olypan: Drip, drip, drip.......
Read the soundimageplus review and all I can say is, yet another idiot who bashes a camera never having used it. I really wish fools like this could find a more productive use of their time, maybe cleaning pubic restrooms.
I think that many people misunderstand this camera. Like all cameras the RX1 is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. If its specs are not what you are interested in then there are many other cameras out there to consider. It is not a camera for all-around use and I doubt if very many people who own the RX1 have it as their only camera. But to complain about it because it is a fixed-lens camera, or because it doesnt have a viewfinder, that is like complaining that a Ferrari can't drive the family around to soccer games. Or complaining that a minivan can't go 200mph. Innovation and an increase in the types of tools to create images is a good thing for the entire photographic community.
Remember, not everyone shares your needs and wants and that is OK. You are not the center of the universe. It is irrational to bash a product just because it does not meet your needs.
SeeRoy: There's always a market, in rich societies obsessed with status, for products that actually feature reduced functionality and increased prices in exchange for the promise of some subtle cachet which will attach to the purchaser. This usually happens in markets which are becoming saturated with feature-rich examples of the commodity in question. Of course this effect is always short-lived - and usually unsatisfying - which means that the exercise can be repeated regularly with minor variations. So now we have these throwback cameras with fixed prime lenses and optional add-on viewfinders. The laughable prices actually enhance their desirability in just the same way that high-priced mechanical wristwatches which offer nothing functionally superior to inexpensive quartz models, continue to sell. And there's Leica of course, from whom Sony have obviously learned something. But the most important characteristic of the camera is still what it's pointed at.
Very true, but it is also true that many people who cannot afford a high end product feel compelled to denigrate those who can , or attack the product itself.
I suspect many of the people who claim the RX1 is too expensive spend way more than $2800 on other toys (FWD truck, flat-screen in every room, season tickets to their fav sports team, or their children, etc.). I don't have a lot of toys and am blissfully child-free so the money is not a big deal to me. In fact the claim that the RX1 is too expensive is silly - Sony has no problem selling them so it is by definition not too expensive. If you are unemployed and down to your last dollar, than any camera is too expensive to buy, and if you are a zillionaire, then the cost of any camera is irrelevant.
pocketuniverse: For the price, I'd have to ask myself what can this camera achieve that a FF SLR cannot. Is it clearly more discreet? Not particularly.
Not more discreet? Huh? Have you ever seen and handled the RX1? Clearly not. Its small size and unobtrusiveness are remarked upon in just about every review I have read.
oscarvdvelde: I find it a little ironic the camera is rated so highly. You pay $2800 and you get a camera of which you cannot change lenses, you get contrast AF only, 3 fps, no optical through the lens viewfinder, while image quality is at the same level as offered by other current full frame cameras. Even a D600 or EOS 6D at $1000 less offer more functionality than this, even if you would glue a pancake lens permanently to it.
Yes, it is smaller. That's only one point and may be important to some style of shooting. Similar use cameras should simply be compared by image quality, size/weight, lens selection, AF performance, fps, etc, and price. The RX-1 seems to offer great image quality, but at very high cost and some compromises...
All cameras are a compromise. Different strokes for different folks as they say. To look at just one of your criteria - lens selection. Not everyone wants to change lenses and not everyone feels the need to have wide-angle through telephoto available for every camera. For general zoom work I have other cameras. For the ultimate shooting experience and IQ I have the RX1. Don't forget - Cartier-Bresson used one focal length for the overwhelming majority of his work and seemed to do OK. Personally, I find the single focal length to be liberating. FPS - I have no interest in this style of shooting so I do not know or care what the RX1 is capable of in that regard. Size is of critical importance to me, but obviously not as much to you. I have had no problems with AF - but then I have no interest in shooting sports or kids running around.
This apparently is a camera that you either love or hate (though most of the haters have no experience with it).
More comments form people who have never used the RX1 but hate it. Who says AF sucks? The consensus among those of us who actually own the thing is that is not as fast as a DLSR but to say it "sucks"? No way. I personally have had no issues with AF.
To compare the IQ with the OM-D is ludicrous. Please, do any of you naysayers actually own the RX1 or have had a chance to use the thing for any length if time? No, 10 minutes in a store doesn't count.
As far as the DPreview review, it did get gold, but in any case the reviews at most websites, DPreview included, need to be taken with a grain of salt. Real world use is what counts.