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
photog4u
By photog4u (Mar 18, 2013)

To the boys and girls at DPR; it’s taken me weeks to digest your score on the RX1 and I have to say I feel like you missed an opportunity. Gold is good of course but 79? NO WAY! Of all of the fantastic cameras that were introduced in 2012, and there were some beauties, the RX1 represented the one camera in the lot that broke all of the stereotypes and preconceived notions about what is possible and IMO, singlehandedly altered what will be produced and available to us (the consumer) in the near future. Because of the RX1, the sensors, lenses and specifications of many cameras in many R&D labs are being re-thought and re-worked for our benefit. These thought processes probably started with the RX100 but fate was sealed months later when the RX1 shocked everyone. Nobody hates the RX1 more than Leica; Huff didn’t get an invite to last year’s Leica event I’M CERTAIN because he was one of the early RX1 adopters. Your review was well done and informative but your score should have been 88.

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Feb 22, 2013)

Poor AF performance is a real disappointment. Shame.

0 upvotes
samdman
By samdman (Feb 27, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ9er60UOT4
it seem that the new Fuji firmware has made X-E1 AF speed in PAR with RX1. Even that X-E1 got helped by the AF assist light while RX1 did not. So that would mean equally dissapointing you say?
I guess 0.5sec AF speed is REALLLLLY disappointing indeed.

1 upvote
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Mar 1, 2013)

Do you have some sports pictures we could see? I shoot rally and football outdoors, athletics in and outdoors (indoors it's mostly high jump etc., outdoors it's that plus throwing). I'm also interested in motos.

Thanks.

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 22, 2013)

See below

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
John BN
By John BN (Feb 22, 2013)

Based on the jpeg comparisons and the raw comparisons there's no way I would shell out for this camera in preference to my NEX C3 which goes on showing significantly better definition than most other cameras reviewed in its class and above it. Just check the comparisons in the full review.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Feb 22, 2013)

LMAO, look at this ratings to find out http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings why you are wrong...

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 22, 2013)

Be careful how much emphasis you place on DPRs Studio comparisons of the RX1. Here is an exchange you missed:

I SAID: "I doubt anyone uses DPRs studio comparisons as the sole criteria in a purchase decision. Many including myself are less than impressed with this tool. In the case of the RX1, DPR has the camera set to f11 which is not its best performing stop. Having said that, YES it most certainly is worth every penny of the cost when you take into consideration high ISO performance, OOC jpeg quality, lens signature, rendering and bokeh. All are superior in the RX1."
TO WIT: R. Butler of DPR said: "This camera highlights all the reasons we're having to develop a new test scene - even, colour-balanced lighting doesn't show low-light performance and the close working distances, particularly with cameras that don't reach to 85-90mm equiv, end up giving atypical results."

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Feb 22, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Feb 22, 2013)

I suggest to read the lens comparison of RX1 to the best of Nikon and Canon lens. Bloody sharp! No wonder RX1 is worth $2,800. Nothing compare!

0 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Feb 22, 2013)

Lately I compare everything to the D4 and Xpro1 iso6400 raw, then do the same in jpeg, it feels a good benchmark. Doing that reveals the RX1 as pretty good, though considering the x100s will be almost identical in image quality to the x-pro1 with supposedly faster focus and processing, the Rx1 would seem a tad expensive by comparison - twice as much.

0 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Feb 22, 2013)

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...

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Feb 22, 2013)

We saw the Sony NEX versions done by Hasselblad.
I wonder how shall Hasselblad's version of the RX1 look like? Any rumours?

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
muju79
By muju79 (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 22, 2013)

Sorry a bit of negative propaganda and scaremongering going on. I am not experiencing any of the issues you are. The WB has gven me NO issues at all, go on to the bloggers sites, photographers sites and for some reason no one is reporting issues with WB or this nasty green-magenta shift! Strange!

0 upvotes
muju79
By muju79 (Feb 22, 2013)

RX1 color shift investigated by Imaging Resource:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/02/01/latest-from-the-ir-labsony-rx1-tint-problem-a-sneak-peak-at-camera-tests

RX1 color shift reported by a blogger:
http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2012/12/sony-rx1-colour-shift-calibration-aperture-series-ettr-more

Random examples of RX1 pictures showing color cast on left-right side or top-bottom taken from RX1 group on Flickr (different users = different RX1 units = common issue, including also mine):

1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/urbnik/8489048418/in/pool-rx1/
2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/vaderism/8489375645/in/pool-rx1/
3. http://www.flickr.com/photos/hanasta/8472552085/in/photostream

I may go on but I think it's enough. As I said, my opinion on RX1 WB is in comparison with the x100, not PER SE. About the color cast, it happens in some light conditions, NOT ALWAYS otherwise I think nobody would have bought the camera. I hope you'll never notice anything similar in your files.

