Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 full frame fixed lens camera preview

By dpreview staff on Sep 12, 2012 at 04:00 GMT

Just Posted: Our hands-on Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview article with video preview. You may well have already heard about Sony's full frame compact camera with a fixed 35mm F2 Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* lens. We've had a chance to play with a pre-production RX1, delve through the menus and discuss its technologies with Sony. We've prepared a four-page preview detailing the RX1's features and capabilities and discussing whether we think the world is ready for a $2800 full frame, fixed-lens camera.

172
I own it
124
I want it
26
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 558
12345
Carbon111
By Carbon111 (Sep 27, 2012)

I am pretty jazzed by the samples I've seen so far! The video quality seems good too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgOKZWe3DkQ

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
bokashi
By bokashi (Sep 18, 2012)

Let's say my Canon T2i with Sigma 30mm f/1.4 was about $1400. So $2800 for half the size? Maybe, I wish it was f/1.4. I'm investigating a Sony NEX 5r with a Nokton 35mm f/1.2. I hear there will be some new SLR Magic around this range. That would be about $2k for that setup and not as compact.

0 upvotes
ironcam
By ironcam (Jan 28, 2013)

That's like comparing a kit lens with a L-lens. Your combinations can't match the RX1. DXO gave the RX1 one of the best sensor ratings. The Spanish site dslrmagazine measured the lens sharpness and concluded it was one the best they ever tested.

0 upvotes
pentaxination
By pentaxination (Sep 15, 2012)

I have arrived at the opinion that Sony doesn't put useable AEB on most of its cameras because its shutter life isn't anything to write home about. I know it's on the a77, but that's it.

0 upvotes
jaaboucher
By jaaboucher (Sep 15, 2012)

If you can afford one, buy two. This does not strike me as something Sony will sell for very long. If you like it, I wouldn't hold my breath for an RX2.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 15, 2012)

Why wouldn't they sell it for long? The still and video IQ is absolutely amazing. It may not be your cup of tea, that doesn't mean it won't sell.

Sony DSC-RX1 Official Sample Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgOKZWe3DkQ

These demos almost always look great, but objectively, I'd say the IQ looks cleaner, more artifact free than both the 5D3 and the D800. It has a better codec and 1080p60, so right there it has them both beat. Of course, it has a fixed lens, but as you can see the videographer made the 35 f2 sing, so...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
laszlokovacs
By laszlokovacs (Sep 15, 2012)

Dios Mio! There are so many clowns on this thread I'm surprised the Shriners aren't recruiting from it. If the AF and IQ are competent, then this will be a landmark camera in the digital age. To all the payasos complaining about the fixed lens, get over it. Ever hear of HCB? Shot with one focal length: 50mm. Ever hear of Garry Winogrand? One focal length: 28mm. Viewfinder? Optical only for both! No parallax correction!@!!! How did they ever do it!!!! And compared to those two giants, we all stink. Price? It's a freaking giant sensor with a Zeiss AF lens in a tiny body. Want an camera with changeable lens, VF and a Zeiss f2 35mm? Buy a D600 and a Zeiss ZF 35 F2. Same price. Oops, no AF. And watch people run when you try to take their photo on the street. So if you are into street photography, love the 35mm focal length and want a small, stealthy, gorgeous camera, this is the one for you. Otherwise please voice your complaints about enormous size of the D600.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 16, 2012)

Was right with you until you said this: "Buy a D600 and a Zeiss ZF 35 F2. Same price. Oops, no AF." and ran your argument in a bit of a circle. Henri Cartier Bresson and Gary Winogrand both shot cameras without AF. How did they ever manage on the street? Pre-focusing, using the DOF markings, practice. A ZF 35 f2 on an D600 is clearly not a street camera because of the size, but then again, you don't necessarily need an RX1 either. An X100, X-Pro1 or a GRD IV will be more than fine. A fixed lens is never a liability unless you run out of imagination.

4 upvotes
laszlokovacs
By laszlokovacs (Sep 16, 2012)

Agree with you on the need for AF. My point was that those who check boxes on feature lists would just be trading one set of check boxes for the other. Imagine the howls if the lens was MF and the price was 200 less! The price is not 'ridiculous' and the fixed lens is not a constraint if you like 35mm!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
oneANT
By oneANT (Nov 22, 2012)

[quote] Want an camera with changeable lens, VF and a Zeiss f2 35mm? Buy a D600 and a Zeiss ZF 35 F2. Same price. Oops, no AF. And watch people run when you try to take their photo on the street. So if you are into street photography, love the 35mm focal length and want a small, stealthy, gorgeous camera, this is the one for you. Otherwise please voice your complaints about enormous size of the D600. [end]

Speaking for yourself I hope ...

0 upvotes
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (Sep 15, 2012)

Come on dpreview: With all that hype about the exciting new Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1, isn't it high time by now for an In-Depth Full Review? Let us see all the details, these diagrams and sample shots - you name them!

