Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview extended

Richard and/or Lars:

Can you give us a rough idea on when this review with score will be posted please.

Thx!

Dec 17, 2012permalink

Within the news two weeks.

Jan 19, 2013permalink

Davidgilmour

I will buy one, in 12 months when they'll be on sale for €800/$800....

Dec 14, 2012permalink

Sam Carriere

The price alone for this thing, when you consider the incredible orgy of gouging that Sony indulges in for necessary accessories, demonstrates again that there are several suckers born every minute. Sony is expert at finding them and at generating lemming like reviews from sites such as this one.

Dec 9, 2012permalink

zodiacfml

I am impressed with the specs, nothing like it but I'm a bit underwhelmed when looking at the old and new sample images. So, I tested my hunch to why by viewing Canon's original 5D samples and boom, the images have more impact and lifelike than the cutting edge FF sensor matched and married to a Zeiss prime lens.

Dec 5, 2012permalink

Back to DSLRs. I confess - I also had been infatuated by portability and style of some mirorrless cameras. But I was very disappointed by production quality of these - X100 - well known SAB problem, NEX - electronics problems - durability less than 10,000 clicks, underestimated handling tools - like viewfinders, .. . In fact I see this category as electronic toys only not as reliable photographic tools for serious enthusiast photographer. I've never had any problem with my 3 DSLR bodies and many lenses for several hundreds of thousands of clicks and many years and many weather conditions. Contemporary mirrorless are catching up the price level of semi-pro DSLRs, but they are not in no way as reliable and user friendly photographic tool (with weight only exception) - they are really only expensive toys. I started to respect my heavy DSLR again - this is the result of bad production and handling quality of mirorrless toys - for myself.

Dec 5, 2012permalink

Back to the RX1 - Mine will arrive VIA FedEx tomorrow! YAY!

Dec 5, 2012permalink

MadMax13

I’ve ordered a RX1. Maybe I see this product launch differently from most. Since I started using Fuji’s X100 and X-Pro1 I’ve aways wanted Fuji or another manufacturer to introduce a similar sized or more compact full framed model. This Sony is the first camera to tic that box. Sony is not a particular well run company but they understand pent up demand alone will move RX1 sales. Sony has a monopoly at least till someone like Canon or Nikon decides to introduce a similar design. In the meantime I intend to shoot with the RX1 and enjoy it as much as I can.

Dec 5, 2012permalink

Morgan David

I just tried the RX-1 synced with Broncolor external flashes.
Amazing result.

Sadly it seems better that my good old and loyal P25 Phaseone back with Hasselblad H2 and 50mm.
He seems to be even heavier since then.

Dec 3, 2012permalink

starwolfy

I just Hope this camera will fail and not sale because I don't like Sony.
(a guy who remembered he bought a super small nice wow genius NEX who electronically failed after 2000 exposures -_- )

Dec 3, 2012permalink

Vinand

Don't you think that any other brand have some other bad models in the huge amounts that they sell?

Its not like EVERY Nex model that gets sold will fail after several thousand shots... (Like every model of the D600 has the dust problem).

Kinda pathetic to have a mindset like this, very narrow minded.

Dec 3, 2012permalink

starwolfy

You're right.

That's the reason why I won't buy any other Fuji camera again.
As my X100 failed with the Sticky Aperture also around 5000 shots.

I judge these brands regarding my experience with them.
It's you who is narrow minded judging me without knowing me.

Dec 3, 2012permalink

hc44

Couldn't have happened to a nicer person!

Dec 4, 2012permalink

czadpoom

That's the real truth of Japanese products. Be realized!

Dec 4, 2012permalink

starwolfy, you are a born victim, as it seems. On the end, did you find any camera that had no problems? I had many cameras and i can say that I am a naturally born winner. None of all ever had a need for repair or any failure. My D40 needs contact cleaning, the lens is sometimes not recognized, but turning it out and in resolves the problem. I have a NEX-7, goes with me trough wind and all weather and never failed. Only the rubber grip went off, like on all Nex-7. But here some good Bulldog glue resolved the problem too. I keep my gear clean, but am not kinky to use it in just any condition. And still, never had a failure, not on Nikon, not on Sony, not on Fuji.

Dec 10, 2012permalink

LaFonte

If I can count all the stuff that broke we will be here forever. The question is if the warranty works or not. here fuji has 2 years automatic warranty which gives it a huge advantage over the sony warranty.

Dec 10, 2012permalink

wansai

one thing i really truly want is ibis. i. can make other compromises but not on ibis. I shoot too many low light photos not to have it and carrying even a monopod around is not an option.

during the day, early evening, it's perfectly fine for a 35mm without stabilisation but after dark, it's damn difficult.

right now I'm shooting my nex 7 w zeiss 24 during day/evening but have to whipl out the omd em5 for anything below 1/60 shots. need to wait for them to stabilise the body.

we can handle a slightly bigger body Sony!!! really!