1 upvote
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 22, 2013)

muju79: what’s the point of bringing all of your negativity to this forum if not to try to discourage members from purchasing the RX1? NO camera is perfect. I could bludgeoned yours all to hell and paste links into this site that would carve it up nicely. But what would be the point? I believe you bought the RX1 for the sole purpose of finding things wrong with it so you could return it and feel better about your Fuji. What a complete waste of time and resources...SHAME ON YOU. Your motives are completely transparent...now off you go FANBOY!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
muju79
By muju79 (Feb 22, 2013)

Ah.......I see you point.......I have sold my x100, I have spent 200.000 yen on a camera that I already knew I was going to return, just to confirm to myself my preference for Fuji. It makes perfect sense.
The complete waste of time and resources would be to continue this conversation with such a narrow-minded person. I'm off.

1 upvote
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 22, 2013)

Imaging-resource is quite a reputable site. it's good that people provide info about their experiences. gives us readers extra info to weight out a purchase. >2K is not any cheap camera and we have no time to test this in the shops plus the sales person is only going to give the pros of the camera. I think the cons are equally important.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
1 upvote
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 23, 2013)

Wow. How much I love the theorist photographer. Well, I think I'll keep enjoing my rx1. I've sold my X100 too. No regrets, at all.
If you can buy it...do it, it's one of the most fantastic camera to date.

Don't waste your time, life is short...
Enjoy it.

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 23, 2013)

I don't think majority of people commenting here are just writing here for fun. You may have a lot of money to do trial and error thing but most of us couldn't afford to do. so, questions are ask by cautious buyers.

1 upvote
David H Dennis
By David H Dennis (Feb 25, 2013)

I checked out the three images cited by Mugu79. Sure enough, the first image has an ugly green cast in the water. But what does the description say? He didn't like the muddy water and turned up the green to counteract it. Oops!

The other two shots had what seemed like perfectly fine color to me. I would have to have been there to see the actual scene to be sure, but nothing looked out of the ordinary.

I visited the Sony Style kiosk in the Aventura Mall, where I saw the RX1 and was immediately smitten by the design. So I went back and was able to take a few shots that I saved on my personal memory card. The image quality is very close to that of my D4 (which I had with me to do the comparison). Unfortunately, the RX1 ran out of battery before I could make the full set of comparison images I wanted, but even with my limited set, I was impressed with what this cute, tiny camera can do.

I think a lot of the detractors just don't like the price :(.

D

0 upvotes
A900user
By A900user (Feb 22, 2013)

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

1 upvote
cheetah43
By cheetah43 (Feb 22, 2013)

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

1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 23, 2013)

Why do you need a VF if it doesn't help in focusing? And if you don't see what you get. Or you mean an EVF?

0 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (Feb 22, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Feb 22, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
David H Dennis
By David H Dennis (Feb 25, 2013)

I think the focus is fine for posed pictures and anything still, but it's certainly not going to help much for fast-moving people. At the same time, the design is so nice it's really easy to love. I'm just about to spend $2,100 on a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, so I can't afford the RX1 right now, but next time I have that much to put into photo equipment, I will probably buy one because I love the design so much.

But I have to admit, the autofocus is the one thing preventing it from being the perfect camera of its type. I wonder if they ran out of space in the body for a better autofocus mechanism? Why couldn't they use the same system as a DSLR?

D

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Mar 3, 2013)

I think it's a great effort by SOny to produce this camera but i think we shouldn't be expecting this camera to produce equal performance when comparing with FF DSLR like 6D or others in terms of AF etc. The Pro/Semi Pro - DSLR are still specialised pro equipment. the RX1 is more for casual use where compactness matter. I also see some saying how good the electronic shutter is etc... is it any better than mechanical shutter? Electronic shutter are managed by the processors. the input from the button is read, processed to output the electronic shutter release. Another result i haven't seen is the shutter lag time and AF lock time in Dpreview review.

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
Carbon111
By Carbon111 (Feb 21, 2013)

Kind of thinking of the Sigma 35 for my 6D for the same-ish reason. Got the 40 STM...remarkably sharp and extremely compact - just wish it was a bit faster.

RX1 is tempting though...I love Zeiss glass!

2 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Feb 21, 2013)

I want a version with slightly larger size: Better AF. EVF, Lowpass less D800 Sensor.

0 upvotes
bdcolen
By bdcolen (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 21, 2013)

No.

