[slejhamer]

that Walkman company!

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/09/sony-...pact-body/

Interesting development!

(Sorry for scooping you Jules!)

[shuttertalk]

Wow, that's certainly something! Thanks for posting...

Full frame and non-interchangable lens 35mm f/2 lens in a "compact" body. So doesn't compete with their NEX lineup and is kinda like a big brother to the RX100.

I wonder how big it actually is in size... but looks very interesting so far.

[dewy]

If the RX100 is a X10 then the RX1 is a X100?

[Pavel]

Wow, that's certainly something! Thanks for posting...

Full frame and non-interchangable lens 35mm f/2 lens in a "compact" body. So doesn't compete with their NEX lineup and is kinda like a big brother to the RX100.

I wonder how big it actually is in size... but looks very interesting so far.

I see this camera a potentially great tool for a specialized photographer. It seems to be relatively small and compact, good optics, inconspicuous, optional choice of EVF?OVF. Great for street or the kind of advanced, specialized 2-D photography Mathew does. Most of the rest of us however either did not yet find our "signature" style or we do a lot of 3-D photography where perspective and relative size of foreground and background matter a lot (Matthew, I know that both of these are really (in terms of physics) perspective, but visually, it helps me make a distinction). I do very little 2-D photography and most of my photos rely heavily on perspective as a compositional tool. Indeed for me, selection of the focal length is the single most important compositional decision I make - even more important than placement within the frame. Each focal length category has a very distinct application, different shooting style and produces vastly different results. For me to be tied to just a wider than normal lens would be a torture. In broad sense, this would apply to most (but not all) photographers, even to those not really aware of or users of the vast differences different focal length offer.

So for a price just south of $3000 (D800 price), you get a camera that may well perform similarly to D800 (Nikon uses Sony sensor) and you get undoubtedly a good Zeiss-branded lens to boot. It is thus relatively speaking probably not a huge rip off, but it is a camera that is very well suited for very few types of photography and it is not for everyone. I can see Matthew making it sing. It is probably not a camera for most of the rest of us here.

[slejhamer]

it is a camera that is very well suited for very few types of photography and it is not for everyone. I can see Matthew making it sing. It is probably not a camera for most of the rest of us here.

This is true.

But, the implications for future camera designs are phenomenal.

Fuji had a surprise hit with the fixed-lens X100, then expanded the X series with interchangeable lens designs. If Sony has a modicum of success with this ... can an affordable full-frame compact be too far behind? In 3 years? 5?

[Pavel]

it is a camera that is very well suited for very few types of photography and it is not for everyone. I can see Matthew making it sing. It is probably not a camera for most of the rest of us here.

This is true.

But, the implications for future camera designs are phenomenal.

Fuji had a surprise hit with the fixed-lens X100, then expanded the X series with interchangeable lens designs. If Sony has a modicum of success with this ... can an affordable full-frame compact be too far behind? In 3 years? 5?

I think affordable is a relative term. My 3 questions would be:
1) Another mount. Would Sony make enough lenses for it?
2) Would we leave other lens mounts with a long list of available lenses for the Sony?
3) Would the lenses be significantly lighter and smaller to justify change? In a bag with a camera and 3-5 lenses, the weight of the camera plays a relatively minor role. The heft of the camera should be proportional to the size and heft of the lenses, otherwise you get something strange like NEX 7, which I find awkward with larger lenses. I think that point 3) would be the first I would be asking before even thinking of such new camera. My quess is that the lenses would not be all that much ligher/smaller, even though there could be some weight reduction, as the flange to sensor distance could be reduced (no need for the room for mirror travel).

For those of us not that young, the time Sony would need to build up a set of new light lenses for the new camera would be too long (many years) to make the camera relevant to us.

[Toad]

I think this is one of the most exciting camera announcements in years. Pity it doesn't have a viewfinder...

[shuttertalk]

Definitely interesting times we are in. A few years ago you would have been crazy to sell a compact camera for $2800 that wasn't a Leica. I still think the price is ridiculously high but I'm sure they have done their market research and I'm outside their target demographic.

I think Fuji have have done well to forge the way into the premium compact market and Sony are standing on their shoulders.

Interesting size wise as well - the body is the size of a GX1 but the lens is definitely bigger.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/09/10/sony...lly-small/

[slejhamer]

Other thoughts, compiled by photorumors.com:

This isn't just Sony's most serious compact camera, but arguably the most serious compact camera we've ever seen (dpreview)

Honey I Shrank the Full-Frame. Yes, it's freaking crazy. It's potentially brilliant too (Gizmodo)

If the X100 is the poor man's Leica, than the RX1 looks like the middle-class man's Leica. Do I think Sony can achieve great photo quality with it? Yes; all the pieces are there. And it looks especially yummy if you like street shooting. (C|net)

Only a handful of cameras have made me want to utter expletives of happy astonishment. "Holy Moly, they finally did it!" (IR)

Source: http://photorumors.com/2012/09/12/sony-r...day-after/

[Pavel]

I do not disagree with the above statements if you take the user out of the equation. It is no doubt a good engineering job. As a photographer, I look at cameras more from the perspective of 1) what it can do for me and 2) what it can do for majority of others. If the answer to those question is NET, I start thinking whom is this good for (market segment). There usually is one. For this camera it is treat photography, photojournalism and few other specialized application. The user must be an advanced photographer to truly benefit from a camera like that. That makes for a pretty small market segment and thus I am not particularly excited, despite the great engineering job that the techie reviewers and others admire.

