Previous news story    Next news story

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

By dpreview staff on Feb 22, 2013 at 14:23 GMT
Buy on GearShop$2,798.00

We've updated our Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review with an additional page of lens data, brought to you in collaboration with DxOMark. The RX1's headline feature may well be its 24MP full frame image sensor, but the fixed Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm F2 lens is an equally crucial part of its imaging chain. We've added a full set of technical lens measurements to our review to illustrate how it performs, presented in our unique data widget. You can also see how it measures up against the best 35mm lenses available for SLRs.

If you're unable to see the lens test page, please clear your browser's cache and try again. 

173
I own it
123
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: 173
peevee1
By peevee1 (Mar 9, 2013)

DPR, on page 11 (Lens test data) you state: "The RX1's lens shows noticeable barrel distortion - at 1.9%, it's a bit more pronounced than you'd get from a highly-corrected SLR lens. "
Then on the next page: "The RX1's lens design is fairly well corrected as it stands (there's around 0.7% barrel distortion)"

So, which is it, 1.9% or 0.7%?

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Mar 6, 2013)

A Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm f2.0 lens is about $2000 alone. So it is interesting that the lens DXO mark is about the same as the $450 Samyang 35mm f1.4 at f2.0 (to match the Sony). The Samyang is actually a lot brighter in the corners too with less complex distortion. Same goes for the Sigma 35mm f1.4 at $900.

1 upvote
Minolta4Life
By Minolta4Life (Feb 28, 2013)

I love this camera!!!!! But...hey Sony, for those of us that don't have F/U money, can you just throw a hotshoe on the RX100???!!!

0 upvotes
Fox Fisher
By Fox Fisher (Feb 28, 2013)

What a remarkable camera and lens. Those who complain about a price, buying a full frame DSLR with a lens this good would be around the same dollars or even more.

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Feb 26, 2013)

Too expensive, too small, too big, poor AF performance, gidgety gadgety jewel of dumb asses, protégé of DPR, quality that cannot be true, best lens of all times, too good to be true, ... or simply just too good. Hard to swallow.

Anyway, a great photographic achievement it is.

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 26, 2013)

If I were as conflicted over this camera as you clearly are, I would have to go out and get one of these bad boys and shoot with it for a while so that I could see for myself what all the hub-bub is about.

Oh...I did. IT'S EVERYTHING THEY'RE SAYING IT IS! ;)

3 upvotes
CHAS RX1
By CHAS RX1 (Feb 26, 2013)

Fantastic camera...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 25, 2013)

Camera of the year?? Steady on now, year has only just begun!!

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 26, 2013)

2012 Einstein.

1 upvote
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 25, 2013)

RX1 is the Overall Camera of the Year - Imaging Resource says: "The image quality of the Sony RX1 isn't merely great, it's exceptional. And then there's the lens. Put simply, the Sony RX1's lens is the sharpest, most uniform full-frame 35mm optic we've ever tested. Having a sensor derived from that in the Sony A99, this comes as no surprise: That camera takes great photos as well, but the RX1 more than matches it. And it stacks up against the best the full-frame field has to offer, without limitation. It amazed us that we could shoot wide open at f/2 and not have to worry that the large aperture would compromise the quality of our images; our shots were sharp from corner to corner, even wide open. Overall, it's hard to overstate just how impressed we were with the RX1's lens, and that it handily beat the A99 for sharpness, even with the best lens we could put on it."

2 upvotes
davidodd
By davidodd (Feb 25, 2013)

Maybe it's not the camera for me.... Too much for a 'one-trick' pony. HOWEVER, it shows that much of the kit needed for a FF camera can be squashed into a body about the size of an old 35mm camera (who'd have thought!). OK there's little things like a mirror box etc missing, but even bolting them on (or having an integrated EVF) it looks promising to me.
Next generation with SLT? Might make the plunge into Sony-world.....

0 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Feb 25, 2013)

If the RX1 could match the Sigma Merrill, I'd be impressed:

http://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/DP2-Merrill-4038/highres/sigma-dp2-merrill-raw-to-jpeg-SDIM0028_1345814357.jpg

But it doesn't.

