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.

172
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
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 20, 2013)

I give the rusty cast iron award to negative comments.

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

I give the "Fool and His Money" award to those who are not discerning enough to recognize the price to performance disparity.

4 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 20, 2013)

Hey Jimmy, on your moms birthday..do you take her out to McDonalds and explain to her that a big mac as the same calories as a nice dinner but for $13 dollars less? When that day comes around, send me a message and I will give you $100 so you can take her out to a nice place.

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

@ Missimo.

If you think this camera is worth 3K, I've got a $500 six ounce steak for you!

3 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 20, 2013)

What kind of car do you drive Jimmy? Do you think a BMW M, MB AMG, Ferrari 458 is worth the money? All of them do the same basic thing, take you from point A to B. If you happy with what you have, we are happy for you. For every product to come to market, there must be demand. I can guess your not in the market for a RX1 and much less a 458 but who are you to judge they are not worth the $$. A product is worth what people are willing to pay. I work with Olympus endoscopes. They take 2MP images and yet cost $75,000 + for a working setup..maybe more. Do you think a camera that takes 2MP images cost more than highend car? For the doctors using it, its worth every penny since they bring in $4000 for every time its used for 30 mins.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Feb 21, 2013)

@ Missimo

Your analogies don't make sense. If you are willing to pay a premium for camera that cannot compete favorably with one at the third cost, that's your business.

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 21, 2013)

What $900 camera are you speaking of? This is currently one of the best sensors on the market (not even talking about the lens) It is included in the D600 and A99. Both of them in the 2-3K range with no lens. If you cant see the value in it, stick with your current camera.

0 upvotes
nicoboston
By nicoboston (Feb 20, 2013)

Compare carefully 2 images using the "Studio scene comparison (RAW)" page.
Select RX1 vs. Canon Powershot G10, RAW, ISO 100.
We are talking about a $2,800 2013 camera vs. a discontinued 2008 Powershot.
Right, the RX1 is much better.
But is it really worth the price tag?

PS: repeat with the G15
Sigh... Sony knows marketing.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 20, 2013)

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.

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

This camera highlight 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.

4 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

It has to sell at under £1000 to make a real impact.
2/3rds the price of a FF DSLR to compensate for the fixed prime.

Merge it with the NEX system and I'd pay £1400 for the body.
at the moment, it's just a digi XA.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Illumina
By Illumina (Feb 21, 2013)

Don't compare FF with only studio scene comparison..
Use it in real world to compare FF with G15 or G12..

0 upvotes
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (Feb 20, 2013)

$2800 = €2100... I wanna cry... Sob, sob...

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 20, 2013)

Use the $700 bucks to fund a vacation to US, but the camera here.

1 upvote
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Feb 20, 2013)

Let's say the photographer equipped with a RX1 vs the photographer equipped with a 1D-X will feel like a guy armed with a Kalashnikov in open field vs a guy in a M1A2 Abrams tank. Right. But you cannot "conceal" the Abrams that easy, you know... It's far easier to conceal an AK-47. A "deadly" weapon, that is (like the Abrams), for the "right" targets. Like the RX1. And, in urban areas (mostly), it is difficult to use the tank as primary weapon... Cheers! :)

3 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 20, 2013)

Personally, I think that the RX1 represents a segue into what will eventually become a very popular and profitable NEW category of Full Frame Fixed Lens Compact (FFLC). The superb image quality that the RX1 outputs far exceeds any limitations one might perceive that the camera has. I’d still like to believe that we buy cameras for the pictures. Many folks spend WAY more than the cost of the RX1 to buy bulky DSLRs and a bunch of lenses and then produce very few, if any interesting photographs. The RX1 fixes that problem.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 20, 2013)

Personally I don't find DSLRs "bulky", but DSLR users buy a bunch of lenses to have a variety of focal lengths, to be fair.
I'm a big fan of fix lens cameras like the X100 or GRD IV, but there are certain types of photography that you simply cannot do with a 35mm lens. You can do a lot, but it doesn't cover UWA and it doesn't cover telephoto focal lengths.

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 20, 2013)

My comment relates to the possibility of a new market segment and choosing a camera that will help you take better photographs. I wasn’t being critical of DSLRs or advocating any one particular focal length.

0 upvotes
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 20, 2013)

Of course one could say stick a prime on your existing ff and go out with that for a day, nice and no need to pay sony three grand if you dont like it!

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

Stick with your iPhone camera if you keep complaining about the camera price. Maybe you should change your hobby or profession. This camera is unique, quite innovative and worth every penny.

4 upvotes
caimi
By caimi (Feb 20, 2013)

At least I can make a call on my iphone.

But seriously, the price is outrageous. The camera may be wonderful, the first of its kind, a miracle of photographic engineering but the price? Outrageous. Especially so when you factor in the additional $250.00 just for the luxury of a viewfinder. Come on. SONY (or a competitior)will come out with a better version, with a viewfinder, within the next 12 months and this investment will look just a little foolish.

3 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

"this investment will look just a little foolish."
This will definitely happen sooner then expected.
We're not in Texas anymore.
In the '70s you could be proud of a camera for 15 years
today you can be proud for 1,5 years.

0 upvotes
Carbon111
By Carbon111 (Feb 20, 2013)

A $1700 full-frame camera with a $1000 lens on it is not outrageous if that's what you want and can afford.
Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head - a nice APS-C camera with a fixed 35mm equivalent can be readily had for less than a third of the RX1's price.

1 upvote
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 20, 2013)

Is is it though??

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

Canon is falling behind this market. Nikon high end compact is in the works and Sony is way ahead with Rx1.

2 upvotes
hiplnsdrftr
By hiplnsdrftr (Feb 20, 2013)

Sony protects their dSLR sales by pricing the RX1 at a premium... Canon protects their dSLR sales by releasing a purposely crippled mediocre EOS-M.

Almost all my cameras are Canon. I wish there was a serious offering from Canon. Like you say, they are falling behind.

2 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Feb 20, 2013)

Han Solo would disagree. About the Canon part. Canon is the "Millenium Falcon" of the industry, even if Sony is the "Empire". Cheers! :)

0 upvotes
bydloman
By bydloman (Feb 20, 2013)

>$2,800/€3,100/£2,600
Perfect exchange rates, I see...

6 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

lot of TAX

1 upvote
bydloman
By bydloman (Feb 20, 2013)

$1325 of taxes?!?

Anyway, I see there's a shop in Switzerland where you can get it in pre-order for a little more than $3560, but Switzerland has only a 7,5% VAT: that makes it $760 cheaper in US anyway, heh.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

Tax and an extra year of warranty to begin with.

0 upvotes
bydloman
By bydloman (Feb 20, 2013)

Where I saw the camera it's usually 1 year of warranty. Even if it was 2, that still doesn't explain the difference, given the tax rates of Switzerland, period.

0 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

In EU the VAT is between 19% and 27%. But you can buy actually from any EU country with lower tax as a private person if you are clever enough.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

Everything in the EU has 2 years warranty, by law. Regardless of what manufacturers state.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
bydloman
By bydloman (Feb 20, 2013)

Switzerland is NOT in EU.

Meh, it's like speaking with walls...

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

Last time I checked you didn't pay with Euros either and I reacted to your OP which mentioned Euros and British Pounds.

