Sony DSC-RX1

Keenupie · Dec 23, 2012

Hello All,

Am Pretty Excited with this new camera, Just wondering any ownership experiences until now? Have read pretty much all reviews but still prefer to look at ownership reviews,

Am gonna have to beg and beg for this as a birthday gift, but lets keep fingers crossed I can manage to beg well enough!

Would Appreciate any feedback from any users?

Thanks,

Prodo123 · Dec 23, 2012

A full-frame compact is by far one of the most ludicrous camera concepts. It produces good photos, but completely goes against the idea of a compact camera for the masses.
Compact cameras are supposed to be an all-in-one solution, take-anywhere general purpose cameras. And here you have a 2 1/2" thick camera, which is as thick as my Rebel T2i mind you, with no optical zoom capability, no interchangeable lens, etc.

Here's my rule of thumb. If it's thicker than a Leica, it's not compact. Never mind the lens on Leicas, as pretty damn thin ones exist, like the Super Triplet Perar 28mm f/4 which is practically a body cap.

And the RX1 is almost twice as thick as a Leica. It's hardly a compact camera.

For the same price you could get a D600 or 5D Mark II with a much, much better lens than the one found on the RX1.
Not to mention better image quality and autofocus.
Or any of the NEX cameras with a good lens works too.

It makes good images, but really, why would anyone want this camera when there's just so many better options out there?

Padaung · Dec 24, 2012

There are currently 23 user reviews on amazon.com. I've not read them, but no doubt a few will be from the pro-Sony crowd, a few from the anti-Sony crowd and the rest from people that have actually used/owned the camera!

I like the concept and spec of the camera, but there is no way I'll pay that much for it. I think it is great a manufacturer has created such a camera, as I think there is a demand for it from at least part of the photographic community (it is certainly not a camera for everyone). I for one would love a smaller bodied, high quality, full frame camera like the Sony to carry around instead of a big SLR and lenses - especially if the price was halved and the lens was a 28-80mm f2.8-f4 zoom, but I fear I'm dreaming

Who knows, technology has a very strong habit of providing more for less cost over time...

firestarter · Dec 25, 2012

What if you get dust on the sensor? What if you scratch the lens?

I bought a Sony RX100 - and it was delivered with dust on the sensor so I sent it back. The experience reminded me of the foolishness of paying this sort of money for an all in one camera with no possibility of user maintenance.

There are lots of other great cameras out there.

OreoCookie · Dec 25, 2012

Prodo123 said:
A full-frame compact is by far one of the most ludicrous camera concepts. It produces good photos, but completely goes against the idea of a compact camera for the masses.

It's not meant to be a compact camera for the masses, it is aimed at a niche. It's Sony's take on the Fuji X100 with a full frame sensor instead of a crop sensor. Back in the film days, there have been plenty of similar cameras, e. g. Rolleiflex' twin-view dslrs with fixed lenses, Yashica T-series cameras or Nikon's 35 Ti. The RX-1 is definitely a niche camera, but the concept is not unheard of.

Prodo123 said:
For the same price you could get a D600 or 5D Mark II with a much, much better lens than the one found on the RX1.
Not to mention better image quality and autofocus.

From all the reviews I've seen, it seems to be a capable camera: the optics is top-notch and also the sensor delivers on image quality. I don't think you can get a »much, much better lens«, simply because the RX-1's lens is apparently no slouch. You're right about the AF, though, but this is an area where dslrs still hold a clear advantage compared to non-dslr cameras (save perhaps for the Nikon V-series, but that's another discussion). But for tasks where speed is not that much of an issue or size is more important, I don't think that matters as much. I also don't think money is an issue here, if it were, you'd probably get another camera (and probably not a full frame dslr either).

All being said, the RX-1 does not appeal to me, because personally, I don't like to compose photos on a rear lcd of a camera. However, I can see that this camera appeals to a certain crowd and Sony seems to have successfully executed the concept it had in mind (high-end compact with full frame sensor and great optics). But I get the impression from your post that just because that concept does not appeal to you, you think it's not a good camera.

Prodo123 · Dec 25, 2012

OreoCookie said:
It's not meant to be a compact camera for the masses, it is aimed at a niche. It's Sony's take on the Fuji X100 with a full frame sensor instead of a crop sensor. Back in the film days, there have been plenty of similar cameras, e. g. Rolleiflex' twin-view dslrs with fixed lenses, Yashica T-series cameras or Nikon's 35 Ti. The RX-1 is definitely a niche camera, but the concept is not unheard of.

