Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 sample images

By dpreview staff on Oct 8, 2012 at 23:17 GMT
Buy on GearShop$2,798.00

Just posted: Sony RX1 real-world sample images - now updated with high ISO samples. We've had the chance to shoot with a near-production RX1 and have started to put together a samples gallery. These are some of the first full resolution independent samples to be taken with an RX1. We've shot a range of subjects, both in good light and in low light at high ISOs. As usual we've included a range af apertures and focus distances too.

Although the camera is considered close-enough to production standard that Sony has allowed us to shoot with it, the company has stressed it is a pre-production unit and may not be entirely representative of final image quality.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview samples - published 8th October 2012

There are 28 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

173
I own it
124
I want it
26
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1

Comments

Total comments: 294
123
Digitall
By Digitall (Oct 17, 2012)

It is time to write to Santa Claus ...

Dear Santa,
make that Sony lower the price significantly, and I will buy one. please. thank you!

Sony must rethink the price for this camera, and maybe sell tons of them.
Dreaming costs nothing.

FF should not be an excuse for this price, especially coming from Sony, especially nowadays. But I still love this camera.

1 upvote
unlearny
By unlearny (Oct 16, 2012)

Throwing my two cents in, to the chagrin of all. I think the digital photography story is far from over. Companies are still trying to make an ideal imaging tool that people will love forever, that's worth the price in the consumer's mind. The RX1 solves a couple problems, and has a couple problems.

The ideal camera? I would love a box of these cameras, each at a different focal length, with the speed and ease of the RX100, a full frame foveon sensor with Adobe software written to support it, and a blackmagic thunderbolt or USB 3 (I'm not picky) output dumping 4k video. I would take ten around in a pelican case and never touch a sensor again. I could probably live with just six of them.

I would call the 35mm one Bobby. What was I talking about, again?

2 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Nov 18, 2012)

LMAO; funny.

0 upvotes
zirco77
By zirco77 (Oct 14, 2012)

Anybody noticed how hard it tries to remove blue fringes, probably in internal jpeg conversion? Have a look at the "Blue Ribbon" neon sign in the gallery. Other signs have "proper" (assuming they're expected) color glow, but the blue sign has a darkened and desaturated fringe. Makes me wonder if the lenses have blue chromatic aberration issues so severe that they felt the need to aggressively remove it afterwards.

0 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Oct 13, 2012)

Night Time Street Shooting High ISO
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/
+
More thoughts on the RX1
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/12/sony-week-wrap-up-and-more-thoughts-on-the-sony-rx1/

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Oct 13, 2012)

Sony RX1 1st look with accessories, video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSmV39bNuK4

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Oct 12, 2012)

I doubt very much that the RX1 has an AA filter, same as NEX-7. If you analyze some of the pictures in full size, take the one where people are standing on the footstep of the cable car, you can see huge moire stripes in the camera strap marked EOS Digital. The red edge is a stairway to heaven. If you sharpen the images further, all the round bars that support the roof of the coach will come out in moire stairs. Same you see on the edge of the arm of the girl with the red tank, on left side of the guy with the camera. This proves that no AA filter is used. My NEX-7 has the same issues. I would like to see shots taken from objects with diagonal lines, like the beard of a paintbrush or a broom, hair, cables and wires, I think it would be a surprise. The NEX-7 is a real moire generator in such shots. Look the picture with the Chinese playing music, the strings under his right hand appear in all colors of the rainbow, and the edge of the coat under the seat of the one on right in staired.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Oct 11, 2012)

All I'm hearing in this thread is blah blah blah.
You are nit picking about images that have been softened through an AA filter, colour arranged via the Bayer filter pattern and then aligned in a pixel grid, the same way as the other 99% of digital cameras out there.
Then on top of that the whole lot is reassembled by the jpg algorithm, and then flyscreened through a 70-150dpi screen.

0 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (Oct 10, 2012)

Ugh, people try to be such purists all the time.

I'm guilty of gear hunting sometimes too- the technology fascinates me; who can blame me?

And while I agree that the bulk of successful (success being defined on whatever grounds you desire) photography comes from more intrinsic qualities such as a trained eye, experience, and passion, that doesn't mean we should feel guilty or obligated to be negligent of what gear we choose since "they all produce the same image quality, more or less, these days" anyway.