Fabulous image quality. Similar vignetting you'd get on any 35mm F2 lens. Average (not slow) focusing, which then slows in low light. Smaller than any other full frame camera.

Yes, it's twice the price of an X100S but the image quality is almost unmatched. If the X100s' IQ is the combination of X100 lens and X-Pro1 images, it'll be lovely (and that balance of price and IQ would suit me better), but don't kid yourself that it'll be as good.

An X100S won't be twice as good as a $550 compact (in IQ terms), but it will be better, and people will be willing to pay for that improvement. Double the price again and no, the RX1 isn't twice as good, but it is better in IQ terms, and some people will want that.

Put it this way: I went to a friend's wedding last summer and the photographer switched between a D3s and an X100. His X100 shots were great. An RX1 would allow him to get even better looking shots (and the focus is better than an X100), then it may be worth it for him.

11 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 21, 2013)

I read your bio Mr. Colen and you seem educated and intelligent enough. So may I recommend that you shoot with the RX1 before launching into such an opinionated diatribe? I'm confident that you will agree with Gold after spending some quality time with the camera. It really is an extraordinary piece of photographic technology.

3 upvotes
Ak pinxit
By Ak pinxit (Feb 21, 2013)

Very stylish camera , IQ on the high side and most of the negative points could be corrected through FW (as it was with Fuji) , though I'm not sure that for such a limited target group , there will be effort from Sony to develop this FW fix.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Feb 21, 2013)

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?

4 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 21, 2013)

great review!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
lighthunter80
By lighthunter80 (Feb 21, 2013)

Well, it is a full frame sensor with a 35mm f/2.0 lens on it with all the DOF advantages. I would consider to buy one if it had an EVF/OVF _included_ at that price.

I am sure this is not the last of this type of camera. If in the future any producer can come up with a similar concept under $2k they would sell like hot cake.

For all who think it is too expensive they should really consider the Fuji X100S.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 21, 2013)

Fuji X100s is really nice, image quality is as good as old full frames. RX1 is for people that value the rendering of zeiss glass and want to be able to shoot at high ISO's with very low noise. Its the best fixed lens camera in the world, and the most expensive. (unless im forgetting about a new leica fixed lens..dont think so)

1 upvote
jyhfeei
By jyhfeei (Feb 21, 2013)

Using the RAW/JPEG comparator tool for the RX-1, X100 and the X-Pro1 @ ISO 6400, I don't see the RX-1 being much better than the APS-C X-trans sensor. I like the watch face in the comparator as a revealing judge of noise and lens edge performance. Meld the lens performance of the X100 with the sensor of the X-E1 (assuming revised sensor is at least as good) and the X100S should be a formidable camera and includes a hybrid optical VF to boot. Not to mention the faster focusing/operation. As for the Zeiss glass of the Sony, Fuji glass is pretty much it's equal. So what are you left with the Sony, a bit of DOF, a bit of resolution, and a bit better build quality at a $2000 premium.

2 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (Feb 21, 2013)

@jyhfeei : imho you need to compare FF with APS-C in real world usage not just studio shot.. :)

1 upvote
Ak pinxit
By Ak pinxit (Feb 21, 2013)

I think , there won't be "less 2K camera" even if it possible in means of production .
This camera came to challenge Leica (the "standard" ) and it can't afford it self to be "people camera" .

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
lighthunter80
By lighthunter80 (Feb 22, 2013)

At some point there will be 'less $2k cameras. If there is a demand (and there is) then there will be a supply. Maybe not the next 2 years but at some point...
Fuji is jumping into this gap to some extend except they are not full frame.

0 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Feb 21, 2013)

Can a 24 megapixel Bayer compete with a 46 megapixel Foveon X3?

If not, why would anyone buy an RX-1?

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Feb 21, 2013)

Because it's there.

2 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 21, 2013)

Foveon should have as much details as a 30MP bayer sensor but full frame sensors tend to do quite a bit better than APSC assuming low ISO. High ISO, the foveon falls apart. The sigma DP cameras have many issues including battery life. Sometimes you can only get about 40-50 images per charge. That is like one roll of film lol. They do have nice quality at low ISO and for the price is a good camera.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 21, 2013)

> Foveon should have as much details as a 30MP bayer sensor

I would say 20MP something. Foveon is an interesting design with not as good result, yet.

0 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Feb 21, 2013)

At base ISO, I'll bet on the Foveon. If a camera cannot compete at the lowest ISO, why bother with high ISO performance?

The Merrills have their issues, but so does the RX-1. And for 3X more money I'd expect more...... a lot more........ from the RX-1.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Feb 21, 2013)

>why would anyone buy an RX-1?

