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
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 9, 2012)

Fairly pronounced barrel distortion in the image of the books. Unless this shot is RAW, that would seem to indicate that JPEGs aren't getting corrected for distortion. This is surprising.

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

These were all shot with distortion correction disabled, the camera's default setting. When we get a production sample for review, we'll do our usual side by side comparison.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 9, 2012)

Well, Sony has had problems with jpegs forever, but these look good. Anyway, this should be, in RAW, just like the D600, i.e., very good. Price is too high though, for a fixed lens camera w/o a VF.

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Oct 9, 2012)

Has there ever been a set of DPR sample pictures from a single camera where the comments haven't all screamed about how terrible they look, how the camera must be complete garbage then, and how whatever brand the poster subscribes too in much better?

10 upvotes
photophile
By photophile (Oct 9, 2012)

Wow factor: Possibility to record low-light interior shots at high ISO 25600, hand held, from a compact!

Not-so-wow: Price.

0 upvotes
ForeignerOnEarth
By ForeignerOnEarth (Oct 9, 2012)

Do you think, that the photographer, who pays $2800 wants such child's colouring book as we can see on the original resolution of the high-iso shots with the young girl on the table? There is the problem here: yes, this is digital compact and digital compacts makes such child's colouring book instead of photos. But such compacts have the price $280, not $2800 and has micro sensor, not full frame sensor.

0 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (Oct 9, 2012)

Any camera can produce weird colours if you crank up the ISO to several thousand and use random ambient light as the light source. Also, most users are likely to use RAW.

This is just a quick sample gallery. Photographers who buy the camera will have the time to get to know the camera and use proper light.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Ulfric M Douglas
By Ulfric M Douglas (Oct 9, 2012)

Just wondering why the musician and girl on desk were taken at F4 (according to DPReview info) rather than F2 ... ?
Such photos call for wide-open.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 9, 2012)

Because on FF at f2 DOF at such a close distance would be razor thin which could be a problem. With f4 you'll also get sharper images.

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

You hit the nail on the head, regarding DOF marike6. Sadly I've got a few really nice shots that I couldn't publish for that very reason:-)

0 upvotes
andreaThode
By andreaThode (Oct 9, 2012)

Now let me get this out of the way. You have an f2 lens on a FF camera but aren't willing to shoot it wide open because of the limited DOF?

Try an APS-C or even better m4/3 or best a Nikon1 then.
Shallower DOF from the getgo!

I thought that this sample images gallerie is supposed to show exactly that: a fixed, relatively fast lens on a FF body.
But hey, I could totally be wrong ...

0 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Oct 17, 2012)

F2 can be used in darker situation... with longer to subject distance. Just because you have an F2 lenses, you don't need to shoot F2 all the time. Hey, other F-numbers are also available.

0 upvotes
ForeignerOnEarth
By ForeignerOnEarth (Oct 9, 2012)

The single focal lens could be much better than this one is. Nothing sharp at f/2, bokeh is not O.K. and by smaller aperture the edges should be better.

0 upvotes
il_alexk
By il_alexk (Oct 9, 2012)

Are you sure it's the problem of the camera and not of the DPR rendering engine? Check the originals instead.

0 upvotes
ForeignerOnEarth
By ForeignerOnEarth (Oct 9, 2012)

Yes I am sure. In EXIF is Software = "DSC-RX1 ...", these are JPEGs from camera, no dpreview rendering could affect them.

0 upvotes
Spilios
By Spilios (Oct 9, 2012)

Have a look to Steve Huff samples....

0 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Oct 9, 2012)

the ones that are all downsized? really dont' tell much really .. even an APS-C camera will look half decent downsized to around 20% of original resolution.

0 upvotes
HBowman
By HBowman (Oct 9, 2012)

A SIGMA DP2 Merrill do better for far less money. My two cents ..

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 9, 2012)

Keeping in mind that a DP2 Merrill is not for low-light I had high hopes for it after checking out some remarkable SD1 images. But the official samples from Morocco had some weird artifacts like aliasing that I didn't expect to see.

I would not underestimate just how good the Sony sensor in the RX1 is likely to be. I'll also note that HDSLR video shooters will flock to the Sony as early video samples from the RX1 as impressive. For photography, I'd choose either the Fuji XE1 or XP1 over all of these. The X sensor cameras render fine detail extremely well, without looking brittle like the DP2 does at times.

1 upvote
HBowman
By HBowman (Oct 9, 2012)

Lol yea ^^ Look at what I do with a DP2 Merrill, hand-held in low light and come back for some extensive learning. I'm not that expensive.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/zfq0wej1x3rxv66/Church.jpg

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Oct 9, 2012)

That's what I thought too yet we have to get a production camera and Raw files to be certain.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Oct 9, 2012)

Not at ISO 25.600 :-)

1 upvote
Jefftan
By Jefftan (Oct 9, 2012)

I am not sure if it really is true but I sense that the color of feveon sensor is less rich than normal sensor

To me it capture lots of detail but don't seem to catch all the subtle tone and shade of color, which to me is more important than detail

Again this is only my impression. May not be real

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Oct 10, 2012)

A Sigma DP2 Merrill do better what? ISO 100/200 in good daylight assuming you have a scene that requires less dynamic range and the color splotches don't get in the way at ISO 200? Any moderate indoor photography situation and the RX1 is doing already way better.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Oct 10, 2012)

What you do with your Merrill there doesn't seem that low light. You have a bright area of the window. And the shot has hardly anything that puts the Foveon ahead of what an RX1 could do in the same situation. But keep comparing pre-production firmware JPEGs of the RX1 to your Sigma DP2 Merill RAW files and keep telling yourself your DP2M is far better :-)

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Oct 10, 2012)

@Marike6- yes, the Merrill is not for low light. Ever see how those who are fanatical about Foveon almost every single time they show a "low light shot" it's a tripod shot or a non moving subject or not a not-so low light shot? It's interesting.