0 upvotes
bydloman
By bydloman (Feb 20, 2013)

Well, you even replied 2 times, and after my posts too. What's the point to reply 2 times to the same post with the same dismantled argument? lol

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

Dismantled how? Are you saying you went offtopic from your own topic? I haven't seen you mention any prices in Swiss Francs, so what else is there to react to? Had you done that, I would have simply pointed out that your country and the Swiss Franc are to blame. ;-)

0 upvotes
bydloman
By bydloman (Feb 20, 2013)

So what's the point in replying two times to the same post with the same arguments? Feel free to explain yourself with your own words lol.

>Dismantled how? Are you saying you went offtopic from your own topic? I haven't seen you mention any prices in Swiss Francs, so what else is there to react to?
The point is the unjustified differences of prices between different countries (by a consumer pov, obviously - I say it because you may not get the point again), if you still don't get it, don't blame other people for it

>Had you done that, I would have simply pointed out that your country and the Swiss Franc are to blame. ;-)
And you would be wrong again, lol.

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

Your first post compared ->EU<- prices with US price. I react to that saying the difference is partially due to tax and extra warranty.
Next you mention one year warranty and price in Switzerland, both unrelated to prices in Euros and GBP with which you started your topic.
For those not in the know, I add that the EU offers 2 years of warranty.

I got your point and I addressed it partially. I can't help preventing you from sounding incoherent though, quod erat demonstrandum.

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

>Your first post compared ->EU<- prices with US price. I react to that saying the difference is partially due to tax and extra warranty.
And then I added another example, and your posts are all posted AFTER that example I made, even two times, but same arguments. So, are you still replying to the OP or not? You seem a little bit confused about that.

>Next you mention one year warranty and price in Switzerland, both unrelated to prices in Euros and GBP with which you started your topic.
For those not in the know, I add that the EU offers 2 years of warranty.
As already stated, every single post of yours is posted AFTER the Swiss example.

>I got your point
Frankly by your posts doesn't looks like it, but it may just be your childish stubborness.

The rest is on the next post, due to characters limit =>

0 upvotes
bydloman
By bydloman (Feb 20, 2013)

>and I addressed it partially.
You still didn't address a a single point, not even partially. Economy 101 lol.

>I can't help preventing you from sounding incoherent though, quod erat demonstrandum.
lol, if you have nothing to say, just don't say anything: you'll leave at least a doubt over your stupidity and you'll not fill the internet with noise, it's a win-win option.
Absit injuria verbis.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
oscarvdvelde
By oscarvdvelde (Feb 20, 2013)

I find it a little ironic the camera is rated so highly. You pay $2800 and you get a camera of which you cannot change lenses, you get contrast AF only, 3 fps, no optical through the lens viewfinder, while image quality is at the same level as offered by other current full frame cameras. Even a D600 or EOS 6D at $1000 less offer more functionality than this, even if you would glue a pancake lens permanently to it.

Yes, it is smaller. That's only one point and may be important to some style of shooting. Similar use cameras should simply be compared by image quality, size/weight, lens selection, AF performance, fps, etc, and price. The RX-1 seems to offer great image quality, but at very high cost and some compromises...

5 upvotes
ifi
By ifi (Feb 20, 2013)

You should buy a d600 or 6d :)

I have 6d, it is a great camera and so is rx1 :)

5 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

Good luck shooting that 6D and D600 for $1000 less without a lens.

2 upvotes
Mattwd
By Mattwd (Feb 20, 2013)

People around here seem so proud of missing the point.

7 upvotes
dmanthree
By dmanthree (Feb 20, 2013)

I find the "gold" rating somewhat puzzling, as well. The list of cons is lengthy, and one of them, slow AF, is a fatal flaw (for me). Image quality looks nice, I love the form factor, and I love that Sony actually brought this to market, but it's way far from "gold" in my book. Especially at that price! To each his/her own, I guess. Anyway, the ratings don't mean much to me. I read the report and make my own decisions.

5 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Feb 20, 2013)

There is nothing else in its category, being the first of its kind probably warrants the gold rating. Notice that the actual rating number is not that high (79).

Edit, regardless of the rating it looks like a very nice little camera, and I think it is definitely exciting in terms of what we might see in the future. Not something I would personally buy, but I would buy it over say a NEX 7 with 24mm f/1.8 if I were in the market for that sort of camera.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
jazzage
By jazzage (Feb 20, 2013)

All cameras are a compromise. Different strokes for different folks as they say. To look at just one of your criteria - lens selection. Not everyone wants to change lenses and not everyone feels the need to have wide-angle through telephoto available for every camera. For general zoom work I have other cameras. For the ultimate shooting experience and IQ I have the RX1. Don't forget - Cartier-Bresson used one focal length for the overwhelming majority of his work and seemed to do OK. Personally, I find the single focal length to be liberating. FPS - I have no interest in this style of shooting so I do not know or care what the RX1 is capable of in that regard. Size is of critical importance to me, but obviously not as much to you. I have had no problems with AF - but then I have no interest in shooting sports or kids running around.

This apparently is a camera that you either love or hate (though most of the haters have no experience with it).

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

You can't judge this camera as being a failed interchangeable lens camera - that's not what it is. It's a very successful fixed-lens camera.

There isn't a new full-frame camera that costs under $2000, so call it $2000 for the camera and $800 for the lens - that's about going rate. What you lose in flexibility you gain in compactness and quietness.

Also, read the Cons carefully. It's a list of things that potential buyers need to be aware of, which may not be a problem for them. Also, they don't have equal weight - a niggle about one dial doesn't cancel-out stunning image quality.

4 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 21, 2013)

ifi, just for my understanding - since you've the 6D and RX1, how would rate them both in terms picture IQ, handling. there must be a good feeling thingy... which one.

0 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Feb 20, 2013)

Let me sum up all of the negative posts:

"OMG I AM SO ANGRY THAT SO MANY LOVE THIS CAMERA"

These forums are a hoot!

23 upvotes
erikandmarcie
By erikandmarcie (Feb 20, 2013)

+1

6 upvotes
ifi
By ifi (Feb 20, 2013)

This is first of a kind people.

We need to learn to appreciate innovation!!!

14 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

What's so innovative about it?

4 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 21, 2013)

First pocket-able digital FF?

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
1 upvote
jazzage
By jazzage (Feb 20, 2013)

More comments form people who have never used the RX1 but hate it. Who says AF sucks? The consensus among those of us who actually own the thing is that is not as fast as a DLSR but to say it "sucks"? No way. I personally have had no issues with AF.

To compare the IQ with the OM-D is ludicrous. Please, do any of you naysayers actually own the RX1 or have had a chance to use the thing for any length if time? No, 10 minutes in a store doesn't count.

As far as the DPreview review, it did get gold, but in any case the reviews at most websites, DPreview included, need to be taken with a grain of salt. Real world use is what counts.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
ifi
By ifi (Feb 20, 2013)

Couldn't agree more; this is a great camera!!!

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

I'm glad I never took the RX1 into the real world - it sounds like a strange place.

Anyone saying the AF sucks hasn't got that from this review.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
11 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (Feb 20, 2013)

DRP Conclusion - Cons - at the top of the list...

■Autofocus speed not quick enough for fast-moving subjects
■Autofocus struggles in low light

$3000 for that kind of performance SUCKS!

7 upvotes
ifi
By ifi (Feb 20, 2013)

Jimmy, you simply cannot afford this camera!

