RX1 vs X100

Hi,

I'm a happy owner of a X100 for more than a year now. I love this camera. When the Sony RX1 was first leaked I was exited. After thinking it over I'm not convinced if the RX1 will deliver the same feeling as the X100.

I wrote about my thoughts on my blog but to keep things short this is the conclusion:

With the RX1 Sony has created a "state of the art masterpiece in technology" - body, it's a tour de force without doubt but I think they missed out to give it some soul. I'm not sure if shooting with it will give you the same warm feeling you get when shooting a Fuji X100.

What do you think?



Happy shooting!

--
best regards

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingphotographer.com

Joachim Gerstl said:

I'm not sure if shooting with it will give you the same warm feeling you get when shooting a Fuji X100.

Click to expand...

I agree. One of the reasons people like so much the X100 is because of it's great viewfinder. Compared to this, shooting with the RX1 is like using a P&S camera.

Cheers
Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

Look, when the x100 was announced I didn't pay attention and wouldnt image myself buying it. It was obvious at that time to me and many other people that it is a novelty and it will be soon over... It was a fuji after all! Well, now i am happy owner of x100 and xpro1.

I would not discount the RX1.

Sony is a common brand name and no longer has the premium ring it used to have. But fuji was even worse, it lost its former class of film and film lens manufacturer and become something like better casio with its line of colorful compact cameras and quirky EXR and honeycomb sensors that promised moon but never delivered much more than everybody else.
They totally turned around with X system.

Sony can pull the rx1 if they are careful with it. Start showing some amazing shots, do a hype around its lens... and they can pull it if people start talking about it constantly.

Yes. The lack of an optical viewfinder on a fixed lens full frame camera is a horrid omission, one of my least favorite aspects of early E-P1 prime adoption was that afterthought OVF in the hot shoe. The lack of an EVF is an even greater omission coming from Sony given their experience with the tech in the NEX. $3000 for a full frame prime rangefinder esc camera? Not that crazy. $3000 for a full frame range finder esc camera without any sort of real view finder, horrid. I have no doubt it'll take phenomenal pictures in the same way our x100 does as a result of lens/body/sensor being engineered closely together but the total package leaves me wanting. Especially with the X100 and X-E1 with all these quality comparisons matching very favorably to the D800 and 5DMkIII.

Also the body, I've ready the reviews and that it does not feel 'cheap' but it sure looks it and the subtle details Fuji employes like removing that horrid green auto option on serious cameras makes me smile.

Joachim Gerstl said:

With the RX1 Sony has created a "state of the art masterpiece in technology" - body, it's a tour de force without doubt but I think they missed out to give it some soul. I'm not sure if shooting with it will give you the same warm feeling you get when shooting a Fuji X100.

Click to expand...

I suspect that the reason Sony went FF is because they had to in order to match the output of the x100. The big sensor and Zeiss glass may allow Sony to compete with Fuji in terms of IQ. Something that they have not been able to do to date.

Does that $600 optional OVF adjust for parallax and display shooting info? I'll bet not. The hybrid OVF is what separates the x100 and X-Pro1 from the rest of the field.

So what you've got here is a camera that costs more than twice as much as the x100 and is not as enjoyable to use. Unless the IQ is WAY better (which I doubt), I just don't get it.

You could buy an X-Pro1 and all three lenses for the price of this fixed lens Sony with a 'dumb' OVF. I really don't get.
--
MrFlash

I transited to Sony from Minolta with the A350 and then the A900. Both great cameras and great bang for the buck vis-a-vis Canikon. While they make good sensors, they have tended to cram them full of pixels and then apply aggressive NR, resulting in slow write speeds and poor Hi ISO performance. Meanwhile Fuji came out of left field and hit one out of the park with the X100, keeping it simple and old fashioned. The Nex series are great photo taking tools but truly lack soul. The RX, present and planned are also just that, photo taking robots, lacking the passion that excites learners and the learned alike.

Basically the RX1 on paper is preferable to the X100, just based on the fact that it uses a full frame sensor.

If they were the same price and I hadn't purchased the X100, then I'd go with the Sony in a heartbeat.

But as it turns out, I do own the X100 and I do use the viewfinder 95% of the time.

So the RX1 is going to set me back $3,300 inclusive of the OVF. Ouch! And what's worse I can't change the lenses for a $3,300 camera.

I'm sure it will sell well, but count me out.

--
Best,
Rob
------------------------------------
R3A M7 M9 X-Pro1 E-M5 X100 DP2

We won't know until we see the final versions + the image quality, but so far it looks like a pretty damn impressive camera. It looks like Sony took a hint from Fuji's success and tried to one up them with a FF sensor. My only gripes would be the lack of a built in viewfinder and the size of that lens makes it a bit bulky. A hot shoe OVF isn't all bad, but it's hard to compete with Fuji's hybrid viewfinder.

It's great to see more cameras like this coming to market.

MrFlash said:

I suspect that the reason Sony went FF is because they had to in order to match the output of the x100. The big sensor and Zeiss glass may allow Sony to compete with Fuji in terms of IQ. Something that they have not been able to do to date.

Click to expand...