Hermann

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Sephirotic
By Sephirotic (Sep 14, 2012)

Sony allways have some interesting products. But their almost allways have a ridiculous price range. I'm out of this one too.

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Sep 15, 2012)

Actually I thought like you till I realized that this is a Zeiss branded full frame lens and not some run of the mill lens.The Zeiss ZM manual focus lens costs a cool $1100 brand new and this one has AF as well. So the body only price of this cam is definitely below $1999 which makes it reasonably priced.

4 upvotes
Lisa O
By Lisa O (Sep 14, 2012)

Looks good on paper. Love 35mm lenses! This camera is obviously aimed at Leica owners/street photographers/photojournalists. Many who could buy one of these by merely selling a lens. However Leica people are used to getting the entire package not paying extra for lens hoods and this kind of nickel and dime on expensive goods is annoying to say the least. It seems like they could have merged the NEX7 viewfinder technology into this and had a better camera than one with an external OVF.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Sep 15, 2012)

Totally agree. I used an M4 for years with a 35 and never longed for any other lens.

0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Sep 14, 2012)

Yes, this camera is expensive, and the lack of VF or other analogue controls are annoying. Why release the perfect camera now, there won't be much more to aspire to in the future if Sony pleases too many now.

But a full frame sensor compact is a rare and unusual being, so Sony can charge whatever they want, and people will pay. The market is right for this, and once all the people that want this have it, then the next cameras will be targeted at those that haven't fallen for this. And lack of changeable lenses = no extra income from owners

Sony is definitely making bank on this, which will help fund the "real" full frame compact. Or at least, keep everyone's attention on Sony long enough

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
gordon lafleur
By gordon lafleur (Sep 14, 2012)

No viewfinder? What are they smoking? And the price? good grief.

Interesting to see this here, but I'll stick with my Fuji x100

1 upvote
SaShAsAsHa
By SaShAsAsHa (Sep 14, 2012)

This is not so much an enthusiast camera as much as it is a purists camera so price is not the main issue. The only with this camera is that embarrassing and ridiculous compact camera style popup flash. Sony approach a purist camera with consumer mentality, Leica on the other hand understand what a purist wants. Other than that the camera looks near perfect to me.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Sep 14, 2012)

To me, it's hardly a purist's camera. It's filled with tech.

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Sep 14, 2012)

leicas had a similar camera with a pop up flash

0 upvotes
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (Sep 15, 2012)

I agree and I have to say I like the camera as well. That embarrassing flash with it's ridiculous mechanism is just the Jack-in-the-box.

0 upvotes
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (Sep 15, 2012)

This flash is some sort of a built-in serenity generator: As it pops up there will be no need to say "say cheese!" anymore.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (Sep 15, 2012)

In a few years I can see a few events coming up like these:
- offer on Ebay: "The black dot you see on the top left is a piece of felt that I glued on to give the pop-up flash a smooth stop. It does not affect the generally high value of this camera"
- offer on Ebay: "20$, repair of the Sony RX1 flash unit"
- thread on the Sony enthusiasts forum: "How to replace a broken RX1 pop-up flash spring"
- question on the Sony enthusiasts forum: "Hi, I am new to the forum. Can anyone tell me how I could possibly open that little hatch on the top plate of my RX1 so I can see what hides unter it?"
I know I am unfair ;-) Hermann

0 upvotes
Cytokine
By Cytokine (Sep 14, 2012)

Why only 1/2000? Otherwise a dream camera! And at that price that is all it will be.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Sep 14, 2012)

It is because of the leaf shutter. I would prefer this shutter for flash sync.

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Sep 15, 2012)

I did a quick check and I touched 1/4000 on my 1/8000 capable camera only twice in the last 3 years. Unless you are shooting at f1.4 on a bright sunny day (and where I live there is no dearth of sun) you won't need 1/4000 at all.

However I have felt the need for a faster flash sync (max flash sync is around 1/200 - 1/300 for most cameras) VERY often and with the RX1 you can use an external flash safely upto 1/2000.

So the advantages far outweigh the disadvantage.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Sep 13, 2012)

DP REVIEW SEZ: "discussing whether we think the world is ready for a $2800 full frame, fixed-lens camera."

SHORT ANSWER: No, the world is probably not quite ready for a $2,800 fixed lens camera.

The world may be more intimately ready for the $2,100 Nikon D600 camera, or even for the $2,800 Sony Alpha 99 camera. Just not for a $2,800 CyberShot.

0 upvotes
Griffo59
By Griffo59 (Sep 13, 2012)

I don't know Francis.

I seriously would consider buying this camera once the price settles down.

I have no interest in the D600 or A99 - fine cameras though they are no doubt.

3 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (Sep 13, 2012)

"There's a sucker born every minute" P. T. Barnum.