Gear matters. A craftsman might be able to do the job with the wrong or outdated tools, but a craftsman with the right tools can do the job that much better.

Have I exceeded the capability of my current camera? No. But a camera that can actually shoot in low light, something that focuses fast enough where MF isn't practical, customization that makes your workflow easier- these will improve my photography, and even reinvigorate my passion.

0 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (Oct 10, 2012)

Then you might say, does a real photographer need new gear to reinvigorate their passion for photographer?

Well, no, of course not. Sorry, but we're not all purists. Similar to mobile photography and the onslaught of smartphones, maybe not everyone's looking for gear as the only way out of their mediocre photography. Maybe- GASP- it's just a hobby, and the gear goes along with that hobby.

Should you buy every new body that comes out every year, or even less than that? Probably not. Should you hold off on a purchase because you feel you haven't improved intrinsically enough that it's your actual gear that's limiting you and not your own abilities?

Of course not. New gear can = new passion can = new experiences can = improvement. Whatever the case, photography is in the eye of the beholder; to each his own- make it your own, gear and all.

3 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Oct 11, 2012)

Like

0 upvotes
meland
By meland (Oct 12, 2012)

There are probably just as many here who get pleasure from choosing, playing with and showing off their photographic equipment as those who are more interested in the end result. That's perfectly OK of course. Who's to say that the guy who enjoys polishing his car more than driving it is any less worthy than the guy who prefers driving?

0 upvotes
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Oct 10, 2012)

Wow, these DP high ISO are amazing. More amazing high ISO samples at http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/10/live-from-the-sony-event-more-samples-from-rx1-nex-6-and-a99/ and http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/ I really want one now!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (Oct 12, 2012)

all shots from Huff are size reduced, that is why they look that good. In real full size, it would be different anyway. But, honestly, who needs that big sized shots and if, who will ever look them at a distance of one foot?

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Oct 10, 2012)

wow, wasn't impressed with the price when they announced it but this thing is seriously impressive.
not in a market for one, but it rocks.

5 upvotes
locke_fc
By locke_fc (Oct 10, 2012)

Wow, those high ISO pictures look really impressive.

3 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Oct 10, 2012)

If you shoot JPEG, you'll definitely get excellent performance from low to high ISO.

If you shoot RAW because you know that Sony's in-camera JPEG processing sucks, then you're going to get even better images.

I'm confident that the sensor on this thing is going to be as good as the best on the market, but even if it isn't, look at the size of this thing!! You're not even comparing apples with apples.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
JohnSingkit
By JohnSingkit (Oct 10, 2012)

Since these are JPEGs from a prototype, maybe Sony JPEG processing no longer sucks? May not be the best but.....

1 upvote
lightleak
By lightleak (Oct 10, 2012)

If they make palm sized full frame compacts now, please stop telling me a digital 6x7 slr is totally out of reach and will never happen.

0 upvotes
tbcass
By tbcass (Oct 10, 2012)

It would still have to be a very large camera. The average APS-C DSLR is about 3.5 x 6, half the size of the 6 x 7 sensor you mention. After you figure in the electronics and larger lenses that a 6 x 7 sensor requires you will still have a rather large camera compared to a FF.

0 upvotes
lightleak
By lightleak (Oct 10, 2012)

That's fine, bring it on :)

0 upvotes
manakiin
By manakiin (Oct 10, 2012)

Something like a digital medium format rangefinder (Mamiya 7) would be nice.

2 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Oct 10, 2012)

No, not out of reach, at least technically. But would cost probably 50k+ Just have a look at the digital backs (the latest are actually 'full field' of 645 format). Question is - does anybody need a 6x7 sensor with 100+ Mpix.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Oct 10, 2012)

I have downed the 12500 iso shots from DPR, the billard balls and those look good, even amazingly good, the same as those from Steve Huff. So, why do those from Imaging Resource all look crappy and with noise reduction artifacts.

1 upvote
tbcass
By tbcass (Oct 10, 2012)

Possibly because the JPG engine with those photos wasn't fully optimized compared to these?

1 upvote
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Oct 10, 2012)

Because, Shamael, every reviewer has a bias. The reviewer of this cam at dpr is a bit flippant and cocky -- and it shows.