Try LEICA M9 with manual focus lenses, that might fit your needs better.

9 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

@ifi, for $3000 you can buy a much better camera. If better means that you can take better photos and it's more versatile. Perhaps a bit bigger but smallness is not a big value itself.

1 upvote
dmanthree
By dmanthree (Feb 20, 2013)

Well, the AF doesn't suck, but the reviewer does say it's slow. So if slow AF is bad for you, don't buy it.

0 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

It has a simple contrast detection AF and no phase detection. Sony could have put a combined sensor into it but wanted to save some money. The target audience don't care of it anyway. They simply want something expensive.

2 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

No Stevens37y you cannot find a much better camera, it has a CZ lens and state of the art full frame sensor, the camera is obviously not going to be used for fast moving sports/kids animals etc but that is just one small facet of photography. At the end of the day the image quality is up there with the best, the components are up there with the best, the lens is comparable to Leica. At the end of the day it is a camera aimed at a particular segment of the market, for that segment it is wonderful. Every camera has compromises, it's a personal opinion if you can live with them or not.

To say it's rubbish, slow AF, no integral VF etc, too expensive etc etc is to totally miss the point.

2 upvotes
le_alain
By le_alain (Feb 20, 2013)

You're right ifi,

as soon as I can afford it, it will be an M9 with a real OVF,
now can be found used around the same price,
and many good compatible M or M39 lenses at very slow price !

can't hesitate a second !!!

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

@JustinL01: "not going to be used for fast moving sports/kids"

So you can take family photos but tell them not to move.
In the towns the 35mm is not enough wide to take photos of big buildings. On the tele side the situation is a bit better because you can crop the result.

Neither the FF sensor nor this CZ lens is unique.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

Actually you can take plenty of pictures of your children moving and fast moving are totally different. As for the 35mm fov for buildings sorry you have a pair of legs, I was in London on Wednesday taking shots, didn't find 35mm restrictive at all! Sorry you seem so be trying to come up with negatives that ARE just negatives to you, as my RX1 certainly hasn't stopped me taking pictures of either my children or buildings, but then what do I know as I actually own the camera and use it!

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Feb 20, 2013)

RX1 is an object of craving. Never buy one. I will get the NEX-7n with the Zeiss 24mm F1.8 instead (SEL24F18Z).

The price? Not much less. But EVF, better grip, fold-able screen are all check.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 20, 2013)

with similar AF issues, Canon EOS-M with 22mm f/2 provide better cost-performance but at around f/2 neither NEX nor EOS-M can have similar image quality as from a 35mm format sensor.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 20, 2013)

I sold my NEX-7 with Zeiss 24 after I bought the RX1 but not before performing some extensive tests and side by side comparisons. I found the N7/Z24 to be nearly as sharp as the RX1 but could not touch it in terms of high ISO performance, lens character, rendering and bokeh. The RX1 full frame sensor matched with the Zeiss 35 Sonnar T lens has its own unique rendering signature ala Leica M. It’s very distinctive and pleasing to the eye –my shooting metaphor; it makes lemons out of lemonade. As phenomenal as the N7/Z24 is, it’s really no match for the RX1. I don’t miss the other e-mount lenses either except for maybe the 50. Having said all that, I WILL be jumping in on the new NEX-7n and Zeiss 12mm e-mount coming out later this year ;)

0 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

You can buy a range of Zeiss Jena Sonnars fairly cheap for use on a NEX. Why see the world through one focal length?

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 20, 2013)

That’s the whole point my friend, I DON'T want a range of lenses. I just want ONE really good one at a focal length that suites my needs and shooting style. I’ve gone the body and bag full of lenses route and I don’t miss it at all. If, at some point, I feel limited by the 35mm focal length, I’ll simply make some gear acquisitions and I am eagerly anticipating the soon-to-be released NEX-7n and Zeiss e-mounts. For now, I am thoroughly enjoying my RX1.

0 upvotes
kucink132
By kucink132 (Feb 21, 2013)

I have bad news for you, the Zeiss 24mm F1.8 lens has not much 'zeiss' character in it. Not like ZM, DSLR mount, or RX1 version, this zeiss lens have null character.

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 21, 2013)

Kucink132: I assume your commenting to pocketuniverse and I completely agree with you which is why I replaced my NEX-7 with an RX1…I couldn’t be happier. I’m just hopeful that the new Zeiss e-mounts will have character similar to the RX1.

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

The RX-1 seems to have a lot in common with the Merrills, only its 3X more money. They both have a great lens and sensor; but chances are the Merrill will blow this thing away at base ISO. They both suck when it comes to AF. They both suck at video. Neither has a VF, but one is $2000 cheaper.

5 upvotes
ifi
By ifi (Feb 20, 2013)

Wrong!!!

Merrills compete with Fuji X100.

This camera has no competition, that explains the high price.

1 upvote
HBowman
By HBowman (Feb 20, 2013)

WRONG!!!

DP Merrills bury any 24 MP cameras out there, FF or APS-C. Come with a 30 MP RX1 and then you will have a competitor.

The RX1 kill the Merrills on ISO and bokeh. Even the ergonomic of the Merrill is better. But then, here come the DP3 Merrill ...

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

Sorry, but the Fuji X-100 does not produce MF quality images; the Merrills do, but as for the RX-1??

1 upvote
ifi
By ifi (Feb 20, 2013)

You would have to try RX-1 first!

1 upvote
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 21, 2013)

Wait for FF Merill, you will cry just by looking at its price. By then, RX-1 will look cheap.

But who knows. Sigma cameras are cheap lately.

0 upvotes
clochesfeuilles
By clochesfeuilles (Feb 20, 2013)

The IQ results for this camera are confusing... compared to OM-D raw it seems to have one stop of chroma noise advantage and a softer lens that renders the 24 MP useless. On a camera of similar size, that you can't change the lens on, weak AF, and costs $900 more than an OM-D with a Zuiko 17/1.8 AND a Leica 25/1.4.

Am I missing something?

Obviously there is more to IQ than sharpness and noise, but is not this the main draw of a full-frame sensor? (Not a hater or a fanboy, just a fan of high-end compacts and manual controls... my favorite was the Panasonic LC-1/Digilux 2. Certainly you could do amazing stuff with an RX1.)

3 upvotes
ifi
By ifi (Feb 20, 2013)

I guess you pretty much nailed it; this camera sucks at everything, even though it is first of a kind.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

The RX-1 with its lens outresolves the OM-D with the Oly 50. So I'm not sure what the "softer lens" is based on.

3 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 20, 2013)

You missed that it is FF, anything APSC or smaller would appear sharper due to DOF. You couldn't compare noise performance easily as FF cameras are shot at smaller apertures, which obviously has less light than tested APSCs or m4/3s.

3 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Feb 20, 2013)

where are all these clueless people come from?

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

It's not just the format, it's also the FL (35mm), which meant that the RX-1 had to be set up much closer to the target, resulting in much less DOF. Add a bit of field curvature and you get that you can't simply compare sharpness between these cameras just based on those shots. This was also confirmed by R. Butler below in the comments.

1 upvote
clochesfeuilles
By clochesfeuilles (Feb 20, 2013)

Cheers Troj, those are good points. My comment was as much a comment on the review as the camera; the test images don't really jive with the general feeling that it's a great lens, nor do they demonstrate superiority of a larger sensor. No doubt other images could.