A $3000 camera is not competing with any Fuji.

MrFlash said:

Does that $600 optional OVF adjust for parallax and display shooting info? I'll bet not. The hybrid OVF is what separates the x100 and X-Pro1 from the rest of the field.

So what you've got here is a camera that costs more than twice as much as the x100 and is not as enjoyable to use. Unless the IQ is WAY better (which I doubt), I just don't get it.

Click to expand...

Sony has stated that the RX1 uses a more advanced sensor than the Nikon D800, which already is at the top of the field. This new sensor, coupled (we hope) with a real Carl Zeiss 35mm lens should be amazingly impressive. If not, the price of this camera cannot be justified.

MrFlash said:

You could buy an X-Pro1 and all three lenses for the price of this fixed lens Sony with a 'dumb' OVF. I really don't get.
--

Click to expand...

People willing to buy a fixed lens camera have no interest in interchangeable lens cameras. You are making the same complaint that folks did 2 years ago about the X100. Many (myself included) bought an X100 knowing that the lens cannot be changed. I still liked it.

MrFlash said:

MrFlash

Click to expand...

--

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinion/s and/or suggestion/s of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

Joachim Gerstl said:

With the RX1..... I think they missed out to give it some soul. I'm not sure if shooting with it will give you the same warm feeling you get when shooting a Fuji X100.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think that is a crock of s..t

My x100 became cold and soulless as soon I ejected the battery. Or was the soul seen in the digital readout projected onto the ovf?

Keep your soul. A full frame compact with a zeiss lens and full external manual controls is the best thing to happen to pocket photography since the advent of 135mm.

It's expensive, but let's not beat around the bush.

Toccata47 said:

Joachim Gerstl said:

With the RX1..... I think they missed out to give it some soul. I'm not sure if shooting with it will give you the same warm feeling you get when shooting a Fuji X100.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think that is a crock of s..t

My x100 became cold and soulless as soon I ejected the battery. Or was the soul seen in the digital readout projected onto the ovf?

Keep your soul. A full frame compact with a zeiss lens and full external manual controls is the best thing to happen to pocket photography since the advent of 135mm.

It's expensive, but let's not beat around the bush.

Click to expand...

Well said!

--

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinion/s and/or suggestion/s of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

Rob13 said:

So the RX1 is going to set me back $3,300 inclusive of the OVF. Ouch! And what's worse I can't change the lenses for a $3,300 camera.

I'm sure it will sell well, but count me out.

Click to expand...

Why do you need to buy a $500 Sony/Zeiss VF??? Did you know that you can buy a Voigtlander 35mm, all metal construction, brightline VF for $210?? There you go...only $3000 not $3300

Clint
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/

I believe the only benefits of the new RX-1 over the X100 are the shallower depth of field for the same focal length and aperture, and because it has more pixels. That's it.

I haven't done the math, but the pixel density of the two cameras is going to be approximately equal, so its not like this FF Sony is going to be a low-light monster or something. There's a resolution advantage, but resolution doesn't increase linearly with MP anyway, and jumps from 12 to 16 MP, or 16 MP to 21 or 24 MP has never shown a giant leap in detail.

If you're only after image quality, and you don't care about either megapixels or better bokeh from a wide-standard 35 mm, then the X100 is likely a better product due to the inclusion of an OVF and EVF viewfinder.

Having said that, I think $2700 (or whatever the retail price is) is a great deal for anybody looking for a FF pocketable camera, and a (possibly) fantastic Zeiss lens that also happens to be optimized for the sensor. People who are arguing that a 5D MkII can be purchased for less money are delerious and kidding themselves. It's comparing apples and grapes.

I don't want to discount what Sony has done... a full-frame sensor in a compact body is quite amazing, and I commend them for that.

However, I think the price-point is way off the mark for a lot of people. $2800 for a fixed-lens, no-EVF camera is hard to swallow, especially if it's aimed at the "professionals" who can appreciate the fact that it's full-frame (and who will likely already have a full-frame camera). It's almost (and I stress almost) starting to sound like a rich-boy's toy. $600 for add-on EVF? $450 for add-on OVF? What, are they Leica now? LOL

Seriously, I think they could have had a slam dunk has they put out the NEX-7 with a full-frame sensor (which they may do in the not-to-distant future anyway). Even if they had gone with a fixed-lens, but the same body/ergonomics/EVF as the NEX-7, they would have really impressed a lot of people. That would have been more of a home-run IMO.

Don't misunderstand me... I still think it's part of this amazing camera revolution we've been witnessing in the last two years, and this a huge leap.... and a good one. However, I'd wait a year to even consider buying one... when the price drops in half or I can pick it up used for a fraction of the price.

Amy
--



Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Google+: http://gplus.to/DangRabbit
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography

Do not compare the RX1 to x100. The X100 is APC 12 MP Vs Full Frame 24 MP.

The RX1 has more MP in a large sensor. This 24MP has the rating as Canon, but it's sensor looks better. High MP. To me over 20MP look so sharp that they have a grainness to them. Fuji has no AA filter, helps with sharpness. The RX! should be compared to 16MP X-Pro. Then the images would will closer. The Sony has the senor. The Fuji has the lens and not having AA. Buy the way Sonnar is a second level Zeiss lens in the wide angle world of Carl Zeiss.

