Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review

By dpreview staff on Feb 20, 2013 at 03:28 GMT
Buy on GearShop$2,798.00

Just posted: Our review of the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1. The RX1 is one of the most ambitious cameras Sony has ever built: a full-frame compact with a fixed 35mm F2 lens. Those specifications make the RX1 a high-end, niche camera, as its $2,800/€3,100/£2,600 price tag confirms. So how does it perform? We've run the RX1 through our standard tests and looked into its performance and what this unique camera offers. Click here to see what we found.

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: 546
123
RichRMA
By RichRMA (Feb 20, 2013)

It could turn out to be nearly as big a miscalculation as the Sigma SD1. It's a camera that compared to anything else with FF is not as competent. It's only real claim is that it is relatively small. If FF really offered as dramatic an improvement in image quality over APS as it once did, then this would be worth $3000. The idea is that this camera occupies a class of its own, but people considering it are going to be looking at every upper end APS and m4/3 mirrorless camera as well.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
harold1968
By harold1968 (Feb 20, 2013)

It beats most other FF cameras for lens and sensor quality
Just talking to dealers on the speed they are selling says that this will probably exceed Sony's expectations

0 upvotes
sirkhann
By sirkhann (Feb 20, 2013)

What? No comparison with Sigma DP2m? Even no mention of it? Sorry, DPreview, your reviews are losing credibility any day along with DxO mark. Seems like Nikon and Sony get more love these days and even as I like their cameras best, cannot accept to have no choice among the other manufacturers, including Sigma.

7 upvotes
marctr6
By marctr6 (Feb 20, 2013)

Well this review took so long to conceived and posted... the RX-2 is already coming! ...

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 20, 2013)

Unless you know when DPR started to work on this review, or when they received a review sample from Sony, you have no grounds for complaints.

0 upvotes
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (Feb 20, 2013)

"Significant vignetting"... well, welcome to the world of wide angle Zeiss glass. That's the price you pay for this special light and glow you get with those fantastic lenses.

Be interesting to watch how the RX1 will make it on the market. I am impressed by the courage of Sony to realize innovative designs. But for a fixed lens camera I feel the RX1 may be by far too expensive. An RX2 with interchangeable lenses as a new system would be pretty cool.

1 upvote
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

I agree re: 'RX2'.
Vignetting is a non-problem in digital workflow, these days.

0 upvotes
xpanded
By xpanded (Feb 20, 2013)

This is good news for Fuji and Sigma. When a camera with this con list gets 79% the 100s will possibly be in the 90+ % and the Sigma DP Merrill line will exceed 100%.

10 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (Feb 20, 2013)

I totally agree. FF sensor camras only have an advantage in shallow DOF situations.

The APS-C sensors have caught up in almost all other IQ and ISO aspects (especially Fuji and Sigma). And there are very good "true wide angle" lenses for APS-C now, too.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 20, 2013)

I think what he meant was that Fuji and Sigma cameras are known for all their quirks, and so with their even longer con lists will get even higher scores. In other words, he was joking.

3 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (Feb 20, 2013)

Hey, my 5D MK II still has quirks tha never got fixed. It's not like Canon and Nikon are perfect...

0 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

If the bokeh is nervous or ugly, the shallow DOF of a lens isn't worth a light.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
1 upvote
acidic
By acidic (Feb 20, 2013)

Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots).

Also, the studio comparison tool for this camera is jacked up. Move it around the image and the zooms are not the same crop as other cameras.

Sexy, but no thanks. For this price, I'd expect Superb sharpness all the way into each of the four corner pixels.

5 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Feb 20, 2013)

You are right, the image is incredibly soft towards the corners!

0 upvotes
peterwr
By peterwr (Feb 20, 2013)

Sucks bad in comparison to what? It beats the Leica M9, the Nikon D600 and the Sony A99. Puts up a good fight against the 5Diii, too.

Ee, some people are never satisfied. :-) Me, I'd have one like a shot if I had the spare cash. Reminds me of my dear old Rollei 35S, but higher quality and more useable.

10 upvotes
rjjr
By rjjr (Feb 20, 2013)

Acidic wrote: "Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots)."

I noticed that too.

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

You're looking at DOF differences (different setup than other cameras due to different FL used and FF) and field curvature. Not corner sharpness.
Even wide open the lens was tested to be pretty sharp in corners.
http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/Sony_RX1_reso_RAW_big_zpsa5f8c186.jpg

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Feb 20, 2013)

peter its a 2800$ fixed lens camera (3400 with vf), it shouldnt suck at anything!!

