ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
Is it me or some of the image from the RX1 do look soft?


I love the idea of full frame small body.  I also hope Sony would introduce the RX full frame that allows interchangeable lenses.

Sony still using that AA filter. Wagering that the full frame RX will be introduce next year.

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
Is it me or some of the image from the RX1 do look soft?


I love the idea of full frame small body.  I also hope Sony would introduce the RX full frame that allows interchangeable lenses.

Yea, interchangeable lens would be great, but I'm worried about the size of the lens itself.  If the lens is too big, then mine as well stick with DSLR size camera.

Art Silva Photography wrote:
reasons I am passing this up for the Fuji X Pro1 or the new X-E1.
For the Sony >>> Fixed lens, pricey, programable dial/menu takes the fun out of semi-rangefinder like analog photography and not sure if the image quality will be any different... just a glorified P&S imo.

its not a glorified P&S but its a me-too in the hipster camera market.  but if Fuji, Sony et al make shit tons of money selling these things then who am I to argue?  When hipsters adopted fixed wheel track bikes for the city I shook my head but i was secretly thankful that they kept a few  bike manufacturers in business.

Wild Image Media wrote:
ff revolution is here - now just to make it affordable.

I think you mean "FF 'mirrorless' revolution", the FF revolution been around for a while.

But like with others, I can't see dropping that kind of coin for fixed lens camera, regardless if it's full frame (the biggest chunk of reason to even mention 'full frame' would be if it had interchangeable capabilities).

George Ruge wrote:
Damn expensive P&S!!

For that price on a FF sensor, I would have wanted 24mm

William Kious wrote:
Waaaay too expensive (for what it is.)

I'm really trying to understand the logic behind releasing this thing. Why not just drop a full frame sensor in one of the new mirror-less designs?

The lens design for the NEX wouldn't have the coverage at that distance, as such would have to design an entirely new line of lenses to cover that area and be able to register infinity at that distance from the back of the lens.

As such while they were able to do it with a fixed lens 35/2, it may not be economically feasible to do with other lens.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Nice but too dame expensive. I'm a Sony/Minolta shooter. I'm using that coin to buy the A99.

I agree, price is way too high.

G and G PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

I agree, price is way too high.

This camera might go head to head with Leica M9, and as such is cheap...

MKPhoto wrote:
This camera might go head to head with Leica M9, and as such is cheap...

I thought about that... but the fixed lens is going to be this thing's Achilles. It's a fine walk-around lens, but it's also somewhat limited.

Looking at additional photos, that lens makes it useless as a pocket camera, too.

Again... I'm just trying to understand the logic.

William Kious wrote:

Again... I'm just trying to understand the logic.

two words: hip ster.  Oh wait thats just one

MKPhoto wrote:
This camera might go head to head with Leica M9, and as such is cheap...

Can't really go head to head without actually being a apple to apple comparison (that is to say being able to mount an existing lens line).

liddellphoto wrote:
It looks awesome but the price for a camera that will likely be a second camera and without interchangeable lenses is pretty steep. You get a a Zeiss T* 35mm (equiv manual focus slr lens from zeiss is ~£700) and what is apparently a Nikon D600 sensor though.

I pretty much never use a 35mm lens except on my X100 for street photog and I'm not paying that much for a street camera.

Sony sensor. Made for this camera, A99 and D600.

Its Visual wrote:
I'd be curious to know what the profit margin is on that one.

At that price point, I'm guessing it's fairly high. I can't see these things flying off the shelves, after all. The whole thing could be more a marketing ploy to test the waters.

MKPhoto wrote:

This camera might go head to head with Leica M9, and as such is cheap...

How?

They are very different cameras and, even if they weren't, the comparison would be with the new M, not the M9.

I would ADORE it if Sony or Oly or Panny or Canikon made a true rangefinder to compete with Leica.  It might happen, but I doubt it.

Digitoxin wrote:
How?

They are very different cameras and, even if they weren't, the comparison would be with the new M, not the M9.

I would ADORE it if Sony or Oly or Panny or Canikon made a true rangefinder to compete with Leica.  It might happen, but I doubt it.

Yes,  I compared the Sony with an M9 with a 50mm lens, and ignored the whole line of lenses (Karl above). But if I am to buy a FF with a fixed/one lens, 35mm for 3K beats 50mm for 10K.

Digitoxin wrote:
How?

They are very different cameras and, even if they weren't, the comparison would be with the new M, not the M9.

I would ADORE it if Sony or Oly or Panny or Canikon made a true rangefinder to compete with Leica.  It might happen, but I doubt it.

Fuji is probably the closest one to making that possible, followed by Olympus most likely (Based off maybe one of their older cameras, despite their original Pen-F was a half frame SLR).

Otherwise it would probably be a niche producer like Voigtländer as they currently still make M lenses (and some LTMs if not all discontinued) as well as a few micro-4/3 mount lens, and not sure but probably still make some of the Bessas.

MKPhoto wrote:
Yes,  I compared the Sony with an M9 with a 50mm lens, and ignored the whole line of lenses (Karl above). But if I am to buy a FF with a fixed/one lens, 35mm for 3K beats 50mm for 10K.

Though in regards to a street camera, at 3K... I'd want a 24mm not a 35mm lol. One of the perks of FF was to get wide easily without as much compromise.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
I'd hit it

I'm dying to know with what.

R_Marquez wrote:
Well, at least it doesn't look like an beat up shoe like Hasselblad's Nex.

Burn...

MKPhoto wrote:
Yes,  I compared the Sony with an M9 with a 50mm lens, and ignored the whole line of lenses (Karl above). But if I am to buy a FF with a fixed/one lens, 35mm for 3K beats 50mm for 10K.

OK, but do keep in mind, Focal lengths, sensor size, and lens interchangeability aside, the Sony is not a rangefinder.  The M has that class all to itself.  If one wants a digital rangefinder, there is no competition.  I wish that there was, but there isn't.