Dec 3, 2012permalink

Common-sense requirements clearly put.

Dec 3, 2012permalink

I agree, the NEX, despite small, is not a pocket gear. First of all, a little bigger and stabilized would be nice and a little more weight too. Try a Makro or low light shot with a NEX, handheld, and you start crying.

Dec 10, 2012permalink

AmaturFotografer

Most NEX lenses optically stabilized.. no?

Dec 11, 2012permalink

Josh152

Personally I would rather have a G1X. IQ wise it is basically an entry level DSLR with the 18-55 kit zoom that fits in your pocket.

Dec 3, 2012permalink

Carbon111

Well, yeah, but the G1X's sensor is *miniscule* in comparison. Say goodbye to IQ and shallow DOF.

Dec 7, 2012permalink

jande9

I am interested in the lens design. My Leica 35mm true wide angle seems smaller than this lens. I wonder if they are using a retro-focus 35mm design like those made for slr's. The light rays will strike the sensor at a less steep angle with a retrofocus lens. Leica used offset microlenses to try and compensate for the steep angle from their true wide angle design.

Dec 2, 2012permalink

Cal22

The rear element of the Zeiss lens comes next to the sensor, so this lens is likely not of the retrofocus type. And since there's no space left for a shutter, they had to put the shutter inside the glass. The question is: Does Sony use a special sensor here in order to compensate for the steep angle of the light rays to the sensor's edges and corners? Or did they find some new kind of electronical compensation?

By the way, this is the reason why it makes no sense to adapt M-type wide-angle lenses to mirrorless cameras. The sensor has its problems with lenses that reach into the camera-body. The result is poor image quality even with high performance lenses!

Dec 3, 2012permalink

88SAL

Cal: It would be interesting to have a curved sensor, regardless of manufacturing issues etc. Like old compacts etc that have a curved film plane to compensate for abberations.

Dec 3, 2012permalink

Cal22

88SAL: A curved sensor would make sense for wide-angle lenses with symmetrical optical construction (M-type) but for no other lenses, of course. The best solution seems to be one lens and one sensor fitted together (like RX1). Or look at Ricoh's GXR: Each interchangeable lens has its own sensor. That's the right way, even if Ricoh doesn't seem to be making it a success. I guess, one day some other camera maker will do better.

As to "old compacts" with "a curved film plane": Did they actually exist? Maybe in the very early days of compacts. As far as I know, there has always been a problem with the film sheet getting it plain inside large format cameras. In order to compensate for the uneven flatness with its unwanted blurrings the aperture has to be closed at least to f22.

Dec 4, 2012permalink

The mirrorless cameras have special sensors, you can not compare them to DSLR sensors. Those sensors are made to be close to the lens and they are made to measure light and AF sharpness trough the sensor. The Sony NEX sensor is basically the same design as the DSLR sensor, but the sensor is provided with special light capture points for AF sensing. The A99 sensor is a hybrid sensor that contains parts of the RX1 system to allow the 102 focus points with the phase detect system, but at the moment just a few lenses can take that and some will get firmware updates to be able to use it. If you use a NEX 18-55 former kit lens on NEX-6, you will have to update the firmware to be able to use the lens, the new collapsible lens is made for it right away. So, consider NEX Sensors to be able to work with good results on Leica M-lenses as well. Steve Huff and Michael Reichmann have proven this in many tests. Wide angle lenses like the Voigtlaender 12 will have tons of CA, but that is normal.

Dec 10, 2012permalink

tjep

you all need to stop crying

Dec 2, 2012permalink

Oery

when will HERMES version come out ?

Dec 1, 2012permalink

forzanopaolo

a very step forward! What is missing for my personal interest is either more "pocketable" or "an acceptable zoom".
Some comparison:
Leica III 135 x 70 x 30 (body alone) x 50/60 (with collapsed) mm; 640g;
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1: 113 x 65 x 70 mm; 482 g;
In 80 years .....the same "frame", much more tech, but the issue of portability is still present!
I believe that Canon S110 is a well tailored camera in terms of size/weigth/zoom/quality, a camera that you can always have with you, and this is a very important issue, a goal to reach.

Dec 1, 2012permalink

AmaturFotografer

That's what Sony RX-100 is for.

Dec 11, 2012permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

Well, if it had an f/2.8 lens instead, the RX1 could be lighter, also smaller, easier to put in the pocket, faster to focus and could accommodate, maybe, a built in OVF in the X100-style or some room for a better battery.
Everything is a matter of compromise. With such an amazing sensor that is usable up to its limits, and with an in-camera IS, one stop difference is nothing.
But I rather expect Ricoh to make such a camera.