It's like getting a good shot with a Canon S100 at a sport event and call the Canon S100 a great sports camera capable to outperform a Canon EOS Mark IV.

0 upvotes
spiderhunter
By spiderhunter (Oct 9, 2012)

There is no WOW factor. IQ looks pretty mundane to me. I think the Fuji x100 might do better than this one but then I only guessing at this stage. Another thought - how does this compares with the NEX 6 IQ, I wonder ...

6 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Oct 9, 2012)

I agree. Fuji is better, for sure. And x100 is much cheaper + EVF + OVF.

1 upvote
Eric Glam
By Eric Glam (Oct 9, 2012)

Though the photos submitted here were OoC JPEGs, I think I can draw a few conclusions.

1. It doesn't match the Nikon D4 and Canon 1D-X at high ISOs.

2. The lens, though supposedly good, is a limiting factor. I always need zoom!! There are many situations where you simply can't get close, and a zoom must be used. I wish the lens was 35-70mm f/2.0, for x2 zoom. This is really the bare minimum to justify buying a camera with a non-removable lens.

3. I wish it had an articulating LCD, like in the A77 and A99.

4. USB3.0 would have been more adequate in this day and age.

5. The price is a problem. Well, the price is always a problem, but for the RX1, Sony should have aimed for a lower target price.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Oct 9, 2012)

"It doesn't match the Nikon D4 and Canon 1D-X at high ISOs".
Perhaps it doesn't, but then again you're not camparing like with like.

4 upvotes
RichardAB
By RichardAB (Oct 9, 2012)

Too much nonesense is spoken about high ISO comparisons, imho.

Like many, I learnt photography using Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64. These days, shooting in the range of ISO 100 - 400 therefore seems to be high to me, a luxury in comparison. Just about anything can be shot in that range.

So, photographers who purport to use ISOs of 3,200 or 6,400 or even higher because they need to, well, are they really photographers? Or do they simply use high ISO comparisons as a means of justifying their own equipment choice, wanting to believe it's better and at the same time demean others' equipment?

17 upvotes
AngelicBeaver
By AngelicBeaver (Oct 9, 2012)

I find it interesting that so many people say that they grew up on ISO 25, etc so we should be happy with ISO 400. In the early days of photography, people had to sit for 30 second exposures in broad daylight. I suppose those early photographers chided the younger ones for not being satisfied with their five second "miracle" exposures.

Camera tech has come a long way in the last few years, but it seems to me that the ultimate goal would be to have a camera capable of capturing the image you see without the need of bulky accessories. Having to use a tripod is like having a laptop that needs to be plugged in to operate. It's been so in the past, but it isn't the ideal.

Most household lighting is low enough to require ISO 800 (with a fast lens). When cameras can capture clean images at lighting levels people like to hang around in, then ISO will no longer be such a debated factor. With that goal just around the corner, people are expecting each camera to deliver on the promise.

6 upvotes
AngelicBeaver
By AngelicBeaver (Oct 9, 2012)

The megapixel race is a good example. Back in the day, people were constantly wanting more (and then complaining when the counts got "too high"). But the technology is almost mature, and an equilibrium is nearly achieved. MP count is no longer THE factor in a camera. Consumers and manufacturers have moved on to the next area for improvement: High ISO. In a few years, they'll move on to something else (battery life? touchscreen interfaces? Wi-fi?). All with the goal of making the camera the most natural extension of our eyes and minds as possible.

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Oct 9, 2012)

@RichardAB

If I had a penny for every post that started with "when I learned photography...." I would be a millionaire.

I'm 52 and worked with film for 25 years. I also learned to write scientific software in assembler on computers with 16K of RAM, so by your logic I must have written very good software.

Not so. Those restrictions may have made me a good *programmer*, but the software was painfully crude and limited. Each 10X increase in RAM allowed a huge leap forward in the sophistication of software, but even when Gates said "640k was enough" in 1981, it was already inadequate by 1985, just as 2GB was inadequate by 2005.

Even in 1990, film was painfully restrictive in many circumstances where humans could still see perfectly well. Whole aspects of real life experience were avoided or reduced to grainy low quality. These aspects are now completely accessible. I see that as "a good thing".

If you don't understand that, are you really a photographer?

3 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Oct 9, 2012)

Well said RichardAB.
There is a limitation to low noise performance called *temperature* which will ultimately limit the SNR of a sensor.
The low ISO ranges will always eield superior images for a given technology.