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

@ the reason:
By your logics, a medium format camera shouldn't suck at anything either. I'm sure you can come up with a couple of areas in which it does though.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 20, 2013)

TrojMacReady is absolutely correct - the test scene usn't showing corner softness, it's showing shallow depth of field and slight curvature of field.

This has a 35mm lens, so has to be much closer to our scene than the 85mm lenses let us work with most other cameras. These close working distances mean even more shallow depth-of-field than normal (the back wall is not meant to be perfectly in focus on any camera). We couldn't sensibly stop it down any further, so the back wall is eve more out-of-focus than usual.

1 upvote
the reason
By the reason (Feb 20, 2013)

troj a medium format camera has a medium format sensor, now THAT is something not everyone does.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

Selective reasoning to me. I don't see "everyone doing" FF in a pocket camera either.

0 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Feb 20, 2013)

@peterwr
Sucks bad compared to other FF cameras. D600 and Sony A99 corner sharpness will suck too, with poor lenses. But at least you can stick an excellent lens on those bodies. Not so with the RX1.

@TrojMacReady
I'm comparing it with other FF cameras. I understand your point about different focal length and distances, but I'm not going to bother downloading the files to compare the EXIF on each of the files. Regardless, the softness looks like it's due the lens softness, not DOF issues.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

acidic :
Then which part is your conclusion based on? Surely you must have looked at something to conclude it's due to the lens. If I look at the center of the focus point, say the faces in the center, it doesn't look softer at all, possibly even sharper.
See lens tests and resolution charts to get an idea how the lens performs, rather than looking at OOF parts in pictures.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

You buy a ff camera with a f2 lens, then worry that the corners are soft ?

0 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

Each pixel of the sensor of such cameras was polished by human hand.

2 upvotes
Ionian
By Ionian (Feb 20, 2013)

First things first, Sony needs to stop putting a nice orange ring around the mount and then putting cheesy text on it about the lens or sensor or whatever that cheesy looking garbage text is. They did the same cheap move to the a99. They take a nice camera and in one cheeseball move they make it look like a cheap Chinese knockoff. At this rate why don't they just do it 100% and write some Japenglish text instead like, "Please enjoy now your happy photo life".

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
18 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 20, 2013)

So this clown's problem with the camera is that it has some text on orange stripe. See his further comment below about wanting an extra battery and charger with the camera ...

This guy is a well known clown on the forums ...

9 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (Feb 20, 2013)

I like the orange ring. It's classy. :)

4 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Feb 20, 2013)

I like the ring.
And actually- if it said that 'japnglish' phrase, I'd like it even more!

1 upvote
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

I agree; very naff!

1 upvote
Ionian
By Ionian (Feb 20, 2013)

Hi ET2! Hey everyone, it's my stalker and well known Sony Fanboy ET2!

Nice to see you're still harboring all your jealousy. I'll tell you what ET2....I'll give you some photography lessons half price and you can get over that horrible jealousy that's just eating you up alive inside. And you won't have to embarrass yourself anymore by always displaying how jealous you are in your posts. Seriously though - it's just a forum. That jealousy will eat you alive, deal with it man before it deals with you.

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 21, 2013)

" it's my stalker"

Are you serious? I had probably replied to 5 times in your entire life time. You call that "stalker"?

You ae not worth even spiting on, let alone wasting time stalking.

0 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Feb 20, 2013)

Yet another awesome camera that I can't afford.

4 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Feb 20, 2013)

in Soviet Russia, this camera can afford YOU!

3 upvotes
Kuturgan
By Kuturgan (Feb 20, 2013)

agentul, stupid comment.

1 upvote
Ray Sachs
By Ray Sachs (Feb 20, 2013)

This camera could appeal to a lot more of those "decisive moment" shooters if it had one of two things - faster AF or some sort of decent distance scale to allow use of zone focus. The first would require a re-engineering of the whole AF system. The second would require a relatively simple firmware upgrade. Sony really limits the market for this otherwise fine camera to highly contemplative shooters who are mostly shooting stationary stuff. It's got so much potential as a high end street or photojournalism camera that it could realize so easily, but doesn't. The RX100 has the same limitation in an entirely different category. People love Leicas for street work despite the lack of AF because zone focus with their manual lenses is such a pleasure to use. That won't work with this lens, but a good electronic distance scale in the LCD/EVF would accomplish much of the same thing, as in the Fuji cameras. Focus peaking is great for critical focus, but useless for critical moments.

4 upvotes
BobYIL
By BobYIL (Feb 20, 2013)

+1.. A built-in finder (OVF or EVF) would have added probably only 10-15mm to the width and it would still be regarded as compact and be smaller than what it is now with add-on finder.