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 25, 2013)

Match? Match for what? Yes the DP2 produces brilliantly high resolution photos, to be sure. I can appreciate the phenomenal detail in the SP2 shots on my 2560x1600 - 30" Dell but not on my iPad and I don’t find SP2 photographs to be particularly pleasing to my eyes. The point being; yes the Sigma wins the high res battle at ISO 200 and below, but that is where it ends. The RX1 crushes the DP2 in all other categories; Lens character, speed, any ISO over 200 (show me a DP2 photo at 3200), bokeh, etc., did I mention speed? The shtick on the DP2 is that you MUST have perfect conditions and the patience of Job in order to get the most of the camera, with my RX1; I can make lemons out of lemonade in almost any situation. Unless you’re talking about printing billboards, these two cameras don’t belong in the same conversation.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Feb 25, 2013)

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

1 upvote
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 25, 2013)

I disagree with your interpretation of image quality. You seem to be of the opinion that IQ is synonymous with lots of detail or high resolution…I do not (although the RX1 does excel at both). A camera’s ability to resolve detail at a high level does NOT necessarily make it superior to others in terms of image quality; it makes it an excellent choice for someone needing to print large posters or billboards. Additionally, the DP2s rendering looks too harsh for me; I’m ok with it, just not to the point where I would argue so fervently, as you have. I have no idea what your credentials are but I do know that many professional photographers and pro-sumer enthusiast s that shoot regularly with the camera (yes, they and I need reasonable speed and decent high ISO performance) as well as sites like DPR, Luminous Landscapes, Imaging Resource and many others of whom have reviewed the RX1, regularly tout its superb image quality. The DP2 is simply NOT in the same class as the RX1-no way.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 25, 2013)

Can Sigma Merrill match the quality of Nikon 1?
(other than resolution at low ISOs)

0 upvotes
raducdz
By raducdz (Feb 25, 2013)

Why wouldn't it match Nikon 1? Nikon 1 is not a great camera... and Sigma's Foveon can match high-end pro DSLRs image quality in my opinion (at low iso, that is)

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 25, 2013)

on the AF speed,

m4/3" cameras use Pana sensors that can readout in high speeds for AF. I don't know for sure but RX1 looks different.

m4/3" lenses are mostly of very small apertures (we'll need a G/mZD18/1.0 to do the same work as RX1). while these small aperture lenses are challenged to collect enough light, they have deeper depth of field that contrast AF can work easier.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Feb 25, 2013)

The most recent Micro Four Thirds cameras, such as the phenomally fast Olympus OM-D E-M5, use Sony sensors. These, oddly enough, can also read out at high speeds for AF.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 25, 2013)

I'm not sure if E-M5 uses a Sony sensor. I'd say not.

Sony APS-C sensors in Pentax cameras look almost as good as Sony's 35mm-format ones. probably it is not the sensor performance, but other tricks.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Hynee
By Hynee (Feb 25, 2013)

Look what poor AF performance did for the X100... it was a legend pretty much on release, and if Sony could improve AF with firmware upgrades they may have a formidable competitor.

0 upvotes
olypan
By olypan (Feb 24, 2013)

The X100 created huge interest from the audience. The RX1 feels like it is being pushed to death by Dpreview, whether we like it or not. OMD was grudgingly glossed over despite huge interest. I expect the next Pentax will be another fly by appraisal too.

0 upvotes
NorthwestF
By NorthwestF (Feb 24, 2013)

" whether we like it or not."

Speak for yourself only

7 upvotes
mumintroll
By mumintroll (Feb 24, 2013)

This camera NEVER can reach picture quality of Merrill DP2 on basic ISO. NEVER. You don't believe? Check this images and compare with RX1.
Images are in discussion from Frank.
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_dp1_merrill_review/comments/

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Feb 24, 2013)

good photos, but the best there is?
do not think so - the X100, OM-D etc. make just as good

0 upvotes
olypan
By olypan (Feb 24, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Feb 24, 2013)

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

1 upvote
olypan
By olypan (Feb 24, 2013)

I presume you are being ironic and humorous?

1 upvote
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 24, 2013)

Yes if sigma could sort it out the merrills kick ALL sensors arses.

0 upvotes
mumintroll
By mumintroll (Feb 25, 2013)

@olypan

No I'm just realistically compared pictures. If you are not blind you have to see much better IQ of sigma over RX-1.
And I don't have Sigma. I just see much better IQ on Sigma than RX-1.

0 upvotes
mumintroll
By mumintroll (Feb 25, 2013)

@rusticus

NO WAY. You never will reach with X100 or OM-D so good IQ. Just compare resolution per pixel on those images. Sharpness on sides and corners, etc. Just put 2 pictures beside each other and zoom to 100%. You will see big difference.