What I like to do is to integrate several reviews, dpr being one. So far rx1 is a looker but has a long way to go to overcome its price and fixed lens and fixed focus disadvantage [over GF1, say]. One way I'll be able to tell if its lens is "up to speed" is flare rejection. If dpr skips this test then rx1 is but a glorified p&s. Lack of comments on focusing speed is also working against the rx1. The dpr reviewer makes silly comments but his fieldwork is wanting.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Oct 10, 2012)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/FULLRES/yrx1-00208.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/FULLRES/yrx1-00012.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/FULLRES/yrx1-00215.HTM

I opened those 3 pictures in full size, a minute ago. Do the same and look at them. There is no sharpness nowhere in any of those shots, then, look at the darker parts of the shots, in black and dark brown, the usual NR artifacts show up everywhere. They look great in full size if you look at 5 meters distance, or if you reduce them in size that detail is not visible. For sure, RAW will do a better job, but at the price it costs, I await a better and sharper shot than those ones we have seen until now. The only correct ones I have seen where the ones from Sony.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Oct 10, 2012)

Do you only look at one website's samples and reach blanket statement wide conclusions? Do you also realize these are JPEGS from pre-production firmware?

3 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Oct 10, 2012)

All samples are pre production. I remember the x100 pre production samples how mediocre they were. and x100 is my fav. camera now.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Oct 12, 2012)

well, that proves that showing pre production shots can get a lot of customers turn the back to the product before it is on the market for good. Better to show nothing and wait the final. What we see here is not the yolk of the egg anyway.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Oct 10, 2012)

I have downed shots from many places yet, I have at least a 30 different pictures at many iso rates. But, only Steve Huff has shots that look clean, but none was posted . All, others are without noticeable sharpness and some even looked foggy. What I see until now gives me not the impression that this camera is a wonder-work. I wait till I get more full sized shots, the ones off Steve Huff show no disturbing noise at 25600 iso, those from Imaging resource show quiet uniform noise of medium strength at ISO 1000. So, who has the good camera then of the both? Is Huff's camera better and IR's worth. The shots posted on DPR yesterday where nothing to worry about, compared to those of my NEX-7 that draws better detail, to my opinion, despite being worse in higher ISO. Nothing makes me now think to buy this camera. I am interested in such a gadget, but then it really has to be worth the money I spend.

0 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Oct 10, 2012)

I've read many comments of how the RX1 is too expensive for what it does. Seriously?

If the first thoughts that enters your mind when you think of the RX1 is that your Canon, Nikon, or Sony full frame camera already offers you the same quality images, and has the ability to use interchangeable lenses for around the same price, then you were never the demographic Sony intended to target with this camera.

The intended user is someone that will instantly identify how special the RX1 is with the amount of quality it packs into such a small package.

The intended demographic of the RX1 are photographers that need a discrete (small, silent), high quality camera/lens combo, such as close candid street photographers, documentary photographers, event photographers, people that want the freedom of using a small high quality single lens, single focal length camera they can take almost anywhere.

6 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Oct 10, 2012)

News flash. Some people only like to shoot 35mm and don't want to buy a bulky full frame DSLR just to use a high quality 35mm lens. For them this could be the perfect camera.

Geez. I might not even buy this camera. But it's extremely easy for me to appreciate it and understand it's significance and how valuable it will be to photographers that want / need a discrete high quality camera. The RX1 is a first of it's kind.

4 upvotes
mm1975
By mm1975 (Oct 10, 2012)

You can have a look at some more samples

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/

and

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/sony-rx1GALLERY.HTM

0 upvotes
dmartin92
By dmartin92 (Oct 10, 2012)

For me, I am surprised how many people are still looking at how a camera does with high ISO as being the criteria to decide if a camera is good or not.

For me, this camera is small, has a 35mm lens on it, and is full frame. At f/2 there will be limited DOF, for reasonably close subjects.

2 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Oct 10, 2012)

There are many factors to consider when judging a camera. For some people high ISO performance might matter more than other factors, depending on how they intend to use the camera.

Personally, i'm looking for a discrete camera capable of good (to my standards) ISO in the 3200-6400 range for street photography when available light is not at it's best. This is important to me. Thankfully for me the selection of cameras with good high ISO is growing.