Dec 1, 2012*permalink

Sparkling Daydream

I want full width EVIL...
------------------------------------------------------------
Well...This is my own blog: http://www.sthhere.com/

Dec 1, 2012permalink

derangboy

Sony needs to release a Monochrome version.

Nov 30, 2012permalink

Featuring shades of olive drab, or pink, whatever.

Dec 1, 2012permalink

marike6

Interesting, certainly innovative camera. Fortunately it doesn't really interest me. Since I already own a FF DSLR, I think that a FF compact, may be overkill for a second, walk around style camera.

An X100 or X-Pro1 (or any APS-C or m43 ILC) offer more than enough IQ and performance for street, or travel shooting.

Nov 30, 2012permalink

OneGuy

This cam has a flare weakness. My earlier post on that got deleted

Nov 30, 2012permalink

Andrew Westlake

You comment has not been deleted. But it's associated with the preview itself, not this news story.

Nov 30, 2012permalink

ryansholl

LOL

Nov 30, 2012permalink

OneGuy

One LOL vote for the improved site

Nov 30, 2012permalink

JackM

it's cheaper than owning an iPhone for 2 years.

Nov 30, 2012*permalink

It's cheaper than M16A1 rifle. Ehh, but it's different way of shooting, isn't it.

Nov 30, 2012*permalink

tanmancs

Definitely cheaper than gasoline in California for 2 years lol

Nov 30, 2012permalink

Josh152

@zinedi Especially when you consider the ridiculous price 5.56mm ammo is going for these days.

Dec 3, 2012permalink

iceccream

My only disappointment with the rx1 is that the screen does not articulate. I can live without a viewfinder, but I almost never use my nex at eye level.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Rooru S

A built in EVF (even if that means using a smaller LCD screen on the back) could be more appealing than the current form, but it's interesting what Sony is offering lately. Maybe next year they're going to release the real deal and this was just to test waters and see how it fares against the world.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

futile32

Question about old compact Film 35mm cameras. I remember when I was a little lad, my dad had a 35mm Olympus Film Camera. I think it was part of the Mju series.

The pictures were always pretty awesome, but I remember the lens being tiny, it made me think alot about today's lens size discussions revolving around APS-C (on the NEX) and FF (on this RX1). Was the old Mju lens just not as fast (aperture) or were they a lower class of Quality?

I guess I'm curious how they pulled off nice images back then with such a small package (perhaps it was just a time before pixel peeping).

Nov 29, 2012permalink

futile32

I just dug up the model number, I think it was the Mju II from 1997, it had a 35mm f2.8 lens (I realise that is not f2), so I guess its all about the aperture?

Perhaps just tolerance for what was acceptable on Film compared to Digital today?

Nov 29, 2012permalink

joejack951

Both aperture and desired image quality affect the size of a lens. Look at the difference in size between a 35/1.4 and a 35/2 to get an idea of the size increase that a full stop of aperture requires.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

hiplnsdrftr

I have read statements that digital sensors require that the light hitting it needs to be fairly perpendicular, whereas light can hit film at a more severe angle and still properly expose it, thus the much smaller lenses.

So while the 35mm lens on the FF film Contax T3 is tiny, the 35mm lens on the FF digital RX1 is quite huge by comparison.

Keep in mind, this is what I read on the internet...

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Yes, its right. Its because the micro lenses sits right on top of the pixels on an ordinary sensor package. But, you can make a special design with a slightly smaller micro lens array. Then you can use compacter lenses. That is what e.g. Leica have done to be able to use the compact Leica lenses. Special design - adapted to the lenses - is expensive though.

Regarding the mju cameras. Yes - they were good. And a 35 mm F2.8 is OK. But ... then they changed the fixed focal length to zooms and then they stopped telling the aperture on their lenses. There was a reason for this. And ... the image quality went down.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

JackM

Check out the Konica Hexar AF for an example of a film camera with a fixed 35mm f/2.0 lens. Contax T3 was f/2.8.

Nov 30, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

I would love to be able to afford something like the RX1. But it's really priced beyond my sanity.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

madmaxmedia

It's even priced beyond my insanity.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

ryansholl

It's a supercompact full frame mirrorless with an attached f2 Zeiss lens.

If you want something more affordable the answer is easy: Get a crappier camera.

I can't afford a Ferrari, so I drive a Dodge and don't bitch about Ferraris being overpriced.

Nov 30, 2012*permalink

Nishi Drew

The car comparison doesn't work, because there are better cameras than this, more or even less expensive. The RX1 is just a compact FF with a "Pseudo" Zeiss lens

Nov 30, 2012permalink

foto2021

Lamborghinis and mansions in Beverley Hills are financially beyond my reach but I don't see any need to criticise them for being "beyond my sanity" or, for that matter, anyone else's.

