Just posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review updated with lens data

If you need speed and high ISO then fine but for the main type of photography for which I would use this type of camera (landscape), I want the best possible IQ. The Sigma's colours are better, the lens (unlike the lens on the Sony) displays no CA and the Sigma's resolution of fine detail, particularly of random areas (e.g. leaves), is far better than the Sony.
Regarding fine detail, it could be that DPR's RX1 real world examples are over-sharpened (sharpening artefacts are plain to see) and over-compressed.
The RX1 is certainly far more versatile than the Sigma and wins on every count other than IQ. The problem is that the RX1 is being sold as the ultimate compact camera for IQ but it is beaten by a camera of 1/3 of its price.

Base ISO, the DP2m is pretty much better than any bayer sensored camera if image quality is everything.

Photographyblog rated DP2 an average of 3.5 while RX1 4.5-5 stars so no match at all!

I presume you are being ironic and humorous?

"Sony never feel like they quite understand how to make a camera that is good to use."

Well given my A77 is the best camera ergonomically I have ever used (and I have been into photography for over 35 years) I would say your sweeping generalisation should be ignored.

How good cameras are from a usability point of view is largely personal preference but my comments on the A77 are largely echoed by other users. Now granted this comment section is about a different camera and one I have never used myself but I could not let your sweeping and inaccurate generalisation go by without comment

iaredatsun--

I've handled in a store and shot test shots with:

The RX1, RX100, Nex 5, A99, and A77, and I don't feel that's there's any particular handling and use difficulties with any of these cameras.

Now there maybe different menu choices and in the case of the Nex there are lens limitations, but these are all well thought out cameras. (Which don't make the mistakes of the earlier Nex menus.)

I like the camera but the idea VF is external and it has to be removed and re-inserted for portability is difficult me. I have damaged an external viewfinder (Oly E-PL1 with VF3) before. I need VF; my eyesight is not that great anymore. Composing using the primary LCD vs. via VF doesn't produce the same result for me. Solid hand held vs. holding at fingertips. I can compose and get nicer shots via VF. So, that's why I was a bit critical about the VF couple of comments ago in the other RX1 review link. I got hammered by RX1 users for that statement.
But I think overall it's a good attempt by Sony but I may wait for the next release. Sony has the tendency to add more features in the next release and sell it at lower initial price. Or they might leave RX1 as a unique attempt and there might not be another hardware upgrade but there'll be plenty of Firmware upgrade.

Um, you do know that there is a big screen on the back, don't you? This can be used for framing pictures. And you won't have to run down the chemists and wait for a week to see your pictures because they pop up instantly! The world changed while you were trying to focus your box brownies.

Might work for you but doesn't mean it works for everyone. I guess, you never needed a VF at all.

I like shooting with the RX1. I LOVE shooting with it when I have attached the optional EVF. It’s just a better camera with the EVF installed. If you can afford a ridiculously priced 3000 fixed lens compact then you can afford its pricey EVF. If you can't afford it, then don't worry about it, it’s not for you......

Harry, it is a bit hard to vote for a built-in EVF, since the main point of this camera is size. Offering it as a separate solution is very wise i.m.o. Since you really need a VF, you need to stick with larger cameras.

The missing charger is a bad joke though, but somehow typical for Sony.

Actually, it seems like charging in camera was a deliberate choice for both the RX100 and RX1 to keep the traveling package as compact as possible, which is the whole point of these cameras to begin with...
I say that also because they usually do provide external chargers and want you to charge externally.
But if charging internally is a hurdle, you can always spend a whopping $10 so you can charge both internally and externally.

harry cannoli:

Um Sony was probably trying for the smallest body possible.

TrojMacReady:

In camera charging is fine, but not including a charger is not.

I think for the more amateurs like me, the smaller camera is just easier to handle when taking pictures. So I end up having the camera on me, and getting a shot off quicker than if I had to take the larger DSLR out of the case, lift it and compose the picture. The off-the-cuff shots are easier to execute (for me) and therefore am able to take advantage of opportunities a bit better. But I like the DSLR's too so this is not meant to denigrate them. Just that the Sony RX1 (and 100) is relatively quick and easy, and it brings home the bacon with regards to picture quality.