To join the battle of quotes, this is what Thom has to say on his blog:

"Here's the thing, though: is it the right camera? Consider the Fujifilm XE-1 and the Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4 lens, for example. Same DOF isolation capability, likely similar high ISO results, but you get an interchangeable lens camera, a built in EVF, and you pay half the price. Sure, we're at 16mp instead of 24mp, but the non-Bayer Fujifilm performs above the 16mp mark for the most part. And yes, we're at 50mm equivalent instead of 35mm, but we also have flexibility the RX1 doesn't have.

Thus, we're getting more of the "logical buying" versus "emotional buying" that the consumer electronics makers love to milk. The RX1 is an emotional buy, not a logical one. Sony's going to point to "biggest sensor," "Zeiss quality," "Retro styling," and other emotional aspects to get you to buy. Technically, the Sony A99 delivers "more camera" for the same price (and the Nikon D600 will deliver "more camera" for less price)".

[Toad]

The RX1 is an emotional buy, not a logical one.

Don't agree. I shoot full frame with a single prime attached. That completely suits my style of photography. That may not be your style of photography - but that doesn't make it an "emotional buy, not a logical one". You are casting us all in your own image...

[Pavel]

Don't agree. I shoot full frame with a single prime attached. That completely suits my style of photography. That may not be your style of photography - but that doesn't make it an "emotional buy, not a logical one". You are casting us all in your own image...

Robert, you are responding to a quoted part of my post. The quoted part was written by Thom Hogan. I agree with the general message of his post but not with every detail. I did not want to cut up his post too much, so as not to quote bits and pieces out of context.

I stressed previously that there are good specialized uses for such a camera and I named a few examples of good applications. You and Matthew and of course some others have a style compatible with a single prime. My point is that most photographers need/like to use a full spectrum of focal lengths, depending on what they shoot. For people like that, purchase of this camera may be constraining. While Thom Hogan may go further, I am not. I do believe that for many "techies" a camera is in part an aesthetic, emotive decision and for them the emotive overrides the pragmatic assessment of the camera as a tool for photography at a particular price point. Otherwise something like D600/D800 with a 35mm or 50mm prime would win hands down on measures other than size and weight and the new Fujifilm XE-1 would also be a very serious competitor, almost matching likely image quality.

[slejhamer]

This is a niche product, and hopefully it's an exceptional one, because we all need it to succeed.

Diggin' that!

[shuttertalk]

So, it's already on sale at Amazon, and there are previews/reviews of pre-production models popping up on the web. Here's a selection.

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content...rdware.htm
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras...527/review
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cy...t-dsc-rx1/

What is nice is there are OVF and EVF accessories that fit into the hotshot. Being a fixed focal length lens, I suppose an OVF makes a lot of sense.

What I can't determine from the reviews I've read so far though is how the AF performs - whether it's up to par for it's price tag. Here's hoping...

[Pavel]

I've seen photographer after photographer move away from the "every focal length covered" school of lens ownership, whether by reducing their collection to just a few primes or by purchasing a camera like the X100 – or, perhaps, this RX1 – as the simpler tools reflect the increasing clarity of their vision. So it's not just Robert, who uses a few focal lengths with one or two strong favourites, or me, who has a different favourite for each camera body. Clarity isn't cloistering.

Oh, I take strong objection to equating use of wide range of focal length with a lack of clarity of vision. It would be like saying that using aperture other than f/11 or composing photos in general is a sign of a lack of clarity of vision. Focal length is the key compositional tool in landscape photography. It is the very first composition decision I make and all other settings on the camera and the specifics of framing stem from that. Can you take great landscape photos with just a 35 mm lens? Absolutely. But the number of lost opportunities and the number suboptimal composition photos would be staggering in some areas of photography.

Clearly, there are styles of photography and applications of photography which do not require a wide range of focal lengths for optimal composition. If you recognize that for your style does not call for many focal lengths, that is fine and indeed a sign of clarity of vision, but the reverse (using wide range of focal lengths IS a sign of lack of clear vision) is clearly absurd.

I actually feel sorry for anyone who doesn't make an emotive decision and just buys a camera based on pragmatic assessments and measures. That might be okay for a photographer, but it's no way for an artist to choose her tools.