Sigma disadvantage is being slow and worse IQ on higher ISO energy consumption etc. But on base ISO IQ has no competitor especially in APS-C sensors. Only IQ comparable is from D800E.
Check this. Comparison by professional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3VjyHQiqdE

0 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 25, 2013)

Sigma picture is sharp because of the Foveon magic. Not only over RX-1, but to all Bayer based camera - 5D Mk III, Nikon D800... D800e maybe hold up pretty good, but for the cost of moire. So if you want the best IQ for ISO 200 and below, don't waste money, get the Sigma.

0 upvotes
iaredatsun
By iaredatsun (Feb 24, 2013)

Sony have tried, but that list of cons says a lot. An example of a company who have pressed all the right (consumer-led) designer-engineer buttons but haven't got their priorities quite right.

Aside from that, I've used it's smaller sister camera and Sony never feel like they quite understand how to make a camera that is good to use. I can only hope this one does better in that sense.

I'm waiting for that company who know how to make great cameras to step up before I buy an interchangeable compact.

1 upvote
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 24, 2013)

Really so you are basing your statement on various "reviews" and it's sister camera the RX100. The RX100 has nothing in common with the RX1 so your comparison is baseless. As for the designers being consumer led, and Sony camera's not being good to use, very subjective and also for both the RX1 and RX100 totally incorrect.

7 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (Feb 24, 2013)

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

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

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

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 24, 2013)

iaredatsun--

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

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

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

1 upvote
iaredatsun
By iaredatsun (Mar 1, 2013)

@JustinL01, ergonomic design and its evaluation is not a science, you can disagree or choose to ignore an opinion on this aspect of a camera, but you cannot say it is 'incorrect', totally or otherwise. ;)

If, as you seem to be saying, Sony have rethought their approach to designing compacts since the RX100, then I look forward to trying one!

0 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Feb 24, 2013)

It would be good to see a similar treatment of the X100(s)'s lens.

0 upvotes
camera fan not photographer
By camera fan not photographer (Feb 24, 2013)

Why are there no details about AF speed in this review, especially given that slow AF speed is one of the main complaints heard about this otherwise great camera? The "Performance" pages of the reviews from this site of many prior cameras that pushed the limits of quality in a small camera (e.g. GF1, E-P1, X100, E-M5) all have an entire "Autofocus speed" section, with specific comparative comments vs. other known cameras or actual timings with tenths-of-seconds precision. This review says only "the RX1 can acquire focus within a second, almost all of the time".

Within a second?!? What kind of information is that? The Olympus E-P1 was roundly criticized several years (and camera generations) ago for having AF times of half to 2/3 of a sec, so how can this review not criticize 1sec normal-light AF speed and/or provide more detail. Street photography and kids require fast AF sometimes and people want to know just how much AF speed they are giving up for the RX1's other benefits.

4 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 24, 2013)

There are a ton of other reviews available for you that will satisfy your craving for more detailed AF performance data. In the time it took you to bitch about this review, you could have simply Googled RX1 reviews and you’d be reading for the rest of the day ;)

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 24, 2013)

camera fan not photographer:

It's a contrast AF system, pretty fast but not like good phase detection systems, but in this type of camera that would take a new sensor, so wait for the RX1.

0 upvotes
camera fan not photographer
By camera fan not photographer (Feb 24, 2013)

photog4u: I expect DPReview to have the most authoritative and systematic info, regardless of other reviews. But I did Google, and most other reviews make only qualitative statements. Eg, Steve Huff's dominates the top results and his videos are pathetic. He just shows it locking focus in clips where you can't even see when he pushes the shutter button. There's not a wealth of info as detailed as the DPReviews reviews of, for example, the Panasonic GF1 or Olympus E-P1. But if you have a link to what you think is the best review for RX1 AF speed, please share it.

0 upvotes
camera fan not photographer
By camera fan not photographer (Feb 24, 2013)

HowaboutRAW: CDAF varies a lot in its speed across cameras. The Olympus E-M5/E-PL5/E-PM2 are super-fast, easily as fast as the PDAF in entry-level DSLRs. The RX1 is clearly slower, but it's hard to determine from anywhere how much slower. The superior CDAF algorithms Panasonic and Olympus have developed are clearly a big part of their speed, so I think your claim that an RX1 type of camera would require a new sensor is incorrect. Various Fujifilm cameras have had their AF speed increased significantly via firmware updates. It'd be nice to have a numerical rating for the RX1 speed so that if it gets improved we can actually tell how much better it is (eg, relative to the fastest CDAF such as in the m4/3 cameras).