1 upvote
Griffo59
By Griffo59 (Sep 13, 2012)

@maboule123

Well I bet that made you feel very clever.

0 upvotes
riveredger
By riveredger (Sep 15, 2012)

The price advantage of the Nikon disappears after you add a Zeiss 35mm lens to it ;-).

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Sep 15, 2012)

Once you see the size differences this camera seems even nicer for people who need such a device.

Here is a size comparison with one of the smallest FF DSLR/DSLT cameras in the world - http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/14/amazon-selling-sony-rx1-nex-6-and-alpha-a99/

0 upvotes
Griffo59
By Griffo59 (Sep 13, 2012)

The more I read about this camera the more impressed I am.

It's like the old days when I first got into photography. I bought a full-frame Canon 35mm compact rangefinder with a 35mm f2.0 lens for about £120.

I know the price is incredibly high compared to cameras of that vintage, but it does capture the spirit of simple, basic photography (with incredibly better imaging capability).

2 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Sep 14, 2012)

Back then, there weren't any "full frame" cameras, alas the good times when 35mm was a standard

1 upvote
Mattwd
By Mattwd (Sep 13, 2012)

This is *exactly* the camera I've wanted for years...except twice as expensive (and justifiably so). Ultimately, I'm hoping Sony's strategy with this will be similar to Apple's with the Macbook Air: introduce a beautiful, advanced piece of gadgetry at an eye-watering price simply to establish a market segment, get people salivating over what they can't afford, then allow the price to plummet once consumers "get it". IF the RX1 can do what the MBA did, a lot of us will be very happy campers.

0 upvotes
iwouldificould
By iwouldificould (Sep 13, 2012)

That camera up there as pictured is not 2800 dollars. That guy has the $599 optical viewfinder, the $179 lens hood, and the $249 thumb grip. So that camera costs a little over 3800.

Trips up market are always interesting. In the united states consumers generally don't tolerate up market from brands that also sell cheep. Companies go to great lengths to work around this. Premium brand creation such as Acura and Infinity are examples of this. This may out perform a Leica X2 in every way but it doesn't say "Leica" on the front.

Form factor alone might sell some of these cameras and some shooters swear by the 35mm focal length, but is that enough? I think it is fair to ask who this camera is for, I also think it is fair to be excited about companies being willing to innovate, to push the boundaries of what a camera should be. For me personally I like the form factor, if I could switch out lenses too, this would be my next camera. Even a 50mm and a 90mm would be enough for me.

1 upvote
Gesture
By Gesture (Sep 13, 2012)

Yes, this is quite an achievement and premium product. But I feel that modern manufacturers can develop new models more quickly and more economically than in the past. Much of the conponentry, sub-assemblies, processing engines, etc. are already developed.

0 upvotes
Griffo59
By Griffo59 (Sep 13, 2012)

Do you have sources for the accessory prices you quoted in your post?

I seriously doubt the OVF would be $599, even from Carl Zeiss.

0 upvotes
Robgo2
By Robgo2 (Sep 15, 2012)

It's a virtual certainty that there will soon be aftermarket accessories costing far less. What I want to know is how does one focus using an optical VF that is not connected to the sensor. It has to involve a bit of guess work.

0 upvotes
iwouldificould
By iwouldificould (Sep 17, 2012)

I sourced the info from these Bozo's:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1/

Check the last paragraph of the info page.

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Sep 13, 2012)

With a camera this capable and small, the entire chain of the eye, brain, arm, elbow, wrist, index finger, thumb, vision, light, motif, subject, mood.....changes drastically.

What does that bring to the photographer to be light and inconspicuous? With a superb lens attached and a full frame? Well this camera is here to answer that. My guess is plenty.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (Sep 13, 2012)

The many posts that run along the lines of "...for that money you could buy a (fill in the blank with any large heavy camera of your choice).." are amusing. Isn't a main selling point the size? This is not for everyone but it is a FF sensor inside a fairly small camera and many will want it for that reason.

12 upvotes
Mattwd
By Mattwd (Sep 13, 2012)

Careful, logic like that might get you some unwanted attention around here. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that every camera is designed just for them, and the ones they don't want are unequivocal failures.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Sep 13, 2012)

It's like people who by a small, expensive two-seat sports car instead of a big minivan or SUV. Not everyone wants to drive a big, clunky car, and are perfectly willing to spend more for a sport coupe, even if it's more money.

3 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (Sep 13, 2012)

Thank you T3 and Mattwd for getting my post. After the camera is out about one month I expect the "wish list" threads to be hilarious....20 X zoom, huge built in OVF, tilting screen, larger hand grips, waterproof to 20 feet etc.