Obviously RX1 is good at a lot of things, as people seem to like it a bunch :) Seems it's best at being a fun camera to use, especially as a travel camera (or for wedding candids).

Like I said, not hating, just interested in seeing the first results of "small camera, big sensor" come to life. I'm stoked that "small camera, medium sensor" has come so far in the last couple years. As a graphic designer, I'll go out on a limb and say m4/3 can now be used for any application that doesn't require medium-format level detail. Therefore, the wow-factor of "small camera, full-sensor" is less than it would have been five years ago. That's interesting to me, so I guess that's what I meant to convey. Not trying to rustle any jimmies.

0 upvotes
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (Feb 20, 2013)

Sony's working towards the Holy Grail. Still needs EVF, interchangeable lenses and zippy autofocus, video improvement (for me, not a straight photog, sorry guys) but they are closer than anyone, IMO.

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

That's a totally different camera you're asking for.

An interchangeable lens camera would be bigger - especially if you want the lens to be as good as this one is.

4 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

@ RB
Why would an i/c camera be bigger?
It could be no bigger than the RX1. Do you mean a chosen lens on the camera could be bigger? It could also be smaller than this 35/2.

1 upvote
hiplnsdrftr
By hiplnsdrftr (Feb 20, 2013)

Upon handling one in B&H, yeah, it feels amazing. Messing around with it only convinced me that it's rock solid.

Definitely not quite compact. No getting around that.

The price, yes, it's expensive. Keep in mind, in 2000 a Contax T3 with a fixed 35mm lens was about $1,000 and you still had to buy film and pay for processing. My guess is that the price works out to be comprable in the long run, depending on how much you shoot.

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

Exactly....

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Feb 20, 2013)

I still can't believe that Sony branded this camera as a Cyber-Shot. Had they called it a Zeiss, then no one would be concerned about the price. It would seem to be a bargain with a Zeiss nameplate on it.

Calling a high end camera a Cyber-Shot is about like Porsche coming out with a new top model and calling it an Volkswagen. It just makes no sense at all.

And remember.... Sony is the same company that took a $1,000 Sony NEX7 and re-branded it as a $5,000 Hasselblad! Do these people have any idea what they are doing?

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

Sony does not speak with one voice. Note they also sell sensors to direct competitors.

I think that's the hedge fund types running Hasselblad that rebranded the Nex 7.

1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

You seriously would pay for the name??

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

Stevens37y - Lots of people pay for the name....just ask anyone who buys a Leica P&S when the Panasonic equivalent is identical for half the price.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 20, 2013)

Cyber-Shot is Sony genuine.
Zeiss is yet another third-party.

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

Was anybody upset about the Cyber-Shot name in the times of the F828?

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 20, 2013)

Finally, someone mentioned it. I think it's good to talk about the intention why Sony branded it as a Cyber-shot. I think it's logical since the RX1 is essentially a Cyber-shot only with very high IQ and a non-zoom lens. It's a great camera for travel.
I also see this is a strategy to put out a camera faster with simpler features and see market response.

0 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

@ Clint Dunn: "Lots of people pay for the name."
They just want to "have" not to "use" it.
Or show it to the neighbours not to create something.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Feb 20, 2013)

@stevens37y.....

Ask yourself why Leica doesn't call some of it's cameras "Panasonics?" Even though they are designed by Panasonic, and built by Panasonic, on Panasonic production lines by Panasonic workers?

Ask yourself why Lexus takes a Toyota Camry, then loads it up with luxury options, and then sells it as a Lexus model for $20,000 more.

These people understand the value of branding.
Even if Sony and you don't.

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

@Marty4650 - Lexus doesn't do anything - it's a Toyota-owned brand name. So Toyota adds options to one of its models and sticks a Lexus badge on the back. Much as Volkswagen sticks a different body on a Phaeton, adds a few options and sells it as a Bentley Continental.

Anyway, I think Sony understands branding pretty well - this camera will affect the perceptions of what a Sony Cyber-shot can be far beyond the small number of people who'll ever buy or use one.

0 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

The Cyber-Shot tag suggests to me that they view this as a luxury consumer accessory. Which it is!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Feb 20, 2013)

Richard.... then I should have said "As yourself why Toyota takes a Camry, and calls it a Lexus."

Point being.... they understand the value of branding.

Associating a $2800 high end camera with a brand name that means "cheap P&S camera" doesn't do much for Sony. Even if their intent was to enhance the value of the Cyber-Shot name.

I think Sony doesn't get it. Their very first mistake was branding their high end cameras as "Sony" rather than as either Minoltas or even Konicas.

Panasonic DOES get it, which is why they tried very hard to brand their camera line as Lumix, so as not be confused with rice cookers, toaster ovens, and vacuum cleaners, also made by Panasonic.

2 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Feb 20, 2013)

Hopefully when the put out the interchangable lens version it will have a built in optical viewfinder. If the RX1 had one, I'd seriously be considering it. I'd venture to say most people who want FF demand OVF, and an (expensive)external add-on OVF doesn't cut.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

A thicker body would be needed for an interchangeable lens variation.

3 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

A few mm; hardly incongruous compared to the conspicuous viewfinder.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

pocketuniverse--

No, think of that Pentax mirrorless system. Or take the thickest part of any Sony DSLR or SLT camera and that's the idea. That's far more than a few mm.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Feb 20, 2013)

A truly great little camera, though at it's pricepoint, I'd be more interested in looking at a Leica with interchangeable lenses, even with the immensely worse low-light performance.

1 upvote
Priaptor
By Priaptor (Feb 20, 2013)

Too bad. You could have bought my M9 and Summilux 50 if you were quick enough.

The RX-1 is the better camera and A STEAL by comparison.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

thewhitehawk:

Sure the Leica Ms are nice, but don't do high ISO well and the M9 is too audible.

0 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

Do you need a silent compact for use in semi-darkness, or is it just a daydream scenario?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

pocketuniverse--

Ideally yes. The Nex cameras are too loud too.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Mar 12, 2013)

@Priaptor Damn...

@HowaboutRAW - did you read my comment? I'm well aware of that fact.

0 upvotes
markfocus
By markfocus (Feb 20, 2013)

If Sony would drop the price to $1800 and the Viewfinder for $250 I think they'd sell a billion-million of these. At least to me :)

4 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (Feb 20, 2013)

No they won't ;-) But it would make me absolutely interested as well! :-)

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 20, 2013)

at the current price this camera makes the holder look stupid.
what you pay for.

0 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Feb 20, 2013)

get a better job if you can´t afford it....

1 upvote
markfocus
By markfocus (Feb 20, 2013)

"get a better job if you can´t afford it...."

for the last 10 years I've seen my digital cameras depreciate in price as fast as you can say "megapiixel". This camera too will fall victim to obsolescence faster than anyone (especially Sony) would like

As for getting a better job so I can spend more foolheartedly,
that's a pretty stupid comment.

Not a year ago Sigma introduced a FF DSLR for $6000 to compete with Nikon and Canon who were selling for 2500. Months later selling NONE Sigma dropped the price to $2000 and still can't compete.

This Sony is a groovy camera, I tried it out but not going to drop stupid rich hobbyist money on it. I'll buy a happy snap, take award winning pix and give money to charity.

1 upvote
caimi
By caimi (Feb 20, 2013)

It is everyhting the Leica X series wants to be. Including wildly ovepriced.