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 25, 2013)

camera fan not photographer:

It’s not so much that contrast AF can’t be faster, this Sony RX1 didn’t seem bad when I tried it.
But phase detection AF, when done correctly, beats contrast systems easily. So Sony can build phase detect AF into the sensor chip. But that will have to wait for the next version.

Sony has a lot to be proud of here. Those Fuji XTrans cameras have problems with greenery and the raw extraction software that does outdoor trees well doesn’t do indoor high ISOs well. Or high ISOs in general.

Given the availability of extraordinary lenses and now phase detect AF on the imaging sensor, I’m more interested in the Samsung NX300 and still hypothetical NX3 than either the Sony RX1 or the Fuji XPro1 or XE1. I’m not someone who says: “I must have a ‘full frame’ camera”.

I like what Sony’s done here even if it’s a costly system.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
harry cannoli
By harry cannoli (Feb 24, 2013)

$2800, viewfinder optional?

I just can't get past that. Blame it on my age. Texting is a solution looking for a problem, a Tweet is the sound a bird makes, and as cameras go, the viewfinder is as integral a component as the shutter.

$2800 and I charge the camera the same way I charge my phone?

Have fun with that.

9 upvotes
PORTRAIT
By PORTRAIT (Feb 24, 2013)

No kiddin'....

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 24, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Feb 24, 2013)

Got to agree with you there as well. I'd never get over the lack of a built in viewfinder of some kind- one way or the other. I've just personally purchased an Alpha A850 and with a small prime lens I feel it's quite portable and I'd trade nothing for that gorgeous view it affords.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 24, 2013)

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

4 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 24, 2013)

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

1 upvote
le_alain
By le_alain (Feb 24, 2013)

No dioptral adjustment on this external VF ???

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 24, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Feb 24, 2013)

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

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

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 24, 2013)

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

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 24, 2013)

harry cannoli:

Um Sony was probably trying for the smallest body possible.

TrojMacReady:

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

2 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Feb 25, 2013)

And that's why I'm only looking how Sony is developing their cameras. Once they make a successor of the RX1 with a built-in EVF, I would gladly consider it (if there is still no real competition aside of the RX1 itself) and probably by that time, have some money for a possible RX2 or whatever name they give to it.. RX1 it's a good camera but as with many of Sony cameras, it seems like the first generation of NEX-series, RX-series and SLT-series, they try to make it as small as technology allows to prove something then afterwards, they take their market base more seriously.

See RX100, RX1, NEX-5, NEX-3, A33, A55. All of them 1st generation of their lineup, and all of them being advertised as small and with big sensor compared to the competition.

0 upvotes
Schonbeck
By Schonbeck (Feb 23, 2013)

I have a long history of photography. Fron 35mm film to digital starting with the D70, moving to the D200 and lastly the D7000. All great cameras in their moments in time. Ihave 27 000 digial photos in my iMAC. Last week I bought the RX1. Since then i have taken approx 200 photos. And i can honestly say i have produced several of the top 10 photos of my life in that week. That is simply fantastic. One week. 200 photos. And several would move into my top 10 spots. I would even say the top 1 spot. You can say what you want about this camera. But above is in my world beyond value for money. One week. 200 photos. Several top 10 of my life.

12 upvotes
Priaptor
By Priaptor (Feb 23, 2013)

It is a fantastic camera

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 23, 2013)

Schonbeck:

You've printed those best photos presume?

Also did you use a Zeiss lens on any of those Nikon bodies?

Same question but applied to a 35mm film SLR body or possibly a M mount range finder.

I can usually guess that a photo will work when I see it printed well or the entire file, but rarely can I quickly say that's some of my best shooting. Drawing that conclusion takes a second and third look over time.

Glad you like the RX1, seems like a very nice camera. I wish Leica would push the M to be as capable at high ISOs.

0 upvotes
Neal Hood
By Neal Hood (Feb 23, 2013)

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

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
aftab
By aftab (Feb 23, 2013)

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

Just trying to understand. Thanks.

4 upvotes
Schonbeck
By Schonbeck (Feb 24, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Schonbeck
By Schonbeck (Feb 24, 2013)

aftab:
- I am not sure actually - i think it is a mix - coming from a D7000 whit a lot lower resolution that might play apart in it. Full frame does play it part in that i can do ISO 1600 without any hesitation. ISO800 on the RX1 i would rate as ISO100 on my D7000. ANd the DOF gives a pretty dramatic result. The lens in my opinion is simply fantastic (as this article proves) But i guess for me it all boils down to sharpness. The camera simply delivers fantastic sharpness in all situations. Color, exposure etc. are also great but the sharpness straight out of the camera is outstanding. Then of course it is a matter of portability etc. Then yes the auto focus is not as good as on my D7000 - but it is not as bad as people say. I would say definitely a bit better than the NEX6 (which i also have).