Because I'm pig-rich or staring nuts. No, seriously, it's a fine tool, only a tad dear. I'll just have to limp along with my RX100.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 21, 2013)

"At base ISO, I'll bet on the Foveon"

Why? Apart from resolution advantage to Foveon, RX1 should have lower noise, better dynamic range, and more DOF control, even at base ISO.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 23, 2013)

don't think Foven can out resolve RX1 even at base ISO. Foven is not something you should look for resolution. I do know there are many pixel peepers who have no idea what they are looking at.

0 upvotes
AlanG
By AlanG (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Feb 21, 2013)

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?

5 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 21, 2013)

About the battery charging - in-camera charging is convenient, but would be better if charger(for extra battery) was included. Let's call it even. Pro - con = neutral.

2 upvotes
Hynee
By Hynee (Feb 21, 2013)

Because that's how they give awards. They subtract the cons from the pros. I'm being sarcastic.

1 upvote
Lucas_
By Lucas_ (Feb 21, 2013)

Just buy a cheap charger on eBay ( I did it for my Sony RX100 )!

3 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 21, 2013)

I won't call it "neutral". You can buy a $10 charger for extra battery, but you can'r turn the camera into a charger for cameras that won't let you charge the battery without a charger.

So RX1 == can charge the battery with USB if you forgot the external charger. You can buy the external charger if you want one.

Other cameras == Must have external charger. You are screwed if you forgot to bring charger.

So overall, it's a pro.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Feb 21, 2013)

It just strikes me as odd that you would need to buy a "cheap $10 charger on ebay" after you just spent $2,800 for a camera.

Would it kill Sony to throw a charger in the box?

If this trend continues you might have to pay extra for the box too. That is, if you want one.

6 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 21, 2013)

"Would it kill Sony to throw a charger in the box?"

The camera comes with a charger that charges the battery inside the camera. Why would Sony include two chargers? If you need an external charger for more batteries that you want to buy, buy the external charger.

There is no reason why Sony should include two chargers and two batteries with the camera. The camera comes with one battery and one charger.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Feb 21, 2013)

ET2...

The "why" is so obvious that I'm amazed you can't see it.

Being able to charge a battery in the camera is okay, but it means you can't use your camera while you are charging your battery. Plus, if you wanted to carry a spare battery with you, then you must use your camera to charge that one too. Meaning you can't leave the house and start shooting until you have both batteries charged.

If you have a separate charger you can charge as many spares as you want, WHILE you are using your camera.

But the bigger point is... after spending almost three thousand dollars for a camera, wouldn't you feel slighted if you had to spend $10 more to buy a stand alone charger?

1 upvote
AlanG
By AlanG (Feb 21, 2013)

Would it kill car companies to throw in the floor mats? How much money do you think Apple makes from the various $30 plug and SD card adapters for the iPad and other devices?

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 22, 2013)

it'll be inconvenient to use the camera while it's being charged. is there any aux charger sold by Sony for external charging? How long does it take to charge a flat battery.
I hope this doesn't create a trend where others follow.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
earful
By earful (Feb 21, 2013)

it's fine at the price if you're coming from a leica m8 or m9, where a top of the line lens alone runs in the $3k to $6k range (even used) depending on speed and focal length. to a great extent, the niche is that part of the leica niche that does not make available af and low light capability.

1 upvote
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 21, 2013)

If an APS-C camera can satisfy your photographic needs, this cam is not for you. I have to admit, this cam is not for me either. But there's a group of FF-only photogs out there.

Same thing with DSLR, if 7D meets one's requirement, he doesn't need to buy 1Ds. There are plenty of EF-S lenses out there.

2 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Feb 21, 2013)

It might be an ideal travel camera to some. I'd love to have it for that purpose.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 21, 2013)

So is this made in China then, with the sensor speckles and all?

0 upvotes
earful
By earful (Feb 21, 2013)

made in japan. apparently assembled by hand, as with leica m.

1 upvote
Lucas_
By Lucas_ (Feb 21, 2013)

Nope, this is made in Japan. The made in china one with "sensor speckles" is the Nikon D600...!

2 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Feb 21, 2013)

I have yet to detect speckles on my D600, but it's neat that people who don't own the camera are so upset on my behalf.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Feb 21, 2013)

I'm old enough to remember when "Made in Japan" was a joke back in the 1960s. Within 20 years the joke turned out to be on us, as Japan began producing more reliable and better built goods than we did.

The same thing is happening with China today. Laugh while you can, but very soon China will be laughing at us.