So to me, high ISO matters. It's not the only thing that matters, but it definitely matters for how I would use a camera such as the RX1.

1 upvote
nawknai
By nawknai (Oct 10, 2012)

Seriously. At this point, it's six of one, half dozen of the other.

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Oct 11, 2012)

Lots of cameras take nice pictures at the beach on a sunny day.

Nice pictures from a candle-lit social gathering is another thing.

ISO matters to me for sure.

1 upvote
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Oct 10, 2012)

Wow, this camera is worth every penny. Just look at this high ISO samples... http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Oct 10, 2012)

Sample shots from a camera that effectively still does not exist are really useful.
(If a camera isn't in the stores, it's vaporware -- something that Sony produces in quantity.)

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Oct 10, 2012)

Grossly overstated. The camera quite clearly exists.

I really think you should review the definition of vaporware.

9 upvotes
jon404
By jon404 (Oct 10, 2012)

As a now-retired practitioner of vaporware marketing for computer products, my definition is that basically you shoot photos of a empty case, add faux screen shot, and run your ad or put out your brochure in full expectation that the product will be shipping by the time your ad comes out in the magazines. Great when it works: hilarious when it doesn't. Based on this definition, the Sony camera is semi-vaporware -- a few working ones DO exist, with more on the way soon enough.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 10, 2012)

How is the RX1 even "semi-vaporware"? Pre-production units have reached reviewers just like all previous models of the countless cameras that have actually shipped. Crowbarring a label like "vaporware" on a camera from a major vendor with an actual track record is just silly considering Sony didn't delay production of the RX1 even once as far as we know.

3 upvotes
RMDesai
By RMDesai (Oct 10, 2012)

I am interested in how well will this compare against Canon M (body only) + EF adapter + Canon 50mm f1.8 lens

2 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (Oct 10, 2012)

DP2 Merrill low-ISO shots may even exceed these in resolution.

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Oct 10, 2012)

Yes they do but that doesn't diminish the RX1 in the least.

4 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Oct 10, 2012)

Sure, but the DP2 Merrill don't have the same dynamic range at low iso, often has weird color splotches at ISO 200 and at anything ISO 400 and higher the Sony will start to pull ahead more and more and more.

The D2PM is great if you are shooting at ISO 100/200 in full spectrum daylight. Outside of that... the RX1 can shoot anything else...

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
1 upvote
jsis
By jsis (Oct 9, 2012)

Perfect backup camera for journalism?

3 upvotes
Joes Raw Talk
By Joes Raw Talk (Oct 9, 2012)

the low light shots, particularly the last one with the musician, are really good.
That said, for most good available light situations I see no advantage for me in terms of image quality over the K5. And I get to use a more versatile lens.

I like what it is capable of but in no way find it a 'must have' camera at its introduction price. Maybe at $1,199 I would bite, not before.

2 upvotes
Amateurbob
By Amateurbob (Oct 9, 2012)

The sample pictures have to be looked at with the caveat that they are from a pre-production model. They do not compare well with sample pictures from a newer camera less than a third the price, the Nikon D3200. My first criterion in a camera is dynamic range. From the samples it appears that the dynamic range of the RX1 is not as broad as that of the D3200, albeit the D3200 is one of the best in this category. Improvements in the production model will be interesting but of academic interest only. $2800 for a fixed lens camera without an articulated screen is for the 1%. Put a removable lens on it, and articulated screen and a price of $1000 (an APS-C sensor would be fine) then I will emulate the 1% and buy it depending on what dpreview finds for its dynamic range. Or I will not wait and buy a NEX camera now.

0 upvotes
twald
By twald (Oct 9, 2012)

It is next to impossible to judge the dynamic range of a modern camera by their jpeg output. The dynamic range of even mediocre sensors is much larger than that afforded by jpeg and what your screen can reproduce.
High dynamic range becomes useful only when special processes are applied, such as Nikon ADR or the Sony DRO, and when post-processing processing the raw file

3 upvotes
trekkeruss
By trekkeruss (Oct 10, 2012)

The Sony sensor is more than twice as large, and its pixels are larger as well. So there is virtually no way the RX1 is going to have less dynamic range than the D3200.