0 upvotes
Schonbeck
By Schonbeck (Feb 24, 2013)

As an additional example - this morning i took some pictures while having breakfast with my two kids (2 and 4 years old). Pretty weak light at the kitchen table. And I just snapped along and every single picture comes out great - color, exposure and the fantastic sharpness - and this without almost any effort from my side. Camera in P, and auto ISO. Especially in the eyes of subjects - I have never seen eyes come out this way before - with a unique reflection and a tremendous sharpness. Almost feels like there is an algorithm in the processor that is looking for eyes and then tries to optimize them. I´ll try and upload a picture from this morning so you can see for yourselves.

0 upvotes
Schonbeck
By Schonbeck (Feb 24, 2013)

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

1 upvote
Schonbeck
By Schonbeck (Feb 24, 2013)

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

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

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 24, 2013)

Schonbeck:

Why shoot jpegs with a D600? Also what was sluggish, the AF? That didn't appear to be the case with the ones I tried out.

Try moving beyond the monitor to printing.

0 upvotes
AlanG
By AlanG (Feb 23, 2013)

I know a few pros who have bought the RX-1. They really like it. Guess what? They could afford it and they knew what they were getting before buying it.

That said, the Nex 6 works well for me as a small camera to supplement my pro gear and I don't have any interest in owning the RX-1. People need to accept that the RX-1 is not for everyone.

6 upvotes
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Feb 23, 2013)

No need to criticize an awesome camera according to many reviews. Just be honest and say "I cannot afford it"....

12 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 23, 2013)

an alternative to RX1 maybe a sign on the neck saying
"I'm proud to be ripped off."

4 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 23, 2013)

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

4 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Feb 23, 2013)

What do you shoot with, yabokkie?

1 upvote
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 23, 2013)

yabukaki is canikon fanboy...guaranteed.

2 upvotes
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 24, 2013)

Damn arrogant statement that no.

0 upvotes
Priaptor
By Priaptor (Feb 23, 2013)

What is the RX-1? The best lightweight 35 mm fixed lens full sensor camera with kick ass results.

What isn't the RX-1? All the other crap you wannabes are criticizing it for.

11 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 23, 2013)

"The best lightweight 35 mm fixed lens full sensor"
among how many?

2 upvotes
Priaptor
By Priaptor (Feb 23, 2013)

Steven,

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

2 upvotes
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 24, 2013)

stupidity is contagious i see

0 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Feb 23, 2013)

Pixel peeping the real-world shots of the lighthouse and Tesla Building, I can't say that they shout 'buy me' as do the Sigma Merrill examples. In comparison with Merrill (I don't own a Merrill BTW), the Sony shots lack sharpness, despite being over-sharpened. It's possible that the artefacts caused by excessive sharpening coupled with too much jpeg compression is getting in the way?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 23, 2013)

no question RX-1 is a low cost camera sold at ripping-off price but at least it's not as terrible as Sigma Merril ones.

2 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 23, 2013)

I see we are still getting a load of comment from people that haven't tried the RX1 out and yet feel they know enough to dismiss and criticise it, once again the AF is not slow it is fine and accurate in normal usage.

The quality of the pictures rival the FF DSLR's such as the Nikon 800/800E etc etc without the bulk. As for the lens not resolving the same detail as a C3 and the serious flaw of vignetting easy to correct.

Read the reviews and what the professional photographers who are actually using the RX1 seem to be disagreeing with the internet reviewers, funny that!

3 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 23, 2013)

"FF DSLR...without the bulk"
The "bulk" is the versatility that you can change the lenses.

0 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 23, 2013)

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

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

6 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Feb 23, 2013)

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

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

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

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

4 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 23, 2013)

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

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

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

1 upvote
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 24, 2013)

fanboyism is not the answer either though, different strokes for different folks

0 upvotes
JustinL01
By JustinL01 (Feb 25, 2013)

Really Dedejr is that the best you could do, please point out where I am being "fanboyism" or is it yet just another throw away comment with someone who has nothing else better to do!

0 upvotes
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 25, 2013)

OH i dunno mate maybe "in my eyes this camera is destined to be a classic"
Telling somebody else all you can do with the 35mm lens etc etc you might as well face it your a fanboy, embrace it!

