lol... for social media I happily use bluetooth or wifi to send images to my phone or ipad. A few seconds in Snapseed and voila - web worthy images. I certainly don't need an advanced photo editing suite on my camera. Other than a nice lens this thing is a joke.

liggy:

"Other than a nice lens this thing is a joke."

This "thing" is a significantly better higher ISO low light camera than any current late 2020 smartphone.

The fact of the badly executed Android system, and a bad camera controls menu system, doesn't vitiate strengths of this body, one of which is its decent lowlight FF sensor, another of which is how well it handled. Then the 3rd is the lens you aptly credited.

That, sir, is up to you. But to call a camera a joke, because it doesn’t fit your own needs is like complaining red isn’t blue.

I guess we’ll let the market decide on whether this camera fits the needs of many or a very select few.

It’s entirely possible that I am dead wrong about this and it’ll be a runaway smash hit. I highly doubt it though. :D

Sincere questions - are you going to buy this camera?

Is anyone you know clamoring for this combination of attributes and willing to pay $6 K for it?

"And making your early adopters that pony up $6K pay a subscription afterwards is asinine imo."

Fun Fact - You can use LR without a subscription to do edit things like exposure, cropping, white balance, etc. Only some things, like healing, presets, and syncing to your computer, require a subscription.

"It’s entirely possible that I am dead wrong about this and it’ll be a runaway smash hit. I highly doubt it though. :D "

It doesn't have to be a hyperbolic 'runaway hit', it just needs to meet Zeiss' sales goals.

Fair points.

Be honest - wouldn’t you expect a perpetual full license for a $6k made in China camera that is designed to be ready to edit on camera from the jump?

I do concede that perhaps Zeiss has set low sales targets for this device as a halo camera. I honestly don’t know.

Just for fun I looked on B&H and it appears there are three Verified Buyer reviews. All 2 or 3 stars (and a complaint that it isn’t Made in Germany for that kind of $$$)

Not that Made in China is necessarily a bad thing - I have a boatload of Apple gear made in China that happen to be extremely well made but for the price premium this commands I get the disappointment from those early underwhelmed adopters.

Let’s remove the hyperbole then.

What is your prediction for success of this camera?

You do get a perpetual license to do most of the adjustments you use LR for. I predict it will, at the very least, sell enough to recoup their investment.

Lolol... excuse me. Your argument is semantics now? You don’t have full access to the full suite of what is supposedly a main point of the camera?

For example, I literally have never used the healing tool in LR so the fact that it is a feature which requires a subscription, which I already have, would be irrelevant to me.

Here are the features which require a subscription.
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/using/premium-features.html

liggy:

I don't think this camera is going to be a runaway hit for Zeiss, partly because of the $6000 price, BUT MORE because of the bad camera control menus, lack of removable storage, and bad Android implementation.

However 2 of 3 significant deficiencies I list are things that can be fixed with software updates. And the Leica Q has already proven that a very expensive (to some) fixed lens full framed camera can be a runaway sales "hit".

Now, those who'd likely consider this Zeiss are at least aware of the improved $5500 Leica Q2, so Zeiss' "market position" differs from when Leica introduced the Q in June 2015. Back then Sony's RX1 Mark 1 just wasn't up to the Leica Q, even though the Q Mark 1 had shadow banding issues which Leica only managed to fix after approximately a year of FW updates.

Before you say, "but Sony had the RX1II in 2015", that released in the fall, and it had the same less than good menus, hid the EVF, and then some had lightleak issues.

liggy:

LR is the "main point" of this camera?

No, LR is a gimmick, which some parties could find appealing.

The main point of this camera is that it is a large sensored "body" with a near optically extraordinary lens affixed. (And further testing of the lens may prove the lens extraordinary.)

Setting aside what features of LR remain available if one doesn't extend or turn on the subscription: The major ways Zeiss shot this camera in the "foot" are the bad screen menus and the separate bad integration with the overall OS, Android.

Happily, Zeiss can, should it choose to do the work or pay real Android application coding experts who've designed good touchscreen camera menus, like those for Leica or the Samsung NX1, dig itself out of this mess with software updates. And then the ZX1 will be regarded as serious competition for the Leica Q2, which happens to have an option of running LR on the camera.

I suspect Zeiss won't bother investing the funds and time in fixing the ZX1.

HAR -

I agree with your criticisms of the ZX and on the Q and Q2 - I’m just one big bonus check away from one of those beauties. The Q and X100 Fujis are fixed lens done right.

Disagree on the “main point” thing. Agree that the best thing about this camera is a fine lens.