A fast and precise AF would have made it "the class Leica could not fulfill yet." If it's not for street then what it is for with a price of $2800?

Probably the best 35/2 offered by the industry integrated with a first-class sensor. Pity that this concept could have been a killer street camera.

I have preordered the X100S simply due to the facts above..

0 upvotes
earful
By earful (Feb 20, 2013)

i don't shoot street normally, but coming from both an m9 and and x1, i suspect that once people really learn to use the rx1, the complaints will diminish. the rx1 focuses more quickly at this time (at least imo) than the x1 did when it first came out. a firmware fix (not a total re-engineering of the af system) did bring improvements to the x1 and if sony does the right thing by its customers a similar fix should help with af issues on the rx1.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 20, 2013)

I would be interested to know how many of these premium cameras are sold. Do manufacturers ever publish a breakdown of their relative sales compared to their cheaper models?

Seems like a lot of research goes into something that few can afford, unless the inevitable "trickle down" effect means we are going to get a lot of affordable FF compacts on the market soon!

4 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

Mark Weir from Sony noted in an interview that it's selling beyond their expectations.

1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

The price makes them attractive however those who buy them could also buy a FF DSLR with premium lenses.

0 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

How high are their expectations?

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (Feb 20, 2013)

they weren't expecting to sell any of them. they sold one already.

4 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

@ stevens37y and agentul
Obviously they knew it was a niche camera and the camera is hand built, so they didn't expect millions. But the Sony forum is "flooded" with new RX1 users.

Oh and how many of those FF DSLR's with premium lenses fit your pocket and are essentially silent?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

1 fix lense for 3000+ EUR. Crap movie mode. I think they will sell it only to those guys who are attracted by the price tag.

1 upvote
oorwullie
By oorwullie (Feb 20, 2013)

Just because all digital cams now do video it does not mean that all users want video. I want a still camera for stills and the compact RX1 delivers big time.

4 upvotes
Woody W.
By Woody W. (Feb 20, 2013)

It seems to me a natural (if imperfect) comparison would be between this and the Sigma DP1 Merrill, as large-sensor fixed lens compact cameras with approximately equivalent fields of view.

5 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Feb 20, 2013)

This is really amazing and sexy camera. It's not perfect, but there are no perfect camera for everyone. I accept it as it is. I'd definitely get one, If I would be rich s.o.b.

0 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Feb 20, 2013)

Impressive, but pointless. I wonder what kind of pictures will be taken with it. Do you think they'll justify the leap from APS-C to FF in a compact?

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Feb 20, 2013)

You can see the pictures for yourself, in the review. And at risk of spoiling the surprise... [they're really quite good indeed]...

5 upvotes
oorwullie
By oorwullie (Feb 20, 2013)

Scott Birch said, "I wonder what kind of pictures will be taken with it.???"

Wonder no more. http://rx1files.tumblr.com/

2 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 20, 2013)

Good one Barney!

1 upvote
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Feb 20, 2013)

Oorwullie, you added extra question marks. May I donate them to a needy drama school? Thank you for the link, by the way. Nice pics framed well with appealing subject matter. Much post? I ask because of the vignetting. I wouldn't put them above any other FF camera's images I've seen, though.

The one I handled in here in Dubai felt somehow more 'delicate' (not in a good way) than a FF SLR. There's something reassuringly solid about a 5D, for example.

1 upvote
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Feb 20, 2013)

Orwullie, would you say that this camera enabled you to take these pics and make them as good as those from a FF SLR? I guess I'm asking because I feel you made these pics good more than did the camera (Yes I do like the pics).

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Feb 20, 2013)

They are not his pics; it's TUMBLR

Comment edited 9 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Feb 20, 2013)

Different photographers contributed to the selection. So sorry, must have been asleep. To be honest, the photos do look good. Better than Leica pics. But I think if I were to own a FF camera, I'd still go for an SLR. Putting such a superb sensor in a compact body is like ... well, locking it in a cage. I enjoyed handling the A99 more. They were next to each other in the shop :)

0 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Feb 21, 2013)

Yup. I hated it at first. I criticised it however I could. But yesterday I saw some more pics taken with it, and I went back to the shop and asked to try it out some more. I think I'm slowly falling in love with the damn thing.

0 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (Feb 20, 2013)

I have no doubt that it's very well made and produces very nice images. But no viewfinder? If Sony can fit a viewfinder in NEX-6, surely they can squeeze a viewfinder in this baby.