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 23, 2013)

The Fuji pics look better to me, which is nice as I prefer the look of that one and the autofocus is better. Plus it will actually fit in a pocket. Thanks for another useful review!

3 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 23, 2013)

Bah. I own several Fujis cameras and no one can come close to this one. It's a no match.
Fuji's AF is no better at all

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 23, 2013)

Fuji cameras are not good and the lenses are not good at all. RX1 is okay, not bad if you don't care cost-performance.

0 upvotes
cheetah43
By cheetah43 (Feb 23, 2013)

A viewfinder is a must. Sony should discard the flash. Available light photographs from RX1 have been demonstrated to be good. But vignetting is a serious flaw. Post-processing is not ideal. Sony's work is cut out if they want to sell RX1 in numbers. Why should a pro have to carry a separate viewfinder for RX1? He will want the RX1 for its quality and compactness.

3 upvotes
earful
By earful (Feb 23, 2013)

who says pros are the intended buyers?

5 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Feb 23, 2013)

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

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

3 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 23, 2013)

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

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 23, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
Robgo2
By Robgo2 (Feb 23, 2013)

"I can't think of any compelling reason for a pro to buy a fixed lens camera at such a high price." I'm betting that lots of pros will get the RX-1 for personal work or as a second body. 35mm can be a very useful focal length for certain types of shooting. Most contemporary photographers cannot imagine using a single focal length. They have to be changing focal length constantly. For them, the notion of a fixed prime lens, no matter how good, is horrifying. Those folks are free to use whatever they want, but could they please stop banging on those who are capable of a different style of photography.

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 24, 2013)

Federico, appreciate if you can send some comparison shots from RX1: with vs. without corrections. It'll good to see the true performance of the lens. I think one of the biggest selling point for RX1 is the lens.

0 upvotes
Dédéjr
By Dédéjr (Feb 24, 2013)

well robgo, that is arrogant folks use primes lenses some exclusively, not feeling the need to slag off zoom shooters in the process.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 23, 2013)

I would think the fixed lens quality would influence the overall score of the camera. Still 79%?

0 upvotes
earful
By earful (Feb 23, 2013)

i would swear when the review first went up it said 80%, but that must have been a senior moment. does it matter? even if it said 90% and it didn't appeal to me - for any variety of reasons that might not have to do with just iq - i wouldn't buy it.

0 upvotes
WCguy
By WCguy (Feb 23, 2013)

earful you are exactly right it did say 80%.I saw the review when it first went up and it was 80%, I went back to the review 30 min. later and it was changed. I wonder why?

0 upvotes
earful
By earful (Feb 23, 2013)

@wcguy: the ways of dpr can be mysterious. but thanks for reassuring me that it wasn't just a senior moment. or maybe we both need aluminum foil hats!

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 23, 2013)

It did say 80% lol. I thought it was just me that noticed that.

1 upvote
123Mike
By 123Mike (Feb 23, 2013)

When I run the comparison tool, I'm not seeing the RX1 outresolve a whole lot more than the A57 or A99.

1 upvote
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 23, 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."

1 upvote
Amateurbob
By Amateurbob (Feb 23, 2013)

The first attribute I look at in a digital camera is dynamic range. The dynamic range of the DSC-RX1 is less than that of my Nex-C3. Why would I want the camera over the Nex? What does the bigger sensor area do for me? The end goal is a picture.

1 upvote
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Feb 23, 2013)

Source?

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 23, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Feb 23, 2013)

Landscape
(Dynamic Range)

RX1 14.3 Evs
Nex C3 12.2 Evs

So not sure where you got your source...

http://www.dxomark.com

1 upvote
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Feb 22, 2013)

I really would buy such a compact camera of excellence appeal. But similarly to Leica, Sony do not offer true innovation.

Leica has a lousy display, questionable sensor. Sony got no viewfinder. About contemporary connectivity we do not speak. Tilt screen – what’s that. And then the ailing Zeiss getting thrown out by a Sigma with the new 35mm. We got a very competitive environment. This is good news.

Here we communicate in the USD 2’500 and up counting territory. The physical results of this Sony still stays somewhat strangely aside the tracks of real cameras needed. Business and consumers ignored

Sony conglomerate just do too many things unfocussed, nothing really hits.

