Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review

Read this why the camera is worth the price...
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sony-Cyber-shot-RX1-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-2-35-Is-this-the-ultimate-moderate-wide-angle-lens/Measurement

There are so many negative comments here. I'll admit, without any hesitation, that I would love this camera. I love the concept, the execution is beautiful, and the camera is one of a kind for now. As a mere university student I can't really afford it (without giving up my interchangeable lens setup, but I sure don't want to do that), but it's a magnificent camera, and I look forward to some day owning a successor to it.

A camera of this size I could take everywhere with me, all the time. That's the precise reason I bought into the NEX system, but I got greedy with image quality, and after accessories and big lenses that became more of a full-size setup. With this, there wouldn't be much need to sacrifice quality for size.

Sure it's expensive, but it's a premium product, that's how it is. I'm glad it's available.

Edit: although, as a side note, the Europe-extra in the price is raw as hell in this case. ~2100 euros vs 3100 euros? That's a "bit" beyond taxes and logistics...

I sold my x100 and got a RX1 two days ago, but tomorrow I am going to bring this metal thing back to the shop and FAST.
The WB capability of this camera is giving completely unreliable results compared to the x100. Sometimes it gets it right, but most of the times the color rendition is very poor, again compared to the x100.

Moreover, in some light conditions there is a nasty green-magenta shift which has been widely documented elsewhere. This not a "defective copy issue" as you can see the same bad color cast in many pictures produced by other RX1 so I am going to say it loud:

BEWARE IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING TO BUY THE RX1 !!!

Life is short, I'm not going to spend hours with LR to fix the WB/color cast issues of the RX1.

That said, quality build is excellent, lens is superb, whatever, who cares...it just makes me feel worse about the fact that I cannot keep it.

For me RX1 is just missing the steady shot in photo mode !
Ok, AF is not so good, but it is a compact and not a DSLR. It is so small that you are very impressed to have such quality in such a volume. The RX1 is always with me at work, in tube etc. It is very discrete, This is the perfect companion ;-)! I have some shoot i could have never done before

Sony! Remove the flash, use that space for a viewfinder, improve focusing and video. Then and only then you'll justify RX1's price.

In my country, this guy just bought it for fun, and sold it under two weeks , ckckckckck,

http://bursa.fotografer.net/items/detailitem.php?id=206643

I got a chance to play with the RX1 and to be honest after 5 minutes I was done. Focus was too slow indoors. I had my OM-D and was also trialing a 6D, and the indoor focus speed of those two really brought home how lagging the RX1 AF was. Add to that the lack of focus peeking during full view cmposition and I knew very quickly I wasn't going to be happy with that knd of performance on a premium product.

I don't mind the price, but I just would find it itritating to be constantly reminded they hadnt pulled out all the stops for their flagship product.

After my brief hands on I took a trip to the cybershot forum here, and sure enough there were a number of negative comments regarding focussing. For sure, some would have been user error, but some would also have been camera performance.

Hopefully, some firmware updates and perhaps a few tweaks to the build (not uncommon in high value low volume productions) will tempt me to look again in a few months.

I bought a 40 STM for my 5D3 to see if I could get over my RX-1 fever.

Guess what. That combo works very, very well.

No it's not a Leica and no, it's not an Exmor but the AF is a machine gun and pics are very nice.

It's bulkier than the RX-1 but it easily fits in my messenger bag which is all that really counts for me.

I have not ruled out the SONY but I can think about it from a saner position at this point.

So, let me get this...Fabulous image quality, but nasty vignetting; true f2 35mm dof, but really slow focusing under all circumstances; compact and quite, but no viewfinder other than the LCD screen; great high iso performance, but good luck focusing in low light. And all this for more than twice the price of the Fuji X100s, which reportedly eliminates all the complaints associated with the original X100? And Dpreview gives this a Gold rating? In what world? And by the way, is there anything in Sony's history to indicate that it will respond with firmware improvements as Fuji does? (And keep in mind that the real focusing fix in the X100s has come not as a result of firmware upgrades, but with replacement of the sensor and an entirely new focusing system.) Yes, indeed, this is a digital Lecia. LOL.