4 upvotes
truthsforme
By truthsforme (Feb 20, 2013)

For real! My goodness. I wouldn't doubt that it was somebody in management who decided to charge a ridiculous amount of money for a seperate viewfinder instead of just integrating it with the camera.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 20, 2013)

Well, they want to make look like a compact. There's a good chance that the FF NEX will have built in VF.

0 upvotes
Zamac
By Zamac (Feb 20, 2013)

Minor points: Specs give CIPA 330, Conclusion gives 270. Specs imply an included charger, conclusion says it isn't included.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 20, 2013)

Those errors should be fixed now. Sorry about that.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Feb 20, 2013)

What is Sony putting in their diet?

Oblivionic Poison?

This is the second such rubbish (after the RX100) that you have to charge the battery while INSIDE the bloody camera!

What is this? An iPhone?

This is a great indicator of how this is NOT a serious camera...

Really nice gear, terrible user interface... trademark Sony,

.

10 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 20, 2013)

You can buy two batteries PLUS the charger on Amazon for $15

http://tinyurl.com/atxpp2x

So much hot air out of your mouth for $15?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
17 upvotes
Ionian
By Ionian (Feb 20, 2013)

But at the price Sony is charging for the camera, it should be included. Then again, Sony is known for taking a dump in it's fanboy's hats and the fanboys say, "Thank you. It fits much better now."

7 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 20, 2013)

Actually I like the "in-camera" charging style. Save my desk some space, also minimize the possibility I left my charger during vacation(not entirely true because I still have to bring the wire though).

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 20, 2013)

"But at the price Sony is charging for the camera, it should be included. "

The camera COMES with ONE battery and one charger that charges the battery inside the camera.

If you are buying another battery extra (the only reason will need an external charger), buy the $10 charger with it. Big fKin deal. Get a life

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Feb 20, 2013)

You might feel comfortable using a knockoff $15 battery and charger for your $2800 camera but many others won't (including myself). Sony sells their external charger for $50 ($70 with a battery). For a "professional" camera, that strikes me as being quite cheap on their part.

4 upvotes
Ionian
By Ionian (Feb 20, 2013)

ET2 - Man, that jealousy is making you so angry. Stop being so jealous. It's just a forum. I know you feel insecure because you need your gear to make you feel like a good photographer but seriously - get out there and practice. When you actually learn how to shoot and realize it's not the gear you'll be able to let go of that anger and jealousy you're carrying in you every day. Seriously - I'm a bit worried about you. That's a lot of jealousy you're carrying around in you. Have you gotten your blood pressure checked? Please do so.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Feb 20, 2013)

I tried it a few weeks ago. The AF speed is really subpar. For such a high-end camera this is unacceptable.

4 upvotes
alatchin
By alatchin (Feb 20, 2013)

Handled it the other day in the store, it is a lovely camera... But, I could get an OMD, 17mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8 all inside the cost of this, if you want an EVF for this as well then I have another $300 to spend... Sure IQ is really nice, and many will buy it, but many here enjoy flexibility.

1 upvote
tmurph
By tmurph (Feb 20, 2013)

Sony got to be congratulated for putting a full size sensor into a high-end compact camera.
Love to own one and I like the 35mm lens which in my opinion is a good choice for a camera to take with you on your travels.
Seems a great camera for street photography.

4 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Feb 20, 2013)

I think it is not a matter of technical knowhow, but more "would it not be too much of a compromise?''. Terrible battery-life, slow AF, no viewfinder (a must have for street photography, imo) and no interchangeable lens... I think it's hard to sell to a lot of people, even ignoring the very high end price.

But yes Sony won the prize for delivering the first small FF compact. Sony decided it was worth it - probaby more in terms of long term PR. But that doesn't mean it's getting the price for best or most innovative or complete camera.

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Feb 20, 2013)

Really a $2800 camera is in the same classification as a $670 camera? This camera belongs in a budget Full frame class. You can put it in with the 6D, and D600.

This camera should not be in a class based on size when its price range is so far out there.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 20, 2013)

It's not in a compact camera class because it's small, it's in a fixed-lens class because its scoring needs to include a rating of its lens (which is why we can't put it with the 6D and D600).

3 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Feb 20, 2013)

I still don't see why a lack of a feature(Interchangeable lenses) puts it in its own category. If another camera can cover the same focal length and more it shouldn't be excluded as competition.