3 upvotes
hippo84
By hippo84 (Feb 23, 2013)

"Zeiss getting thrown out by a Sigma with the new 35mm" - source? DXO results are opposite.
About viewfinder - You have an opportunity to choose OVF or tilting EVF. Not cheap, but this camera itself is for Ones who are ready to pay for the best possible quality for camera of such size.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Feb 22, 2013)

I'm skipping the RX1 but really looking forward for the successor! Hope it does have a built-in EVF at least!

3 upvotes
macjonny1
By macjonny1 (Feb 22, 2013)

Wow trounced by the Sigma 35mm?!?!?

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 22, 2013)

What isn't?

5 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (Feb 22, 2013)

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

3 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Feb 22, 2013)

Sigma got excellent managers with vision and expertise.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 22, 2013)

R Butler:

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

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

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

3 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Feb 22, 2013)

We must get out of those dusty lab pictures.

3 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Feb 23, 2013)

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

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Jonathan Lee
By Jonathan Lee (Feb 23, 2013)

@HowaboutRAW,

u r right about dxo's result being (too) simplistic to be a realistic reference. several zeiss have slight weakiness in center sharpness but beat sigma hands down on corners. does dxo give zeiss a better overall score? nope.

i am not saying dxo measure has no basic; it is objective and repeatable. but, there are measurable attributes that are important to the image (the entire frame) through the lense and dxo is missing these ago old attributes.

i wish dxo can do better and we not use it for now until it is a better reference.

0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Feb 22, 2013)

Looks like another potentially great, albeit very expensive, camera hamstrung by poor autofocus performance.

The sharpest lens and biggest sensor won't help if the shot's out of focus.

4 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Feb 22, 2013)

I don't really see a point to using AF on cameras like this, and certainly at this focal length. The only thing I truly miss is an integrated EVF (in this case, OVF would work just fine too, if focus peaking/point information can be overlaid).

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Feb 22, 2013)

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

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Feb 22, 2013)

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
LarryK
By LarryK (Feb 22, 2013)

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

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

5 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Feb 22, 2013)

LarryK,

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

2 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Feb 22, 2013)

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

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

2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Feb 22, 2013)

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

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

2 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Feb 22, 2013)

Yes, and by the time you've focus peaked and Focus Magnified and chimped, the shot is gone.

Just from a value proposition, I have no problem spending more than that on a more versatile camera. This is a one-trick pony.

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Feb 22, 2013)

"I'm fairly comfortable with very thin DOF and MF (taken with NEX-3 and Sony 135mm f/2.8 with considerably shallower DoF than 35mm f/2 on FF would entail): "

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

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Rolo King
By Rolo King (Feb 22, 2013)

And what kind of street photography would need fast focusing at a distance of 14cm?

0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Feb 23, 2013)

One that would probably get you punched in the face.

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Feb 23, 2013)

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

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Feb 23, 2013)

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

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

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

1 upvote
LarryK
By LarryK (Feb 23, 2013)

If you can do all that consistently and reliably in less than a half a second, than you are truly a master of Manual focus, and I applaud your acumen.

I still think any "technologically advanced" camera in this price range, in this decade, should offer fast and reliable auto focus.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Feb 23, 2013)

LarryK, I don't need your whimsical baselines to enjoy photography and appreciate the tools at hand for it.

But, if you want a demonstration on how to shoot MF with the right tool at hand, let me know if you happen to be around. I am in Dallas (TX) area.

0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Feb 23, 2013)

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

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

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Feb 23, 2013)

Well, the invitation is open, in case you want to learn how MF works and with the right tool at hand, so you don't have to wonder about it any more.

0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Feb 23, 2013)

Well, I hear the chili's not bad. I'll consider it.

0 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 22, 2013)

What the technical review can't say you is how impressive and beautiful is the character of this little gem. The lens itself deserve the very high price...

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 22, 2013)

Which is why the review also includes real-world samples and doesn't just talk about the lens' technical characteristics.

10 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 22, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Feb 23, 2013)

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

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 23, 2013)

R Butler:

Seconding others: Those "real world samples" rarely include any raws, and when there are raws there are only 2 or 3 out of 25 or so.

JPEGs don't do a raw capable camera justice.

0 upvotes
Princess Leia
By Princess Leia (Feb 22, 2013)

Bloody sharp lens!

2 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Feb 22, 2013)

The only rival would be forthcoming RX2.

7 upvotes
GreenmanToo
By GreenmanToo (Feb 22, 2013)

Finally...a digital contender to the Minolta TC1 and probably developed by the same team.
Just ordered one from WEX.