1 upvote
Antony John
By Antony John (Oct 9, 2012)

@57Even,
You were lucky. I was using 'computers' with '1008 programmable steps' - 1 K memory way back when.
thing is that the programs worked perfectly in a time frame that was more than acceptable.
yes, I could use a new generation software package with add-ons that would be 100 MB (if I'm lucky) and look prettier but have no realistic advantage over the old basic 1K program.
It's called 'bloat ware'.
Comes down to 'needs and wants'.

1 upvote
Delacosta
By Delacosta (Oct 10, 2012)

Seems to me that all the "photographers" who need to shoot black cats running around in deep caves and are desperate for a 1000000 ISO camera will, once it's available, just be complaining about the cat being too slow.

1 upvote
57even
By 57even (Oct 10, 2012)

@Anthony John

Please write a photo editor in 1008 program steps.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Oct 9, 2012)

Very interesting images of the fire escape stairs on the side of the building.

The shadows and highlights were handled well.

It looks like it has been through an HDR process, which of course were not, the shadows showing texture instead of dark areas. The sensor technology used is outstanding.

.

2 upvotes
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (Oct 9, 2012)

We all were desperate for sample shots, true? Now here is the earliest possible series of them - a basic and trivial one, indeed. Thank you dpreview, carry on, and can we have a detailled review one day, please?

0 upvotes
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (Oct 9, 2012)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonyelectronics/sets/72157631631658271/with/8028155112/

0 upvotes
Jefftan
By Jefftan (Oct 9, 2012)

I really don't see much difference between this and a good APS-C camera
if one is not after very shallow DOF, no reason to go full frame

The advantage in low light can be obtain by a fast lens in APS-C

3 upvotes
Jefftan
By Jefftan (Oct 9, 2012)

maybe there is some dynamic advantage but that is not obvious unless by side by side comparison testing

0 upvotes
ostenh
By ostenh (Oct 9, 2012)

As sample pictures come, these were the most fun and interesting I've seen in a while. Nice job Amadou!

3 upvotes
jon404
By jon404 (Oct 9, 2012)

Oh! There's one of an old San Fran F streetcar -- looks exactly the same as when I was a kid in the '50s... except for a little handicapped-access sticker. Progress!

I'm no photo expert, but tell me -- how can you offer an opinion on image quality when you are looking at them in JPG format on a computer screen? Don't you have to actually print the image -- on a decent printer -- to get true idea of the original image quality?

1 upvote
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (Oct 9, 2012)

That depends on your (end) usage. I for example have to deliver my images by internet to my client (media&news agency) they are judging the images always from screen (JPEG) even they are used for paper based printing.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
1 upvote
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Oct 9, 2012)

print an image is so '50s :) Nowday, you post on facebook, flickr, picasa, send by mail, upload on the cloud. And few people have high-end calibrated screen. So the sample are good enough for web viewing. But at 100%, the mermaid on the desk show not so good high iso, even at 200iso, of course, at smaller size, it's good enough. Either 24mpx is too much pixel count, even for FF or Sony jpeg engine is bad.

0 upvotes
drissised
By drissised (Oct 9, 2012)

sample images are disappointing, hope the RX1 can do better !!

0 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (Oct 9, 2012)

I do like the samples, the boke looks very pleasing and the color, contrast and sharpness looks good too.

The question is however, why would I buy this camera. It seems (if I have to believe the friendly Sony chap at Photokina) to be aimed at professional photographers, needing a smaller/more compact body but with the quality of a DSLR.

Image quality is hardly a point anymore (except for 5% of the pixel turds), quality is already uber good for the past 5 years. functionality is what counts, especially for professional photographers and the functionality of a DSLR aimed at professional usage cannot be found in a compact (yet) not in any, so also not this one. Marketing and price do not change anything to that.

So Sony marketing may tell me that it is aimed at professional photographers, I say it's aimed at a small niche market and it is a niche product.

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Oct 9, 2012)

A painting's art is not in how fine the brush strokes are.
I get that the realism of a picture can invoke greater emotional response but in the end the image is more than pixels. It's a great time in the camera world where we $&@% and moan over the last 5% of image quality and spend thousands to get there. Spend away! Buy cheaper cameras too but please take good pics and share them. I wish you all great luck with the sport of moment and image capture. Admit it. We are all just gear geeks looking for the next toy. I think I will read a book to help me take better pics than spend a few thousand on something that won't.

26 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Oct 9, 2012)

Well said!

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Oct 9, 2012)

Books don't help you to take better pictures, open your eyes.

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Oct 9, 2012)

They do, rage Joe. The eye needs training too. Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye" helped me improve my pictures dramatically. It made me aware of things I simply had no notion - and I don't mean technical matters.

6 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Oct 9, 2012)

Like some say, it's not the depth of field that matters, it's the depth of feelings in a picture that matters

3 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Oct 9, 2012)

I can learn a lot from the pros reading their books. When I am that damn good where the last 5% of image quality matters I will spend the thousands and thousands at that time. By that time I can pick this up on EBay for $200 and laugh my ass off at my own inside joke.

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Oct 9, 2012)

@ManuelVilardeMacedo - excellent book, so is his 'Perfect Exposure'. I agree, books are excellent source and do help us improve our skills. Yes, we must have an eye but there's also skill involved.