3 upvotes
tanmancs
By tanmancs (Sep 13, 2012)

Dear DPR, Love the preview on RX1. Please share a few samples taken with the RX1. :)

3 upvotes
Joe Shaffer
By Joe Shaffer (Sep 13, 2012)

I'm going to have trouble choosing between this and the A99. I'm a photojournalist, and it would be really nice to not have to drag my DSLR around anymore.

1 upvote
Richard Schumer
By Richard Schumer (Sep 13, 2012)

Long ago, when I was a young man, I was a working photojournalist. This was at the time when WeeGee and others were still using Speed Graphics. My specialty was sports, and, so, I chose the then-experimental (at a pro level) 35mm format for its portability. My camera of choice was a Contax-D. The reach of a 400mm f:5.6 lens made it unmatchable by 6x6-cm or 4x5-inch formats.

Now, my Pentax DSLR is the metaphorical equivalent of a 4x5 Graphic back then.

My 135mm FF Pentax f:2.5 lens (almost 50 years old!) fits on my Olympus M4/3 and becomes a fast, light 270mm. At that magnification, the extra depth-of-field is an advantage for sports.

I see my Oly PMini with EFV as the new-generation Leica IIIf. It can even mount Leica glass.

Sweet.

So, I say, go light. I did it twice and never looked back.

2 upvotes
Prime_Lens
By Prime_Lens (Sep 13, 2012)

You should seriously look into E-M5.

0 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (Sep 13, 2012)

why bother with EM5? mind as well bringing your DSLR.

1 upvote
Joe Shaffer
By Joe Shaffer (Sep 13, 2012)

I tried the EM-5. I actually decided on the A57. It's actually a really good compromise. I feel like the NEX-7 might have been a little bit better. I'm happy thus far though.

0 upvotes
Alexander Vienna
By Alexander Vienna (Sep 13, 2012)

no viewfinder.....

0 upvotes
Antisthenes
By Antisthenes (Sep 15, 2012)

But you could also add something like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMW-VF1-External-Optical-Viewfinder/dp/B001GNC7Q0/ref=cm_rdp_product

Besides, OVFs that you mount on the accessory shoe, and covering the 35mm angle of view, are available on eBay for a pittance.

0 upvotes
Priaptor
By Priaptor (Sep 13, 2012)

This camera is going to be the hottest ticket in 2013, bar none.

Those complaining about price, I understand, but this camera is being oriented to another market, uncaring about price and this camera looks like a killer concept with the exception that it lacks a built in viewfinder, the only negative I see.

All you naysayers, just watch as these things, once released in Dec, will be as rare as a D800

9 upvotes
bargello
By bargello (Sep 13, 2012)

"Uncaring about price" means it sports a 35mm f1.4 distagon, this is another con.

0 upvotes
Richard Schumer
By Richard Schumer (Sep 13, 2012)

This is a camera for poseurs. Perhpas Sony is looking to polish its image? I know there are lots of newly-rich people in the developing world, but this camera is too, too precious for words. Super-cute!

HOWEVER: That it is a poseur is shown clearly by the Leica-copy lens shade -- complete with relief for the missing viewfinder.

Sony, you are callow, indeed.

0 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (Sep 13, 2012)

Leica copy? Maybe you should look into Minolta heritage.

0 upvotes
Priaptor
By Priaptor (Sep 13, 2012)

CALLOW?

I think you should look at the dictionary AND don't give up your day job, just yet.

Time will tell, but this product will be gobbled up and THE PRIAPTOR will be proven correct with his prescient perspective.

2 upvotes
Richard Schumer
By Richard Schumer (Sep 14, 2012)

Yeah, callow: From dictionary.com: cal·low   [kal-oh] adjective
1. immature or inexperienced: a callow youth.

Perhaps I was too subtle by half; if so, here's the rest of the reasoning.

Leica recently removed the "red dot" from their cameras because those born into wealth do not show it off.

Sony does not have the "breeding" of ELeitz and its importers/marketers. So, they are inexperienced in the exclusive camera market, which is quite different from the expensive camera market.

It is the Cadillac Cimarron of cameras.

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Sep 14, 2012)

"Leica recently removed the "red dot" from their cameras because those born into wealth do not show it off."

I thought it was because Leica users were getting mugged.

0 upvotes
Antisthenes
By Antisthenes (Sep 15, 2012)

Richard Schumer wrote:
> That it is a poseur is shown clearly by the Leica-copy lens
> shade -- complete with relief for the missing viewfinder.

You, sir, are an idiot.
It's quite obvious from the RX1's size that an OVF covering the 35mm lens' angle of view, mounted on the accessory shoe, would have its field of view clipped by the lens shade, hence the need for openings on said lens shade to minimize the clipping.

0 upvotes
Griffo59
By Griffo59 (Sep 13, 2012)

I absolutely love this concept (exept for the price).

I was never a fan of Sony cameras but now they are cooking up something that smells very good to me.

Maybe I'll wait a couple of years until I can pick up a used one.