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 21, 2013)

Made in China isn't always bad. My MacBook Pro was made in China....the fit/finish is impeccable. Laugh at China while you can...meanwhile the USA and most of the developed world outsource all their manufacturing to China and your own country will have no skilled workforce in 10 years.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
aftab
By aftab (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2013)

First of all, an OMD with a pancake lens is much more than 1000 USD. And why would a DSLR shooter want to buy yet another system camera when they can have significantly better IQ with a fix lens camera like the RX1 or X100s?

If you've ever tried maintaining more than one system it gets extremely expensive fast. Fixed lens cameras are no nonsense, which new lens should I buy kind of stress. You just grab them and go make beautiful images.

5 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (Feb 21, 2013)

An interchangeable lens camera can easily become a Fixed lens camera. - No one is forcing you to buy lenses. But you always have the option.

A fixed lens camera Cannot become and Interchangeable lense camera.

4 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 20, 2013)

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/

2 upvotes
RichardAB
By RichardAB (Feb 20, 2013)

I can't see any reference to black and white shooting in the review.

Forgetting about any 'effects' settings like grainy monochrome, does the camera cater for the monochrome photographer, i.e. can the camera be set to b&w (but still shoot in raw) with the screen displayed in b&w and having internal filters such as yellow, orange, red and green?

Or does the camera cater only for the colour photographer, any black and white shots having to be converted by software later?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
wkay
By wkay (Feb 20, 2013)

$3K for a single fl travel camera with no external flash capability (how hard is it to add PC sync)?
Lens hood full of holes for viewfinder renders it useless too.
Get Zeiss to make some additional lenses and I could be real interested.

0 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 21, 2013)

Why is PC sync important to a P&S? A small cam attached to a big strobe just look strange to me.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

I just handled a Sony RX1 again this afternoon. And I was reminded of a big annoyance: To mount a filter, say simply to protect the lens, one needs to purchase 180usd lens shade/filter mount.

Not cool, how like Leica, and well the RX100 which doesn't have an official filter mounting system. (Yes, I know there's an after market one that can be glued in place.)

0 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

Sorry I think you have got the incorrect facts from somewhere any normal 49mm filter will fit I am using the b&w nano uv filter works perfectly.

6 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 20, 2013)

He is probably confusing RX100 and RX1

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 21, 2013)

ET2--

No, and way to miss the fact that I commented on the failure of the RX100 to take a filter too. Thank you for guessing my sex too. (Though I guess your comment could be directed at the person confused about the meaning of the word "handled".)

JustinL01:

My "facts" come from handling the camera more than once and shooting some test shots and from talking to the sales counter people about the failure of the RX1 to have filter threads on the lens (at least in version released in the USA).

What part of "handled" is unclear?

Now, what I concede is there may be some extra attachment that comes in the box that allows one to mount a filter without spending extra monies. Not listed, if it exists.

And now that I check the comments on the B+H website, someone has written that he/she can't put a 49mm B+W filter on the RX1. (Jan. 24, 13, screen name JDL) Odd I've never had problems getting B+W filters to fit, so there must be something to my point.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 21, 2013)

HowaboutRAW, you are an idiot. Stop rambling incoherently. RX1 has 49mm threads. Nothing more to say about this topic.

4 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 21, 2013)

HowaboutRAW are you really that stupid, there is one model for all regions. As I stated I am using a 49mm standard filter on the RX100, what don't you understand about that!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 21, 2013)

ET2+JustinL01:

The problem with your statements is that I'm not blind, I'm not unfamiliar with cameras or filters, and I've handled the RX1 more than once and saw zero filter threads.

When I have the opportunity to handle one again, I'll look for filter threads.

0 upvotes
Chris Crevasse
By Chris Crevasse (Feb 21, 2013)

HowaboutRAW, the lens on the RX1 has filter threads. No special device comes with the RX1 or needs to be purchased to allow you to mount a filter (or a hood, or a step-up ring, or anything else) with 49mm threads. I have a 49mm threaded filter mounted on mine, and no special equipment was required to accomplish that. And I would say it is extraordinarily unlikely that some RX1s have filter threads, and some don't.

0 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (Feb 21, 2013)

Looking at the front shots here in this review, the lens says on the front "o 49", why would Sony specify a diameter if no filters fit anyway?
And lo and behold, zoom in on the angled front shot on bottom of page 4 (with the viewfinder stuck on the camera), and there's clearly a filter thread visible.

So that's sorted, then.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 21, 2013)

Chris Crevasse:

I checked and I was wrong, I missed the filter thread.

0 upvotes
jazzage
By jazzage (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

14 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 20, 2013)

You are 100% correct. I would bet that most people buying the Sony RX1 can also afford a 'do everything' DSLR' and the RX1 is not their only camera.