0 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Oct 9, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Oct 9, 2012)

I thought so too. Much cheaper to boot.

2 upvotes
NektonFi
By NektonFi (Oct 9, 2012)

Surely DP2merrill is a lot sharper than any Bayer sensor camera (except for D800 when normalized to DP2 resolution). However, Sigmas are dreadful at any sensitivities above ISO 200.

1 upvote
smatty
By smatty (Oct 9, 2012)

Olympus JPG engine? Have you tried the Fuji X-Pro 1 JPG engine? I want the Fuji Engine in my Canon FF DSLR's, too! :)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 9, 2012)

Which DP2 Merrill Samples? The Morocco ones from Sigma's website. I was actually thinking of buying a DP2 UNTIL I saw those samples with the aliasing.

I agree with smatty re: X-Pro1 JPEG engine. Really first rate. Olympus JPEGS may have been decent way back when, but with the EM-5 they are only average.

0 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Oct 9, 2012)

I'm not familiar with x-pro 1 jpegs but the older fuji's jpegs especially those with super CCD tend to have some weird patterns in out of focus or dark areas which i didn't really like. But when it comes to colours, i must say Fuji pretty much rules. Of course all these are personal preferences like there'll be people who'll hate how sharp the DP2 merrill looks.

0 upvotes
Nordstjernen
By Nordstjernen (Oct 9, 2012)

Aliasing, problems with large bright neutral surfaces, and poor medium & high ISO performance keeps me from getting the DP2. Also, a Bayer matrix sensor with about 1.7 x the native pixel count of a Foveon type sensor should give the same resolution and sharpness.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
1 upvote
AnHund
By AnHund (Oct 9, 2012)

You may ask yourself why Sigma does not sell very many cameras.

0 upvotes
sroute
By sroute (Oct 10, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
Yanko Kitanov
By Yanko Kitanov (Oct 9, 2012)

Good lens as long as these shots are concerned, but nothing spectacular.

Why is there a subtle NR engaged at ISO100? Is it possible to switch it off and make less flat shots with a less plastic feel to the fine/low-contrast detail?

Cheers!

5 upvotes
gianstam
By gianstam (Oct 9, 2012)

I had in my mind to write the exact same thing. About plastic feel, oise reduction but mainly the loss (or the feel of loss) of microcontrast

2 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Oct 9, 2012)

Sooner or later someone else here will have the bright idea of checking pics from different cameras side by side. Then the astonishing truth becomes apparent - there aint hardly any difference between these products. Especially at base ISO in bright sunlight.

Sorry you had to hear that from an amateur and one who has used the same digital camera for 5 years and honestly can't get his friends with their regularly upgraded super duper stuff to show him the difference pictorially.

13 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (Oct 9, 2012)

1. I don't take pictures "in bright sunlight"
2. There is HUGE difference in shadows detail and ISO performance in different cameras.
3. You need to see an eye doctor if you can't see any difference between modern cameras
4. Get a decent screen (no TN panels please, those are junk)

6 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 9, 2012)

@2 - you need to be one of these poor pixel-peepers that you see a HUGE differences.

3 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 9, 2012)

Hugo808 is spot on. Of course, just like a wine connoisseur's trained palatte can discern differences between wines which would be lost on the majority, so the trained eye can see differences in the technical qualities of photographs at pixel level which are of no consequence to the enjoyment the rest of us gain from the picture at a normal viewing distance.

4 upvotes
misolo
By misolo (Oct 9, 2012)

Plastek: are you suggesting that you cannot see the difference between a compact camera and a full-frame sensor at, say, ISO 3200? If that's the case, and assuming you have your corrective eyewear sorted out, I suggest a brain MRI scan at the earliest.

3 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Oct 9, 2012)

@misolo: I believe Plastek and Hugo808 are referring to cameras in similar class. Now, we even have relatively compact cameras with large sensors (e.g. Fujifilm and Canon G1X), and the performance difference between APS-C and FF sensors is only ~ 1 stop.

0 upvotes
micdair
By micdair (Oct 9, 2012)

The trouble is that the "bright sunlight" is not the ideal condition for taking beautiful pictures... and even in these conditions the dynamic range may make a difference - although you won't notice it, it may influence the impression you get from the photo (and will allow some more freedom in post process of-course).

Surely the $3000 camera won't turn a bad photographer into a good one. It's just a tool.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 9, 2012)

It's a DOF thing. FF images look different because they don't have DOF compromised like the crop sensor cameras.

0 upvotes
telefunk
By telefunk (Oct 9, 2012)

Exactly my feelings. I take a picture at 100 iso of the same spot in my garden with every camera that comes into this house. The results have been disquieting. Some cheap tiny cameras take better pictures than Sony Nex. Why 100 iso? Because I hardly need to use anything else, even in dark buildings (steady hand, good stabilization...). And yes, I agree the dark areas come out better with bigger sensors.

0 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (Oct 9, 2012)

Now ISO 100 might work for you while taking shots of still subjects, but please do try that ISO 100 inside a dark building while shooting anything that moves or walks around.
Please, come back after the test and share your results with us. I just can't wait to see how that ISO 100 from a cheap cam with your "steady hand" came out.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Oct 9, 2012)

Of course any camera can make a reasonably good image under ideal lighting (for the sensor not photography) like bright sun light. You don't pay for the latest/best gear to for what it does when you have ideal conditions, you pay for them for how they preform when the going gets tough.