Great camera. Kudos to Sony.

3 upvotes
Richard Schumer
By Richard Schumer (Sep 13, 2012)

I suspect it is likely that this concept will prove so popular and profitable that others will enter the fray, driving down prices dramatically.

In a few years, this camera will be quite obsolete. You'll see.

0 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (Sep 13, 2012)

Dec 2012 is around the corner. I don't know I will be able to see it.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Sep 13, 2012)

I think one of the functions of this camera is to help change people's perception of Sony in the camera world. That, alone, probably makes this camera worthwhile for Sony to produce.

0 upvotes
Griffo59
By Griffo59 (Sep 13, 2012)

@T3

I think you are exactly right about that.

The NEX was totally uninspiring for me - a dead end system. A big pile of meh...

The RX line seems to be taking Sony in a new and interesting direction.

Who knows what they are going to pull out of the bag next.

Sony are truly innovating, Nikon are doing some interesting stuff, as are Olympus. Canon is just floundering.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Sep 14, 2012)

@Richard- depends how you define obsolete. Newer cameras entering don't make the Rx1 superb lens and image quality an issue to throw away.

1 upvote
Richard Schumer
By Richard Schumer (Sep 14, 2012)

Well, my posts read stronger than my feelings. Frankly, it's a womderful and logical idea but it seems to me to be gilding lillies somewhat.

If Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents with its phones, then it is clear to me that the RXs are doing the same with Leica design: rounded corners, flat top plate, unremitting flat-blackness.

It is obvious (to me) the new fujis and the RX Sonys add Leica style to modern guts.

Guts is what counts, and I like modern.

But the badges, the styling! The whole camera is a portable advertisement for a company that root-kitted CD-music buyers' computers.

When they come out with their interchangeable-lens version, this will be as obsolete as Fuji x100s, which I see on craigslist for almost half their new price.

0 upvotes
DrugaRunda
By DrugaRunda (Sep 13, 2012)

If it was only half price :-) ... Great concept, but it costs more than A900. If I had enough money, I'd get it though, but it is for high end buyers.

Still a great product - glad that someone finally made it.

1 upvote
YuriS
By YuriS (Sep 13, 2012)

It got so much attention.....

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
WaleedEssam
By WaleedEssam (Sep 13, 2012)

LOL... reading this announcement was one of these moments in which you get excited and disappointed within seconds of each other! :D

I was like "cool, FF! 35! f/2! Zeiss! AWESOME! 2800!!!?????" :D

0 upvotes
YuriS
By YuriS (Sep 13, 2012)

I would add "Fixed lens???" !!!!

1 upvote
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Sep 14, 2012)

... what, no VF? Hahaha

0 upvotes
plasmolbio
By plasmolbio (Sep 13, 2012)

Hmmm...how about an RX10 then - APS-C sensor, fixed 35 mm (50 mm eq.), priced around USD 800-1000? Now there's a camera I would buy! USD 2800...no way!

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Sep 13, 2012)

Fuji already has that.

Not to mention all the mirrorless interchangeable cameras out there.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
plasmolbio
By plasmolbio (Sep 23, 2012)

Weellll not quite. The X10 (that's what you're talking about right?) is a 35 mm equivalent and price is 1200$..and I prefer Sony anyways. ILC's..yeah ok..but they've only just now released the 35 mm E-mount..

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
unlearny
By unlearny (Sep 13, 2012)

Holy Crap!

0 upvotes
pentaxination
By pentaxination (Sep 13, 2012)

I have to say; this camera is butt-ugly as it is and worse yet with the ovf on it. I cannot see this first edition doing extremely well with the real enthusiast crowd...

0 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (Sep 13, 2012)

I"m all for butt ugly camera, the uglier the better so that I can stay discreet and have people stop asking how much my gear cost and concentrate on taking photos instead of staring at my beautiful camera.

8 upvotes
409novaman
By 409novaman (Sep 13, 2012)

I always thought that a person needs a DSLR with a OVF or a really stylish looking rangefinder with an OVF to take good pixels. I will be shocked if this camera actually takes a good pixel, in total darkness that's worthy to peep at. I for one will buy this camera if it takes a good picture, but then i'm not a hipster into the latest fashion.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 13, 2012)

For photography, I'd take an X-Pro1 or even an E-X1 over the RX1 any day. For video, this camera like most that Sony makes, should be epic. Great frame rates, shallow DOF and the excellent AVCHD codec. Perfect.

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Sep 13, 2012)

Spiritual successor to the R1 which was also ahead of it's time.

Cheers

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Sep 13, 2012)

I think Sony has a very smart strategy here:
when the DSLR and mirrorless markets start to become crowded, and suffer price erosoin, how to you keep on growing your revenues, from one year to the next? The only way is to go up market... better technology, more sophistication, quality, innovation... all this at ever increasing prices.