A compact interchangeable lens camera with a prime lens would compete very nicely with this camera. I am thinking Sony/Olympus here. You can rate them with whatever prime lens you choose.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 20, 2013)

it's way easier to design and make a 35/2 or 28/1.8 for a fixed-lens camera because we don't have the back-focus issue and we can fine-tune the lens and the sensor against each other, thus the cost should be lower (same to the price at the same volume).

interchangeable lens cameras always come with extra costs, but the freedom of lens selection can bring us profit from that investment. different ideas from the beginning.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 20, 2013)

@ mpgxsvcd - The scoring of this camera includes the score for the optical performance of the lens. We don't give interchangeable lens cameras scores for their lenses because we don't know which lens people would fit. We don't currently have any way of re-adjusting the scores to take into account every lens' performance.

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 20, 2013)

No matter how much it costs, a fixed-lens camera is still a fixed-lens camera, and a system camera is still a system camera.
If I were in the market for a fixed-lens/fixed-FL camera, I would look at the likes of RX1, X100S, X2 and DP2M, not at DSLRs.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 20, 2013)

I'll rather pay less for D600/6D + 28/50 f/1.8 lens and live with a little more bulk, but better AF sensitivity in low light. But that's just me. :)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 20, 2013)

It's not /just/ you - many more people will make that choice. However, there are some people who want or need what this camera offers. Personally I'd rather have this - good though the D600 is.

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 20, 2013)

I'd like to get a RX-1 at half-price. there is no way I get it at same price, for a camera that won't work with any other lens and a lens that won't work on any other camera.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 20, 2013)

@R Butler and yabokkie:
It's all about price. If it's half-price, it's definitely a winner. ;)

2 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 20, 2013)

And R Butler, the 79%-Gold score is based on your desire for the camera and the minority of people who may prefer it after reading Dpreview/your opinion. I really like to see your scoring matrix.

3 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 20, 2013)

Half price? Hmm... that's Fuji x100's MSRP($1200). FF + lens won't go below 2k mark.

1 upvote
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 20, 2013)

It'll go below <2k in time. the manufacturing cost must be lower than a two piece component (lens and body). this cost now is to cover R&D cost. so those early birds who purchase this camera will be absorbing the R&D cost.

1 upvote
straylightrun
By straylightrun (Feb 20, 2013)

"little more bulk"

ahahahahahahahhahahaha

0 upvotes
vFunct
By vFunct (Feb 20, 2013)

This would be perfect if it had social media integration. A professional camera with low-key subtlety used for documentary photography. My reporters at fashion shows would kill to have something like that to replace their crappy iPhones.

It really needs Twitter/Facebook/Vine/Tumblr/etc. apps + WiFi. not sure if there are expansion options available or coming for Wi-Fi?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 20, 2013)

Just pick up a NX300 body only plus 30mm f2 lens for less than half the price and you have your dream package.
Is there such a thing as a reporter using an iphone... really?

0 upvotes
Zamac
By Zamac (Feb 20, 2013)

Eye-Fi and a hot-spot enabled phone might do the trick.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 20, 2013)

@ Zamac - Eye-Fi cards can act as hotspots - you just need a Wi-Fi capable phone.

0 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (Feb 20, 2013)

Just wait for somebody to sell it in the used market, or wait 6 months.

1 upvote
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 20, 2013)

I can't even afford used ones! Hahaha..

1 upvote
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

When it becomes superceeded by comparable cameras featuring i/c mounts, the used value will drop significantly. Think 'Lumix LC1 but without the zoom'. They'll be fetching £400-500 at auction, within 18 months, being offered alongside 2nd hand ff NEXs for only a bit more. ;-))

0 upvotes
tanmancs
By tanmancs (Feb 20, 2013)

Strong personality in a luxury compact. Wish I can afford it.

2 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

Theyll be something better along in a moment.

0 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Feb 20, 2013)

Too many serious compromises for a $3K camera, most notably...

■Autofocus speed not fast enough for moving subjects
■Autofocus struggles in low light
■Significant vignetting, with any correction *baked* into Raw files
■No built-in viewfinder (and accessory options rather expensive)

For a 1/3 of the price the Merrills look like a much better deal.

6 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 20, 2013)

Merrills are slow. I think somebody has mentioned that it takes 2 seconds to store RAW file. (just googled it and it's actually 10 secs!).

But for IQ, maybe Merills having the advantage here. Also the price is a lot cheaper.

0 upvotes
mumintroll
By mumintroll (Feb 20, 2013)

But you can still work with Merrill camera till it writing down the RAW. It going to the buffer. So it's not that bad. You can make couple of Raw pictures till buffer is full. For landscape photographers it's not a big deal.
And IQ I would say it's even better than this camera. It's equal to D800E. For much cheaper.