2 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Oct 9, 2012)

No wide open shots lead me to assume this lens is a piece of krappe wide open.

0 upvotes
sroute
By sroute (Oct 9, 2012)

Brilliant deduction.

Flaw in your logic: Others have posted images produced with the lens wide open.

2 upvotes
ianimal
By ianimal (Oct 9, 2012)

There are 3 F2.0 images: DSC00047 DSC00049 DSC00070
The last one is the white sign.

4 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Nov 8, 2012)

Oh my God! Are any of you real photographers? Those 3 F2 samples are about as useful as a bag of dirt.

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Oct 9, 2012)

The difference between the IQ of RX1 and X-Pro 1 is remarkable.
I am talking about IQ at ISO ca. 6400, based on DPR samples,
where RX1 shows a much better performance.
X100 is a sad compromise compared to RX1 in IQ at high ISO.
Conclusion: RX1 has a relative price advantage to X-Pro 1.
Conclusion: APS-C is NOT FF.
I hope IQ of APS-Cs can catch up with RX1, but until then this is the high ISO king of non DSLRs.

7 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Oct 11, 2012)

The 3200 ISO barrier seems to be a limit for current techonlogy sensors (in terms of DXO). The similar limitation to APS-C: about ISO 1300. So, no hope here.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ianimal
By ianimal (Oct 9, 2012)

Like the RX100 the RX1 is all about size and performance.
Not just performance. Sony likes to make things small, they have
done that before. E.g. Walkman and small radios.
The RX1 remains me about old small 35mm film cameras, something
I used in the 80's and 90's as my only camera.
The RX1 is to expensive for me, and a FF NEX would be more usefull.
So I wait... but maybe a used RX1 one day if I can get it cheap :)

2 upvotes
OldZorki
By OldZorki (Oct 9, 2012)

This is an awesome camera. Give it up, people, most of us cannot afford it - as it is not a main working tool of a pro and not a toy #1 for an amateur.. But how many of us would snap it for a grand?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
WCguy
By WCguy (Oct 10, 2012)

Sorry bought one, now might buy a second one.

0 upvotes
andreaThode
By andreaThode (Oct 9, 2012)

Dear dpreview, why oh why aren't you shooting a fast lens the way it is meant to shoot, like, wide open @ f2? So many f4.0 nighttime shots. Yes, we all know it performs better if stopped down, thats why I had high hopes to see how it performs in low light wide open. Would've also kept down the ISO2.500 to1.600 but maybe thats just how I see it.

It's like having a noctilux but prefering to bump up the ISO to shoot at 2.8.
And yes we all know that it's a pre-production camera ....

2 upvotes
mischivo
By mischivo (Oct 9, 2012)

This may be a novel concept, but shooting a lens at anything but it's wides iris setting is possible, and frequently desirable. I rarely shoot my fastest lenses wide open.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (Oct 10, 2012)

FF f2.0 35mm at say 10 feet from the focus point is all of about 3 feet worth of DOF. Maybe you want that compositionally, maybe you don't. It's nice to have that option, but stopping down to f4.0 when light permis does drastically increase your DOF from 3 feet to 6.5 feet.

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Oct 9, 2012)

Sorry, I do not need those expensive camera. I see nothing that I could not with my current cameras also. . .
I think buy, prefer another X100 Black Edition;)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
lds2k
By lds2k (Oct 9, 2012)

Colors appear to be faded in most shots., nothing that can't be fixed. quite a shallow DOF wide open

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Oct 9, 2012)

Faded? More like ... natural?

4 upvotes
Barend
By Barend (Oct 9, 2012)

Just wait one year and there will be an interchangeable lens version just like Fujifilm did with the X100 and X-PRO1.

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Oct 9, 2012)

you mean the rumored NEX-9?

0 upvotes
sroute
By sroute (Oct 9, 2012)

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?

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Oct 10, 2012)

Maybe; maybe not. In any case it well be a very different camera that won't intrude on the RX1's attributes.

0 upvotes
Ace Disgrace
By Ace Disgrace (Oct 9, 2012)

oh man! cant wait to get my hands on that baby!!!