I once owned a Leica M8. People criticized it for a myriad of reasons....but at the end of the day I also owned other cameras...I didn't need my M8 to have AF/10fps/Live view etc etc.

3 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (Feb 21, 2013)

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.

So true... But there are a lot of people here that always think and speak negativity

2 upvotes
balios
By balios (Feb 21, 2013)

This is a discussion forum where people share opinions, where positive or negative opinions are equally valid and rational as long as the person believes what they say. Both types of feedback foster discussion as long as the person explains their reasons.

A camera is indeed just a tool, and whether someone is "praising" or "bashing" the tool should be of no consequence unless you've formed an emotional attachment to it.

People complained about the Nex-5, criticizing its controls and lack of viewfinder. Despite all attempts to brandish these people as heretics who didn't understand the tool, Sony listened and released the Nex-7. I see a similar dynamic with the RX-1.

It seems to me that negative opinions actually encourage innovation and the creation of more tools, as companies respond to meet the needs of more people. The opposite, refraining from sharing a negative opinion on tool for fear of offending somebody, accomplishes nothing.

5 upvotes
phips243
By phips243 (Feb 23, 2013)

Not so fast ;) ...there is (to be) a "minivan" that comes close...Ok..it doesn't go 200 mph but it gets to 60 in 4.4 sec...Tesla X series :)

0 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

5 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 20, 2013)

Well...Leica had the IR filter fiasco with the M8...and numerous SD card issues and early sensor death issues with the M9....does that mean Leica is not a premium product? No one company is perfect.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Feb 20, 2013)

The RX1 might as well run into issues. Omitting a lens hood in a 3000 euro product is a totally different matter. This has to do with decisions. And that's where premium lies.

--EDIT
As much as I hate to say it, unpack a Leica and tell me of that PREMIUM experience. I haven't managed as of yet.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 20, 2013)

Well...I owned a Leica M8...and it was definitely a 'premium' experience. The build quality is second to none. With that said, the camera had a lot of warts, it wasn't perfect.

0 upvotes
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Feb 20, 2013)

Another excellent review by a Nikon D800 and D4 photographer....
"As of February 2013, this camera sets the bar for all compact digital cameras to meet. Finally, after thousands of words, only two more are needed: Highly recommended."

http://duncandavidson.com/gear/sony/rx1/

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 20, 2013)

For IQ perhaps the RX1 sets the bar, but it's really not much more compact than say the X100s. Both have 35 f2 equivalent lenses, but the X100's lens is considerably smaller for obvious reasons. Add the VF to the RX1 and the protruding lens and you have a considerably LESS compact camera than the X100s. So it may be a bit of an exaggeration to say the RX1 sets the bar for compact cameras period. Compact FF? Yes, obviously. Compact fixed lens camera? Without a dedicated VF, I'm not so sure.

1 upvote
CortoPA
By CortoPA (Feb 20, 2013)

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

More interesting reviews.

2 upvotes
pistachioShell
By pistachioShell (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 20, 2013)

Good ...now go back to lurking ;)

5 upvotes
pixel_colorado
By pixel_colorado (Feb 20, 2013)

Almost $3000...how about something a little less "carry-able" and a lot less expensive?!?

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 20, 2013)

There are already a tonne of options that are 'a little less carry-able and a lot less expensive'. This is a full frame compact. If you don't understand that than move along.

7 upvotes
Michel Pont
By Michel Pont (Feb 21, 2013)

So being FF justifies everything ?

FF is supposed to means more IQ, better Iso...
It's not the case anymore.

What does this means when you seen how an APSC sensor can behave, which is extremely impressive, like on a Fuji EX-1...which is a LOT cheaper and has interchangeable lenses ant not much bigger ? your FF means nothing.

Talk about more DOF ? Come on...this is a 35mm F2 lens...and why would you care about DOF with such a point and shoot even being FF ?

1 upvote
tanmancs
By tanmancs (Feb 21, 2013)

There is one less "carry-able and lot less expensive". It's called RX100. :)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

9 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 20, 2013)

I could care less about the DPR camera ratings....that said I completely agree with you.

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 20, 2013)

The original X100 had a buggy firmware and DPR had a whole article on "firmware" suggestions.

That's why it did't get Gold.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2013)

I know why the X100 didn't get a Gold Award, I'm saying that it should have. It had less "cons" than the RX1, and not nearly as serious cons as this camera had.

The X100 cons were "no face detection" and "small menu button", while the RX1 cons were "no VF", "severe vignetting", etc.

