Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 sample images

LMAO; funny.

Nov 18, 2012permalink

zirco77

Anybody noticed how hard it tries to remove blue fringes, probably in internal jpeg conversion? Have a look at the "Blue Ribbon" neon sign in the gallery. Other signs have "proper" (assuming they're expected) color glow, but the blue sign has a darkened and desaturated fringe. Makes me wonder if the lenses have blue chromatic aberration issues so severe that they felt the need to aggressively remove it afterwards.

Oct 14, 2012permalink

Night Time Street Shooting High ISO
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/
+
More thoughts on the RX1
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/12/sony-week-wrap-up-and-more-thoughts-on-the-sony-rx1/

Oct 13, 2012*permalink

Sony RX1 1st look with accessories, video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSmV39bNuK4

Oct 13, 2012permalink

I doubt very much that the RX1 has an AA filter, same as NEX-7. If you analyze some of the pictures in full size, take the one where people are standing on the footstep of the cable car, you can see huge moire stripes in the camera strap marked EOS Digital. The red edge is a stairway to heaven. If you sharpen the images further, all the round bars that support the roof of the coach will come out in moire stairs. Same you see on the edge of the arm of the girl with the red tank, on left side of the guy with the camera. This proves that no AA filter is used. My NEX-7 has the same issues. I would like to see shots taken from objects with diagonal lines, like the beard of a paintbrush or a broom, hair, cables and wires, I think it would be a surprise. The NEX-7 is a real moire generator in such shots. Look the picture with the Chinese playing music, the strings under his right hand appear in all colors of the rainbow, and the edge of the coat under the seat of the one on right in staired.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

fmian

All I'm hearing in this thread is blah blah blah.
You are nit picking about images that have been softened through an AA filter, colour arranged via the Bayer filter pattern and then aligned in a pixel grid, the same way as the other 99% of digital cameras out there.
Then on top of that the whole lot is reassembled by the jpg algorithm, and then flyscreened through a 70-150dpi screen.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

jj74e

Ugh, people try to be such purists all the time.

I'm guilty of gear hunting sometimes too- the technology fascinates me; who can blame me?

And while I agree that the bulk of successful (success being defined on whatever grounds you desire) photography comes from more intrinsic qualities such as a trained eye, experience, and passion, that doesn't mean we should feel guilty or obligated to be negligent of what gear we choose since "they all produce the same image quality, more or less, these days" anyway.

Gear matters. A craftsman might be able to do the job with the wrong or outdated tools, but a craftsman with the right tools can do the job that much better.

Have I exceeded the capability of my current camera? No. But a camera that can actually shoot in low light, something that focuses fast enough where MF isn't practical, customization that makes your workflow easier- these will improve my photography, and even reinvigorate my passion.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

jj74e

Then you might say, does a real photographer need new gear to reinvigorate their passion for photographer?

Well, no, of course not. Sorry, but we're not all purists. Similar to mobile photography and the onslaught of smartphones, maybe not everyone's looking for gear as the only way out of their mediocre photography. Maybe- GASP- it's just a hobby, and the gear goes along with that hobby.

Should you buy every new body that comes out every year, or even less than that? Probably not. Should you hold off on a purchase because you feel you haven't improved intrinsically enough that it's your actual gear that's limiting you and not your own abilities?

Of course not. New gear can = new passion can = new experiences can = improvement. Whatever the case, photography is in the eye of the beholder; to each his own- make it your own, gear and all.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

Oct 11, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

There are probably just as many here who get pleasure from choosing, playing with and showing off their photographic equipment as those who are more interested in the end result. That's perfectly OK of course. Who's to say that the guy who enjoys polishing his car more than driving it is any less worthy than the guy who prefers driving?

Oct 12, 2012permalink

Princess Leia

Wow, these DP high ISO are amazing. More amazing high ISO samples at http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/10/live-from-the-sony-event-more-samples-from-rx1-nex-6-and-a99/ and http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/ I really want one now!