From all the reviews I've seen, it seems to be a capable camera: the optics is top-notch and also the sensor delivers on image quality. I don't think you can get a »much, much better lens«, simply because the RX-1's lens is apparently no slouch. You're right about the AF, though, but this is an area where dslrs still hold a clear advantage compared to non-dslr cameras (save perhaps for the Nikon V-series, but that's another discussion). But for tasks where speed is not that much of an issue or size is more important, I don't think that matters as much. I also don't think money is an issue here, if it were, you'd probably get another camera (and probably not a full frame dslr either).

Actually, it's not even in the same niche market as the X100. That would more be the RX100, with its rather large but not full frame sensor.
The RX1, I'd say, is a product which doesn't belong to any niche. Sort of like the original MacBook Air. It's a capable camera which uses the same sensor as the D600, with a decent 35mm f/2 lens, but it's too ridiculously priced. And if money is not an issue why not just go for a Leica M8 or other more versatile cameras?
I don't know, the RX1 never made sense to me. As a product it's too impractical. As a technological feat, great you can put a full frame in a compact! But then the fact that the same full frame sensor could be in entry-level DSLRs instead struck me, and I couldn't understand why they'd rather have it in a compact than a DSLR, especially when the latter is more geared towards professionals and enthusiasts.

OreoCookie · Dec 26, 2012

Prodo123 said:
Actually, it's not even in the same niche market as the X100. That would more be the RX100, with its rather large but not full frame sensor.

The X100 is nothing like the RX100, the two cameras have not been built around same concept: fast prime lens coupled to a large sensor, appealing to people who are/were interested in rangefinder-style cameras. The X100 has a 1.5x crop sensor while the RX100 has a compact-sized sensor (1 inch) and the RX100 has a zoom lens.

The RX1, several earlier Leicas (e. g. the X1 and X2), Sigma's DP-series and the Fuji X100 all follow this playbook.

Personally, I am really tempted by the X100-style concept and I don't want my camera to handle like a point and shoot. I don't see it as a replacement for my dslr, it augments it. I own a Sigma DP1 alongside my dslr (a Nikon D7000 with a few lenses), and I shoot very differently with it.

Prodo123 said:
It's a capable camera which uses the same sensor as the D600, with a decent 35mm f/2 lens, but it's too ridiculously priced.

Again, according to the reviews I've seen, the lens-sensor combo of the RX1 delivers what it promises.

Prodo123 said:
But then the fact that the same full frame sensor could be in entry-level DSLRs instead struck me, and I couldn't understand why they'd rather have it in a compact than a DSLR, especially when the latter is more geared towards professionals and enthusiasts.

Dslrs are not a replacement for smaller, mirrorless cameras (like the RX1, I'm not talking about ~$200 compact cameras here) -- and vice versa. It's not that one is geared towards professionals and the other is geared towards enthusiasts. I find smaller cameras more inconspicuous. Also, because less people think you're a »professional«, so they let things slide more often even if they notice you're taking a picture.

Eventually, I'd like to replace the DP1 with a X100/X200 (I can't afford the X-Pro 1

)

Prodo123 · Dec 26, 2012

OreoCookie said:
The X100 is nothing like the RX100, the two cameras have not been built around same concept: fast prime lens coupled to a large sensor, appealing to people who are/were interested in rangefinder-style cameras. The X100 has a 1.5x crop sensor while the RX100 has a compact-sized sensor (1 inch) and the RX100 has a zoom lens.

The RX1, several earlier Leicas (e. g. the X1 and X2), Sigma's DP-series and the Fuji X100 all follow this playbook.

I was referring to the non-full frame sensor coupled with a fixed fast lens in a compact package, all while being affordable enough for the consumer.

OreoCookie said:
Again, according to the reviews I've seen, the lens-sensor combo of the RX1 delivers what it promises.

Yet again, for a ridiculous price.
I'm not disputing the fact that it's able to make superb images, in fact the RX1 is more than capable of doing so. It's just that at the price, it's too impractical.