No-one needs a Sony RX1 to be able to take fine images. There are plenty of other, far cheaper cameras that fit the bill. Besides, who has the talent to get the most out of the best cameras and lenses? Only a very small fraction of the large numbers who buy them.

Great images come from people who have talent, ability and training, not from people who bought expensive gear. A much smaller amount of money spent on tuition will achieve far better results than spending a much larger amount of money on equipment.

But buying equipment is easy and it offers bragging rights. If only people bragged about what they have learnt rather than what they have bought.

Dec 1, 2012*permalink

Joel

Do the RAW comparison between the RX1 and the RX100; the baby of the two does an astonishingly good job at low ISO for the standard test points in the scene. My RX100 is certainly a hoot to make images with.

The idea that Sony have had to produce these two cameras on a theme is a very good one in that the RX100 will get you a decent way into RX1 territory for a sensible price. If you want the extra sensitivity, shallow DOF and gamut, the RX1 is the thing and I'm sure will be a lot of fun to own and to use, especially when its particular strengths will come to the fore.

It's certainly a very desirable object and, as has been mentioned, shows serious intent of the direction Sony want to take their imaging business, which is good for us.

My current combination of the R1 with the RX100 is one I'm really happy with and maybe I'll add the RX1 one day but it's not quite the machine I'm looking for, given what I tend to do.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Anyone serious, knowing the market ever got any doubts about Sony intents and direction in photography market? (That is: besides Tom Hogan and Ken Rockwell)
This camera was a great surprise, no doubt, but I don't think it changed anything to the fact that Sony is full stream ahead in Photography.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Joel

Well, each product of this kind they launch reinforces their commitment to high standards of design, finish and photographic excellence which builds confidence in those who still regard Sony as a newcomer with something to prove.

I still come across this attitude in casual conversations when people ask me about the camera I use, which is why I mentioned it. I agree though that this is a declining trend.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

philosomatographer

I would certainly not claim that any manufacturer is "full stream ahead" in the photography business, although Sony is probably the most active in bringing various different types of camera to market simultaneously.

Let's see: Sony's lenses (even the Zeiss ones) are not up to scratch, Olympus probably makes the absolute best lenses. But their small sensors are noisy compared to Sony/Nikon. Sony does not make any proven-rugged cameras. Olympus/Panasonic has the best range of mirrorless, interchangeable-lens cameras/lenses, with great, fast lens ranges. Canon/Nikon brings you the most versatile full-frame SLRs at the lowest prices, etc.

I think each manufacturer has certain areas where they lead the pack, but I am so glad that Sony is really shaking up the market to wake the other boys up.

Nov 30, 2012*permalink

All ok on your Oly-Pana story, but, none of the both has a full frame, nor an apsc sensor. The 16 mpix OMD is made by Sony and is a portion of the NEX-7 sensor, same pitch, same resolution, same noise. Oly manages the noise better, since Sony's noise rework is crappy. On RX1 they made a huge improvement, but on A99, the old speckles and water color style remains. Why?, good question that doesn't finds any answer. Now, considering lenses, I do not think that Zeiss steps behind any Oly lens, and the later has nothing to prove to them. Real good Oly lenses cost the same fortune than Zeiss glass anyway. I would shoot an OMD today, if it had APSC sensor or even FF. The camera built and technology is just amazing. I am certainly not the only one to wait for any Oly with a larger sensor, I do not like 4/3 sensors, I never did and never will do.

Dec 10, 2012permalink

Marvol

A lot of 'glass half empty' people here on the forums, blimey :S.

One point to note, if you include a grip, flipout tilt swivel rotating screen, EVF and OVF and hybrid VF... wouldn't you just end up with a small DSLR without interchangeable lenses? Yes, you would. And would the camera be even more expensive? Of course it would. And then all of you lot would be complaining about that. Get over yourselves.

As it is, Sony (of course) left all these things off to keep the camera as small as possible while still carrying a FF sensor. It is a statement of intent. Judge it as that. It's like looking at the McLaren road car and going "there's no boot" "my kids don't fit in the back" "the suspension is too hard" "for 1M I would expect adjustable seats". Apples, oranges.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

flipmac

What I want is a NEX-9. That is, NEX-7 with a FF sensor and that new hotshoe. It should also have IBIS like the Alpha bodies so the lenses wouldn't have to be bigger to accommodate IS. The NEX-9 shouldn't be a whole lot bigger than the NEX-7 or anywhere near the size of an A99. It should also cost less as it wouldn't have weather sealing, top LCD, translucet mirror, separate PDAF sensor, etc. Actually, Sony should be able to price the NEX-9 as low as or even below the D600/6D.