Oct 10, 2012*permalink

all shots from Huff are size reduced, that is why they look that good. In real full size, it would be different anyway. But, honestly, who needs that big sized shots and if, who will ever look them at a distance of one foot?

Oct 12, 2012permalink

LaFonte

wow, wasn't impressed with the price when they announced it but this thing is seriously impressive.
not in a market for one, but it rocks.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

locke_fc

Wow, those high ISO pictures look really impressive.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

nawknai

If you shoot JPEG, you'll definitely get excellent performance from low to high ISO.

If you shoot RAW because you know that Sony's in-camera JPEG processing sucks, then you're going to get even better images.

I'm confident that the sensor on this thing is going to be as good as the best on the market, but even if it isn't, look at the size of this thing!! You're not even comparing apples with apples.

Oct 10, 2012*permalink

JohnSingkit

Since these are JPEGs from a prototype, maybe Sony JPEG processing no longer sucks? May not be the best but.....

Oct 10, 2012permalink

lightleak

If they make palm sized full frame compacts now, please stop telling me a digital 6x7 slr is totally out of reach and will never happen.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

tbcass

It would still have to be a very large camera. The average APS-C DSLR is about 3.5 x 6, half the size of the 6 x 7 sensor you mention. After you figure in the electronics and larger lenses that a 6 x 7 sensor requires you will still have a rather large camera compared to a FF.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

lightleak

That's fine, bring it on :)

Oct 10, 2012permalink

manakiin

Something like a digital medium format rangefinder (Mamiya 7) would be nice.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

slncezgsi

No, not out of reach, at least technically. But would cost probably 50k+ Just have a look at the digital backs (the latest are actually 'full field' of 645 format). Question is - does anybody need a 6x7 sensor with 100+ Mpix.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

I have downed the 12500 iso shots from DPR, the billard balls and those look good, even amazingly good, the same as those from Steve Huff. So, why do those from Imaging Resource all look crappy and with noise reduction artifacts.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

tbcass

Possibly because the JPG engine with those photos wasn't fully optimized compared to these?

Oct 10, 2012permalink

OneGuy

Because, Shamael, every reviewer has a bias. The reviewer of this cam at dpr is a bit flippant and cocky -- and it shows.

What I like to do is to integrate several reviews, dpr being one. So far rx1 is a looker but has a long way to go to overcome its price and fixed lens and fixed focus disadvantage [over GF1, say]. One way I'll be able to tell if its lens is "up to speed" is flare rejection. If dpr skips this test then rx1 is but a glorified p&s. Lack of comments on focusing speed is also working against the rx1. The dpr reviewer makes silly comments but his fieldwork is wanting.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/FULLRES/yrx1-00208.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/FULLRES/yrx1-00012.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/FULLRES/yrx1-00215.HTM

I opened those 3 pictures in full size, a minute ago. Do the same and look at them. There is no sharpness nowhere in any of those shots, then, look at the darker parts of the shots, in black and dark brown, the usual NR artifacts show up everywhere. They look great in full size if you look at 5 meters distance, or if you reduce them in size that detail is not visible. For sure, RAW will do a better job, but at the price it costs, I await a better and sharper shot than those ones we have seen until now. The only correct ones I have seen where the ones from Sony.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

Raist3d

Do you only look at one website's samples and reach blanket statement wide conclusions? Do you also realize these are JPEGS from pre-production firmware?

Oct 10, 2012permalink

LaFonte

All samples are pre production. I remember the x100 pre production samples how mediocre they were. and x100 is my fav. camera now.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

well, that proves that showing pre production shots can get a lot of customers turn the back to the product before it is on the market for good. Better to show nothing and wait the final. What we see here is not the yolk of the egg anyway.