Plus there are other things like ergonomics, size, control layout and build quality that factor in to what camera you should buy as well. It is not a simple as comparing a few shots taken under ideal conditions and declaring there is no differnce in the pictures.

0 upvotes
evoprox
By evoprox (Oct 9, 2012)

Just another home run for Sony's innovation mill. While I'm not of the list of potential buyers of an RX1 I can't wait to see the first FF MILC out there, there is just no way around it.
Who'll come first ? Will Sony take the plunge ? However, Leitz would be well advised to focus on what they do best - lenses.
This or that way, golden times ahead - techwise.

1 upvote
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Oct 9, 2012)

I will get this camera and keep it in my Porsches glove box.

12 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Oct 9, 2012)

and then once you've done all that, you open the good old book with grammar and will learn to use apostrophes in appropriate places (foreigner here)

2 upvotes
hc44
By hc44 (Oct 9, 2012)

But disregard capitalization and full stops, they're not so important.

6 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Oct 9, 2012)

@hc44 - you deserve 'like' for your comment, made my day :)

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
abluesky
By abluesky (Oct 9, 2012)

sample images.

Not really impressed with them.

Yes sharp, but kind of flat.

Need to see an artist use this camera.

0 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Oct 9, 2012)

Well I think that images lack of sharpness and I think that there is a problem in magentas...

0 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Oct 17, 2012)

Flatness means DR is great.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Oct 9, 2012)

We need to buy more cameras like this.

Innovative efforts should be rewarded.

This camera is brilliant in concept.

.

12 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Oct 9, 2012)

Indeed.

However, with a list price of US$2800, this camera is dead in the water even before it's released. Sony needs to look over their shoulder and see what their competitors offer: Nikon D600 and Canon 6D both cost much less even with an entry level lens thrown in. Sure, their competitors' cameras are bigger, but price is always the sticky point.

5 upvotes
kennyv9000
By kennyv9000 (Oct 9, 2012)

Dead in the water? Do you know how much its pre order already in China markets?

Its really not for you, go back to your canikon please...

2 upvotes
Todd Ka
By Todd Ka (Oct 9, 2012)

$2800 for a fixed lens pocket camera is insane.

2 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Oct 17, 2012)

"Sony needs to look over their shoulder and see what their competitors offer"

Canikon don't offer compact FF. No one does.

0 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Oct 17, 2012)

Oppss.. Leica does, and the price of RX-1 is relatively cheap.

0 upvotes
jwang88
By jwang88 (Oct 9, 2012)

I love the detail and skin tone of the camera but if you look closely to the shadow area you can see lots of wired unevenness (splotch) which is really a surprise to me as those shots were shot at ISO 100. As a FF camera with such a high end lens should produce very smooth graduation in the shadow area.

4 upvotes
Joe Shaffer
By Joe Shaffer (Oct 9, 2012)

I noticed this too. I suspect this is something they'll iron out in the final push before it hits shelves.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Oct 9, 2012)

right. the shadows look like it came from a small sensor. they must have tweaked this camera to do better at higher ISOs and not ISO100, which I dislike. no wonder, a poster said below that camera IQ remains almost the same throughout the years probably due to MP race.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Oct 9, 2012)

edit that. i will have to wait for the RAW files, it could be a little better.

0 upvotes
marcoi
By marcoi (Oct 9, 2012)

completely agree

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 9, 2012)

"right. the shadows look like it came from a small sensor." - definitely you seen different shots then these posted here.

3 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Oct 9, 2012)

nah, i'm sure by it. pretty sure they would fix it through NR.

0 upvotes
dmartin92
By dmartin92 (Oct 9, 2012)

This is my vote for the most interesting camera of 2012.

I'd look at it as being more of a test prototype that is being sold to consumers. The ones that really want it.

Instead of having a 23mm lens on it, it has a 35mm lens on it, which gives it the option of DOF control.

But it's just so amazing to see the thing in people's hands. It's "tiny", for a FF digital camera.

Sony will eventually sell the sensor to other companies. They'll make money that way too. This camera shows just how small the camera can be. Great marketing tool for the sensor.

14 upvotes
KAMSA
By KAMSA (Oct 9, 2012)

+1

reg.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Oct 9, 2012)

+1 from me too ... if it was no sony .., but still its good that some company starts to build cameras like that one.

0 upvotes
io_bg
By io_bg (Oct 9, 2012)

They're already selling the sensor, it's found in the D600.

2 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (Oct 9, 2012)

I wonder how long before the usual two suspects say the G15 is better? Okay..I am kidding (I think).

Have to admit I am wondering about the Fuji X-E 1 with the 35 1.4 as a conbo vs the RX1. Just how much of a difference will there be?

Thanks for these samples DPR.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
1 upvote
rjx
By rjx (Oct 9, 2012)

Since the X-E1 is an apsc, the real comparison would be with the 23mm 1.4 lens Fuji's releasing next year.