I can see why the RX1 is that expensive: new FF Zeiss lens (probaly at least 1/2 the camera's price considering how much Zeiss lenses go for), very niche product, and so on.

Then, adapt small Leica lenses and the whole package will be small, just like a Leica but with IBIS, high res EVF, tilting LCD, etc. for less money.

Nov 29, 2012*permalink

probert500

You pose a question no one has asked. My nex 5n has a wonderful tilt lcd and it didn't sprout a mirror housing. Funny that.

The point is not that it include all those things but that it include maybe one of them - ie a stable way to compose and shoot a picture.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

madmaxmedia

Yeah, but does it have apps??? ;-)

Nov 29, 2012*permalink

Lea5

Fantastic concept. Oh and there is a nice video for the "Zero motivation to buy-
-Nothing justifies its rediculous price-DSLR-only shooters :)

"DSLR gear no idea"

youtube(dot)com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LApO_BDRE8M

Nov 29, 2012permalink

they should create a series "NEX gear no idea" to promote RX1 and RX100.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

NektonFi

When will you use the updated studio scene? Especially the low light setting is better than the one you're using currently.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

cheetah43

Sony!
RX1 looks compact enough head-on but from profile it does not look so. No excuses for not converting RX1 into an interchangeable lens camera!

The samples gallery contains available light pictures from RX1. Great performance! So, get rid of the flas and put in a hybrid VF! People are relying on you to carry out these assignments.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Judging on the "looks from profile".
*facepalm*

Nov 29, 2012permalink

probert500

Looking at that picture lets do some math: the camera $2800, viewfinder $600, lens shade (not include) maybe 150.00 - so $3550.

I just picked up a used 5d mk2- 1400, 35mm f2 -maybe $300.00 - $1700.00

Or with the strangely good pancake 40mm - 1500 - 1600.00.

So I have around $2000.00 for a nice road trip with the gf. Now that's great engineering.

If they included the basics for taking a picture (flip up lcd, or viewfinder, a lens bloody shade, maybe OS-(if you're waving it in front of your face it's the decent thing to do) it's a compelling package -.

I guess I'll soldier on with the canon - poor me.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

zxaar

you could do even better by buying used 5D , by your logic 5dmk2 is waste of money and space.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

all ok, but, on the end, you have no RX1, what ever the brand and type of gear you buy, used or new.

Dec 10, 2012permalink

thebeorn

I think you are missing the point proert500. Im a climber and size and wieght are my issue. I want a camera where there is little compromise with image quality but light and small. This fits my bill almost perfectly. I use a leica m9 but really never change lens just use a 35 95% of the time. to make panorama shots I simple stich a few shots togehter. My problem with the leica is the wieght and the problem of leting others use it to take my picture. your average joe doent know how to use a manual camera....grrr.... also I love the low light ability and the ability to get a quick shot off that I dont have to setup for. Ive missed a lot of good shots getting everything set on my leica. I would have changed very little on this camera, built in viewfinder,larger range of bracketed EV for HDR ,longer battery life. Thats about it. IMHO of course lol.

Dec 16, 2012*permalink

cheetah43

Sony!
Are you going to get rid of the silly flash and replace it with a hybrid VF? Also, what were you thinking about when you fixed the lens? Make it an interchangeable lens camera without delay!

Nov 29, 2012permalink

startowa13

I like the direction Sony is going. I have to say that if Sony would made a FF body with m-mount it would kill Leica. Well, maybe not kill it but a lot of photographers would jump in. That FF 24MP sensor is very good, I have A99 and there is nothing I can complain about. I also have extensive m-mount lens collection and if Sony would make that FF m-mount native body for $2000... sales would goo off the roof and I think it would be a good directions to go.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

flipmac

It doesn't even need an m-mount. Sony just need to put that FF sensor in a rangefinder style body with an E-Mount and EVF of course. Then you can get an m-mount adapter and have your Leica "replacement". Sony is not that far away as they already have an FF NEX, the VG900. Sony should also put IS in the NEX bodies like they do in Alpha bodies. It just make sense as they already have the technology, the new (FF) NEX lenses wouldn't need IS, which would have made the lenses bigger than they ought to be, and any lens, native or adapted, is stabilized. Actually, I dont even know why they launched the NEX system w/o IBIS.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

To create more clear upgrade path to their SLTs.
It's quite obvious once you give it a thought. Sony representatives stated it themselves few times.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Seagull TLR

One can find more venom, slings and arrows in DPReview forums than in presidential debates : (

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Well, some of the jokes aren't so bad. And I've gotten some nice chili recipes here too.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Good- one less consumer to clog up the pre-order cache.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Older N Dirt