Oct 12, 2012permalink

I have downed shots from many places yet, I have at least a 30 different pictures at many iso rates. But, only Steve Huff has shots that look clean, but none was posted . All, others are without noticeable sharpness and some even looked foggy. What I see until now gives me not the impression that this camera is a wonder-work. I wait till I get more full sized shots, the ones off Steve Huff show no disturbing noise at 25600 iso, those from Imaging resource show quiet uniform noise of medium strength at ISO 1000. So, who has the good camera then of the both? Is Huff's camera better and IR's worth. The shots posted on DPR yesterday where nothing to worry about, compared to those of my NEX-7 that draws better detail, to my opinion, despite being worse in higher ISO. Nothing makes me now think to buy this camera. I am interested in such a gadget, but then it really has to be worth the money I spend.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

I've read many comments of how the RX1 is too expensive for what it does. Seriously?

If the first thoughts that enters your mind when you think of the RX1 is that your Canon, Nikon, or Sony full frame camera already offers you the same quality images, and has the ability to use interchangeable lenses for around the same price, then you were never the demographic Sony intended to target with this camera.

The intended user is someone that will instantly identify how special the RX1 is with the amount of quality it packs into such a small package.

The intended demographic of the RX1 are photographers that need a discrete (small, silent), high quality camera/lens combo, such as close candid street photographers, documentary photographers, event photographers, people that want the freedom of using a small high quality single lens, single focal length camera they can take almost anywhere.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/

News flash. Some people only like to shoot 35mm and don't want to buy a bulky full frame DSLR just to use a high quality 35mm lens. For them this could be the perfect camera.

Geez. I might not even buy this camera. But it's extremely easy for me to appreciate it and understand it's significance and how valuable it will be to photographers that want / need a discrete high quality camera. The RX1 is a first of it's kind.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

mm1975

You can have a look at some more samples

and

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/sony-rx1GALLERY.HTM

Oct 10, 2012permalink

dmartin92

For me, I am surprised how many people are still looking at how a camera does with high ISO as being the criteria to decide if a camera is good or not.

For me, this camera is small, has a 35mm lens on it, and is full frame. At f/2 there will be limited DOF, for reasonably close subjects.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

There are many factors to consider when judging a camera. For some people high ISO performance might matter more than other factors, depending on how they intend to use the camera.

Personally, i'm looking for a discrete camera capable of good (to my standards) ISO in the 3200-6400 range for street photography when available light is not at it's best. This is important to me. Thankfully for me the selection of cameras with good high ISO is growing.

So to me, high ISO matters. It's not the only thing that matters, but it definitely matters for how I would use a camera such as the RX1.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

nawknai

Seriously. At this point, it's six of one, half dozen of the other.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

Lots of cameras take nice pictures at the beach on a sunny day.

Nice pictures from a candle-lit social gathering is another thing.

ISO matters to me for sure.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

BMWX5

Wow, this camera is worth every penny. Just look at this high ISO samples... http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/

Oct 10, 2012*permalink

Sam Carriere

Sample shots from a camera that effectively still does not exist are really useful.
(If a camera isn't in the stores, it's vaporware -- something that Sony produces in quantity.)

Oct 10, 2012permalink

Grossly overstated. The camera quite clearly exists.

I really think you should review the definition of vaporware.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

jon404

As a now-retired practitioner of vaporware marketing for computer products, my definition is that basically you shoot photos of a empty case, add faux screen shot, and run your ad or put out your brochure in full expectation that the product will be shipping by the time your ad comes out in the magazines. Great when it works: hilarious when it doesn't. Based on this definition, the Sony camera is semi-vaporware -- a few working ones DO exist, with more on the way soon enough.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

marike6

How is the RX1 even "semi-vaporware"? Pre-production units have reached reviewers just like all previous models of the countless cameras that have actually shipped. Crowbarring a label like "vaporware" on a camera from a major vendor with an actual track record is just silly considering Sony didn't delay production of the RX1 even once as far as we know.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

RMDesai

I am interested in how well will this compare against Canon M (body only) + EF adapter + Canon 50mm f1.8 lens

Oct 10, 2012permalink

ulfie

DP2 Merrill low-ISO shots may even exceed these in resolution.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

Yes they do but that doesn't diminish the RX1 in the least.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

Raist3d

Sure, but the DP2 Merrill don't have the same dynamic range at low iso, often has weird color splotches at ISO 200 and at anything ISO 400 and higher the Sony will start to pull ahead more and more and more.