7 upvotes
y3a
By y3a (Oct 9, 2012)

It appears the excellence in this camera is its high ISO performance. While the street photographs are good, there are many compact enthusiast models less expensive that produce as good or better images.
$2800 is a bunch for marginally useful high ISO photographs at 35mm.
The full frame doesn't appear particularly useful for some reason. I think with digitally reproduced images we are accustomed to over saturated photos.

0 upvotes
shahid11235
By shahid11235 (Oct 9, 2012)

These sample photos look very impressive to me.

3 upvotes
parallaxproblem
By parallaxproblem (Oct 9, 2012)

Nice sensor, great concept but mediocre lens, at least that's what I see in these photos. High ISO performance seems very good by my standards but the street photograpahy I thought this camera was built for lacked the 'wow' I was expecting at the price and spec

I guess the odd white balance in some of the images will get corrected in the production firmware, but the softness in some of the ISO100 daylight photos and the surpsingly obvious distortion must come from the lens - a bit disappointing for a 35mm Zeiss prime lens

2 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Oct 11, 2012)

Agree. The lens suffers from noticeable distortion, high field curvature. Great example of what a fixed lens should not looks like. Sorry sony, but this thing should not cost $2800: the body should cost much lower than $2000 — it's not a DSLR with their mechanical crap within. I think the real cost is about $1200-1300. The lens is cheap and is not that great. I guess its cost is about $300-$400. So, $1700 for this body. Not $2800.

1 upvote
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (Oct 9, 2012)

Lovely - but I still feel that the price is way way too high. Come on Sony - we all know it's a winner - so why are you doing a Leica and pricing it out of the reach of all but the few? Or is this all part of your plan to build the Sony brand within the camera market?

If so, I really hope that Fuji take you on - sure they won't make the same mistake with the price point....

3 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Oct 9, 2012)

No if they were doing a Leica this would cost over $10,000. $2800 is well within reason for a full frame sensor and a top-shelf Zeiss 35/2. Unfortunately for most people, the fact that the sensor and lens are inseparable means the sum is worth less than the parts.

You will probably get your wish in the rumored Fuji X200, which should have the X-Trans sensor.

0 upvotes
vladimir vanek
By vladimir vanek (Oct 10, 2012)

you can buy a decent FF DSLR + a good lens for the price. and I don't believe that your audience would note a difference in the IQ. :) it simply IS overpriced in my opinion...

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Oct 10, 2012)

But the point is, vlad, that you can't then put that DSLR in a large pocket, or shoot it discretely.

2 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Oct 10, 2012)

A FF DSLR with a 35/2 lens is not comparable to the RX1. That's like saying the RX100 should be compared to a D3200 with a kit lens based on cost and equivalent aperture. Their footprints are drastically different.

1 upvote
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Oct 11, 2012)

@JackM
This lens is not top-shelf. May be it is sharp enough, but distortion and field curvature are too noticeable. Much more noticeable than expected for good fixed lens. The body should be pretty cheap compared to DSLRs. I guess it is overpriced at about $1k.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Oct 9, 2012)

On the other hand, if the rumored Fuji X200 gets the X-Trans sensor, that could be a real contender at a fraction of the price.

0 upvotes
Jefftan
By Jefftan (Oct 9, 2012)

I want to ask a question
if all these are shoot on a NEX-5N with Zeiss 24mm

Will any one find out any difference even pixel peeping at 100%?

I really doubt it

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Oct 9, 2012)

never mind

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Oct 10, 2012)

Well, with depth of field they certainly would notice. f2.0 on a FF is very short DOF. Beyond that I kind of agree with you though. There are a lot of pictures I take with compacts that look indistinguishable from bigger cameras. A lot of the value in a camera doesn't show up in the picture it's very true. You may not need all the detail or depth of field a setup is capable of for a given shot and focusing speed doesn't often affect the end result of a still shot ;)

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Oct 9, 2012)

After looking at some cameras using the Sony 16mp APS-C sensor high ISO shots, this camera does not seem all that impressive. The hi ISO shots are soft.

If you don't need the slight improvement of resolution and the stronger bokeh at the given (fixed) focal length of this camera, I'd look for a camera with an APS-C sensor. Get a NEX with a fixed lens for 1/4 the price.