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

It's better than the Leica X2...by far.

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

It's expensive, but that doesn't prove it's overpriced.

There aren't any new full-frame cameras that are significantly cheaper, once you factor the excellent lens into the price.

5 upvotes
Carbon111
By Carbon111 (Feb 20, 2013)

^^^ Exactly! I don't think this can be stressed enough.

0 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (Feb 20, 2013)

good review, great camera
seems backed up by other reviews
Particularly the pictures I have seen published from this camera are stunning.
well done Sony for thinking out of the box!

2 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Feb 20, 2013)

Rich man's toy...

"Oh.If I were a rich man,
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Idle-diddle-daidle-daidle man....." Fiddler on the Roof

Looks like a great image making tool!!!!! Wish I could own one...
I have to go install a hot water heater now.........LOL!!!!!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Michel Pont
By Michel Pont (Feb 20, 2013)

So you think the wealthy man didn't work hard to become wealthy ? ;)

4 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (Feb 20, 2013)

The Koch brothers inherited their wealth.

2 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Feb 20, 2013)

Häääähhhhh - Gold Award?
why???

4 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Feb 20, 2013)

Because this is a Sony/Nikon endorsing website ;-)

1 upvote
Priaptor
By Priaptor (Feb 20, 2013)

You have to love all the hoi polloi posting their inane negative comments. None of you cretins even own one. It must suck to be just another wannabe.

18 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 20, 2013)

Nice language.

8 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Feb 20, 2013)

@Priaptor: but do YOU actually own one?

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

If I could spend at this moment $3000 I'd prefer a Blackmagic not this one. Ok I know apples and oranges.

0 upvotes
Priaptor
By Priaptor (Feb 20, 2013)

@agentful

YES! And I love it. Eat your POOR little heart out!

5 upvotes
AmateurSnaps
By AmateurSnaps (Feb 20, 2013)

pics or it never happened :)

Its one of those cameras that for those who have the money and enjoy photography, you would buy one just to see what its like :)

4 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Feb 20, 2013)

My endodontist has one on order.

1 upvote
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Feb 20, 2013)

"None of you cretins even own one."

May I quote your comment in the next *beep*-fest over m43? Thanks.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

If you know what's what, you don't need to bother.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 20, 2013)

The RX1 is a camera some people think they might like to own, if only it cost less than a good full-sized camera, and if only it weren't a wee too big to be truely "compact." From the vantage of still photography, it might be a nice jewel to add to the trove of a career collector: exquisite, showy, and even functional. Anyone interested in video, however, will find it to be the boy toy from hades: narrow DOF and sluggish AF are NOT compatible with hand-held casual shots. Even if it did have focus peaking, that's not anything easy to work with under bright sun (can't see the LED), and not easy to set up to perfection, so you end up using narrow aperture to avoid recurring de-focus.

When Sony announces the RX200, and the RX100 price falls to $350, the latter might then become the best all-round pauper-friendly compact.

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 21, 2013)

Everybody is complaining about cost but the RX1 price will come down eventually. Why not wait and see? what we're paying now is the payback for the R&D cost. Will it hold value... like the classics? would the brand Sony cybershot hold any value? Which Sony camera has held a decent value for a long time? Sony business model is mass production and they'll have a huge contract with CZ lens for bulk order and they'll be getting it really cheap. The camera manufacturing cost won't be very high.

1 upvote
straylightrun
By straylightrun (Feb 20, 2013)

Haha, I love it how everyone who comments bashes it because they don't have enough money and can't afford one! Guys, just stick to your big bulky DSLRs :)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

just stick to your 35mm focus.
Life is too short to have only 1 focus length.

2 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

IT's amazing what legs and cropping will do to help just 1 focus length! It is infact quite liberating just having an excellent prime on your camera you tend to concentrate on the shot more than the equipment.

8 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 20, 2013)

Have you ordered your RX1? Why not a Leica too? A Hass Lunar with baby gator hide grip? On matters of luxury, why let cost, utility, or practicality befuddle one's choice? The joy of conspicuous consumption tops all, does it not? If the cost turns out to be double (gifts to bribe a spouse who might otherwise be irate over lavish squandering), isn't that also part of the joy?

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

Cy Cheze--

The Leica M9 is not really useable above ISO 1000, the shutter is too loud, and then the new Leica M isn't really useable above ISO 3200.

That fake Hasselblad Lunar is a Sony Nex 7.

So there are real reasons for going with this Sony, though of course the Leica Ms take different lenses. And good Leica lenses are still better than Zeiss.

But I get that you were just making an over the top list.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

Guess what it isn't showy it actually looks very stealthy unless you know what you are looking for, so infact it's rather more inconspicuous than you make out! If you know about photography what does a excellent CZ lens and a FF sensor actually cost, I think you will find they are rather expensive! Spending £10000 on a rolex might be excessive and showy, or maybe 100,000 on a Ferarri I could go on, but spending £2600 on a game changer for a compact FF camera isn't however you dress it up!

5 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Feb 20, 2013)

Justin has a point that having a single fixed focal length can be quite liberating. But when you get past a certain price point, having a fixed lens seems a bit much. If it was a special purpose lens, like a Hasselblad SWC, it would be different.

0 upvotes
Toccata47
By Toccata47 (Feb 20, 2013)

Gold rating is surprisingly high particularly when the 6d earned silver. I realize these awards are supposed to be category specific but the RX1 is unique to it's category and the ratings just don't seem to be category accurate. For example, the x100 and rx1 are exactly equal in viewfinder/screen rating. While the rx1's raw/jpeg scores are nearly equal to the d6 and d600 and perhaps 10% greater than the rx100.

If categories give an accurate "apples to apples" comparison what should be used as the basis of criterion, the sensor or the body?

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

Better sensor in this camera than the Canon 6D.

Zeiss lenses are better than Canon lenses for colour and often sharpness.

Finally: I don't think DPReview would consider this RX1 as competing with the 6D so the rating would simply be for this category of camera.

Stop quoting scores, the fact that you bring up the RX100 says that scores aren't helpful. The D600 and this RX1 take photos at much higher ISOs with much better image quality than the RX100. (A very nice pocket camera, but not in the same category.)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 21, 2013)

is it really true that CZ lens are more superior than Canon lens. I guess you're talking about the CZ lens tested with Canon body, right?

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 21, 2013)

Vignes:

Boring. Zeiss sure are better than Nikon lenses when mounted on extra ordinary Nikon bodies like the D4 and D3s.

Nikon and Canon lenses can't come close to Zeiss or Leica for colour and often sharpness. Fuji has some problems too. Really good Olympus come closest to Leica and Zeiss.

Go rent a 5D III and a Zeiss lens.

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 21, 2013)

Can you show me you photos shot with CZ lens on a Canon/nikon Body. I don't want waste my money on rentals, it's going to cost me. I prefer pictures taken by you plus your observation. please don't point me to someone else photos. Thanks.

1 upvote
pbailey4
By pbailey4 (Feb 20, 2013)

I printed up pictures taken with my old second hand Lumix FX-35 (cost £30) and my Nikon D700 to A0 size and in comparison and judged by a dozen people the picture taken with the FX-35 was favoured over the D700, shows a camera with a sensor just 3% of the full frame.

sample snap with the Lumix http://www.flickr.com/photos/theotherbailey/8431279575/

PS - in the headline picture why is the guy holding the viewfinder to the frame of his glasses?

