D
RX100 is nowhere near APS-C sized sensor in term of IQ, so do nikon 1. But RX100 is incredibly small for such relatively large sensor. Nikon 1? what are their excuse?? :D
go home nikon 1, you're drunk :D
rhlpetrus: Sony need all help they can get from imaging, the whole company is in trouble. Supposedly Nikon has taken the second place for compacts behind Canon, and has a 24% market share all cameras (Thom). Panny is in even bigger trouble. Canon is also doing relatively well, even if down from last year. Of all imaging companies, Nikon is doing best.
"nikon has taken the second place.." nah, nikon 1 is just bulky and ugly for the same tiny sensor. M4/3 and NEX are the real deal
the reason: Is this a joke? Out of the hundreds of inventions a camera that brings absolutely NOTHING new to the table makes the list?
well, if i remember how ugly nikon 1 system is, rx100 deserve some awards