@Schonbeck
I am really happy for you. I have few questions.
What about this camera that let you take such good pictures that you couldn't take before?
Full frame?
Lens?
Better sensor?
A combination of the above?
How your pictures are now different from your older pictures?
Sharper?
Better color?
Better DOF?

Just trying to understand. Thanks.

Thanks for the replies. First of all - this is not to bash on DSLRs - for action photography and for tele zoom those are a better choice. Some answers to above.
HowaboutRAW:
- No I have not printed - i rarely do. But i view them on my 27" iMac and some times on a 55" Samsung TV.
- No I did not use a Zeiss lens - the lenses used where mainly the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR.

I actually bought the D600 with the 85mm 1.8 - but i returned it after 2 days. The sharpness was a disaster and the entire camera felt sluggish. Maybe something was wrong with it. But if you look at the review for the D600 on dpreview in the JPEG-comparisons the sharpness IS a disaster - i do not understand why other people have not noticed this. Yes - full frame should be RAW but sometimes you just want to snap away some JPEGs. At least i do - i am not a professional but a very enthusiastic amateur.

Sorry for all the replies :-) but here is an example from the other day - again weak light at a restaurant. JPEG, quick snap, no effort.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/93340725@N08/8503213638/sizes/k/in/photostream/

Sorry with this type of response all you are achieving is showing everyone your ignorance, well done!

What do you shoot with, yabokkie?

yabukaki is canikon fanboy...guaranteed.

Steven,

You show your ignorance. I guess you missed the point?

Once again you are not seeing the point, it is DSLR QUALITY without the bulk, it is a fixed lens, whats the issue with that, if you don't want to shoot with a fixed lens don't buy it, however it doesn't lessen the quality of the camera! Just go and look at the quality of the pictures that the bloggers/professional photographers are achieving, the 35mm fov is a superb walk around and very versatile. The only stumbling block will be the person behind the lens!

IT is pointless marking this camera down as a fixed lens as that is what it has been designed to be and if you look at the characteristics of the lens and how close it is in relation to the sensor it couldn't be anything else but a fixed lens! Anyway I love it, I'll let the naysayers continue to moan and the rest to enjoy such a remarkable achievement. In my eyes this camera is destined to become a classic.

I don't see the point.
1/ There is no such thing as DSLR QUALITY. Interchangeable lenses give you the versatility. It's not a 'bulk' mainly if the camera body itself is not too big.
2/ 35mm is ok if you want to take photos mainly of a couple of people. Perhaps the bloggers/pros you mentioned do it.
3/ FF gives you practically nothing extra if you put the photos on the web like the bloggers.

I think this camera is definitely for people who buy gems not tools.

BTW1 I'd never buy a fixed lense camera even if this would be only ca. $100. Otherwise I have nothing against the Sony. In the camera business they are really innovative.

BTW2 what's the meaning of sentences like this: "characteristics of the lens and how close it is in relation to the sensor it couldn't be anything else but a fixed lens"

1) Sorry most people will understand what "DSLR quality" means, I could say Full Frame quality for the RX1 but unlike you I don't want to play semantics.
2) You are seriously misguided and inexperienced if thats all you think you are able to do with a 35mm - and No I am talking about professional people who far more than taking a few snaps of people! Obviously you have undertaken no proper research of your own and never used an RX1!
4) Once again you are showing your lack of experience and understanding!
5) I point to my answer in 4.

I understand you wouldn't buy a fixed lens camera, and unlike you I have no reason to either argue against your own put down a camera because it has a fixed lens!

Read Sony's transcripts and watch the videos where they discussed the challenges of putting together the RX1.

I can't think of any compelling reason for a pro to buy a fixed lens camera at such a high price.

Now for amatuers or street photographers this is something useful if you want FF quality photos in a compact body.

You can correct vignetting in camera. And it works very very well.
Anyway I do love the light fall off.
I've disabled that option and I think the lense's character came out even better.

viewfinder is a funny thing we can put behind.
vignetting is a trade-off for low cost and lightweight.