Call me crazy, but I'd take an X100s over an RX1 any day. I already have a FF, don't need a "compact" FF. Especially if the video is not very good and it doesn't have an eye level finder.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 21, 2013)

A reviewer can make a con list long and short. That's easy to do. I could have made Canon 7D con list 20 times longer. DPR only had like 1 or 2 cons. Doesn't mean anything. Add this to X100 con list

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/27

Yes X100 now has a lot longer "con" list.

"Call me crazy, but I'd take an X100s over an RX1 any day."

Who cares about what you would take? DPR saw X100 buggy (see the con list above) and didn't think it merited the gold award. They thought RX1 did. End of story.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 21, 2013)

I'm not sure why you're bothering responding to my posts, but yes, I would take an X100s with an eye level VF that is less than half as expensive with more than half as good IQ, any day. You can shoot with or do whatever you want, but judging by the likes above it seems more people agree with me about the awards. It's a subtle point that I don't expect you to understand.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 21, 2013)

The topic is not what you want. The topic (your original post) was about DPR Gold award. DPR didn't give X100 gold award because of this

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/27

They thought RX1 deserved the gold award. End of story.

0 upvotes
kucink132
By kucink132 (Feb 21, 2013)

The last time I checked, x100 is excellent camera and i dont remember experiencing that 'buggy' software like many said. EVF/OVF combined with great sensor and lens pairing makes tag 'professional' on x100 very accurate.

Now, compare with RX1, obviously it have higher IQ as it should, but at what margin? If dpreview give this lack of EVF and 'cybershoot' style camera a gold award. Why didnt x100?

0 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

14 upvotes
mgrum
By mgrum (Feb 21, 2013)

Sony don't care what "the forums" think about a camera, they care what their potential customers think about a camera, those are two different groups.

0 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 20, 2013)

The evf there look silly to me. Very nice camera, if i had that kind of money i would be tempted.

0 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
h0tsauce
By h0tsauce (Feb 20, 2013)

the k-01 have no option for an EVF at all.

3 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Feb 21, 2013)

But it did have an option for an old OVF attachment.

Plus comparing the price of both, don't your think it should not be an excuse to leave out an articulating screen for a US$2800 camera that does not have a built-in EVF which is optional and an additional cost that is as much as a decent camera?

1 upvote
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

3 upvotes
ifi
By ifi (Feb 20, 2013)

Ya, 1" sensor as oppose to 1/2.3-1.7" by other manufacturers.

Kudos to Sony!

2 upvotes
ifi
By ifi (Feb 20, 2013)

BTW you did bash bashers that bashed bashers :)

6 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 20, 2013)

'RX1 is way too large for my tastes (or rather: lens protrudes too much)'

Seriously???? It's a full frame camera.....that's about as small as you are going to get with a full frame sensor and world-class f2 lens. If you don't care about fullframe then you have lots of smaller options.

I guess you either a) can't afford it...or B) you just don't get it:)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Michel Pont
By Michel Pont (Feb 21, 2013)

worldclass ? Really ? ;)

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

4 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

I'd never go to the super bowl but I suppose he wanted to use a tele zoom not a 35mm lens.

5 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (Feb 20, 2013)

He got turned away because of the lens he had,, not the camera.

6 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

In such a place there is enough light you don't need an FF sensor.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 20, 2013)

The lens he had? No idea, but it does not really change my point much.

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 20, 2013)

Well, Massimo, with a 35mm lens the players would look minuscule on the field. And that would be if you could get a clear view. On the other hand, you would get awesome pictures of the spectators' scruffs...

1 upvote
pixel_colorado
By pixel_colorado (Feb 20, 2013)

Super Bowl...oh crap...did I miss it?

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 20, 2013)

Re: stevens37y

I think the lights went in in the super bowl for 30 or so minutes. This would have been a great opportunity to test out the low light capabilities of the RX1.

1 upvote
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Feb 21, 2013)

What kind of pictures do you expect to take at the Superbowl? It's funny people trying to take sports photos at pro sports games when they are in the seats. Enjoy the game. Photos? Take photos of the people you attended the game with: phone.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Feb 20, 2013)

"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

3 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

Cameras with electronic shutter don't even give a snick.
If you want to be completely silent the best is to have something like that.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Feb 20, 2013)

What full frame is more quiet than the RX1 ?

5 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 21, 2013)

I tried this cam in Sony Store. It's like the sound of DSLR's DoF preview button pressed. They should sound identical, because technically that's the sound of the aperture's open-close operation.

0 upvotes
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

2 upvotes
caimi
By caimi (Feb 20, 2013)

The right camera with the wrong price tag.

1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

Perhaps there are Sony agents pro and con here.

1 upvote
tanmancs
By tanmancs (Feb 21, 2013)

I just wish it has a built in viewfinder.