3 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

How can there be serious vignetting with corrections baked-in?

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Feb 20, 2013)

If I consider the price, I see no reason to step from the NEX-7 to the RX1. Yes, it is an exceptional camera, makes exceptional shots in jpeg, but since me work-range is between 100 and 800 iso, I do not find any excitement. I would like to get one, but on the end, I can invest my money in better things. So, like planed, let's wait a NEX FF come out.

2 upvotes
Stailick
By Stailick (Feb 20, 2013)

Thank you for the hard work. Been waiting for a review like this.

I would like to point out that there are some inconsistencies in the final rating of the product. Specifically, when comparing to the G1X, the RX1 has a lower High ISO rating. Perhaps you have put the camera in the wrong category?

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Feb 20, 2013)

Inevitably, reviews (especially scores) represent somewhat of a snapshot in time. The Canon was reviewed almost a year ago and our expectations of cameras of its type will inexorably change over time.

10 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Feb 20, 2013)

Why not just increase RX1 bar or scale down G1x bar? If your formula is wrong, fix it.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Feb 20, 2013)

...did you not hear what I just said....?

4 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Feb 20, 2013)

No, if it is not comparable, you should not put it in comparison list. If you make it in a comparison list, please normalize your data so it makes sense.

5 upvotes
Dianoda
By Dianoda (Feb 20, 2013)

vodanh, normalizing data for comparability's sake sounds nice on paper, but it simply isn't that easy to constantly adjust scoring for an entire database of cameras when that scoring is admittedly somewhat subjective to begin with. And even if dpreview implemented such a system, people would still find a reason to complain about it - actually, they'd probably complain more often, because scores would always be in flux.

Do yourself a favor and judge the review by the 20+ pages of content and don't get hung up on the little bar graph and percent listed at the very end.

5 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (Feb 20, 2013)

If the relevancy of the review is so denuded after 12 months, given that it takes several months to write one in the detail given by this site, .. well how do you manage that?.. possibly top ten lists with a bi-anual refresh.. not sure..

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Feb 20, 2013)

Just to be clear, adaptive scoring of some sort makes a lot of sense, and we're considering ways of making that happen. But final scores that depreciate over time, according to some or other formula... that's just confusing. Likewise a 'reset' of scores across a class of cameras whenever a new model is scored. It sounds like a good idea, sort of, but in practice it would be impossibly tricky.

4 upvotes
BBViet
By BBViet (Feb 20, 2013)

Have you considered going with absolute scores? No need to adjust anything, better performance = higher score, just like those DxO ratings.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 20, 2013)

I would prefer a 50mm version. For those wanting something wider, why not introduce something we didn't have back in the day of film photography: in-camera stitching for when you want a wider angle of view. Like a mini, quick-panorama mode, that is just a two picture sweep. resolves the problem of not wide enough angle for those situations where you really need it, and allows you to have that 50mm view which is closest to the human eye's spacial perception, not distorting your subjects as much.

Does anyone else wonder if this is a market test, to see if this is the direction the interchangeable lens NEX system should head into?

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 20, 2013)

PS: 50mm f1.4 version of course! ;)

0 upvotes
Stailick
By Stailick (Feb 20, 2013)

I feel the RX1 is like you said, a test of the mirroless fullframe compact camera. As useful as it might be, over time it is more of iconic than a practical product. Once FF NEX and respective FF e-mount(incl. pancake) lenses are introduced, I cannot see the reason for a successor to the RX1, for that it can be easily achieved using a say NEX9 and pancake prime. R1 was a success and R2 never came; just like that RX1 is a success and will not have a successor. I do see RX200 coming tho.

Regarding the fixed focal lens, you always can't go wrong with a wider lens, reason being that you could sacrifice some IQ to achieve a telephoto effect, but cannot do so to get a wide angle effect. Stitching is possible but it's extra effort and the stitched photo isn't exactly a wider photo( wider means wider and taller). Plus it doesn't work with moving subjects.

2 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Feb 20, 2013)

Panorama is only for still objects. For street photography, you get only 1 shot.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

Stailick:

E mount lenses are unlikely to fit an hypothetical full frame Nex body. Sony would likely use the A mount and that would require that the body be deeper/thicker than current Nex bodies. (No this RX1 doesn't not use a modified E mount 50mm lenses.)

A full frame Nex body would likely be similar to that boxy Pentax mirrorless body. Though Sony would probably put in an EVF and avoid the sill card door system.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

I agree Stallick.

0 upvotes
raimundo gaby
By raimundo gaby (Feb 20, 2013)

I have this jewel since the beginning of December. It's the best camera I have ever had.