Zero motivation to buy.
Nothing justifies its rediculous price..
It's goofy viewfinder is just stuck on like an afterthought. No doubt it will be snapped off in a back pack or kangaroo pocket!
Does the flash stack on top?
Looks like a committee designed it, not a camera enthusiast.
The size is huge for what it is and I personally would be embarrassed lugging around a bloated pocket camera for 3 grand.
I think all the nice comments have been posted by Sony employees looking for a big Christmas bonus.
I will hold on to my classic d700, d90 and d7000 until a solid, well build and pro compact for 3 grand is offered, not this dinky toy.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Tape5

Successful photographers and other photographers who have the funds to spend, may not care about the asking price. I don't care to spend that much on a bottle of wine for example.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Juck

O-n-D ,, classic Nikon fanboy clown.

Nov 28, 2012*permalink

Agreed- probably related to Ken Rockwell.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

brendon1000

I personally don't care too much for the RX1 but from what angle is the size HUGE ???? Its smaller than even a Leica M9 !!!

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Just as DPReview says - the motivation for this camera stands and falls with the lens quality and the handling. If it does not give superior images and/or it does not handle exceptionally well, then it is just an over priced toy.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

And does it handle exceptionally well in stretched out arms - without any VF in the top left corner?

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Yes - it can handle exceptionally well without a VF. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

But thats beside the point. You know there is a hot shoe VF. And if you dont ... just scroll up to the beginning of this page and look at the picture.

Nov 29, 2012*permalink

Hmmm. Would you put on Porsche a roof rack for nearly 1/4 car price extra?

Nov 29, 2012permalink

This is irrelevant. This camera is very expensive and so is the accessories. So - I will never buy it - if I dont happen to get very rich or for some obscure reason needs this tool.

If it takes very, very good images and is a very good tool. Then there is a motivation for this thing. At least at current price point.

If the price radically goes down, then it might be motivated without those excessive demands :)

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Clint Dunn

The RX1 looks awesome and I would love to own one. With that said, I am not in the 'smaller is better' camp. My perfect RX1 would be the size/weight of an M9 and with interchangeable lenses. I'm telling you, if Sony did that they would would have an instant classic.

Fuji came close with the XPro1.....if it would have been full frame......instant winner.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

intensity studios

I will not buy this camera, because it is out my budget range. But I am sure people will buy it who can afford it.

But I like that Sony is testing the waters with a different product line like this, because it might force Nikon and Canon to compete based on price and specs.

When companies compete, consumers win.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Richard Franiec

$2800.00 compact with fixed lens? Sure, why not. Taking into account the full frame and pairing it with what looks like good lens into smallest yet package is an engineering feat by itself.

Is RX1 a bold statement on Sony's part? Perhaps. Kudos for them for taking risks and plowing the way forward. Should it be noticed by other manufacturers and potential users? I have no doubt about that.

I really admire DPReview lust for innovation and progress in digital imaging.
Being excited about every significant breakthrough and bringing the news and analysis to us is much appreciated.
Thank you!

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Cy Cheze

Have you placed an order for an RX1? Or are boldness, innovaction, and kudos fine as aesthetic matters, but not enough to induce one to rape the wallet?

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Everlast66

Any grip coming up for this one, Richard?
I know it has some sort of grippy area, but still...

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Richard Franiec

@Cy Cheze
I did placed the order.
Mainly to satisfy my own curiosity and indulgence in owning something unusual.
Also for opportunity and greed (practical side) LOL.
Thus far I have received over 100 requests from potential users for custom grip; not sure yet if I'll make one but having the cam at my disposal will give me a head start if I decide to do so.( Sorry for the shameless plug).
There is a lot of things I like but cannot afford but saying that they are all bad for that reason would not be really honest?

Nov 28, 2012*permalink

marike6

@Cy Cheze

Burn.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

RStyga

Hi Richard,
I can't help myself commenting here that I would admire DPR's lust for innovation even more if they decided to review Pentax Q mount cameras, as well. They, too, are innovative products with cutting edge engineering; I mean have you seen the size of Q? It's an engineering marvel with very good AF, after the FW update. I'm afraid there's no room for a grip there though :-)
Regards

Nov 28, 2012*permalink

sroute

Hi Richard, add me to the interest list...there's 101 or more now. I'll be interested in a grip if you deem it worth making and possible.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

onlooker

I think RX2 might have an EVF built in like NEX 6.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

I think RX3 might have hybrid OVF and EVF, real AF and still be profitable for Sony for such heap of money.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

I think RX999 will have a swing-down bar and 72 virgins.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

I don't think that built-in VF and reliable AF and hood incl. is an excessive and absurd requirement for this budget as you try to suggest by your joke.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

@zinedi
My remark was nothing but a wildly incongruous piece of nuttitude, having no reference to or bearing on issues partaking of reality.

