Fujifilm X100V (2020) vs Sony Rx1 (2012)

Would you buy a Sony Rx1 today at € 1,000?

Or it is too outdated and they are there better options in compacts such as the Fujifilm X100V?

In bokeh and image quality I think that the Sony is better vs the Fujifilm but I do not know if it is my under-managed impression and in everything else it is the other way around

The Sony Rx1 has a truly legendary lens, that is the sharpest lens wide open that i have ever seen.

On the other hand, personally i would find the X100V much more useful thanks to the weather sealing, much better autofocus and faster processor, and probably better dynamic range.

But if you like to take things slow, and arent bothered by a really slow camera, then the lens on the Rx1 has no competitors.

Samsunguser wrote:

Would you buy a Sony Rx1 today at € 1,000?

Or it is too outdated and they are there better options in compacts such as the Fujifilm X100V?

In bokeh and image quality I think that the Sony is better vs the Fujifilm but I do not know if it is my under-managed impression and in everything else it is the other way around

I've used the RX1rii and now use an X100V. The RX1rii was less than the sum of its parts when it was introduced, and it's badly outdated today. The AF was unreliable, the colours iffy, the body hard to handle. It can produce good results, but IMO it was just not worth the hassle.

Samsunguser wrote:

Would you buy a Sony Rx1 today at € 1,000?

Or it is too outdated and they are there better options in compacts such as the Fujifilm X100V?

In bokeh and image quality I think that the Sony is better vs the Fujifilm but I do not know if it is my under-managed impression and in everything else it is the other way around

If you check online, you will see that 1000$ is too much for a used RX1.

Samsunguser wrote:

Would you buy a Sony Rx1 today at € 1,000?

Or it is too outdated and they are there better options in compacts such as the Fujifilm X100V?

In bokeh and image quality I think that the Sony is better vs the Fujifilm but I do not know if it is my under-managed impression and in everything else it is the other way around

In contrast to Luvensis I would think that an RX1 still makes a great camera in 2021. The Zeiss 35/2 Sonar one of the best lenses I have ever used.

Since I have pics from the RX1, the RX1r AND the RX1RII, I could post thousands of pics (that's what using those cameras for a lot of years does to you!!!).

Instead of adding more text - which is ultimately useless - I will post some pics. Please note that there are a few aspects to consider when you compare those 2 cameras:

• the X100V is the better camera in almost ALL aspects, like: battery life, auto-focus, weather sealing
• the RX1 is on a different planet considering image quality

But back to some photos. There are some differences to consider regarding those RX1 models, the RX1RII has a much better and refined auto-focus, including eye auto-focus that actually works.

Here are some RX1 only pics:

Close up

Another close up

3D??

Bad skin tones?

Autofocus

Nightshot DR

Twilight, handheld from a boat

Portrait

Architecture

.. and then some of the X100F (so NOT the V!!! you be the judge):

And maybe one taken with the RX1RII:

Toneh

McLaren

Portrait

Please note that I am not trying to diss the RX1 but to assume like some people do that the X100 is "just the same" but cheaper and better, isn't true when it comes to image quality.

The RX1 battery power is abysmal and the latest AF is possibly better on the X100V, except maybe the eye AF that works well on the RX1RII, a camera you didn't ask about.

Good luck with your decision.

Deed

Except for the Leica Q/Q2.

pylorus21 wrote:

Can you please enlighten the mass why these shots are an impossibility from anything other than Sony Rx1?

And in order to bring it down to the initial question: As the X100V has an equivalent focal lenght and compares to the DCS RX1 in total MP these shots could have been easily done with a Fujifilm cam without missing a detail. There might be a difference with the II version on a tripod, but I think it's small. There is no other planet.

AE Conrady wrote:

pylorus21 wrote:

Can you please enlighten the mass why these shots are an impossibility from anything other than Sony Rx1?

And in order to bring it down to the initial question: As the X100V has an equivalent focal lenght and compares to the DCS RX1 in total MP these shots could have been easily done with a Fujifilm cam without missing a detail. There might be a difference with the II version on a tripod, but I think it's small. There is no other planet.

Show me!

I will possibly not have the same expertise as you do but I found it difficult enough to get even close IQ with the X100F I had.