OreoCookie said:
Dslrs are not a replacement for smaller, mirrorless cameras (like the RX1, I'm not talking about ~$200 compact cameras here) -- and vice versa. It's not that one is geared towards professionals and the other is geared towards enthusiasts. I find smaller cameras more inconspicuous. Also, because less people think you're a »professional«, so they let things slide more often even if they notice you're taking a picture.

This is far from small. Its total thickness is thicker than some DSLRs, which is why I'm drawing the comparison between it and DSLRs. Also because more people would benefit from a full-frame, entry-level sub-$1000 DSLR than a posh $2800 point-and-shoot, not to mention more profitable.

OreoCookie · Dec 26, 2012

Prodo123 said:
I was referring to the non-full frame sensor coupled with a fixed fast lens in a compact package, all while being affordable enough for the consumer.

The Leicas have the exact same problem. I'm not sure whether the RX1 is economically viable, although I hope someone at Sony knows better. Apparently there have always been people who have been willing to pay that much.

Prodo123 said:
This is far from small. Its total thickness is thicker than some DSLRs, which is why I'm drawing the comparison between it and DSLRs.

It's not just total thickness, it's total thickness including lens. Plus the additional weight of the additional lenses. Even when I travel light, I carry about 2 kg of photo gear with me, perhaps more. And much more if I have my beast with me (my 80-200 mm Nikkor).

Prodo123 said:
Also because more people would benefit from a full-frame, entry-level sub-$1000 DSLR than a posh $2800 point-and-shoot, not to mention more profitable.

The information which are available to us suggest that a FF sensor costs ~10 times of an APS-C-sized sensor. That means just the sensor costs $400~$500, making it the most expensive part by far. I doubt we'll see a sub-$1000 dslr with a full frame sensor this decade. Personally, I'm quite happy that camera manufacturers (besides Canon and Nikon, apparently) are experimenting with new cameras. The mirrorless market is ripe with »innovation«, a Fuji X-Pro 1 looks nothing like a Sony NEX-7 which is very different from the Olympus OM-D E5. No matter which camera you get, image quality will be more than good enough. I'm disappointed with Nikon's CX-line of cameras (which will never be a viable option for me) and Canon's EOS-M (personally, I don't want a point & shoot as my main camera).

Prodo123 · Dec 27, 2012

OreoCookie said:
The Leicas have the exact same problem. I'm not sure whether the RX1 is economically viable, although I hope someone at Sony knows better. Apparently there have always been people who have been willing to pay that much.

It's not just total thickness, it's total thickness including lens. Plus the additional weight of the additional lenses. Even when I travel light, I carry about 2 kg of photo gear with me, perhaps more. And much more if I have my beast with me (my 80-200 mm Nikkor).

The information which are available to us suggest that a FF sensor costs ~10 times of an APS-C-sized sensor. That means just the sensor costs $400~$500, making it the most expensive part by far. I doubt we'll see a sub-$1000 dslr with a full frame sensor this decade. Personally, I'm quite happy that camera manufacturers (besides Canon and Nikon, apparently) are experimenting with new cameras. The mirrorless market is ripe with »innovation«, a Fuji X-Pro 1 looks nothing like a Sony NEX-7 which is very different from the Olympus OM-D E5. No matter which camera you get, image quality will be more than good enough. I'm disappointed with Nikon's CX-line of cameras (which will never be a viable option for me) and Canon's EOS-M (personally, I don't want a point & shoot as my main camera).

Leicas are clearly rangefinders, while RX1s are wannabe-rangefinder-but-still-fancy-point-and-shoot, and this is why Leicas, although more expensive, are more economically viable than RX1s, but yes however one spends one's money is not my choice.

Like I said a pancake lens for a DSLR will result in the same thickness, surprisingly enough! Amazing what modern optical engineering can do.

Well if we consider the entry level DSLRs, the T2i body used to cost $800 on B&H while now it costs $600. This is with Canon still earning profit. I know it's not as simple as I make it sound but with the price of new entry-level cameras in mind, I believe a sub-$1000 full-frame is possible; it's the company's greed that's preventing it from happening.

Keenupie · Jan 1, 2013

Firstly,

Deeply Sorry, Due to Christmas break was traveling and while I had access to the forum on the phone, Wife always ensured I do NOT spend much time with it.