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

So both started as raw and both were taken at the cameras' base ISO?

Printed at the same dpi/dpc output too I imagine?

Kinda matters what lens was on the D700 too.

0 upvotes
pbailey4
By pbailey4 (Feb 20, 2013)

I agree and both had low ISO settings (D700 at 100 - its an old habit from the film days) no RAW option on the Lumix and the Nikon lens the 24 - 85 f2.8. Sure the image from the D700 would have been capable of further enlargement and better performance at higher ISO but note the sensor area of the FX-35 just 3% of the Nikon - 28 sq mm Vs 850 sy mm. And of course if you are going to take sports, fashion portraits and publish pictures or need poster size printed images then the SLR is the choice. Don't forget to enjoy taking pictures as well.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

pbailey4:

You've made my point.

0 upvotes
pbailey4
By pbailey4 (Feb 20, 2013)

I agreed with you comments - but I seemed to have missed your point, it was?

I guess like most products there is an optimum value for money point then the as functions, robustness & build quality increase the cost to manufacture and develop increases and are spread over a lower volume. I guess if Sony could sell 1 million of the DSC-RX1 the price could drop to a fraction of the current level.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

pb--

The D700 has many more capabilities and can shoot do better image quality at a much greater range of ISOs.

I'm perfectly satisfied with a 12 inch by 18 inch print shot with my Canon G2 as a jpeg at the base ISO--it's still very good more than ten years later, but that doesn't mean that a D700 wouldn't have been a better.

0 upvotes
Peter Bendheim
By Peter Bendheim (Feb 20, 2013)

It's undoubtedly a beautiful camera with superb image quality. But like all electronics, it probably wont be around or working in 5 years time. So if one buys it, one has to be fairly wealthy or get it to earn it's keep. And it's not without issues, either. Like focus speed. And the cost of the add-on's. At that price, one could almost get a half dozen G1x's...and if you look at the comparative reviews, (both Gold Awards 79 vs. 76 percent) I'd settle happily on the G1x for a beautifully built, solid walk around camera with pretty great image quality. For those that own it, they have a loyal and solid following. But yes, congrats to Sony, they have truly created a unique camera, sadly for me, at a price a little to unique for my pocket.

3 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

Hmmm, my 12 year old S85 works like new. Some of these electronic devices can still outlast us.

3 upvotes
Peter Bendheim
By Peter Bendheim (Feb 20, 2013)

Agreed, but unlike a "mechanical" camera, when your trusty S85 does fail it probably won't be economical or possible to repair. As much as I love shiny gadgets there is something nice about a weather-worn 50 year old Leica or Rolex, which is why I guess brands like this can command such premium prices.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

Peter:

Sure a 50 year old Leica or Nikon F is great, but colour pictures are limited to about ISO 800. And there start to be real colour quality problems at ISO 400.

When digital slrs could readily shoot well at ISO 800-1000 (2003ish), I got that film was over except for specialized applications.

Also the camera is not the same as the photos taken, that would be confusing the outer appearance of the frying pan with the omelette.

1 upvote
Peter Bendheim
By Peter Bendheim (Feb 20, 2013)

Yes I think you are mostly right - but these quotes (stolen off the Tokyo Camera style website) have been on my mind lately -

"I don’t think about what camera I should use that much. I just pick up the one that looks nicest on the day"

-- William Eggleston

"If you want to change your photographs, you need to change cameras. Changing cameras means that your photographs will change. A really good camera has something I suppose you might describe as its own distinctive aura."

-- Nobuyoshi Araki

So I have some mixed feelings on the pan and the omelette thing. Sometimes I think that if the pan feels good I'll make a better omelette, other days I don't. It's not clear cut for me if I'm honest.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

Peter Bendheim:

That Eggleston statement is really dumb, unless there's more to it.

I don't have any problem with the Araki quotation.

The point remains that a 50 year old 35mm film camera, even with a very good lens, has severe lowlight limitations that most new big sensored digital cameras don't, especially if they released in the last year. (Obviously the Nikon D3s is a bit earlier, and talk about a camera with a feel.)

Also: I very explicitly limited my comment to the visual appearance of the omelette pan. I wrote nothing about the feel of the pan. Heft of the pan is a totally different thing, for example.

0 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

@Troj
An S85 would be just as useable, in most situations, for most amateurs. You'd get photos where RX1 users would fear to tread.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 20, 2013)

@pocketuniverse :
The S85 was great 12 years ago but you're overestimating its qualities when compared to the current age cameras. It's more than 5 times slower in operation, loses over 4 stops in low light compared to the RX1, loses more than 4 stops DR and huge amounts of resolution at the wide end. It only has a tiny benefit at the long end, taking cropping abilities into account. But with RAW and a good converter, that benefit should be gone too.

1 upvote
Ibida Bab
By Ibida Bab (Feb 20, 2013)

So under 2000 dollars there no cameras with excellent image quality. Bummer...

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

Get the D600 and pair it with 50 f/1.8 lens. There you go...

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 20, 2013)

Photonuts:

The D600 plus lens costs more than two thousand bucks.

One could buy a manual focus 50mm Zeiss 1.4 and mount it on a Nikon or Canon APSC dslr and probably get high image quality for less than $2000. Not the sharpest lens in that line, but the 85mm 1.4 would mean going over budget.

Of course there's also always the Fuji XE1 with lens for less than 2 grand.

How much is a Sony NEX 5n? That body plus the 24mm Zeiss E mount would have very high IQ and probably cost less than 2 thousand US bucks.

The the Olympus E-5 plus lens could work out to less than 2000.

0 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (Feb 20, 2013)

And those who can't afford the RX1, there is always the Fuji X100/X100s. A 17mm 1.8 on an Oly EPL5/ODM/EPM2 is another alternative.

I have come to the realization that no matter the equipment, my photos still suck. My skills must match the equipment before I buy. Looking for a good used Brownie Hawkeye. ;)

0 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 20, 2013)

Before starting to judge a camera you should use it.
Intensely.
This little gem is one of the most pleasant camera to use.
And that Zeiss lens is a no match, except the best Leica.
Maybe.

5 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

Totally agree until you have used it you have no idea how good it actually is and how it feels!

5 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 20, 2013)

I'm sure those who wants to buy, may already have decent cameras but i think we should hold on for awhile and see how the price settles...Sony products price do come down pretty quickly.

For the GOLD award, clearly shows that Dpreview people are human beings too - with feelings. They're gut feelings told them that this camera deserves a GOLD award.

0 upvotes
oscarvdvelde
By oscarvdvelde (Feb 20, 2013)

it's because they did not have to pay for it!
It may be a great camera for what it is, but a price $1000 less seems more fitting for its capabilities, even in comparison with full frame DSLRs.

0 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

Has anyone actually picked up and used the camera before slating it! The shortcomings are nothing compared to the quality that you can achieve. There is no point comparing it to the current nex range, Fuji or Olympus ranges as they can't touch either the sensor or lens.

This is not a cheap camera, it has a best in class FF sensor and a stunning CZ lens that has been designed to work together. The engineering is supreme and the build quality excellent. Just go and have a look what the professional photographers that are using it are saying, look at the results they speak for themselves. Read the interviews with Sony to understand why there is no viewfinder and how the camera was put together it might open some eyes. I'll let the naysayers enjoy slating the camera where I will be out enjoying taking shots with mine.