So admittedly NOT the X100V. I would actually be interested in seeing some convincing shots, but since the DOF of the X100 is equivalent to F 3.06 I cannot see how you can come to the conclusion that F2 is the same as F3 - if the megapixels are the same.

I did a comparison once, comparing the 23/1.4 (FF equivalent F 2.14, so basically a wash) with the Zeiss 35/2. It was close enough for my liking, but the camera of course much larger than the RX1.

But the X100 series, however you want to spin this, has an F2.0 lens mounted - and not an F 1.3 you would need to replicate the same DOF.

Different planet alright. You want to rethink your statements?

Deed

Different planet alright. You want to rethink your statements?

Deed

No Deed, I don't have to because less DOF does not define better IQ per se, it's just an addional element of style a photographer can bring in. From my POV, the difference in roughly one stop in DOF is not decisive for the 35mm equivalence lens. If it is for some reasons, a Fujifilm XE4 with the 1.4/23mm could be an alternative to the Sony RX1.

X100V F5.6 1/800s

Very nice set

I would take an X100V over an old RX1 any day.

The user's experience matters more (to me) than the “legendary 35mm f2” alone on that fugly Sony which has the worst ergonomics ever.

Besides, Fuji’s IQ is no slouch!

pylorus21 wrote:

AE Conrady wrote:

Different planet alright. You want to rethink your statements?

Deed

No Deed, I don't have to because less DOF does not define better IQ per se, it's just an addional element of style a photographer can bring in. From my POV, the difference in roughly one stop in DOF is not decisive for the 35mm equivalence lens. If it is for some reasons, a Fujifilm XE4 with the 1.4/23mm could be an alternative to the Sony RX1.

X100V F5.6 1/800s

I totally agree with you...Sadly there is too much emphasise on shallow depth of field and many FF afficiandos equate this with IQ

You should open a club then!

Your implications that "there is too much emphasise" shallow DOF is offensive and deeply incorrect. Faster glass on larger sensors lets in more light. You might not know this but there are a lot of full frame lens companies that offer F1.8 AND F1.4 versions.

Have a look at the SONY - or Canon, or Nikon - offerings. It often is about a certain type of rendering. I get what you are trying to say about the third nostril from the camera left in focus, I DO get it, but to simplify matters by assuming that there is nothing else to consider doesn't do any larger system any justice.

Have a look at the MFT forum, if you like your own approach you will find plenty of people who bark up the same tree over there ... the moniker of choice is "razor thin depth of field" ... just the same as your approach, but on steroids

Deed

But after reading your contributions here for you, I would assume, that those who opt for the F1.4 versions are all nutters.

Foskito wrote:

I would take an X100V over an old RX1 any day.

The user's experience matters more (to me) than the “legendary 35mm f2” alone on that fugly Sony which has the worst ergonomics ever.

Besides, Fuji’s IQ is no slouch!

Not so fast: there is an aperture ring, custom banks, ISO50 plus fast manual/autofocus switching. Eye af works well enough and it can use the external EVF. THIS alone is worth the money...

Handling not that different from Fuji, if you use aperture priority.  The menus can be confusing, so not as brilliant as the lens. But on my X-Pro3 I also don't find certain settings intuitively well, e.g. a good friend asked me where the AF/MF override can be set and if you always have to go direct control, drive, then dig in the menu to find the second part of focus stacking. Or where to activate vertical level. Or how to add focus stacking to My Menu. Or to the quick menu.

What I am saying I guess is that you will possibly find what you know more intuitive. Memory banks can help big time with quick changes from pets to people to video on Sony cameras, but if you need to find something specific, you better take the weekend off.

Deed

Samsunguser wrote:

Would you buy a Sony Rx1 today at € 1,000?

Or it is too outdated and they are there better options in compacts such as the Fujifilm X100V?

In bokeh and image quality I think that the Sony is better vs the Fujifilm but I do not know if it is my under-managed impression and in everything else it is the other way around

I won’t debate bokeh/image quality between the two different cameras. But i will warn the OP, that the camera is fairly old and there are some known issues (esp how old the camera is)

My RX1 has the following issues:

-MF ring is broken and doesn’t work

-Internal battery is dead, so when i take it out the camera resets

-Camera produces error 60/61, the lens gets jammed.. so i need to softly tap the lens facing down

Just wanted to highlight these “common” issues.