For those who don't like the X100's...

Ringwraith69 wrote:

Just wondering how you like the Sony. I find it a fascinating camera, but is it worth the, well, let's be nice, rather steep price?

Well, the price is not that bad any more now that the camera is almost ten years old. I got mine for €650. Which is still a lot of money, but roughly on par with, say, a used X100T or X100F.

Being ten years old, the sensor is no longer state-of-the-art. I would rate the dynamic range and high-ISO performance roughly similar to the X-Trans III in my X-T2. The "full frame advantage" having been compensated by sensor technology advances.

Autofocus performance was never stellar, but I don't find it particularly troublesome. I would judge it similar to the X100T, but not nearly as fast as the X-T2 with a modern lens. It's good enough for pictures of my kids, though, which is honestly all I care about. (Faster than the X-T2 with the XF 60 f/2.4, that is).

But the interesting thing is, how does it feel in use? Now that it's winter, I like to carry it in my coat pocket. Interestingly, it fits in sideways instead of flush. This makes it important to put it in the pocket with the lens pointing forwards if you want to be able to pull it out quickly, a consideration I was not used to from other cameras.

Actually, it is almost too big for a coat pocket. But for now it works for me. About as comfortable to carry on my pocket as the thinner-but-bigger X100, I would say.

It switches on quickly and is ready to shoot almost instantaneously. This is something I value highly. Since the lens does not move when switching on, I usually switch it on while pulling it out of my pocket, and it is ready when I have raised it to shooting height.

The camera is almost too heavy for one handed use. A bigger grip would definitely help. Perhaps I'll look into that some day. But it works well in one-handed mode. Exposure compensation and program shift are easily accessible to the right hand. Aperture control or manual focusing needs the second hand.

Its small shape and one-handed use makes it a very unassuming thing that easily goes unnoticed. This is something I enjoy, as it allows me stealthy shots before my kids have time to react.

I must say I would tremendously enjoy a viewfinder on this little thing. Alas, the add-on one is too bulky and expensive, and the RX1R II with the integrated viewfinder is out of my price range.

When it comes to editing, I am not particularly experienced in Sony files. Colors often have a bit of a cast by default, but that's easy to correct. Detail and flexibility is similar to my X-T2. (I don't particularly care about pixel-level sharpness, so I can't comment on that).

The rendering is quite wonderful, however, and different from my other lenses. Even though my XF 35 f/1.4 should have a similar depth of field (slightly narrower, actually), somehow the RX1 seems to throw things out of focus more strongly. Perhaps because the wider angle facilitates a closer subject distance. I am a big fan of the RX1's rendering, with a very smooth and pleasing focus transition.

These things are subjective of course. But to my eye, I would even put the RX1's rendering slightly before the XF 35 f/1.4. But then I am not very experienced with wide-angle, large-aperture primes, so this might still be the thrill of novelty.

It is of course a very limited camera. No AF-C, no viewfinder, somewhat big, uninteresting video. But it works well for my use, and is a lot of fun, and a bit of a challenge (in a good way)!

But that's only from a few weeks of experience so far. It's still in my "fun experiment" category, and hasn't earned a permanent place in my gear yet.