Just an example to illustrate my point:
With a strategy like this, they won't be going the way of laptop manufacturers who started hurting, when a laptop goes for $400 instead of $4000 as was the case in the beginning.

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Sep 13, 2012)

Call me shallow but holding a camera with the SONY logo ot its forehead is a huge turn off. And for enthusiasts (i.e., non professionals) it is a big deal. It detracts from the photographic feeling... Why didn't they hide it like Panasonic does in (at least some of) their Lumix series? What's wrong with introducing a similar branding? Even DPReview mentioned that using "Cybershot" for this camera is a brave decision by Sony. Branding is important.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 23 seconds after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 13, 2012)

It's not shallow at all. Sony as a newer camera-maker that started by taking over the Minolta (who was at one time 1 of the "big four" camera makers). They are a huge global company more known for electronics and simply don't have the photographic cachet or pedigree of a Nikon or Canon. That's just how it is. And it's one reason, as you mentioned, Panasonic rebranded their camera line "Lumix". It doesn't mean these two companies don't make great gear, it's that they are stigmatized by being known first and formost for making gear other than cameras.

1 upvote
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Sep 13, 2012)

Not nearly as big a turn-off as the Samsung name. Sony is only held back by its lenses - now if only they could produce a good range of reasonably affordable Carl Zeiss lenses.

3 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Sep 13, 2012)

I don't think Sony understands the value of branding, or perhaps they are just too wrapped up in making the Sony brand a generic brand meaning "good."

When they acquired Konica-Minolta, they threw away some valuable brand names and branded their new line "Sony Alpha." Their cameras should have been called Minolta, and their lenses would have had more prestige if they were Hexanons.

Today they announce a very nice high end camera... one designed to compete with Leica, and they decided to call it a Sony Cybershot. Just like those $89 garbage cams you see in Walmart. Exactly what were they thinking?

If they had branded this camera as a Zeiss, then no one would complain about the high price. But instead they branded it as a Sony Cybershot.

2 upvotes
unlearny
By unlearny (Sep 13, 2012)

I think that the current CEO started in the mailroom of Minolta and this is final phase of life-long Revenge Fantasy.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Sep 13, 2012)

I'd say branding is only important at either the low end (P&S, maybe entry level DSLRs) or the luxury end (Leica), at this price point people should know enough about photography to judge a camera on technical merit rather than just the name.

3 upvotes
409novaman
By 409novaman (Sep 13, 2012)

No, no, no, Andy...
Style and name is EVERYTHING, photography, not so much...
I agree with you.

0 upvotes
photosen
By photosen (Sep 13, 2012)

Sometimes you just have to salute Sony's engineering prowess and sheer business lunacy; they make Apple seem fuddy duddy in comparison. A slightly thinner phone? Nah, let's go for the full frame sensor inside the point and shoot body! And price it so no one can buy it! Yeah!

If they could just apply that brashness to the entire experience, not just bits and pieces which don't fit together... Another difference with Apple, it will *of course* have some infuriating detail - oh it outputs a new kind of RAW and NO ONE can see it or some such...

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Sep 13, 2012)

The RAW should be the same as A99.

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Sep 13, 2012)

If it is the same then why on earth they have so much different high-ISO limits??

0 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Sep 13, 2012)

They don't have different limits. It was an error in DPR's database. They have the same range 100-25,600 expandable to 50 and 102,400. Looks like the same sensor as the new D600, same size, same pixels, same iso range. The A99 version is modified for phase detect AF, but they are being termed versions of the same sensor.

0 upvotes
km25
By km25 (Sep 13, 2012)

The bset thing to invest your photo dollar is glass. Cameras come and go. But lens are good for a long time in a system. This is a bad investment. Film is good.
P.S. That viewer is going cost big bucks for what it is.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Sep 13, 2012)

That is true. But the real investment is in the photographs. If the 24MP are as clean as being hyped, the camera should have a good 3 year life (perhaps longer with a good shutter life and service program), so that's $80 per month. I can eat that if the lens and sensor combine to give stunning IQ. Heck, I can even eat $80 less food and lose some weight in the process :-)

1 upvote
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (Sep 13, 2012)

I like your way of thinking Najinsky, simple and positive. Most probably most people here complaining are justifying to themselves the fact that they cannot afford this. But if they had 10 times more money and 2800 was 280 to them, they'd buy it in an instant and be proud to have the best IQ/size ratio (possibly).

Hopefully the camera will end up selling at lower than the sum of its parts, in which case it would be tempting. That would mean of course that the lens needs to be amazing.

0 upvotes
bronson
By bronson (Sep 13, 2012)

Very sexy, but over priced by $1,000. But what to expect being the only kid on the block?