If I were sony trying to sell these things, I would have priced them a tiny bit higher but bundled in just about everything you could ever want. A second battery, a charger, the OVF AAAAND EVF, a hood, the thumb thingy, and maybe even a couple filters. That, and a really nice box with a really nice printed manual. Bundling in all that stuff would raise the price (though I think they could shave some margin and not raise it too much) but at $2,800 for a fixed lens you're pricing yourself out of existing markets anyway. Why not just embrace you're making a completely different high end product and blow people away with accessories?

441 comments in the first day!

Clearly the publicity around this camera will be worth it to Sony even if they don't sell many. But I bet they will sell quite a few.

I find it funny to read all of these opinions many of which fail to accept this camera simply for what it is. Did people criticize Linhof's Technoramas by calling them expensive and too limited with the fixed wide lens and no built in flash or meter? There have been many other fixed lens expensive cameras that fit a niche.

So a camera with a longer list of Cons than Pros gets a Gold Award? Really now. And they call an aspect of this camera a Pro and a Con: charging. Pro: USB charging is convenient, Con: no included charger makes it difficult to keep a spare battery charged. Did more than one person write this review without review at the end?

I liked the size, weight, responsiveness, quality feel to it but it felt like a premium PS camera. What is the niche? This is not for soccer moms. This is not an ideal travel camera. This is not a "Pros" cam. This is not an enthusiast camera due to cost. This is a camera geek camera. It is a nice camera but I think double the price of the Fuji X-100S for probably a 10-15% performance of output advantage is not that much of a return. If you have to spend another $1,000 on a viewfinder and hood ect you might as well get the XPro1 and a handful of their best lenses for the same cost. Basically I am saying this camera should be about $2,000.

Usefulness and value of this camera can be viewed in several ways.

1. Only camera. Usefulness of it as only camera is highly restrictive and as such is extremely overpriced.
2. Additional camera. Can be very useful in situations where excellent IQ in a compact size is wanted and fixed focal length is not an issue. Even then in the era of cameras like OM-D (great IQ, compact with a pancake lens, a lot more versatile and 1000/- USD), RX1 still is overpriced.
3. Fashion statement. RX1 is not particularly sexy.

I am sure many will still buy it and feel happy.

I love my RX1 for B&W shooting. Check this out: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/02/04/the-sony-rx1-in-bw-by-steve-huff-and-other-rx1-owners/

I think that many people misunderstand this camera. Like all cameras the RX1 is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. If its specs are not what you are interested in then there are many other cameras out there to consider. It is not a camera for all-around use and I doubt if very many people who own the RX1 have it as their only camera. But to complain about it because it is a fixed-lens camera, or because it doesnt have a viewfinder, that is like complaining that a Ferrari can't drive the family around to soccer games. Or complaining that a minivan can't go 200mph. Innovation and an increase in the types of tools to create images is a good thing for the entire photographic community.

Remember, not everyone shares your needs and wants and that is OK. You are not the center of the universe. It is irrational to bash a product just because it does not meet your needs.

Frustration. You so badly WANT to love it but it won't let you.

USB charging, no lens hood included, SONY at its lamest; putting to shame their biggest bet yet.
And... dust on the sensor??? What sort of QC is that??? And what do you do then???

How can they ask 3000 euros for it? Even if it's the product of the century (and I would agree with that). How do you convince people this is a premium product too?

Premium class and product branding takes more than just bold moves. SONY did something that Leica dared not (and I doubt Leica has the technical expertise of SONY anyway) but it's still a SONY because of the above. That's why it's called a Cyber-shot and, sadly, it lives up (but no higher) to its name.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/02/a-cascade-of-rx1-reviews.html

More interesting reviews.

As my first post on this site after being a longtime lurker, I just want to say that I have no opinion on this camera.

This RX1 is obviously very capable camera which I guess should get a Gold Award on IQ and implementation alone. But so too should have the Fuji X100 (and X-Pro1 for that matter) which at the time did not many peers in term of total package: Hybrid VF, build quality, IQ, except the much higher end Leica M9.

The original X100 had slow AF, but absolutely superb IQ. Sound familiar? Unlike the RX1, it had the innovative Hybrid VF. The VF, wonderful lens, IQ and beautifully crafted metal body alone deserved a Gold Award, but for some reason, Fujifilm doesn't get much love on DPR.