The D2PM is great if you are shooting at ISO 100/200 in full spectrum daylight. Outside of that... the RX1 can shoot anything else...

Oct 10, 2012*permalink

jsis

Perfect backup camera for journalism?

Oct 9, 2012permalink

Joes Raw Talk

the low light shots, particularly the last one with the musician, are really good.
That said, for most good available light situations I see no advantage for me in terms of image quality over the K5. And I get to use a more versatile lens.

I like what it is capable of but in no way find it a 'must have' camera at its introduction price. Maybe at $1,199 I would bite, not before.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

Amateurbob

The sample pictures have to be looked at with the caveat that they are from a pre-production model. They do not compare well with sample pictures from a newer camera less than a third the price, the Nikon D3200. My first criterion in a camera is dynamic range. From the samples it appears that the dynamic range of the RX1 is not as broad as that of the D3200, albeit the D3200 is one of the best in this category. Improvements in the production model will be interesting but of academic interest only. $2800 for a fixed lens camera without an articulated screen is for the 1%. Put a removable lens on it, and articulated screen and a price of $1000 (an APS-C sensor would be fine) then I will emulate the 1% and buy it depending on what dpreview finds for its dynamic range. Or I will not wait and buy a NEX camera now.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

twald

It is next to impossible to judge the dynamic range of a modern camera by their jpeg output. The dynamic range of even mediocre sensors is much larger than that afforded by jpeg and what your screen can reproduce.
High dynamic range becomes useful only when special processes are applied, such as Nikon ADR or the Sony DRO, and when post-processing processing the raw file

Oct 9, 2012permalink

trekkeruss

The Sony sensor is more than twice as large, and its pixels are larger as well. So there is virtually no way the RX1 is going to have less dynamic range than the D3200.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

maxnimo

No wide open shots lead me to assume this lens is a piece of krappe wide open.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

sroute

Brilliant deduction.

Flaw in your logic: Others have posted images produced with the lens wide open.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

ianimal

There are 3 F2.0 images: DSC00047 DSC00049 DSC00070
The last one is the white sign.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

maxnimo

Oh my God! Are any of you real photographers? Those 3 F2 samples are about as useful as a bag of dirt.

Nov 8, 2012permalink

kadardr

The difference between the IQ of RX1 and X-Pro 1 is remarkable.
I am talking about IQ at ISO ca. 6400, based on DPR samples,
where RX1 shows a much better performance.
X100 is a sad compromise compared to RX1 in IQ at high ISO.
Conclusion: RX1 has a relative price advantage to X-Pro 1.
Conclusion: APS-C is NOT FF.
I hope IQ of APS-Cs can catch up with RX1, but until then this is the high ISO king of non DSLRs.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

Emacs23

The 3200 ISO barrier seems to be a limit for current techonlogy sensors (in terms of DXO). The similar limitation to APS-C: about ISO 1300. So, no hope here.

Oct 11, 2012*permalink

ianimal

Like the RX100 the RX1 is all about size and performance.
Not just performance. Sony likes to make things small, they have
done that before. E.g. Walkman and small radios.
The RX1 remains me about old small 35mm film cameras, something
I used in the 80's and 90's as my only camera.
The RX1 is to expensive for me, and a FF NEX would be more usefull.
So I wait... but maybe a used RX1 one day if I can get it cheap :)

Oct 9, 2012permalink

OldZorki

This is an awesome camera. Give it up, people, most of us cannot afford it - as it is not a main working tool of a pro and not a toy #1 for an amateur.. But how many of us would snap it for a grand?

Oct 9, 2012*permalink

WCguy

Sorry bought one, now might buy a second one.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

andreaThode

Dear dpreview, why oh why aren't you shooting a fast lens the way it is meant to shoot, like, wide open @ f2? So many f4.0 nighttime shots. Yes, we all know it performs better if stopped down, thats why I had high hopes to see how it performs in low light wide open. Would've also kept down the ISO2.500 to1.600 but maybe thats just how I see it.