0 upvotes
zzapamiga
By zzapamiga (Sep 13, 2012)

Seems there is much more interest in this camera than the Sony A99. Come on Sony release an interchangeable lens version soon.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Sep 13, 2012)

I'm sure they will release a RX10 soon. ;-)

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Sep 13, 2012)

Judging by the recent full frame e-mount camcorder there may be a full frame NEX on the way at some point.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Sep 13, 2012)

What a gorgeous camera!

This looks like a wonderful street shooter for the advanced photographer with the means to buy one.

If Leica had built it, it would be a $10,000 camera, but even $2,800 is too much for me. And yes, for most buyers this will be a second camera, because a fixed lens camera with a prime lens just isn't all that versatile.

I'd love to own one, but the odds are the only way I'd get one is to find one used, on ebay for $500... sometime in 2017 when the third generation R3 comes out...

6 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Sep 13, 2012)

Same sentiments on the cost. :)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 13, 2012)

I'll never understand the idea that a camera with a short prime is not versatile. How do you think Henri Cartier Bresson made all those iconic images? A zoom lens?

Of course a DSLR is more versatile. Your point is well taken, but if your going to choose one focal length, few choices are better than a 35mm, a slightly wide, normal lens well suited for street shooting, and so much more. One of the reasons the X100 is so popular is because it has a fixed 35mm. Sony may be hoping to capture some of that magic, but in a FF body for the ultimate in IQ / shallow DOF.

6 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Sep 13, 2012)

That means you can get it at the current bargin price, instead of inflated Zeiss price.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Sep 13, 2012)

marike6...

I hardly think Henri Cartier Bresson is a good example of versatility. The man was a great artist, but only when it came to photojournalism and street photography. I agree that this camera might suit him well, but you just can't use him as proof of versatility.

And while he used a fixed lens, it was a 50mm lens, and not a 35mm lens, like the one on the R1.

There is a wide range of cameras that have some degree of versatility... with a fixed prime lens camera sitting on the bottom rung, and a 30X superzoom camera sitting on the top rung. You select whichever type suits your needs best.

The R1 is really a very specialized tool, meant for those who can afford one and who either only need one focal length, or who simply have the means to own multiple cameras.

0 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (Sep 13, 2012)

I agree with you Marty. This is the best show in Photokina.

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Sep 13, 2012)

marike6:
"I'll never understand the idea that a camera with a short prime is not versatile."
Show me a pretty portrait or macro with 35mm. ;-)
The Sony is great for a special purpose, but for this price, many customers expect more versatility.

0 upvotes
kona_moon
By kona_moon (Sep 13, 2012)

I think it is too small. I love miniaturization, but only if it becomes pocketable. If it is pocketably small I am willing to trade off ergonomics. Otherwise, it is both unergonomic and unpocketable.

1 upvote
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (Sep 13, 2012)

Yes, exactly. This is why I think Nikon's CX mount will turn out to be a good idea, because when (if) they finally release some compact fast primes they'll have actually pocketable cameras. (Enthusiasm for the RX100, which is essentially a fixed lens CX camera shows this.) The Nikon 18.5mm f1.8 looks pretty close to the mark -- now all they need is a slightly better body than the V1.

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Sep 13, 2012)

Hi Tonio

I still think that M4/3 is the best 'compromise' on body/lens/sensor size and now that Olympus has a SONY sensor in the E-M5, you need not look elsewhere if small size is a primary consideration.

The RX1 is just a little too big to be truly pocketable and too small to be truly ergonomic. And seriously, you need it to have interchageable lenses to take full advantage of the FF format. I can't see many FF fans adding this to their arsenal if they already have a suite of lenses for their FF camera that they cannot use on the RX1.

Exciting camera and great achievement by Sony (as usual) but not as useful a tool when you think about it but hey, won't it sell heaps on impulse purchase for the well heeled!

Cheers

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (Sep 13, 2012)

I had the Konica Hexar (Silver) film camera with super 35/2 Hexanon lens once. It's been reincarnated in the Sony RX1 ... kind of. Though I didn't and don't care for a fixed, 35mm FOV restriction, many feel comfortable with it. A good move by Sony. If they can offer RX2 with interchangeable lenses, they'll be satisfying many photogs, pro and amateur, and making lots of Yen to boot.

0 upvotes
Photoworks
By Photoworks (Sep 12, 2012)

Sony must be doing some right. The RX1 is ranked #4 in Amazon's Best Sellers.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Alec
By Alec (Sep 12, 2012)

This is an outstanding camera to own and never take pictures with because it takes up much less space than other cameras in this price range to own and never take pictures with.

Who wants to open a debate about the merits and demerits of killing off the iISO flash shoe?

1 upvote
manakiin
By manakiin (Sep 12, 2012)

RX10 - APS-C three-point zoom lens (28mm f2, 35mm f2.8, 45mm f3.5).

3 upvotes
Auke B van der Weide
By Auke B van der Weide (Sep 12, 2012)

very good idea!