2 upvotes
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Oct 9, 2012)

Not sure why the sample shots are soft - I was able to try an RX1 as well and it was ridiculously sharp.

4 upvotes
love_them_all
By love_them_all (Oct 9, 2012)

On top of the low light shot how about some that shows close range distortion (or the correction of it), and some that shows the bokeh?

0 upvotes
Pito
By Pito (Oct 9, 2012)

please get rid of the AA filter... this was my dream camera all along, I also wished for a built in digital viewfinder, but its ok i can live with this.. but please let go of the AA filter

1 upvote
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Oct 9, 2012)

Please don't listen to this person. There's already more than enough resolution to make the AA filter irrelevant; and the advantage of an AA filter is overwhelming.

0 upvotes
cinemascope
By cinemascope (Oct 9, 2012)

+1

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cinemascope
By cinemascope (Oct 9, 2012)

fully agree. the concept of the aa filter is just mind boggling. id much rather have moire sometimes than mushiness everytime. and its not just about resolution. the aa filter also affects color since it makes the individual bayer pixels overlap. just get rid of it already.
since owing a sigma ive made a personal vouch of not buying any aa filtered cameras anymore. you really cant beat a sigma outdoors, and if they werent so bad indoors i wouldnt need anything else. their lenses are also much better than people give them credit for. anyway, the pentax k5iis and xpro1 are the next on my shopping list... wish the gh3 or the upcoming gx2 also had a filterless version... m43 cameras are great for casual happy snapping and for when you cant be bothered to think about all the camera's quirks in order to get a quick-but-still-good shot

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Oct 9, 2012)

wow, images in full colour!, and under beautiful sun light! incredible

4 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Oct 9, 2012)

send the camera to me, see what I can do with it.

1 upvote
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Oct 9, 2012)

Looks like a bunch of uninstresting snapshots in bright sunshine. Seems like almost any camera could make these images.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
11 upvotes
fox-orian
By fox-orian (Oct 9, 2012)

Not sure what you were expecting, here..?
I'm sure you know that it's not the camera that makes the shot interesting, so I won't jam that down your throat. But really, the DPR guys are probably busy people. They can't spend a week with the RX1 trying to get super artistic and high concept shots just to curate a small online gallery. All they need are basic shots for demonstration's sake. These foot the bill just fine.

(That said, just because the RX1 is capable of capturing reality just are finely as other cameras, doesn't mean a person interested in the RX1 should just go out and buy the standard-issue Canon or Nikon, anyway. It's all up to individual preference of the little things that matter to them.)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
a l b e r t
By a l b e r t (Oct 9, 2012)

The Fuji XE-1 + the upcoming 23mm f/1.4 lens should match or exceed the image quality of the RX-1 for half the money.

7 upvotes
gdfthr73
By gdfthr73 (Oct 9, 2012)

Ya with an EVF and interchangeable lenses no contest for me.

6 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Oct 9, 2012)

apsc vs ff

no contest at all

3 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Oct 9, 2012)

f2.0 ain't exactly the fastest lens ever made. APS-C with fast glass (f1.4) will have the same amount of light. The Fuji sensor has proven to do more with less so I think with equal light it should beat out it's larger sensor competition with it's fixed f2.0 lens. And the 2mp EVF is included in the cost ;)

0 upvotes
a l b e r t
By a l b e r t (Oct 9, 2012)

ff? The AA filter killed it. My XPro1 produces more details than the RX1 samples.

2 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Oct 9, 2012)

No. At first, f2 lenses are (much) easier to design and build than f1.4 to achieve the same level of abberations. At the second it's FF vs APS-C, so your fuji 23/1.4 needs to have 1.53 times more resolution and sharpness to achieve the same details, but this is highly unlikely because, again, the f2 lens is easier to desisgn + longer focal lengths (35 > 23) are easier to achieve higher resolution figures and local contrast. And, again, with FF sensor you will still get better details than APS-C even with X-Trans and will get MUCH better colors (what were traded for high iso resolution in fuji camera):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/samples/d600vsXpro.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/samples/d600vXpro-6400.zip

5 upvotes
Ryan_Valiente
By Ryan_Valiente (Oct 9, 2012)

And here they are .. the Fuji Fanboys.

2 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Oct 9, 2012)

I am not really a true Fuji Fanboy, just a little bit, but just compare the high iso pictures taken with a X-Pro1 to any camera you want. Looks like it has less noise than even a Nikon D4 at moderate high iso settings.

1 upvote
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Oct 9, 2012)

The Fuji X-pro image at 100% crop has a weird look; water colour painting. Even if you resample the effect is visible. It also has less colour resolution. It's not a clear winner.

1 upvote
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Oct 9, 2012)

@Rage Joe:
Take a look at here (D600 with little chroma denoise downsampled to 16Mp vs Fuji XPro-1, both ISO6400).
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/samples/d600vsXpro.png
D600 has less noise (in general, they have different noise character), more details, MUCH better colors.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Oct 9, 2012)

Pretty good pics. Just bit lacking "character". Tho it does look like ZA lens, so its probably pretty close to putting 24-70mm ZA on A99 and zooming to that 35mm.

JPEGs look good, unusually good for Sony (almost Minolta level, just without colors).

I think buyers wont be disappointed with image quality. If this is near production sample, then its very good.