1 upvote
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 20, 2013)

SONY's finishing in most product is relatively good.
Didn't read the interview but could you explain why SOny said VF is not required?

0 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

They were not going to compromise on the size or the design of the camera for an integral viewfinder. It is a modular design, you are able to add and remove one if you want. As a sidenote the additional viewfinder is supposed to way ahead of the ones on the nex 7, 6 and Alpha 99.

1 upvote
digifan
By digifan (Feb 20, 2013)

That's just a croc o sh..!
It is an "emotioanal" cam for us oldies, since it has physical controls like dedicated aperture ring etc.
It definately has a little better IQ over the GH and OMD cameras and APS-C cameras, but that's about it.
You can't exchange lenses on it, or even put an EVF on it, it has no tilting LCD and isn't weather sealed. This is a camera for "Leica alike" public. It's AF is slow compared to the m43 cameras. Al items where the original E-P1 was dissed over.
OK it has super IQ but at the end of the day I sell print and it just isn't versatile enough to use solely on a shoot and the difference in print is not as big as the figures might want to suggest.

5 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Feb 20, 2013)

The corner sharpness is terrible.

3 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 20, 2013)

Nice statement by a manufacturer... no VF because it'll compromise the size of the camera. But add a VF and compromise the size of the camera at your own expense, dear customer. Nice work Sony. So all the other manufactures who produced FF camera >2K didn't know that they could do this compromise.
Mate, I know this camera is good but one shouldn't believe all the crap any manufactures throws at u.

2 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 20, 2013)

The corner sharpness is incredible.
Never seen one, right?

1 upvote
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

Croc of sh! really! Have you actually used the camera or basing it on reviews? Firstly you can put on a viewfinder if you actually read what I said? Secondly this is not an interchangeable camera system it is a fixed lens so why complain. It just happens to be on of the best 35mm lenses you can get hold of and as anyone knows F2 on this type of lens is more than fast enough! The IQ is far better than the em-5's of this world and yes I have used one and have an nex 6. As I said look at the results they speak for themselves.
The camera is for a limited market as not everyone can afford it but in use it is superb and yes of course you have to make comprises as you do with every camera you buy!

1 upvote
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 20, 2013)

Have played in the store but i haven't seen a shot copy in a big screen or good print. but do you reckon it's better than any 35mm lens combo with a good FF camera or even APC-S camera?

0 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

Vigness that is the most pointless reply I have read. The system is modular, if you want to add a viewfinder you can, you have a choice, you are not having to redesign the camera body to do so! Also there are benefits of a modular design such as it being both tilt able and upgradeable. If you have do have a integral vf don't buy the camera, simple really! Gets over the marketing bs doesn't t!

0 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

Vigness there are plenty of samples around now have a quick search.

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 20, 2013)

No it's not pointless and i didn't point to you... it was a honest question to _federico. If, i'm going to spend 2K for a Sony camera with fix Focal lens, i want to do a research and find out from many who has used it in the field. this is the best info rather than believing review sites.

1 upvote
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 20, 2013)

Vigness I responded to your reply regarding your comments on a lack of VF and you are echoing what I have said regarding actually using the camera as most people seem to be basing everything on reviews. I just suggested to look for the photographers who are actually using the camera not the reviewers, there are now plenty about!

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 20, 2013)

Thanks for your advice.

0 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

This is simply a "collector's camera".
The price and IQ. are not really important

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 20, 2013)

According to who??? What a daft statement. For people who have money, this camera is a no-brainer since it has better image quality than anything out there in this small of a package.

Don't be a hater just because you can't afford it.

1 upvote
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Feb 20, 2013)

DPReview, with that 'Con' list and that "Price', you have to be kidding us.

How could great image quality in the face of all those operational/functional 'Cons' be worth a Gold award?

2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 20, 2013)

Were it a Nikon, might you then agree to "gold"? Anyway, the award is mainly a tribute to Sony's initiative to offer a FF sensor in a compact body. This is something folks beg for, even though it entails costs and constraints.

0 upvotes
snow14
By snow14 (Feb 20, 2013)

macro four third is the best compromise between size and IQ so far.

1 upvote
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Feb 20, 2013)

It seems that you are right.

Rumors has a 'Foveon' type sensor by an OEM set for introduction this year that is supposed to have very low noise.

I am sitting with what I presently have and will watch the market for what becomes available later this year.

0 upvotes
Alex P Scorsch
By Alex P Scorsch (Feb 20, 2013)

The RX-1 is a PRO camera. With the RX-1 photographers can take photos with the same level of quality as their DSLR kits. Once one is used to pro quality it's hard to be satisfied with anything else. I don't believe that the RX-1 will become obsolete within the next 15 years. It has the lens/sensor quality that will make it last as a pro tool. I love it. I'm glad I spent the money . Having the EVF is a MUST. Cheers, Alex.

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 21, 2013)

Is RX1 classified as PRO grade camera? it seems to be a good camera but doubt whether the PRO's would purchase it for their business. Could be used for app that requires 35mm FP. 35mm is a good walk around FP lens especially taking shots in the streets etc. need feedback from Pros, not sure how many of the comments are coming from pros.

0 upvotes
Sonyshine
By Sonyshine (Feb 20, 2013)

I'm still lusting after one of these even though I know I can't afford it.

0 upvotes
Chris Cuennet
By Chris Cuennet (Feb 20, 2013)

To give notes or percentages to cameras réflex or compact of luxury, hybrids etc. is ridiculous!!!... How to claim to be able to say that the Canon xxx will be better than Nikon zzz or that Fuji 111 will be him although the Sony 000?... Today, these monsters of technology with their more and more sharp and quality sensor are quality bombs of image... Later it is a problem of love for a mark, feeling and price especially... Because the RX1 Sony exceeds a little the understanding with these 3100 euros!

1 upvote
smatty
By smatty (Feb 20, 2013)

The Sony RX1 scores 79% in this review and is therefore is on par with the X-Pro 1's score of 79%

And while the comparison in this review is currently against the Fuji X100 with its 2 years old conventional sensor, the X100s with the version 2 of the X-Pro1 X-Trans sensor should surpass the RX1 at a fraction of the cost.

I am looking forward to this head to head comparison - and while I love FF sensor cameras for the great DOF control, in almost all other aspects of IQ the APS-C sensor have caught up.

Great times for serious compact cameras :)

3 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 20, 2013)

Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category. It's written right in the conclusion. I own both X100 and RX1...and the first one can't be even close to the Sony.

2 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

with F2 + 35mm you don't get too shallow DOF

2 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (Feb 20, 2013)

@_Federico_ The X100 is 2 years old and does not have the X-Trans sensor. It scores 75% vs. 79% against the RX1.

I have the X100 and X-Pro 1 and the X100s will certainly benefit from the X-Trans sensor 2nd generation and should outscore the RX1. We will see :)

@stevens37y: I think that the RX1 could have made much better use of the FF sensor if it had a 35mm f1.4 lens. But Sony wanted to make it very compact.

I think that a X-Pro 1 or X-E1 with a Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 will be the better choice than the RX1 if you are willing to accept a bit bigger size for a big $ saving

2 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 20, 2013)

smatty, I'm a professional photographer, and I've been working with every mirroless so far. I know very well what can be done with an X Pro1, a great camera. And, trust me, the Sony is a different league. A smaller format can't be an alternative to a greater one.