If you look at the Zeiss site it literally mentions the flow aspect of the camera first. It is the differentiator for this camera. This is straight from Zeiss:

<Experience intuitive photography with the ZEISS ZX1.
Like a seamless extension of your creative mind.
A camera concept designed to give you a seamless experience: from shooting and editing, to publishing and backing up. No interruptions. No detours. Find your own personal flow.

The ZEISS ZX1 is the camera for everyone who knows that creative photography isn't just about capturing the perfect moment, but also about a smooth workflow. It was specially designed for a unique, seamless creative process, from shooting and editing, to saving and sharing.>

Would I buy this camera?
Yes. If I had the funds.

Will I buy this camera?
No, baby and house come first.

@hfolkertsma - in other words no, you aren’t buying one.

If I had the funds I’d buy a Gulfstream V. :D

On the other hand I’d order one tomorrow if it were priced at $1,199 just for the novelty.

At $6k this is going to sell like the Ford Edsel. It seems Zeiss is only selling it at B&H and Adorama in the US. Both have stock. BH even has a used one.

The closest thing to the Zeiss - the Q2 is still sold out nearly everywhere so clearly there’s a viable market for a super premium compact fixed lens camera.

Just not this one at this price point.

There’s no ‘in other words’, I already explained it in exact words why I won’t buy it in my own situation. Nor would I buy a Q2 (mono) for the same reasons.

Not to put too fine a point on it but I simply asked if you would buy this camera - yes or no.

I didn’t ask for the reasons you wouldn’t buy it.

A viable product needs to deliver a value proposition. In my opinion Zeiss has failed miserably at $6K. I have a feeling I’m not alone in coming to this conclusion. You somehow appear to disagree.

Time will tell.

The reason I don’t agree is because I think value is not universally equivalent to everyone.

This Zeiss has a better lens than the Q2, even if the Android "menu" controls need a massive amount of work.

I have R5, I have Sigma 40mm F1.4. I would suggest, a better solution.

@Welsh: I'm happy you've made the right choice for yourself.

Yes, the aliasing it is. The pictures look less digital and very clean. In this regard possible a benchmark

I disagree. To me, the other images look blurry, except for the center part of the Leica Q2 image.

I wonder if this means Zeiss "borrowed" ACR as its JPEG engine.

Yes, there is some artefact in addition to the moiré. Hard to tell where it comes from, it seems to be limited to the woodcut, although there is a hint of it in the lines below it.

FWIW, they do not seem to be at regular intervals. I do not want to say it definitely isn't PDAF pixels, but if the stripes *were* at regular intervals, it would make the PDAF explanation seem more likely.

Doesn't look like PDAF, more like an uncontrolled memory overflow, either in processing, on the way to the memory card, or possibly in post-processing (which would be off-camera).

I looked all over but didn't find anything on the aperture and thought it was wide open. Ok, assuming f/5.6 everything would be less impressive. The Zeiss is still sharp but not groundbreaking.

somebody wrote f5.6 further down, I'm just the copy cat.

steelhead - I don't doubt what you say, but if the lens is designed and manufactured by Sony, why would they label it as Zeiss?

Sony's own lenses are mostly extremely good, so the RX1 should be able to sell using only the Sony brand name.

RX1 was released after the A7 models. The lens elements occupy space used by the E-mount mechanical shutter.

Halftrack - Yes, that makes sense.

QuietOC, that isn't so. It is as I said. The RX1 was released in 2012 and the A7 in 2013. Zeiss and Sony cooperated together to make the RX1, the first FF mirrorless, possible. It was (still is) astonishingly small for a FF and even 8 years later, the IQ is very very impressive. I think after the RX1 collaboration, Zeiss was well aware of the advantages of a fixed lens/sensor and decided to bring out their own version.

"more interesting than a 357th review of yet another regular camera ;)"

Agree. At best, it's an interesting proof-of-concept study, even if woefully out of date even before any camera leaves the factory.

That would be like the eye test in the optometrist clinic. It's the brain behind the eyes that really matter in photography (and in most things).

CTMRIGuy:

I didn't say a thing about corner sharpness.

But the Leica Q/2's lens isn't sharp in the corners because the Q/2 use software to stretch the image, and that calculating distorts the centre of the image too.

Now, unlike the Q/2's lens, the SL lenses are largely sharp in the corners, when used on SL mount bodies.

The RX1R II's lens has colour issues, but it's plenty sharp across the FF image.

Yes, I have a few of my own ZX1 samples, shot at f/2.0.

As I'm the person who raised the similarity to the RX1 lens..
a. I suggested it might be, I didn't say it was.
b. You state "confirming that the lens is not the same.." You may be correct but on what evidence do you say this?