Honestly, All the discussion here has confused me, I badly wanted something like an All in one without having to carry separate Lens etc. which is why I first wanted the Leica X2, and then this came along, and for some reason loved it more, now given a choice I perhaps would take both but wife is allowing only one for the birthday, so am seriously lost for which one to pick,

I understand it's priced high, but if you ignore the price does it still make for a bad or not good enough deal? I shoot a lot on the Street, Wife, Portraits and thought this made a wonderful device, if not any recommendations on what does? How does the X2 compare?

Prodo123 said:

A full-frame compact is by far one of the most ludicrous camera concepts. It produces good photos, but completely goes against the idea of a compact camera for the masses.

Click to expand...

Dust On the Sensor? Wow how does that happen on a new Camera? And Btw, Congrats on the RX100 it's absolutely amazing!

firestarter said:

What if you get dust on the sensor?I bought a Sony RX100 - and it was delivered with dust on the sensor so I sent it back.

Click to expand...

OreoCookie, (love the handle)

I personally have little experience with the RX1 and only few moments spend with it, and yes I am not qualified enough to see it's flaws but was in love with it for those few moments, and loved the EVF also, I know most photographers prefer Optical but I honestly find the Electronic Viewfinder amazing, but then thats just me, and a lot of reviews have been nice, including Steve Huff. So am in a boat with a mind full of confusion and considering the amount do not want to rush in, every morning I wake up with one morning on the RX1 because I love it and the other on the Leica X2, cause always been a dream to use a Leica, Yes it's no M, but still the heart smiles,

Danke! (Sorry thats the only bit of German I learnt in the 2 days I spent in Dusseldorf)

OreoCookie said:

It's not meant to be a compact camera for the masses, it is aimed at a niche. It's Sony's take on the Fuji X100 with a full frame sensor instead of a crop sensor.

Click to expand...

Argh Birthday is in Feb and now only a month left to decide, any help would truly be appreciated guys,

And a Very Happy New Year to you all,

Prodo123 · Jan 1, 2013

Keenupie said:
Firstly,

Deeply Sorry, Due to Christmas break was traveling and while I had access to the forum on the phone, Wife always ensured I do NOT spend much time with it.

Honestly, All the discussion here has confused me, I badly wanted something like an All in one without having to carry separate Lens etc. which is why I first wanted the Leica X2, and then this came along, and for some reason loved it more, now given a choice I perhaps would take both but wife is allowing only one for the birthday, so am seriously lost for which one to pick,

I understand it's priced high, but if you ignore the price does it still make for a bad or not good enough deal? I shoot a lot on the Street, Wife, Portraits and thought this made a wonderful device, if not any recommendations on what does? How does the X2 compare?

Honestly if it were up to me I would get the Fuji X-Pro1 or X-E1 instead of either. Just as small, with viewfinders built-in (X-E1 has an EVF), and the ability to use zoom lenses. Yes it's a crop sensor, but really the zoom lens is what's attracting me to this camera, more than the full-frame sensor of the RX1.

Although if you want to, the RX1 does make a fine camera. It uses the same sensor as the one found in the D600 and A99, so you know you'll be getting top-notch image quality. The f/2 aperture is very fast (but then again faster lenses do exist for the Fuji cameras) and the 35mm lens is convenient for travel.

The Leica X2 is like the RX1, but with a crop sensor instead. Between the two I'd rather pay the extra grand for the RX1, since all other features seem to be identical.

electronique · Jan 2, 2013

Prodo123 said:
And here you have a 2 1/2" thick camera, which is as thick as my Rebel T2i mind you, with no optical zoom capability, no interchangeable etc.

Zooms are for photographers who cannot compose a shot... Primes are for people who can.

I for one love the concept.. When I shot film, I would only ever go out with one lens.. Either a 50mm or 24mm.

Prodo123 · Jan 2, 2013

electronique said:
Zooms are for photographers who cannot compose a shot... Primes are for people who can.

Then again you can't shoot tight portraits with a wide angle and a landscape with a super telephoto.
Well, at least not without making the photos look somewhat bad, in most cases.
I'm all for primes forcing one to compose better, but sometimes multiple focal lengths are necessary, and a zoom lens is the most convenient way to do so.
Unless a camera comes out with a lens similar to the tri-elmar, which would be very interesting to see.