1 upvote
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

The real problem is that this kind of cameras are mass product like any other cheaper one. The price is artificial. The sensor pixels are not polished by hand 1 by 1.

I think in the '70s Leica made a lot of lenses and cameras really manually. It is an extra value for those who respect this.

1 upvote
caimi
By caimi (Feb 20, 2013)

SONY clearly learned from Leica about marketing. Leica makes wonderful equipment and they have convinced their market to pay insane prices for an indefineable mystique - "The Leica look."I was sucked in a couple of years ago and I can't deny my Leica cameras and lenses were wonderfully engineered and manufactured equipment. But they were horribly overpriced and I was happy when I sold them. Sony is doing the same . I don't deny that the RX1 is probably a fine camera. The price however, is absurd.

4 upvotes
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 20, 2013)

Yes but the market probably will support the price no?? The demographic who just must have this camera, probably will couch up the bucks.

0 upvotes
jazzage
By jazzage (Feb 20, 2013)

Very true, but it is also true that many people who cannot afford a high end product feel compelled to denigrate those who can , or attack the product itself.

I suspect many of the people who claim the RX1 is too expensive spend way more than $2800 on other toys (FWD truck, flat-screen in every room, season tickets to their fav sports team, or their children, etc.). I don't have a lot of toys and am blissfully child-free so the money is not a big deal to me. In fact the claim that the RX1 is too expensive is silly - Sony has no problem selling them so it is by definition not too expensive. If you are unemployed and down to your last dollar, than any camera is too expensive to buy, and if you are a zillionaire, then the cost of any camera is irrelevant.

1 upvote
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Feb 20, 2013)

High end price tag, with low end performance...

■Autofocus speed *not quick enough for fast-moving subjects*
■Autofocus *struggles* in low light
■Significant *vignetting* with any correction --*baked into Raw files*
■No built-in viewfinder
■Disappointing video quality even when in focus

Perhaps Sony priced it too low??

5 upvotes
caimi
By caimi (Feb 20, 2013)

The claim that the RX1 is too expensive is not silly. What's silly is that people believe they are getting value for that kind of money. What the camera doesn't include and can't do for that price is silly. The icing on the SONY cake is an optional viewfinder that is also absurdly priced. Where's the magical engineering that justifies the viewfinder's price? I am in the camp that could afford this camera but would feel foolish purchasing it.

3 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Nikon D600 with a 35mmn F1.4 is more expensive than RX1. So why exactly RX1 is expensive but that Nikon combo isn't?

1 upvote
oorwullie
By oorwullie (Feb 21, 2013)

RX1 offers a top class class FF sensor and fast, quality glass. You dont want bulk? You can live with a fixed 35mm field of view?
The only game in town is the RX1. Buy it and rejoice in it's excellence. The cost will soon be forgotten. And in ten or twenty years time when you revisit and print those elastic RX1 RAW files of your grandchildren, you will still be gald you bought it way back then.

0 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
jazzage
By jazzage (Feb 20, 2013)

Not more discreet? Huh? Have you ever seen and handled the RX1? Clearly not. Its small size and unobtrusiveness are remarked upon in just about every review I have read.

3 upvotes
migsmig
By migsmig (Feb 20, 2013)

Discreet compared to other FF cameras? have you actually seen the size of them? you got to be kidding. what this camera can achieve is being able to slip in your coat pocket, being able to shoot pictures discreetly (it is small), being able to carry it with no effort (it is light too), being able to shoot at concerts/restaurants/churches (silent too). so thats the whole point, i dont get what you or everybody is complaining about. its the only FF camera to come in such small package with a really good lens. they charge that becaue they can, end of the story.

1 upvote
Heliconius
By Heliconius (Feb 20, 2013)

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 :)

2 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Feb 20, 2013)

Then buy a prime lens, or maybe two, with an entry-mid level dslr body for the price and keep complaining about the size, weight etc

;)

5 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Feb 21, 2013)

Touche

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Feb 20, 2013)

Don't be confused by the rating. Like anyone else, a reviewer measures function as well as fun. Imagine how boring it is to review cameras that are the same all the time. How often does a company do something different? How often do they improve? Most of the time cameras incorporate mild technology advancements or a new combination of tried and true features. The G1 X was exciting to me at the time despite certain aspects not matching what other cameras could do, but when a need can be filled camera makers will try to fill it without destroying that model's sales by exceeding a price point or eating into another market segment.
The RX1 is new and different....and freaking expensive. Small things cost more than large things of equal ability in the electronics world. The more novel an item the smaller the market will be unless it creates an entirely new market (doubt that's the case here), but if you build it they will usually come.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Total comments: 546
123