The last thing is that the X100 and X-Pro are real cameras. The RX1 is limited use is that of a point and shoot. I have said this before, a great camera for Donald Trump. God have mercy on you if you waste three grad on this camera. If you really want one wait six months and by one used on ebay or wait for the price to come down.
--
kam

Of course you are right. It will not be any competition for Fuji. It will be less fun to use and much more expensive. I think Sony should stick to Video, TVs and cheap stereos and just let Minolta die in peace. Leave photography to the companies that actually understand it.

rattymouse said:

MrFlash said:

I suspect that the reason Sony went FF is because they had to in order to match the output of the x100. The big sensor and Zeiss glass may allow Sony to compete with Fuji in terms of IQ. Something that they have not been able to do to date.

Click to expand...

A $3000 camera is not competing with any Fuji.

Member said:

Does that $600 optional OVF adjust for parallax and display shooting info? I'll bet not. The hybrid OVF is what separates the x100 and X-Pro1 from the rest of the field.

So what you've got here is a camera that costs more than twice as much as the x100 and is not as enjoyable to use. Unless the IQ is WAY better (which I doubt), I just don't get it.

Click to expand...

Sony has stated that the RX1 uses a more advanced sensor than the Nikon D800, which already is at the top of the field. This new sensor, coupled (we hope) with a real Carl Zeiss 35mm lens should be amazingly impressive. If not, the price of this camera cannot be justified.

Member said:

You could buy an X-Pro1 and all three lenses for the price of this fixed lens Sony with a 'dumb' OVF. I really don't get.
--

Click to expand...

People willing to buy a fixed lens camera have no interest in interchangeable lens cameras. You are making the same complaint that folks did 2 years ago about the X100. Many (myself included) bought an X100 knowing that the lens cannot be changed. I still liked it.

Member said:

MrFlash

Click to expand...

--

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinion/s and/or suggestion/s of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

Click to expand...

--
MrFlash

MrFlash said:

Of course you are right. It will not be any competition for Fuji. It will be less fun to use and much more expensive. I think Sony should stick to Video, TVs and cheap stereos and just let Minolta die in peace. Leave photography to the companies that actually understand it.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. We are talking about a full frame compact camera today . Thank you Sony. Competition is good. Fujifilm didnt lead the way here, Sony did. If Fujifilm put out this camera there would be choruses of people singing the praise of it instead of sour grapes.

Sony is to be commended for this move, even if it is too expensive for some.

--

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinion/s and/or suggestion/s of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

Maybe I should have posted my whole article here and not just the conclusion. But I thought people not likely read anything longer then 5-6 lines.

I was amazed too. I only doubt that the shooting experience will be the same. I really liked if Sony would have copied the X100 but with FF and this lens then it would be perfect.

I think some people underestimate the importance of the shooting experience. The X100 has it. It is not a perfect camera but special.

Just because somebody has another opinion doesn't mean it's s..t.

--
best regards

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingphotographer.com

Toccata47 said:

Joachim Gerstl said:

With the RX1..... I think they missed out to give it some soul. I'm not sure if shooting with it will give you the same warm feeling you get when shooting a Fuji X100.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think that is a crock of s..t

My x100 became cold and soulless as soon I ejected the battery. Or was the soul seen in the digital readout projected onto the ovf?

Keep your soul. A full frame compact with a zeiss lens and full external manual controls is the best thing to happen to pocket photography since the advent of 135mm.

It's expensive, but let's not beat around the bush.

Click to expand...

I agree with the comment about 'soul' completely. The x100 and Xp1 are a joy to use. This new Sony is just a VERY expensive point and shoot. Any camera that you have to hold out in front of you and squint at a little TV screen to try to compose a shot isn't worth more than a few hundred bucks to me. The very expensive optional OVF is as high tech as a 1940's Retina.

The size of the sensor is irrelevant. A larger sensor is only important if it results in better image quality. I seriously doubt the IQ of this Sony will be significantly better than the x100 and probably won't be as good as the XP1. No Sony has been yet.

Besides, it won't fit in any pocket. What good is a 'compact' camera if you have to carry it in a camera bag? If you must carry a bag, why not go with an interchangeable lens system? This is just a status symbol, not a significant camera.
--
MrFlash

rattymouse said:

MrFlash said:

Of course you are right. It will not be any competition for Fuji. It will be less fun to use and much more expensive. I think Sony should stick to Video, TVs and cheap stereos and just let Minolta die in peace. Leave photography to the companies that actually understand it.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. We are talking about a full frame compact camera today . Thank you Sony. Competition is good. Fujifilm didnt lead the way here, Sony did. If Fujifilm put out this camera there would be choruses of people singing the praise of it instead of sour grapes.

Sony is to be commended for this move, even if it is too expensive for some.

--

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinion/s and/or suggestion/s of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

Click to expand...

i agree....and if we wait a little longer i'm sure Fuji will have their X-system FF in the "XP2"......for me Fuji has always had better colour rendition...no-one else has come close...even the S5Pro out does the modern marvels.