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (Oct 9, 2012)

I downed some of the shots to see in full size and, I must say, there are really for 1500$ more picture in that shots than in those of a NEX-7. Only problem is, I have not found out yet where. I still would say this, buy a NEX-7 and a 6, and by a 35-1.5 lens with it and for the resting money, you drink a couple of beers.

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Oct 9, 2012)

You mean a 24 mm, right?

0 upvotes
mmcfine
By mmcfine (Oct 9, 2012)

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.

19 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Oct 9, 2012)

I'm guilty of some of what you mention but I completely agree with you. Many people split hairs, pixel peep, and get hot and bothered over nonsense. How much better do we really need these cameras to be? The average person viewing our images will not care which camera or lens was used. What our ISO was. What shooting mode we shot in. All this is irrelevant to the average viewer.

Camera technique, lens, subject, composition, developing / processing; all matter more than the camera imo.

And speaking of sharpness, MANY great images, classic or modern, are not always technically perfect to begin with. You can use a recent state of the art camera, or a digital camera from 5+ years ago and still be able to create award winning shots. A great photographer can create great images with any camera.

17 upvotes
gunther35
By gunther35 (Oct 9, 2012)

For most people, cameras today with a similar number of megapixels do produce more or less the same image quality in good light

But the images from a full frame sensor will always blow away images from an APS-C or smaller sensor at 1600,3200,6400 ISO.

Also, newer cameras tend to have improved electronics that provide faster and more accurate autofocus, faster frames per second and larger buffers.

This can mean getting or losing the "shot" with active subjects.

Oh, and don't forget that newer cameras with similar or improved specs to older ones are getting smaller/lighter, which is always appreciated when walking around all day with camera around your neck.

After shooting the RX-100, I believe the RX-1 will live up to the hype!

4 upvotes
sroute
By sroute (Oct 9, 2012)

Mostly it's about the lens, and for the most part, it always has been.

0 upvotes
garyknrd
By garyknrd (Oct 9, 2012)

I shoot birds and you would be surprised the people who buy the newest cameras pushed at them. Then tell me they do not have the cash for a quality lens? Amazing the hyp people believe.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Oct 9, 2012)

glass doesnt make art^^

to make a camera a real camera it has to be fullframe, so this camera by the fact that its ff alone, rules out nearly every other camera. for me of course, and iam not shooting birds ^^

the lens is a zeiss prime, so do not think its too bad :)

i think most cameras in their class produce nearly the same picture, but there is still a huge difference between mFT for example and any ff camera.

of course a lot of the fullframe hype is made by companies, but also by a lot of people that where used to the style of ff pictures. and for those people (me), digital photography sucked until companies came out with ff sensors.

so for me personally its a cool camera, but i wont buy it because its a sony.

0 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (Oct 9, 2012)

Maybe the Medium format or large format users will think FF users are just playing with toys.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 9, 2012)

"to make a camera a real camera it has to be fullframe" - Oh no, this BS once again.

How about you go and shot a little bit with large format instead of talking crap? They you'll see that FF is much closer to APS-C then anything else, and APS-C cameras are of equal value to FF, only enjoy the "sweet spot" of the lens instead of vignetting/lack of sharpness at the edges typical for FF.

1 upvote
mmcfine
By mmcfine (Oct 9, 2012)

I have been using film camera and a 6x6 Rollei and in recent now using a 7D after using a 40D. I worked with a FF (mark II) and found that yes, you may have some low light advantages but to to say FF is the "real" thing is nonsense. I use my 7D for commercial work and can't find any reason to go FF.
Nonetheless I am sure APS-C will become redundant in the near future or will be fitted mostly into P&P.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Oct 9, 2012)

"to make a camera a real camera it has to be fullframe"

To make a camera real all you need is a little box with a hole in it.

2 upvotes
ingram98ab
By ingram98ab (Oct 9, 2012)

I didnt spect to see any fringing from a fixed non-zoom lens camera this expensive, but there it is... also i gree that there could be daylight shots above ISO 100... i dont know, maybe trying to freeze a bird in flight, maybe inside some building... get creative!.

1 upvote
WCguy
By WCguy (Oct 9, 2012)

Thanks for the pics, obviously you are at the Sony Media Show in San Fran. Great shots, can't wait to see your low light shots and raw pics. Glad I pre ordered. Hope to have the camera before Xmas.

1 upvote
rude
By rude (Oct 9, 2012)

mediocre at best as far as output but i like the body style and build. originals look better though or maybe i need my head examined. id wait for final product. would probably buy one if i were rich.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Juck
By Juck (Oct 9, 2012)

Clown. Who gives a crap about how it looks? I bet you own an iPhone.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Ryan_Valiente
By Ryan_Valiente (Oct 9, 2012)

lol, stop fooling yourself.

You're not going to buy this, ever.

I'm not saying you can't afford it.

0 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Oct 9, 2012)

Looks great, although proof will be in the wide open and low light pudding but no doubt it will deliver.

If you love 35mm, looks like a great tool.

2 upvotes
B-rad
By B-rad (Oct 9, 2012)

Anyone who pays this kind of money for this needs their head examined. PERIOD.