It's like having a noctilux but prefering to bump up the ISO to shoot at 2.8.
And yes we all know that it's a pre-production camera ....

Oct 9, 2012permalink

mischivo

This may be a novel concept, but shooting a lens at anything but it's wides iris setting is possible, and frequently desirable. I rarely shoot my fastest lenses wide open.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

mosc

FF f2.0 35mm at say 10 feet from the focus point is all of about 3 feet worth of DOF. Maybe you want that compositionally, maybe you don't. It's nice to have that option, but stopping down to f4.0 when light permis does drastically increase your DOF from 3 feet to 6.5 feet.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

rusticus

Sorry, I do not need those expensive camera. I see nothing that I could not with my current cameras also. . .
I think buy, prefer another X100 Black Edition;)

Oct 9, 2012*permalink

lds2k

Colors appear to be faded in most shots., nothing that can't be fixed. quite a shallow DOF wide open

Oct 9, 2012permalink

kadardr

Faded? More like ... natural?

Oct 9, 2012permalink

Barend

Just wait one year and there will be an interchangeable lens version just like Fujifilm did with the X100 and X-PRO1.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

you mean the rumored NEX-9?

Oct 9, 2012permalink

sroute

I am not so sure about that. Remember, the X100 was the first of Fujifilm's high IQ larger (APS-C or bigger) sensor cameras. What do you do for an encore in that case? You build an interchangeable lens camera off the same model.

Contrast the Fujifilm situation with Sony - NEX preceded RX1, and NEX is getting quite mature now. Sony Alpha has a full frame DSLR.

Sony doesn't need to produce a full frame interchangeable lens compact camera to compete with Fujifilm and it seems unlikely they will pattern one off the RX1 even if they did decide to produce a full frame NEX -- and therefore a new line of full frame NEX lenses in the process because honestly, who wants a LEAx adapter with Alpha lenses just to shoot full frame in a compact camera?

Oct 9, 2012permalink

Maybe; maybe not. In any case it well be a very different camera that won't intrude on the RX1's attributes.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

Ace Disgrace

oh man! cant wait to get my hands on that baby!!!

Oct 9, 2012permalink

y3a

It appears the excellence in this camera is its high ISO performance. While the street photographs are good, there are many compact enthusiast models less expensive that produce as good or better images.
$2800 is a bunch for marginally useful high ISO photographs at 35mm.
The full frame doesn't appear particularly useful for some reason. I think with digitally reproduced images we are accustomed to over saturated photos.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

shahid11235

These sample photos look very impressive to me.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

parallaxproblem

Nice sensor, great concept but mediocre lens, at least that's what I see in these photos. High ISO performance seems very good by my standards but the street photograpahy I thought this camera was built for lacked the 'wow' I was expecting at the price and spec

I guess the odd white balance in some of the images will get corrected in the production firmware, but the softness in some of the ISO100 daylight photos and the surpsingly obvious distortion must come from the lens - a bit disappointing for a 35mm Zeiss prime lens

Oct 9, 2012permalink

Emacs23

Agree. The lens suffers from noticeable distortion, high field curvature. Great example of what a fixed lens should not looks like. Sorry sony, but this thing should not cost $2800: the body should cost much lower than $2000 — it's not a DSLR with their mechanical crap within. I think the real cost is about $1200-1300. The lens is cheap and is not that great. I guess its cost is about $300-$400. So, $1700 for this body. Not $2800.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

Sad Joe

Lovely - but I still feel that the price is way way too high. Come on Sony - we all know it's a winner - so why are you doing a Leica and pricing it out of the reach of all but the few? Or is this all part of your plan to build the Sony brand within the camera market?

If so, I really hope that Fuji take you on - sure they won't make the same mistake with the price point....