I will say that Sony's 24mp APS-C sensor is disappointing in the high ISO department compared to the 16mp version and this FF sensor.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Jefftan
By Jefftan (Oct 9, 2012)

What you point out is a real important question
What is the real advantage of going full frame and not just this camera
To me if not after shallow DOF no real need to go full frame

Lots of disadvantage besides cost and only real gain may be slightly higher dynamic range (which is enough if processing RAW in APS-C) and better high ISO (also OK with fast lens and APS-C)

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Oct 9, 2012)

Before you gag on the price, consider that to get similar performance, bare minimum you would need to spend $2100 on a Nikon D600 and $1620 for the 35/1.4. Forget the cheap 35/2, it can't keep up with this Zeiss. And then you have a big heavy bulky camera that you don't want to bring everywhere, and which puts people off when you point it at them in candid situations. And add $100 for a bag.

I'm seriously considering selling my 35/1.4 for this.

3 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Oct 9, 2012)

The 35mm f/2.0 is actually very good on the D800. But if you want something even better then get the Voigtländer 40mm f/2.0 which is excellent, but not an AF lens. Think the Voigtländer is something like $500.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Oct 9, 2012)

Meh. $600 28/1.8 is closer.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Oct 9, 2012)

I suppose you could say this Sony is actually a tiny D600 and all you are giving up is interchangable lenses but it still seems like an odd comparison. Unless the only lens you ever use is a 35mm, then it makes sense.

0 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Oct 9, 2012)

Why is 28/1.8 closer than a 35mm lens? Both are full frame cameras.

0 upvotes
andreaThode
By andreaThode (Oct 9, 2012)

Spot on, JackM! And yes, I personally love to shoot fixed lenses. And 35mm is my prefered focal length for street/travel/always on.
And thats where this little lightweight comes into play.

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Oct 9, 2012)

Thanks, but the problem, andrea, is that there are viable alternatives that are "good enough" for a lot less money. Sony NEX, Fuji X-E1, X100. Not to mention the forthcoming Fuji X200 and Sony NEX-9.

0 upvotes
Dan Ortego
By Dan Ortego (Oct 9, 2012)

These last few additional photos are impressive, and I'm caring less about the price at this point. The photos of the Books, Bottles and 'The Big 4' are my favorites.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Oct 9, 2012)

I was more impressed with the daylight shots. The bottles and Big 4" are ISO 400. Not a big deal for the sensor. The model shots and other higher ISO images were something of a let down. The Sony 16mp APS-C sensor gives you pretty much the same high ISO performance at much less cost.

0 upvotes
SthlmKid
By SthlmKid (Oct 9, 2012)

I also recommend you to watch steve huff pic's.

If I had the money this would be a very nice camera indeed.

1 upvote
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Oct 9, 2012)

Oh, the image quality is so good, even at ISO 25600!
Good job, Sony.

1 upvote
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (Oct 9, 2012)

At £2599 I would expect a totally brilliant camera! I mean what a price! I wonder how many Sony will sell? I wouldn't want to pay this price for any camera. But, I suppose, if you really want to make Sony shareholders rich, then go ahead. Do you really, really need it? or are you just a gadget geek?

1 upvote
Todd Ka
By Todd Ka (Oct 9, 2012)

No way this is a $2700 camera.

0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Oct 9, 2012)

It's not. It's a $2800 camera ;-)

7 upvotes
Peter Pauthner
By Peter Pauthner (Oct 9, 2012)

Unfortunately here in Germany it`s a 3.100 Euro (= 4.000 US-$) camera. ;-((

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Oct 9, 2012)

Joking about a hundred dollars tells me you are not even potential buyers. Nice hat

0 upvotes
jsis
By jsis (Oct 9, 2012)

you tell that to Leica owners.

0 upvotes
imbimmer
By imbimmer (Oct 9, 2012)

The high ISO samples are as good as it can get ... now I want the camera even more! :-)

0 upvotes
Mannypr
By Mannypr (Oct 9, 2012)

This Sony camera seems to be a depature from their traditional high quality Point and shoot cameras. Normally Sony cameras always had a rather soft contrast presentation in it's images . This camera gives very punchy JPG's . Detail is very good . Even if the price is a bit high I like what I see .

0 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Oct 9, 2012)

Looks like the X-Pro1 spanks the RX1's buttocks at high ISO.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 294
123