The dynamic range that DPR reports only applies to JPEGs, and has more to do with the specific tone curve that is applied during image processing, than with the true "engineering DR" of the sensor.
According to DxO the RX1 has 2 EVs wider dynamic range at base ISO, and is better through the entire ISO range. This gives you an advantage, if you shoot RAW and apply your own tone curves in post-processing.

That Sigma 35 is by far THE best 35mm on the market today. It is also half the price of say Nikons version...
Which stone do you live under ?

Sigma got excellent managers with vision and expertise.

R Butler:

Look Sigma makes some really good lenses, but they all lack something in colour compared to well done Zeisses, of which this Sony's is one.

Then you do realize that the Leica 35mm F2 M mount is missing from the DXO list?

It's simplistic to go by DXO's scoring for lenses or sensors, and in fact they miss a good deal--well demonstrated here.

We must get out of those dusty lab pictures.

The Sigma 35mm also trounces the entire camera in terms of weight (by 50%, RX1 weighs about 420g while Sigma 35mm/1.4 tips the scale at over 630g) and possibly is larger on its own than the RX1 too.

Einstein, how much have you shot at 35mm and f/2 on full frame? You seem to be implying that MF should be easy enough due to DOF reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not much since I haven't felt the need to consider a FF digital body, but I would guess 90% of my photography is with manual focus and a vast majority of it happens in 24-50mm FF equivalent.

I'm fairly comfortable with very thin DOF and MF (taken with NEX-3 and Sony 135mm f/2.8 with considerably shallower DoF than 35mm f/2 on FF would entail):
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8340/8251855140_a3e57b7d1e_c.jpg

I don't see the point to using manual focus on a camera like this.

It's being touted for street photography, seems like it should be a little snappier to be up to that task.

LarryK,

I'm sure street photography existed before the advent of auto focus. But trust me, MF can be equally and sometimes more effective than AF, when the camera makes it easier (Focus Peaking is a wonderful thing).

You might have forgotten that cameras had real viewfinders back then at no extra charge.

A three thousand dollar camera with auto focus should be able to use it effectively.

Cameras with rangefinders were great. Get a rangefinder and it worked. You can do that with RX1 too. What they didn't have was any other method to compose. Now we have LCD, and Focus Peaking and Focus Magnify.

That you find RX1 to be very expensive, is a different issue altogether.

One that would probably get you punched in the face.

@LarryK: "Yes, and by the time you've focus peaked and Focus Magnified and chimped, the shot is gone."
That might happen with someone not being proficient with MF, even with such tools as focus peaking. But then, you may have never tried it.

@joejack951: "Have you actually done the calculation? Going by minimum focus distances, your 135mm f/2.8 lens on a NEX will give you a minimum of 4mm DOF. In the normal focus range, the RX1 will focus as close as 24cm yielding 4.8mm of DOF wide open. In the macro mode with its 14cm minimum focus distance, the RX1 has a scant 1.4mm of DOF."

The shot of the fly involves a DoF about the same as the length of the fly. At about 1m (MFD is 87cm), the DoF calculates to about half cm, about right.

On FF, with 35mm f/2 (or 24mm/1.4 on APS-C), you'd have to be 25cm from the subject for that DoF. So, if one can be achieved, and I regularly do it, why can't the other? What exactly were you trying to prove with your argument? That thin DoF and MF can't be mated?

My tools are primarily full frame DSLRs, they all focus fast and accurately, as they are expected to.

I doubt I'll be gracing Texas with my presence anytime soon. I was there once, and as I understand it, there have been no major improvements since.

Totally agree. If you could do just two galleries...one for OOCJ and one for RAW....your reviews would be perfect. :-)

Galleries with just OOCJ are not fully showing cameras's potential quality.

with the same sensor, image quality will be the equivalent of a full frame. The only cost to light weight is ergonomics and control

In fact, with a lens like this one, it's said and indeed looks like not even Zeiss its own ZF/ZE/ZA 35mm F2 can beat this little devil's lens plus sensor combination.

http://youtu.be/9O60h3Wz1Z0