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Sep 13, 2012)

No. The RX10 needs to be shirt pocketable. That means APS, or even sub APS sized sensor, and a fixed 35mm equivalent lens.
If you want a zoom you've already got pocketable and non-pocketable solutions, ie RX100 and Nex.

1 upvote
Zoltan Csuka
By Zoltan Csuka (Sep 12, 2012)

I think they should have made the lens collapsable to save space.

0 upvotes
Damo83
By Damo83 (Sep 12, 2012)

Sweeeet! Now I can take FF shots of my cat without having to worry about lugging around a bag of lenses.

8 upvotes
gomezphotography
By gomezphotography (Sep 12, 2012)

Looking forward to seeing the NEX-8 or 9 . I want to change lenses on a full frame. Im thinking about changing my entire system from Canon to Sony.

3 upvotes
markmark206
By markmark206 (Sep 12, 2012)

This looks great! When it gets a viewfinder, I will consider it. In the meantime... I can't wait for my x-e1 to arrive. ;))

2 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (Sep 12, 2012)

Great to see competitiion in this market. Sony and Fuji are really pushing the envelope to provide serious photographers what they've always wanted: An affordable full-frame rangefinder style camera.

Hopefully in the next few years we'll have the same but only with a good viewfinder, interchangeable lenses, and excellent MF capabilities.

Nikon and Canon should wake up and stop playing the marketing game and get their engineers to produce the cameras that serious photographers demand.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 12, 2012)

Yeah, because the D800, D4, 5D III, and 1DX are not at all serious cameras. Toys compared to this. Are you joking?

This is at best a second camera. But somehow you're convinced that it's more serious than a FF DSLR? What did it for you? Was it the little blue Zeiss sticker?

1 upvote
raztec
By raztec (Sep 12, 2012)

Not everyone wants a DSLR. Unless you're shooting sports or need telephoto, DSLRs are overkill and way too big and bulky.

For more and more people a small camera with a large sensor is all that's necessary.

I'm sorry if I offended your N&C loyalties, but your post sounds like a typical fanboy response.

21 upvotes
pricklypear
By pricklypear (Sep 12, 2012)

+1 raztec.

6 upvotes
vladimir vanek
By vladimir vanek (Sep 12, 2012)

well, compared to 5D MKII with 40/2.8: width - ok a some 3 cm, height about the same with viewfinder, depth almost the same (-10 mm, or minus some 2 cm with 35/f2). just the weight is half with one of those lenses, but compare the grip. oh, no! you have to pay $249 to have A grip on this compact. and even then the 5D would be much easier to hold despite it's weight. and you have interchangeable lenses, as you might have noticed such advantage. so there's not much of a wow for this cam, sorry.

it it was a FF mirrorless cam measuring some 10x2x6 cm and costing less than $1500, then I might think about it.

0 upvotes
Damo83
By Damo83 (Sep 12, 2012)

Not sure why people refer to these types of cameras as rangefinder style cameras. What is the resemblance to one?

0 upvotes
Uaru
By Uaru (Sep 13, 2012)

The way of using. Intended to be small and unobtrusive. Street photography camera.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Sep 13, 2012)

Many recent DSLR sales came from users upgrading from their P&S , the reason also for the popularity of m4/3rds.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 13, 2012)

Small cameras are great, but the idea that Canon and Nikon aren't making cameras that serious photographers demand is laughable. That's all they do. Until today Sony had zero FF cameras, but you think Nikon and Canon need to get serious?

I sound like a fanboy but you're the one getting all weak at the knees at this expensive niche camera.

1 upvote
Robert Hoffman
By Robert Hoffman (Sep 12, 2012)

Great, a $2800 camera that requires a stinky diaper shooting stance.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 12, 2012)

Did you miss the viewfinder mounted on the hot shoe? The RX1 has a single focal length lens the optical VF is all you need.

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Sep 12, 2012)

Marike...I would agree with you except that you can't see what you've focussed on using the optical viewfinder.

2 upvotes
Pelex
By Pelex (Sep 12, 2012)

It's called "Zone Focusing", Clint.

0 upvotes
dtcooper83
By dtcooper83 (Sep 12, 2012)

my perfect camera would be very small, silent, have a fast normal lens, lots of control over depth of field, and be reasonably priced. so close...

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Sep 12, 2012)

I would like a supermodel girlfriend who will never age, make all the money, cost me nothing and do everything at my beck and call.

You'll probably get your camera before I find her:)

6 upvotes
dtcooper83
By dtcooper83 (Sep 12, 2012)

well, somewhere in the post a Samsung NX100 and a 30mm f2 lens are winding their way towards me, which came to just over £300 new. pretty much ticks those boxes, and it'll do for me. good luck with the bargain girlfriend!

0 upvotes
Total comments: 558
12345