9 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Feb 20, 2013)

you have to be a special brand of stupid to pay this much for that

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 20, 2013)

What else offers this image quality and size for less?

19 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 20, 2013)

@thereason: it's aimed at a certain market segment - people more privileged than most, and perhaps those who own a $10k camera and want a small point and shoot for when they don't want to pull out their large camera... also photo journalists... etc.

@RButler: no one can argue with that - RX1 and RX100 setting new precedents in terms of sensor size to package size. But I'm sure you would concede that if anyone were to introduce something similar, and that time will come, it will come in at half the price.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 20, 2013)

This is something a iPhone photographer would say.

4 upvotes
oorwullie
By oorwullie (Feb 20, 2013)

@the reason. You are just another one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Read the reviews. See the results. This camera is very special.

5 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Feb 20, 2013)

iphone photographer huh...let me write it so were clear here:
its 2600$ for a fixed lens camera, of whatever the size. That has a limited shutter speed depending on aperture, and once you get the evf, a grip and a case youre at 3400$. Yeah..that sounds like a smart buy.
@R Butler- how much more image quality than say, a fuji x100, 100s, or xe1? or heck even an OM D EM5 or nex 7? would you say 1600-1800$ worth? well would you?

3 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Feb 20, 2013)

@00rwullie. I would say that to you. What is the value of this? its a fixed lens camera with a mildly fastish lens that doesnt have a view finder and limits your shutter speed. Soooo it limits you more than an slr body but it has more "value"? why? It still doesnt fit in the pocket now does it? its simply the first mirrorless full frame, and because of that theyre charging that. Convincing yourself its a smart buy is all on you. I cant wait to see all those RX1s out theres being shot at arms length after criticizing the practice so much by the very same people...

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Feb 20, 2013)

Look I don't want this camera, you don't want this camera and frankly most of my friends don't want this camera.

However I met one person at the camera market who sold his Canon 5D MK III and all his Canon lenses and got this instead.

When I asked him WHY he got this camera he simply said he found value in a such a small FF camera.

So just because we don't find value in such things doesn't mean others do not as well.

3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 20, 2013)

RX1 for the rest of us:
Samsung NX300 (or NX210) plus Samyang 35mm f1.4 lens, total package price about $1000
and you even get a better angle of view: 55mm
or if you prefer a 36mm equivalent Samyang also makes a f1.4 24mm (both faster than Samsung's respectable 30mm autofocus lens).
Same could be done with Fuji XE1 plus their nice 35mm f1.4 although at a higher price, but this would give you a f1.4 with autofocus.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
hippo84
By hippo84 (Feb 20, 2013)

the reason - Go buy Fuji X-Pro1+35/1.4 for almost the same price.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 20, 2013)

...on second thought, the Fuji, because with the Samyang lens the Samsung package would be too large. However, the Samsung with the pancake f2 would make for a nice package, but not as bright as the 35mm on FF.

@hippo: not sure about the xpro1, but an xe1 plus the 35mm f1.4 lens, at full retail, would only set you back only $1600

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 20, 2013)

@ Timmbits - I think you're wrong to suggest anyone else would charge significantly less. If Leica had introduced this as $4000, it would have been seen as a bargain. If this is what the Hasselblad had launched at Photokina, for twice the price, it would have been whispered about as a classic.

The cheapest full-frame camera on the market is around $2000, so $2800 including a lens as good as this one (full test data soon), doesn't seem so outrageous.

Though if the Fujifilm X100S is as good as it could be (for half the price), that would make more sense for me.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 20, 2013)

@ the reason - try buying a mountain bike. You can get one cheap enough but a good one will cost twice as much. A really good one will cost twice as much again. Want to have something that you know isn't holding you back when racing? Double it again.

Is the RX1 twice as good as a camera that costs half as much? Of course not. But, certainly in terms of image quality, it is better. And some people want or need that extra quality. It's up to them to decide how much that extra is worth.

7 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 20, 2013)

@RB, the X100s has a F2 lens... what is that equivalent to if it were on a FF? I think you'd need a f1.4 to get similar brightness and DoF control.
I don't get the impression that a Sony-branded product is perceived the same way as a Leica (ie: a Honda will never be a Porsche even if they dress it up as an Acura).
If something like the RX1 were introduced by, say, Samsung, Nikon, Olympus, I don't think it would be nearly as pricey... maybe Fuji too somewhere down the line once their market share commands the same production volumes.