2 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Feb 20, 2013)

@Frederico: It is because of "pros" like you that the market is ruined with uselessly large sensors and antiquated lenses. Bigger does not mean better. Had Canon and Nikon invested in a better sensor size, those systems would have been way superior to what we have now. But because ego-trippers only buy the biggest, they had to revise their strategy and fragment the market.

3 upvotes
digifan
By digifan (Feb 20, 2013)

@_Frederico_ I disagree about your remark that "A smaller format can't be an alternative to a greater one". It sure as h#ll can.
I sell those prints of my work of the smaller and the bigger formats ... they are not far apart.
You must be an specific art photographer to be so picky. Quality is quality and no client is ever getting a microscope to look if the picture has enough resolution etc. etc.
A mirrorless system camera APS-C/m43 has more versatility than this fixed lens emo cam.

1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 20, 2013)

@ smatty: "if it had a 35mm f1.4 lens. But Sony wanted to make it very compact."
wanted keep the manufacturer price low:)
I think they make a lot of profit on this.

0 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 20, 2013)

You don't know what you are talking about, Mike.
Try to study, it works.

3 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 20, 2013)

@digifan: of course, you're right. I'm talking about high quality and highly specific photographic target. I'm working on several different fields. And I love even smaller camera format.

1 upvote
smatty
By smatty (Feb 20, 2013)

_Federico_ I don't know how intensely you worked with the X-Pro 1? It takes many month to really squeeze the maximum out of a camera.
I have spent 1 year intensely with the X-Pro 1 and 4 years intensely with the 5D MK II and very good L lenses. And the Fuji is capable of 5D MK II IQ exept for the shallow DOF control of FF sensor cameras.

And Fujis lenses are very good, too. I did a direct comparison of the Fuji XF 35mm f1.4 to the Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L on the X-Pro 1 unter the exact same settings and conditions:
http://fujixfiles.blogspot.com/

While I still miss the versatility of i.e. my TS-E 24mm f3.5 L II for architecture, the normal focal lengths of the Fuji hold up their own against the good Canon glass.

So bottom line for me, at least Fuji has caught up in IQ with APS-C to FF systems. Features and speed of DSLR aside, the RX1 is not a camera for many different specific photographic jobs either - probably even less so than the Fuji X-Pro 1 system...

1 upvote
Michel Pont
By Michel Pont (Feb 20, 2013)

Funny...I would just say the opposit !
Smaller is not better... ;)

0 upvotes
razorfish
By razorfish (Feb 20, 2013)

I don't get how this is a gold award

3 upvotes
The Lotus Eater
By The Lotus Eater (Feb 20, 2013)

Because it's really good.

5 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Feb 20, 2013)

I have actually tried this camera out and its ridiculously small for the level of performance it offers. Not everyone wants a bulky camera that requires a large backpack to carry around everywhere.

1 upvote
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 20, 2013)

I think it's one of the greatest camera I've ever used so far. And I'm working with Nikon D3, D800e, Nex7, Fujifilm X100, Ricoh GXR, Leica etc, etc

2 upvotes
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

You're 'working' with all those?
Are you an OCD therapist?

0 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Feb 20, 2013)

Pros: Excellent IQ ,small
Cons: Everything else

Tongue firmly in cheek of course.

2 upvotes
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Feb 20, 2013)

The camera looks good and it is good. The only two things are the price, this Sony is not build like a Leica, they are pushing the price too much.

The other is that it is not an interchangeable lens camera, thing that the majority of the users will appreciate. But ok, for sure there is a market for this camera, and if there is no such market, Sony will create it with marketing. ;)

This is only my view. Many will like much this camera.

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

I would be happy with the APS-C version of the RX1 with built in viewfinder like NEX-7. Wait a minute, I might as well buy ther NEX-7 LOL

0 upvotes
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (Feb 20, 2013)

As long as people keep buying them, Camera manufacturers will keep making over-priced cameras...

3 upvotes
Adrian Joseph Roy
By Adrian Joseph Roy (Feb 20, 2013)

I would disagree. As long as people keep buying these overpriced cameras, camera manufacturers will keep making them and lowering the prices at the same time. There's no reason to think you won't be able to buy a camera like this (FF, fast fixed lens, excellent IQ, etc.) for $500.00 in several years time, provided people keep showing an interest in them.

On the other hand, if nobody buys cameras like this, then they will always exist as boutique cameras for boutique consumers.

3 upvotes
samdman
By samdman (Feb 20, 2013)

Exactly the price of pioneering. FF on compact body and leaf shutter, Zeiss lens with AF and all..

1 upvote
SDF
By SDF (Feb 20, 2013)

Not true. Everyone is taking pictures with their smartphones. No one buys serious compact camera anymore.

1 upvote
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

Adrian,
If nobody buys, the price falls. If many buy, the price rises.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Feb 20, 2013)

Dust on the sensor???? Great to know Sony will fix it....

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 20, 2013)

Would a FF system user buy it as compact FF second equipment thinking that it'll give the same pleasure and result of their primary FF-body?
Maybe those with m4/3 system may buy this thinking they can finally get a FF IQ shot and don't need to worry about by new lens etc... not sure?

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (Feb 20, 2013)

i would rather buy a few good micro 4/3 lenses (or maybe the two f2.8 panasonic zooms) for that money. and by a few i mean to say at least 4.

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

How is this 35mm OVF comparing to others Zeiss ZM's OVF ? Is it as bright, detailed and clear ?

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

I have absolutely no faith in Sony's compacts durability...
I got too much disappointment with them regarding this.

2 upvotes
The Lotus Eater
By The Lotus Eater (Feb 20, 2013)

Yes, because this is just any old Sony compact.

5 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (Feb 20, 2013)

I have an excellent experience of Sony durability. My RX100 has been in rain, desert sand, English winters. It is well used and abused. Works perfectly.

3 upvotes
ravinj
By ravinj (Feb 20, 2013)

This Sony will last longer than say, a Leica M9. With M9's cracked sensor issue, SD cards being wiped out and rendered unusable by M9, the RX1 is much better.

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

Except that Leica M9 issue is replaced for FREE even your warranty is out...
I doupt you can fix your RX-1 in 4-5 years if you have an issue...

1 upvote
pocketuniverse
By pocketuniverse (Feb 20, 2013)

I find peoples' expectations amusing.

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Feb 20, 2013)

Without the EVF attached it's uncomfortable to shoot over a longer period of time.
With EVF attached it's in no way "pocketable" anymore.
Sluggish AF in low light. A bummer. The RX1 is basically a dream for low-light photography on intimate locations where a D4 wouldn't be appropriate.
Sony, make it work with the RX2 (courtesy Tim Gunn).

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (Feb 20, 2013)

The appropriateness of a DSLR is an interesting discussion. Some places do frown on them, and some occasions mean they can't be used, but what I've found is that often it's the user who for whatever reason is timid when it comes to carrying a camera where there may be no one else with one.

0 upvotes
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (Feb 20, 2013)

I'm fine using the screen. Switching from a DSLR to an m43 without an EVF took some time to get used to, but it's basically matter of muscle memory. (I still every now and then put the camera up to my eye) And is the large sensor worth sacrificing flexibility? Current APS-C and m43 sensor are already very good. Is the difference worth The $1600 premium over, say, Olympus E-M5?

1 upvote
Total comments: 546
123