In other words, I was just reaching for a laugh, not disparaging your contribution.

Actually, I totally agree with your observation. I think Sony should provide the features you cite for that mass of dough.

Nov 29, 2012*permalink

probert500

I'd settle for a flip up LCD - or an optical viewfinder that doesn't cost $600.00. My fingers laughed as I typed that number. Weird.

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Th $600 VF looks rather cool though. If I had unlimited money I would really like walking around taking pictures with a camera that loosk as cool as this one :)

Nov 29, 2012permalink

Adrian Van

While I compliment Sony on a very compact full frame camera, is the price justified for portability $2798 on Amazon? Same price will get you a D600 with kit lens plus extra change, or nearly a D800 body (albeit larger cameras). This camera should have come in at $2000 but it is a niche camera for those that can afford its luxury of FF portability. We will see where the price sits after 6 months. Good job on the small package though and Sony FF sensor.

Its sibling RX100 is now 678. (with much smaller sensor) but that is big difference in pricing structure between the two. However, I know this new one RX1 has a superior lens and sensor, and likely body.

Nov 28, 2012*permalink

bcalkins

This has to be worth $800 more than the APS-C Leica X2 :)

Nov 29, 2012permalink

oVan

I'm glad the RX1 is this expensive.

Sony did some groundbreaking work before, remember the R1? It was so good, and so cheap (relatively) that they stopped producing it very soon - it was cannibalizing any potential sale they envisioned for the new alphas.

Look around and notice that most R1 owners still have them. I do too, and although the sensor is way behind anything on sale now, it is still performing fantastically in good light. They are still selling for good prices on eBay.

I'm pretty sure that many new RX1 owners will keep theirs for many years. That's the difference with a point & shoot that is obsolete in 6 months time.

So yes, I'm glad Sony asks the right price - it will ensure a long-term commitment from both sides.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Dave Oddie

I am reminded by your post of the advert in the UK for Stella Artois larger. "Reassuringly Expensive" was the slogan. It was only crazy people who fell for that. Still I suppose there are some people such as yourself who will find the RX1 equally "Reassuringly Expensive" who in my opinion (and not wishing to be offensive) are equally crazy.

It won't be the right price if it doesn't sell and lack of sales is just as likely to kill it off as your rather odd reasoning.

I am not sure why it is the price it is. It may be just too expensive to produce and with that specially constructed lens. If so it won't last long anyway. It's rare for camera that cost a lot to make to last long in production these days.

Being priced as it is due to marketing in an attempt to put it in a segment well away from the RX100 or top end aps-c cameras like the A77 would also be a dangerous ploy in my opinion. It is different enough not to undermine any such cameras if sold for 1/2 the current price.

Nov 28, 2012*permalink

https://vimeo.com/54180819
https://vimeo.com/54131282

91 Gold!

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Tape5

It is certainly a great camera to own. More than a Leica with a similar lens. Leica is fussy. RX1 is like a gymnast ready to go places. Leica looks like it has been to places and is ready to go home for a nap. Nearly all the people I know who own Leicas say that they feel vulnerable carrying it late in the streets. That is like buying a Ferrari and hating the Swiss Alps. It is like marrying Kate Moss and hating .........sorry got carried away.

I think Sony understands more than other manufacturers what people want. A lot of high tech and great lenses in small packages. It is simpler than ice cream.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Kate Moss is a waif.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Clint Dunn

Kate Moss...really???? She is so 1992

Nov 28, 2012permalink

starwolfy

LEICA LEICA LEICA...
I do own Leica's, I'm not tall, not a boxer and I don't care carying it anywhere for a simple reason:

Maybe 0.05% of people I meet in the street, subway or whatever even don't know what a Leica is. Others just think I'm carrying an old vintage camera. And for those 0.05% who know...they are camera enthousiats or passionates...not killers, rapists or pervs.

Frankly...when I go out with my camera I am the only who know it's expensive. I'm sure a guy with an Iphone has 1000x more chances to get his phone stolen than me with a Leica in the hands -_-

Dec 3, 2012permalink

Vidar NM

If your shooting style requires the functionality of a dslr, why complain over a camera that is meant to be something very different?