Sony have always charged what the market will bear plus a premium for the Sony name (just as Apple does). This has nothing to do with manufacturing cost. Others would charge less of a premium.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 20, 2013)

@ Timmbits - I don't really agree - I'm not sure I would expect any other manufacturer to significantly undercut this price. Nikon, for instance, makes aggressively-priced mass-market DSLR bodies but its lenses (which are more closely analogous to this product) are far from inexpensively priced.

I agree that Leica and Sony are not perceived in the same way when it comes to cameras - hence I think some brands could charge more without anyone complaining. (And receive much a more positive response from the people with no intention of buying one).

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Feb 20, 2013)

Image Quality does not always have to be in a full frame camera. The Olympus OMD would compete very nicely with the Sony and the right lens.

I would think that the OMD with the 25mm F1.4 would work just about as well as this camera would for street shots. Yes the focal length is longer on the OMD but still with in the same neighborhood.

1 upvote
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Feb 20, 2013)

@Timmbits Correct me if I am wrong. How about Christmas party night? You need to cover everyone, food, beer, and a Christmas tree. You need to slow down the lens and increase ISO. You cannot use flash because it will dim the Christmas light. The benefit of a FF will kick in.

0 upvotes
xpanded
By xpanded (Feb 20, 2013)

@R Butler: There is no camera that offers this IQ and size at that price. The DP2 Merrill offers about the same size at a far lower price and a much better IQ at base ISO. Maybe that the AF is better as well. Of course when you buy the needed batteries the price levels out...

2 upvotes
Michel Pont
By Michel Pont (Feb 20, 2013)

I agree with the reason.
Ok it's FF, good image, good iso, small and sturdy but so what...
What does this camera makes better than let's say and EX-1 ?
FF is no more a requirement for good image quality and good isos...

0 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Feb 20, 2013)

@RB the mountain bike analogy doesnt really go here. Its not better than anything, this is a fixed lens A99, and the A99 is leagues better in terms of ergonomics, and features, and neither of them you can fit in a pocket anywho. Its like saying they made the mountain bike smaller, easier to manage, you'll go equally as fast as a full body mountain bike but as a penalty there's less gears so you have to put in a bit more of an effort and oh! there's no seat!!!! (the equivalent of what I think a FF with no view finder is). If you want a seat you have to pay 700$ extra. And we're gonna charge you what a top of the line mountain bike costs for the basic model.
You know what this is? its a sigma SD1. Amazing tech, but not worth the 7000$ they charged for it. I cant believe some people actually paid that 7000$ for it, and i cant believe some people will pay the 2600$ (if your gonna shoot at arms length, which is hilarious) for this.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Feb 20, 2013)

Im not a big fan of the xtrans rendering but, the fuji has more value than this. it has a vf (a magnificent one at that), the sharpness (arguably) challenges FF, the lens (the 35mm f1.4 mentioned) is a stop faster and should I need or want another focal length I can change the lens.

0 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Feb 20, 2013)

And hippo84, I just checked, a brand spanking new fuji x pro 1 and a 35mm f1.4 goes for 2000$. Lets check the RX1...4,080$ with the vf, lens hood (because at 2800$, its not included), thumb grip (that broke during the review), and leather carrying case. 3580$ if youre gonna cheap out on the carrying case (really?) and you dont mind rheumatoid arthritis (no reviewer in the universe is gonna convince me that thing is comfortable after half an hour). With 4080$ i can get the fuji with 3 primes, a zoom and a 80$ grip (eventhough the fuji has one).
And RB, it probably performs better than a leica, but sony doesnt have leica's name or "cachet". Im sure the hyundai Genesis sedan is better than some lexuses just like they say, how many lexus buyers you think will switch? Leica can charge whatever they want but sony?
You can dress a monkey in silk all you want, end of the day he'll still be a monkey.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 20, 2013)

Great camera even outside the price until I heard of the Fujifilm X100s.

0 upvotes
memo90061
By memo90061 (Feb 20, 2013)

I want this camera, but I can't afford it. Well I can, but I shouldn't. :'(

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 20, 2013)

LOL
it is alluring, isn't it!

3 upvotes
Cipher
By Cipher (Feb 20, 2013)

It's cheaper than a Leica!

3 upvotes
memo90061
By memo90061 (Feb 20, 2013)

It is, but as a university student I must save. haha

0 upvotes
lightleak
By lightleak (Feb 20, 2013)

Where is this place where students have enough money to buy a RX1? I want to matriculate ;)

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Feb 20, 2013)

One of the best comments here; LOL.

0 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

@ Cipher: For good reasons, many of which are obvious.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 546
123