2 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 22, 2013)

GreenmanToo: Welcome aboard! You’re going to LOVE your new RX1.
Hope to see some shots from you here: http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/sonyrx1shooters/?fref=ts

2 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 22, 2013)

I found that f2 is sharper in macro mode than in infinity...nice little perk.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Feb 22, 2013)

DPR writes:

"We wouldn't usually consider 35mm as an obvious focal length for close-ups, but have to give credit to Sony for providing the option. However in the unlikely event that you're buying a fixed lens compact with a semi-wideangle lens with an eye to shooting closeups frequently, it's worth knowing that the Fujifilm X100(S) offers closer focusing and higher magnification."

I personally like macros with wide angle or semi-wide angle to show some (hopefully nicely blurred) scenery behind the subjects and to lay some stress on the (seemingly magnified) subject in the foreground - it's useful for food as well as for (wild) flowers and other static objects if the the surroundings look good. I'm aware that you risk casting your own shadow on the scenery.

So thanks DPR for mentioning the macro talents and for recommending alternatives.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Feb 22, 2013)

f 16 missing? Great lens, for this price it should be!

0 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Feb 22, 2013)

With the FOURTH best sensor (93) on the planet, just behind powerhouses like the D800/D800E and D600, the RX1 lens can withstand some less than stellar marks. It's the COMBINATION of the Full Frame Sensor and Zeiss lens that makes this camera so sweet. They don't measure the signature or the character of the lens which is sublime.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Feb 23, 2013)

photog4u:

It's the same sensor as the Nikon D600, and that means there are high ISO magenta and cyan banding issues. (A99 has them too at lower ISOs.)

The D800's sensor has similar problems at high ISOs.

Neither the D3s nor the D4 have these problems. So yes this a very good sensor but it has limitations bested by other full frame sensors.

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 22, 2013)

Worth every penny

6 upvotes
davidsheppard293
By davidsheppard293 (Feb 25, 2013)

I couldn't agree more.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Feb 22, 2013)

Literally off the charts !

7 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (Feb 22, 2013)

Yes, maybe it's time to upgrade the chart a bit. ;-)

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Feb 22, 2013)

Yes, with the MTF score slammed against the top of the chart from f/2.8 to f/8, I'd say they need a new chart!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 22, 2013)

you have to trade off peripheral image quality for lightweight
which always comes at a cost.

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Feb 22, 2013)

There's no quality trade off here... there is only cost. And the lack of zoom etc. (not a bad thing)

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
photobeans
By photobeans (Feb 22, 2013)

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

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Feb 22, 2013)

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

http://youtu.be/9O60h3Wz1Z0

4 upvotes
Jonathan Lee
By Jonathan Lee (Feb 23, 2013)

@M Jesper.

cool vid. thx!

when it shows the the nikon and sony compared shots, seems liked the sony has something built-in to remove the gaussian blur and the purple fringing.

any second thoughts?

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Feb 23, 2013)

Indeed, those guys make the best video reviews.

Nothing (that dramatic) is being removed. They're just different lens designs, and one does better than the other. The camera is irrelevant. Aside from the fact that Sony doesn't have a mirror in between the lens and sensor, which can make lens design easier.

0 upvotes
olypan
By olypan (Feb 22, 2013)

Drip, drip, drip.......

0 upvotes
SteveGJ
By SteveGJ (Feb 22, 2013)

That's a nasty cold you have there. I hope you've got a handkerchief close to hand.

3 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Feb 22, 2013)

It might not be olypan's nose that's dripping ...

5 upvotes
olypan
By olypan (Feb 22, 2013)

soundimageplus.blogspot.be/2013/02/sony-nex-7-iq-rx1-review.html

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 22, 2013)

Nice, a review/bash in K. Rockwell style. Review a camera without holding one.

4 upvotes
jazzage
By jazzage (Feb 22, 2013)

Read the soundimageplus review and all I can say is, yet another idiot who bashes a camera never having used it. I really wish fools like this could find a more productive use of their time, maybe cleaning pubic restrooms.

8 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Feb 22, 2013)

Review sites are review sites. it's opinion based. so, we shouldn't be bashing them. Dpreview R.Butler, keeps participating by saying that how good the camera is and cost effective it is... that is his opinion. Same as K.Rockwell, he is a colour freak. he likes vivid type shooting and he is very particular about colours. that's his preference and he has strong opinions about it.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Ralf B
By Ralf B (Feb 22, 2013)

@ jazzage:
"pubic restrooms" ? Interesting concept....

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 173