5 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Oct 9, 2012)

Its a bargain compared to an M9 and Summicron!

21 upvotes
WCguy
By WCguy (Oct 9, 2012)

I wonder what you drive, a rattling tin rust bucket? If you do thats your choice and who can afford something better its their choice, but to say others that don't have your mind set needing to have their heads examined, well that says much about yourself.

10 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Oct 9, 2012)

B-Rad.

If this is not a camera for you, fine. But to say anyone that buys this camera needs their head examined is a very immature, and uneducated comment to make imo.

While this might not be a great option for you at this price point, others will find it a great value for what they want this camera for.

Full frame sensors are not cheap. Top quality glass is not cheap.

Do you automatically think this camera should be less money due to it's compact size? When has that ever been the case? Quality = $$$. Just be thankful this camera wasn't created by Leica or it would be at least 50% more expensive.

People need to understand what this camera is about and who the intended user is for. Then they'll realize there aren't many camera options with "similar features and quality" of the RX1. In fact, Sony created a new camera category.

B-Rad, I guess you want something for nothing.

22 upvotes
Tulaev
By Tulaev (Oct 9, 2012)

That is the current cost of FF technology. Too expensive for you? Don't buy and don't write nonsense here!

4 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Oct 9, 2012)

If you want M9 and Sumicron output but could live with sluggish performance the new DP 1 and 2 Merrill might be an even better deal while beating this camera in output. Read the reviews.

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (Oct 9, 2012)

FF technology is exactly the same as APSC technology, only the lens development and production is more expensive. There is only one reason why FF bodies are more expensive to buy, and that is to protect the APSC market.This camera is worth any cent, the way it is built, but, it just does not fits anyone, by specifications and by equipment. Add an OVF, a fast curtain shutter, make it a quarter inch thicker, and you are on the right side of the tracks. There are many people who like fixed lens cameras, for sure a ILS would be better for most. One can not judge people by what you or me would buy or not. If it is on the market, it is to be sold, and many will buy it. Now, analyzing what kind of people buy it, is another discussion, but I doubt that any of them have brain damage as claimed here. That statement is stupid anyway.

0 upvotes
Tulaev
By Tulaev (Oct 9, 2012)

No. FF sensor is about 20 times more expensive then APS-C one. Because it is too large for a standard semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

1 upvote
Juck
By Juck (Oct 9, 2012)

B-rad is 100% on the ball. What a bunch of limp-wristed wannabe's.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Oct 9, 2012)

I would rather buy the RX100, DP Merrill 1 an 2 for that money.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Oct 9, 2012)

RX 100 In pocket, DPM 2 in hand and DPM 1 around neck.

0 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Oct 9, 2012)

And what would you do in low light?

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Oct 9, 2012)

Low light? 2.8 too slow? Ok, Fujifilm X100 with wide teleconverter and DP 2 Merrill. DP 2 Merrill for non action shots where you can take your time and Fuji x100 with teleconverter for everything else for the same price.

0 upvotes
Tulaev
By Tulaev (Oct 9, 2012)

No any teleconverter for X100.

0 upvotes
Noirist
By Noirist (Oct 9, 2012)

Sorry... Fuji X100 can't focus in low light and the RX1 with twice the sensor size is going to have less noise in low light.

3 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Oct 9, 2012)

I think it's cool but for that money I would get something different. I think it's about $1,000 over priced. I like that it can do Macro and the video seems great but I think the cost leaves other options more desirable.

0 upvotes
Tulaev
By Tulaev (Oct 9, 2012)

New budget FF cameras cost $ 2100 without any lens. Why RX1 with excellent lens should be even cheaper?

1 upvote
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Oct 9, 2012)

@Noirist - is your camera broken??? My X100 focuses just fine in low light and those are conditions where 70% of my photos are taken and I usually shoot at ISO3200 ;)

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (Oct 10, 2012)

My X100 focuses in low light as well!

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Oct 9, 2012)

Nice lens and bokeh. You can't have isolating bokeh like that of a longer FL lens, but it is nice to have some bokeh in a small camera none the less.

Looks like Sony went soft with the jpegs to help hide moire issues.

1 upvote
MirkoK
By MirkoK (Oct 9, 2012)

i must have missed something, but of the images i just saw, not a single one showed something bokeh'ish

0 upvotes
sroute
By sroute (Oct 9, 2012)

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!

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

Well, I like the RX1 but this set really isn't all that great. Still, for the conditions and settings used, it's really hard to form a fair conclusion.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Tulaev
By Tulaev (Oct 9, 2012)

Not bad for firmware version 0.01!

4 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Oct 8, 2012)

So these were straight out of camera jpgs? Needs to be added some sharpening. Can't wait to see what will be achieved shooting raw and some post processing. Bokeh looks pretty smooth and calm too. Going to be one great camera.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 8, 2012)

Yes - straight out-of-camera JPEGs.

2 upvotes
adegroot
By adegroot (Oct 9, 2012)

Thumbs down about:

1.price
2.IQ
3.no WOW factor

0 upvotes
aarif
By aarif (Oct 8, 2012)

all samples at ISO 100

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 8, 2012)

Yes. These are good light samples. Low light samples to follow.

7 upvotes
Total comments: 294
123