Sony stepped well away from the norm in putting this together. I can imagine the specs vs marketing conversation:

"Hey let's include an EVF"

"Too big, forums will hate it"

"Ok, no EVF"

"Forums will hate it"

"What about interchangeable lenses?"

"Will have to be too big for a full frame sensor. The forums will hate it"

"Fixed lens then?"

"Forums will hate it"

"With the ISO performance of the sensor, can't we get away with a smaller lens?"

"DOF. Forums will hate it."

"Ok, a bigger large aperture lens then"

"Too big, forums will hate it"

Such is marketing life with the internet. No camera can ever be perfect, but I'd say they straddled the line about as well as they could have. That being said, I have handled the camera and I put it down quickly because like a high class prostitute I would love the result of the expense, but really shouldn't.

I love all these m4/3 photographer comments, it reminds me of sony adherents 5 years ago. Remember Oly fans, you are in the sony camp now.

Funny how come not having an articulating screen when the EVF is optional not being a con and the Pentax K-01 got hit hard for not having it (the form factor of both with lens is close enough).

I'm sure its an awesome camera that I will never get to own but having that capability for a US$2800 would have been nice.

Love the comments bashing the bashers.

It's basically "You don't know 'cause you don't own it and you can't afford it!!" (Somewhat reminiscent of the comments about Leicas.)

But. When discussing the m43 gear it is: "I don't have it, I don't want it, I haven't even tried it, but it is still *beep*!"

Wonder about the overlap between the two groups of the commenters. Should bookmark the lot for the next m43 camera review.

P.S. Another nice piece of gear coming from Sony. Though if I were to buy anything Sony right now, it would have been the RX100 hands down: RX1 is way too large for my tastes (or rather: lens protrudes too much) while still having no EVF. Also IMO with such excellent sensor, they could have went with a darker lens.

Some big tech guy on the radio took this 5DmkIII to the super bowl, guess what happened.... They did not let him in with the camera. He did not get any pictures and it ruined the experience for the entire group. How much is this worth to you. Maybe the RX1 comes at a premium, but being able to take it places you could not take a DSLR may be priceless for its buyers. Lets take a look at the numbers:

Full frame compact sensor camera: +-$1900
Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 Biogon T* with autofocus: +-1000
Total: $2900

6D/D600: +- $1900
Sigma 35mm F1.4: $900
Total: $2800

Having a great time at the super bowl with many images that captured the moments...Priceless...or at least worth the extra $100 bucks.

This is assuming you want the best of the best, lots of other great cameras on the market: RX100, X100s, OMD and so on.

"I can't stress this enough. The RX1 is almost totally silent in operation because of its leaf shutter. If you turn off the electronic focus confirmation sound all you hear is a soft "snick" when the shutter is released. Someone standing a few feet away, even in a totally silent room, won't be able to hear it, and in any normal environment the camera is effectively totally silent. Of course there are many small cameras with leaf shutters that are also silent, but full-frame, 24 MP? No, nothing else past or present."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_rx1_review.shtml

I think RX1 is the most loved, hated and most discussed "Preview" and "Review" articles on this website...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/12/Sony-Cyber-Shot-DSC-RX1-preview-video-full-frame-24MP-35mm-F2-camera-carl-zeiss

Sony must be doing something right to generate this kind of discussions.

There's always a market, in rich societies obsessed with status, for products that actually feature reduced functionality and increased prices in exchange for the promise of some subtle cachet which will attach to the purchaser. This usually happens in markets which are becoming saturated with feature-rich examples of the commodity in question. Of course this effect is always short-lived - and usually unsatisfying - which means that the exercise can be repeated regularly with minor variations. So now we have these throwback cameras with fixed prime lenses and optional add-on viewfinders. The laughable prices actually enhance their desirability in just the same way that high-priced mechanical wristwatches which offer nothing functionally superior to inexpensive quartz models, continue to sell. And there's Leica of course, from whom Sony have obviously learned something. But the most important characteristic of the camera is still what it's pointed at.

For the price, I'd have to ask myself what can this camera achieve that a FF SLR cannot. Is it clearly more discreet? Not particularly.

I would rather buy a prime lens (maybe two?) with an entry-mid level dslr body for the price and keep complaining about the size, weight etc :)