Keenupie · Jan 2, 2013

Prodo123 said:
Then again you can't shoot tight portraits with a wide angle and a landscape with a super telephoto

Prodo

Thanks a lot for all your time going to check the X-Pro1 or X-E1 by this weekend

Also X2 is out now did not like how one looks at images on the LCD they truly need to update the LCD

Will keep you posted if any more options come in but truly thanks considering you are not so find of the RX1 for your stated reasons and still helping me

Regards

Keenupie · Jan 3, 2013

Without going off topic while I was trying the Leica X2 I also saw some of their D-lux camera and no offense to any owners but what in the world is that?

It did not feel like a Leica at all, or is it just leicas way of staying in volumes game? How does Leica even manage to sell them?

joshualee90 · Jan 3, 2013

RX1 provides a crop option which effectively gives you a longer focal length. The lens on the RX1 is nothing to pass over its a solid ziess 355 f2 with excellent coating. The sample images i've seen look amazing and bokeh is smooth. The X1Pro is another camera to look at but if like the 35mm focal length the Sony might be the way to go. The only concern i have with the rx1 is what happens if you accidentily scratch the lens. GG camera is now useless. And also the fight between zoom and primes is pointless. Some photography requires you to use zooms and some photography is better off with primes.

sevimli · Jan 6, 2013

joshualee90 said:
RX1 provides a crop option which effectively gives you a longer focal length. The lens on the RX1 is nothing to pass over its a solid ziess 355 f2 with excellent coating. The sample images i've seen look amazing and bokeh is smooth. The X1Pro is another camera to look at but if like the 35mm focal length the Sony might be the way to go. The only concern i have with the rx1 is what happens if you accidentily scratch the lens. GG camera is now useless. And also the fight between zoom and primes is pointless. Some photography requires you to use zooms and some photography is better off with primes.

"camera is now useless"

Really?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches

h00ligan · Jan 26, 2013

Iso 12,800 crop from jpg high contrast bw

Iso 25600 same otherwise

Clearly portraits can't be done. It's super limited and should never be bought.

Zaqfalcon · Jan 30, 2013

h00ligan said:
Clearly portraits can't be done. It's super limited and should never be bought.

Ha! Well played.

h00ligan · Feb 2, 2013

Wel, all that said, mine was returned.

The focal length was great for me, the missing vf was a bummer but not a deal breaker, the manual focus was well implemented except no waking without magnification, but the real deal killer for me was the slow af. For what I was hoping to shoot, it just needs to be faster.

I may end up getting one later if Sony can improve the af, but for now the nex does fine and the rx100 is a true pocket camera.

The rx1 is a lovely camera, it's just rev 1 and has rev 1 weirdness to it. If they can mate hybrid af to the nex, it really should have been in the rx1

I'm hopeful the x100s af is as good as it looks, because that's problem solved for me. If so.

If one is taking well planned shots its a great camera. For low light candid event shots, it's not.

The main reason however I returned mine was Sony support. I had to send in my rx100 for dust on the sensor (3 months old) and it convinced me very quickly I did not need to spend 3k on that level of support. It wasn't a disaster but it wasn't confidence inspiring.

colonelbutt · Feb 20, 2013

Many of these replies seem a bit bizarre

Perhaps some reading of reviews is required as well as hands on

the RX1 is simply the finest quality 35mm FF available in a tiny package. not to mention the silent shutter.

The handling is extremely good and the build is excellent. The lens is sharp sharp sharp from f2. The colours and micro-contrast are beautiful and distinctive Zeiss. The focus is plenty fast for 99% of my photography. Obviously you don't buy this camera for sports (although manual focus still works best for me for action).

Sure its expensive compared to a DSLR and lens, or a APS-C CSC, but none of these are the same thing.

Its a beautiful, unique, tiny camera with unsurpassed IQ. If you don't need the size, can't afford it or like the handling of another type of camera better thats absolutely fine, no issue. but by 99% of the accounts on the web this is a superb device

Sony DSC-RX1

macrumors member

macrumors 68020

macrumors 6502

macrumors 603

macrumors 68030

macrumors 68020

macrumors 68030

macrumors 68020

macrumors 68030

macrumors 68020

macrumors member

macrumors 68020

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68020

macrumors member

macrumors member

macrumors member

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68040

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68040

macrumors 6502

Our Staff