Your thoughts on Sony RX1

<p>I am a little surprised that nobody (from Leica users) is talking about Sony RX1 which is announced today. It's 24mp full frame with Zeiss f2 prime lens fixed on the body - the first of its kind for point and shoot camera. It looks a well built one. I like its' ISO capacity. But I want to see reviews and pictures before any actions. Anyway, the introduction of RX1 will bring on the competition, others will follow, and potentially bring down Leica price. What are your thoughts on RX1? </p>

<p>Too expensive for a fixed lens. If it was an E mount camera with the NEX-7's EVF I'd be interested. But then it would be the NEX-9, not the RX1.</p>

<p>I think people today are fixated on technical specifications. While the RX1 sounds as cheap as an (old) 50 F2 and out resolves an M9 it will not feel the same. I find that people who criticize Leica or look at technical specs have not really shot Leica. I am not trying to be condescending but I find that there is a control and intimacy to rangefinders that you cannot get with EVFs, DSLRs or using the LCD. I suspect that this will have no impact on Leica prices and Leica users will understand this - others will think we are mad. I shoot about 10x as many shots with Canon DSLRs as I do with Leica but I love my Leicas - the Cannons are just tools to get the job done. Of the great shots I have taken I suspect half are shot with Leica (or Contax G) and the other half with Canon - given the difference in shot count this says something for the Leica interface. I think the real price threat to Leica is on the lens side.</p>

<p>Ridiculous price. I can't imagine what Sony are thinking. In my opinion Sony need to concentrate on one thing well instead of trying every possible format and seeing what sticks. Why would one pay that kind of money for something that you just know will be replaced in 3 months? Why not simply get a NEX if you want a Sony?</p>

<p>While it may do great photos, it strikes me as a boutique camera gone slumming. It is hard to imagine many people spending that kind of money for a fixed lens compact camera with no built in EVF, FF or not. Perhaps if it had a red dot on the body the price would seem more acceptable.</p>

<p>I have a black Contax T2 I haven't used in years, and am currently putting some rolls thru it to make sure it's functional with a view to selling it on Ebay- it's a marvellous little camera, a titanium brick with a world class VF and lens, extremely sharp and contrasty (not far from a Leica in terms of image quality) and in its heyday, sold for around 800 dollars as far as I remember. Popular with journalists. The price on the Sony is ENTIRELY laughable. They've caught a dose of Sigma-itis on this one.</p>

<p>What Philip says is the key insight for rangefinder photography. Everyone always says it's about the lenses, but that is not really it. It's the camera interface. And you can get that with Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses now, and indeed I prefer my Zeiss lenses to my Leica lenses.</p>

<p>Very good photographers transition to these other cameras quite well, e.g. the X100 and even Sony's RX100 it seems. But lots of pros with a Canon EOS are using M9s at the weekend for a reason.</p>

<p>Looks like a fine camera but the lack of an interchangeable lens mount is a big drawback. The 35mm focal length is by no means a universal lens and the option of a 50mm and 90mm lens would certainly make it more attractive.</p>

<p>Sony's desperate to get back to profits, so they are trying anything to see if it "sticks". With a fixed lens, it's a crazy idea.</p>

<p>Good point John.</p>

<p>We shouldn't forget that Fujifilm's mirrorless interchangeable lens camera was preceded by a fixed lens equivalent (I expect that Sony may do the same), and that several APS or similar large sensor mirrorless cameras are with fixed optics. Sony isn't inventing anything new except perhaps to create a FF variant of that.</p>

<p>Well, as said above, I have little doubt that it won't feel like my M6, and the very nature of it as an automated camera means it is a completely different experience. I couldn't/wouldn't buy it even at $2,000 but regarding the package overall, I like it a lot. I think they messed up by not having the built-in EVF instead of one that will stick up off the top. But I will say that for me, the 35 f2 lens is perfect, and I would use that camera 80% of the time, assuming the feel of the lens rings etc... is excellent along with the optics of course. My biggest complaint with my NEX is that I have zero option for a small 35 f2 to use as I have enjoyed my 35 cron. I mean no one makes a small 24 f2. Nikon or Olympus 24 f2 on an adapter is not small, and the Zeiss 24 1.8 isn't small, and using a 28 as a 42 equiv is not similar enough to a 35 for me either.</p>

<p>I fully agree with Philipp's point.<br />Shooting a Leica is about the journey as much as about the result. I enjoy shooting my rangefinder, I feel comfortable with it and thus I think my pictures are better than with any other camera interface.</p>

<p>Didier</p>

I agree. It is about the interface. The NEX-7's interface is quite good, though different from my M8. THAT NEX but with

full frame would be very compelling, but a fixed lens camera for $2800? No.