Again, I strongly disagree with this statement. Artist to me is a person with a strong sense vision and great skills to implement it and NOT a person that loves his brushes to bits. I may love and treasure my camera and lenses because they allow me to do what I want effectively and conveniently and not because I love the sound of the shutter release or the tactile feel of the handgrip. But please do feel sorry for me. My emotive bits come from seeing and conveying images that speak to me, regardless of the equipment used by an artist to create the images. I have seen great images created with rather boring equipment and boring images created with superb equipment. The implication is that if I fall in love with say a Leica I am an artist. I see absolutely zero relationship between artistry and love of equipment.

[Pavel]

Mathew, yours is a very well reasoned, clear and sophisticated reply. Once so slight misinterpretations are cleared, we actually do not disagree too much. I love this type of conversation - things get clarified in my head.

Many of the issues that remain between us are quantitative, rather than qualitative in nature. I seem to prefer very short and very long focal lengths more than you seem to. A big proportion of my landscape photos from my recent trip to Newfoundland would have never happened without the 70-300. In fact, I would have preferred a longer lens on a number of occasions, but the bulk, weight and handholdability (basically comfort issues) stopped me from bringing massive Sigma 150-500. I take fewer and fewer extreme wide photos also for comfort reasons (it is hard to get up and my knees, back and hips hurt when I kneel). Still, I find the extremes very useful and quite possibly most of my photos are typically taken with lenses wider than 35 mm or longer than 70 mm (or even longer than 70 mm).

My next issue is the question of valuing primes so much. I will get there, but let me meander a bit. I am hugely impressed by the sharpness and resolution D800 is capable of, but I am less inclined to push hard for the ultimate image quality. Superb image quality is not essential for me. (Although very good image quality is). For a while I used a tripod more and tried to use my lenses at optimum settings and choose the lenses based on expected technical quality. I still pay attention to these issues but not so closely. My main reason for getting D800 was not the resolution (that was a bonus), but a lower noise and greater light sensitivity and a better dynamic range. These benefits are very real compared to D300. Unexpected bonus of a great viewfinder rounds up the key features for me. I am making extensive use of greater light sensitivity and better dynamic range (as well as the viewfinder). To me these benefits justify the purchase. My lenses are OK to very good but not superb (except for the 14-24). It is OK for me and I will not upgrade or add. So this tells you what weight I put on image quality. Given that, my interest in primes is not nearly as strong as that of many other photographers.

This may explain my lack of commitment to primes on a full frame (but absolute commitment on micro 4/3). For me the benefits of primes are (in descending order of importance on micro 4/3
1) Able to deliver shallow DOF
2) Small and light
3) Brighter - need less light, allow the use of lower ISO. Allow better focusing in low light
4) Better optical quality in general and on m43 primes tend to be aimed at more serious photos than the zooms.
5) less attention getting

On the full frames, the better zooms allow (for me) sufficiently shallow DOF most of the time. The lenses are often not so small or light and you often need more primes than zooms to cover certain focal range. Light sensitivity is not really a great issue for me with D800, as I can use very high ISO. I do not hesitate to focus manually with D800, because the viewfinder is so good, so focusing is less of an issue. This leaves 4) as the most important reason to select a prime on a D800.

I think that for many of us, photos speak to us for many reasons and sharpness, resolution and contrast are not (at least for me) close to the top of the list. Furthermore many of the failings of the zooms can at least partially be fixed in software. So - what is the fuss about the primes? Many modern zooms are optically very good (there are some great primes and zooms and some not so great primes and zooms, so the two distributions do overlap). I think that the obsession with primes is for historical reasons when in the 70s and 80s, the primes were clearly optically superior and the low grain film emulsions were slow and could use all the help from the fast lenses they could get. And of course image stabilization came only in the form of a tripod. I think that these days the advantages of primes on full frames are less than before. On small sensor, a prime has a huge (decisive?) advantage, in that it can deliver a shallow DOF, which is quite hard to achieve with most of the current crop zooms. We have only one zoom for Olympus (OMD-E5). There are no really long primes currently available.

[Toad]

I think that the obsession with primes is for historical reasons when in the 70s and 80s, the primes were clearly optically superior and the low grain film emulsions were slow and could use all the help from the fast lenses they could get.

Just when I was agreeing with you, you drop this little bomb. Can't we all just accept that a preference for using primes (and few of them) is a legitimate photographic decision based on personal style/vision, and not attempt to diminish that decision by casting it as some sort of retro nostalgia? I might just as easily make the point that some photographers use zooms because they prefer to engage with *hardware* at a safe distance rather than walking a few feet to engage with their photographic subjects.

...you often need more primes than zooms to cover certain focal range.

Unless you are not trying to "cover" a photo range at all. I feel no need whatsoever to stand in one spot and frame my photos from that spot. I like to move around my subjects and experiment with angles and points of view. Dumping my zooms was the best creative decision I ever made. Less is often more, and I find shooting with a single prime to be creatively liberating in a way that my big bag full of lenses covering ever occasion and focal length never was.

Different strokes, yes?