Oct 9, 2012permalink

No if they were doing a Leica this would cost over $10,000. $2800 is well within reason for a full frame sensor and a top-shelf Zeiss 35/2. Unfortunately for most people, the fact that the sensor and lens are inseparable means the sum is worth less than the parts.

You will probably get your wish in the rumored Fuji X200, which should have the X-Trans sensor.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

vladimir vanek

you can buy a decent FF DSLR + a good lens for the price. and I don't believe that your audience would note a difference in the IQ. :) it simply IS overpriced in my opinion...

Oct 10, 2012permalink

But the point is, vlad, that you can't then put that DSLR in a large pocket, or shoot it discretely.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

mosc

A FF DSLR with a 35/2 lens is not comparable to the RX1. That's like saying the RX100 should be compared to a D3200 with a kit lens based on cost and equivalent aperture. Their footprints are drastically different.

Oct 10, 2012permalink

Emacs23

@JackM
This lens is not top-shelf. May be it is sharp enough, but distortion and field curvature are too noticeable. Much more noticeable than expected for good fixed lens. The body should be pretty cheap compared to DSLRs. I guess it is overpriced at about $1k.

Oct 11, 2012permalink

On the other hand, if the rumored Fuji X200 gets the X-Trans sensor, that could be a real contender at a fraction of the price.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

Jefftan

I want to ask a question
if all these are shoot on a NEX-5N with Zeiss 24mm

Will any one find out any difference even pixel peeping at 100%?

I really doubt it

Oct 9, 2012permalink

zxaar

never mind

Oct 9, 2012*permalink

mosc

Well, with depth of field they certainly would notice. f2.0 on a FF is very short DOF. Beyond that I kind of agree with you though. There are a lot of pictures I take with compacts that look indistinguishable from bigger cameras. A lot of the value in a camera doesn't show up in the picture it's very true. You may not need all the detail or depth of field a setup is capable of for a given shot and focusing speed doesn't often affect the end result of a still shot ;)

Oct 10, 2012permalink

Simon97

After looking at some cameras using the Sony 16mp APS-C sensor high ISO shots, this camera does not seem all that impressive. The hi ISO shots are soft.

If you don't need the slight improvement of resolution and the stronger bokeh at the given (fixed) focal length of this camera, I'd look for a camera with an APS-C sensor. Get a NEX with a fixed lens for 1/4 the price.

I will say that Sony's 24mp APS-C sensor is disappointing in the high ISO department compared to the 16mp version and this FF sensor.

Oct 9, 2012*permalink

Jefftan

What you point out is a real important question
What is the real advantage of going full frame and not just this camera
To me if not after shallow DOF no real need to go full frame

Lots of disadvantage besides cost and only real gain may be slightly higher dynamic range (which is enough if processing RAW in APS-C) and better high ISO (also OK with fast lens and APS-C)

Oct 9, 2012permalink

Before you gag on the price, consider that to get similar performance, bare minimum you would need to spend $2100 on a Nikon D600 and $1620 for the 35/1.4. Forget the cheap 35/2, it can't keep up with this Zeiss. And then you have a big heavy bulky camera that you don't want to bring everywhere, and which puts people off when you point it at them in candid situations. And add $100 for a bag.

I'm seriously considering selling my 35/1.4 for this.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

AnHund

The 35mm f/2.0 is actually very good on the D800. But if you want something even better then get the Voigtländer 40mm f/2.0 which is excellent, but not an AF lens. Think the Voigtländer is something like $500.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

Mike99999

Meh. $600 28/1.8 is closer.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

AbrasiveReducer

I suppose you could say this Sony is actually a tiny D600 and all you are giving up is interchangable lenses but it still seems like an odd comparison. Unless the only lens you ever use is a 35mm, then it makes sense.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

NektonFi

Why is 28/1.8 closer than a 35mm lens? Both are full frame cameras.

Oct 9, 2012permalink

andreaThode

Spot on, JackM! And yes, I personally love to shoot fixed lenses. And 35mm is my prefered focal length for street/travel/always on.
And thats where this little lightweight comes into play.

Oct 9, 2012permalink