Nov 28, 2012permalink

mike kobal

lovely camera. thanks for the preview! people, go out and buy it now. the faster it sells out the sooner we will get one with interchangeable lenses

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Joe Ogiba

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Blockmania

All this talk about being ground breaking. Didn't the Sigma DP cameras already achieve most of this already? Certainly the latest DP Merrill cameras produce incredible shots. Amazing how consistently Sigma is overlooked in these sorts of puff pieces.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

gsum

Couldn't agree more based on the samples I've seen. Sigma need to get the mechanics of the DPs sorted though, and improve their raw processor. Do those two things and the DPs could have a great future.
However, the Sony is groundbreaking as it's the first FF P&S.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

AbrasiveReducer

People want convenience, which the Sigma cameras don't offer. Also, you can use this Sony at high ISOs which is not an option with Sigma.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

tkbslc

Because Sigma bundles slow lenses and terrible performance with their DP models. If the original Sigma DP had even average operation and AF performance and an f2 or faster lens, it would have been a hit.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

mgblack74

Maybe because Sony just embarrassed Sigma (everyone really), by bringing out a fixed lens, compact camera with a full 35mm fram sensor? Sigma was out of the gate first, but 50m down the track they are still stumbling. Sony arrived at the track late, leisurely removed their track pants, and are jogging past Sigma who still can't get one of their 7 cameras right.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

The Davinator

The sigma lens was mediocre. Color was poor at 800 iso and up. Horrible high iso performance. The Sony trounces every Sigma made.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Sigma cameras are useless at ISO800 or higher. Sony's noise wont be visible at ISO's much higher than that. Sigma cameras cant autofocus, have slow f/2.8 lenses and come with horrifically awful software.

Sigma has been humiliated, once again.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

justmeMN

The camera is designed for a small niche market, but Sony should get credit for doing something interesting.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

I agree entirely.

Nov 28, 2012*permalink

What's interesting on this design for this price? Is there any style, handling or whatever innovation, idea? It's only a big sensor and speedy lens (for high price) which is not usual in this category - but in every other aspect it is average P&S without any new idea.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

What's interesting?

It's the smallest full-frame digital camera you can buy. It's got a really promising lens and a really well-designed user interface that means it's really enjoyable to shoot with. I'm interested by that.

Innovations can be good but there's also a lot to be said for doing something more conventionally and doing it well. This doesn't handle like a point and shoot or take pictures like a point and shoot.

If you can't see what's interesting about better image quality, smaller than ever before with a well-designed interface that makes it enjoyable to shoot with, then I can't explain to you what's interesting about this product.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

M Jesper

Big sensor, fast prime. That IS the idea. Photography is simple...

Nov 28, 2012permalink

AbrasiveReducer

One thing that's interesting is that digital cameras have not progressed to a point where a small camera with a "large" sensor and a good but fixed & fixed focal length lens costs about what you'd expect.

I know it's not an exact comparison but there were a number of "full frame" compact film cameras with excellent lenses, like the GR-1, 28Ti, 35Ti, etc that were a fraction of the price of an SLR with an equally good lens.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

tkbslc

Film compacts with good lenses were pretty expensive, but they didn't even include a sensor! Then you had to pony up like $10 for every 36 pictures.

This reminds me a lot of something like the Canonet QL17 which was launched in 1965 for what would be about $1200 in today's dollars. So $1200 + film or $2800 with free film. Probably a wash for an enthusiastic photographer.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

M Jesper

Well yes no kidding, all they needed was an empty hole where the film goes, the rest of it was an actual compact (quite decent tho), this needs a big-ass sensor just like the big boys. ;) But indeed, most of the price is just in the "I'm new and nobody else has this yet" phase, but that'lll chance too at some point in the future. It all begins here.

Edit: This was @AbrasiveReducer

Nov 28, 2012*permalink

The Nikon 35Ti was apparently about $1000 (though that's not from a 100% reliable source) in 1993. That's $1500 in today's money, for a camera with no sensor.

I'm not saying a full-frame sensor costs $1300 to make but, given no-one's ever made a FF camera under $2000, it could be somewhere near that. The Nikon D600 lists for $900 more than the D7000 with which it shares most of its components, so that gives you /some/ indication in the additional cost over an APS-C chip.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

Cy Cheze

Interesting? Only "interesting"? Like birds and bees? Surely, Sony would prefer that admirers say that the company has offered something they are willing to pay to have.

Nov 28, 2012permalink

tanmancs

It's like playing piano to Buffalo, he will not understand.

Nov 30, 2012permalink

What's CYBER SHOT? Some new sci-fi thriller with Arnold Schwarzeneger?

Nov 28, 2012permalink

D1N0

Wikipedia:Cyber-shot is a line of digital cameras made by Sony. Sony released the first Cyber-shot in 1996. The Cyber-shot range is known for its proprietary InfoLithium battery pack,[1] the trademark Carl Zeiss lenses, and overall design. All Cyber-shot models have a DSC prefix in their names, which is an initialism for "Digital Still Camera".

You must also think we still all shoot film

Nov 28, 2012permalink