<p>The one thing that intrigued me was the leaf shutter - if there every is a RX-2 with interchangeable lenses, then I think those lenses will be quite pricey.... $1500-$1800 would be a more attractive price, I am guessing though that the profit margin is low for such a specialty product, presumably with limited production given low demand..... so we may not see the price come down</p>

<p>If the NEX 7 mutates to full frame and an equivalent or higher MP sensor (D800 type?) then it would better the M9 and become a great future camera for my existing Leica optics at a moderate upgrade cost. </p>

<p>A leica x2 is $2000. How much more would leica charge for a full frame version?</p>

<p>A digital equivalent to the Konica Hexar? Sounds good to me. Wish it had a built in optical finder. The RX1 will probably earn at least cult status like the Hexar.</p>

<p>Like Tom Higgins I too have a Contax T2; beautifully made, perfect to use and had exactly the right configuration. If there was a digital version that would be my choice. Fully automatic or focus yourself, adjust the aperture or adjust the shutter speed and it had a viewfinder. <br>

Somebody mentioned Leica critics not being Leica users. I still have my R8 -excellent beast. Sold my M8 - horribly clunky; the viewfinder is terrible - no diopter adjustment; too small and finicky with other lenses. Compared to what the T2 had years ago Leica are a long, long way behind. In fact my Zeiss Werra had better features and that was made in the DDR over 40 years ago.<br>

Oh and the new Sony clickaboo - how much? And no viewfinder.</p>

<p>I see no point in this camera as a Leica user. I have seen over the years all sorts of cameras that were "better" than a Leica. It might even have been true.. The Contax G models are gone. When I lost quite a few photos using the 90mm, it was because i pointed it wrong. As one could NOT see where it was focusing, it was a moot point. The compact Contax has a similar rfdr. So good luck! Yes it has manual focus. Use it and go buy a real auto focus DSLR.The present Contax is not advertised at all.Is it still in production?<br>

I have used Leica since the 50's. My own since 1966. There is no other camera with that feel and method of usage. The Leica M8 does have a clunky shutter but yields wonderful results. The magenta problem basically fixed with filters. Leica may have ended it's production a bit too hastily.<br>

This Sony is NOT a rangefinder. The Nex system is not a rangefinder. I am sure they make wonderful images. They are all basically camera of the week, until the next better camera arrives.<br>

My Rolleiflex TLR gives a higher quality image than any of my Leica M film cameras. It is not a rangefinder, one cannot shoot in any sort of light. It may be much quieter, actually silent! I still prefer a Leica.<br>

You either have a Leica, not similar, not like, not almost, or you don't.<br>

The Werra, that's a joke right? That was viewfinder cxamera with film advance using the lens hood. Lovely green color. It matched those DDR Autos that had an actual flame heater, in a vehicle powered with flammable gasoline and oil mixture.</p>

 

<p>Well, they have all been blind-sided by the release of the D600. Someone in Nikon product marketing is kicking ass. First the D800 being $500 cheaper than the 5D3, and now a full (enough) featured FX prosumer D600 for a grand clear of the Sony. The 5D3 pricing looks like a marketing nightmare for Canon now. <br>

It makes the Sony expensive at even say $1800, let along $2800.<br>

I keep my DSLR's for five years and I'll be able to replace my D700 in a year or so's time for the D600 for probably close to $1600. Awesome.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It makes the Sony expensive at even say $1800, let along $2800."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm thinking in terms of comparing the RX1 with the 1996 Konica Hexar. The Hexar MSRP was $1,200. In 2012 dollars that's approximately $1,800. And the RX1 is likely to be a far more capable camera. The Konica had a very limited shutter speed range, topping out at 1/250th, and no built in flash. It did have a good optical viewfinder. The Konica was also notorious for a confusing interface, at least for anything other than basic operations. Even Sony should be able to top that.</p>

<p>Philip +1...but as a "proof of concept" it's great. The smallest "FF" small format camera yet!</p>

<p>I hear the idea of a fixed lens apparently is so as to make it smaller and more compact. Its designed for those on the move and to be a travel and lightweight camera. You can manually control aperture using lens ring. Lens can be turned into a macro lens by clicking a switch.</p>

<p>Source: <a href="http://www.squidoo.com/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx1-review">http://www.squidoo.com/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx1-review</a></p>

<p>With all due respect, this entire thread sounds like the typical Leica pontification we've all come to expect. While Leica quality is undeniable, it is also decidedly clung to a past ideal. Sony is looking forward, and frankly, developing some amazing new technology with an admirable amount of respect for the past. No one is taking the mirrorless revolution more seriously and thoughtfully than Sony right now.<br>

Instead of being dismissive and speaking lustfully of Leica glass, look at this camera for what it is. Leica Summilux quality (it's that good) at a price that is less than the Leica lens alone. Sure it's a different experience with no VF and different manual focus, etc. but in case you haven't noticed, photographic gear has been changing dramatically in the last 10 years. <br>

I've hated Sony in the past, but I applaud them for a lot of their current work. </p>