Sony Sony RX1. Full frame compact.

This camera is very interesting. It's like Sony took a RX100 body and took ergonomic cues from the Fuji X100. Note the placement of the exposure comp dial and the function button just above it. The lens is very large for the body, but hopefully it does not extend, and has a silent shutter. I think that extending lenses are starting to become less common as manufacturers and the buying public are beginning to realize the benefits.

Would I buy it? If I had the spare cash and could justify having yet another camera, then maybe. I'm sure that the image quality is great, especially when raw is supported in the major converters.

What interests me particularly is the lens. It's a Sonnar, like the Contax T3, and not a Biogon like the Contax G2 or Zeiss ZM lens. The lens makes it much larger than a Contax T3, but I wonder if it will give the same kind of rendering to the images?
 
I think Ray is right. This isn't meant to be a street shooter cam. I think it's meant to be travel cam for the wealthy. A deluxe compact in the bag of a DSLR shooter. You can buy a fancy fast $2,000 FF lens or you can pay a touch more and have this handy little pea shooter in your bag.

I think Sony may be testing the waters with this, and maybe bring out an affordable APS-C version in 6 months.....RX-10?

And what did the film street shooters use? FF and 35mm or 50mm I'd say. Buth they knew how to stop down when more dof was desired rather than thinking cropped film=more dof. I'm rather amused when a disadvantage (cropped sensor) is talked into an advantage.
 
I'm rather amused when a disadvantage (cropped sensor) is talked into an advantage.

Marketing wants to tell us, that the so called Full Frame is the only real thing, that's why they called it like that. But that's not true. There is also no such thing like a cropped sensor, there are just differently sized sensors. A larger sensor is not better per se, but has some characteristics, which are indeed better (e.g. noise performance), and some which can be better for some intentions and worse for other intentions. If you want more depth of field, a smaller sensor is better than a larger one. If you want less depth of field, you will be happier with a larger sensor and may choose medium format. The so called Full Frame offers only a small sensor, that is what this format has ever been meant to be. In German this format even had the word "small" in its name ("Kleinbild") when we shot with film.
 
If it is real, this seems like a good product for gear collectors. For actual photographers I'm not so sure. The sensor size with a fixed lens seems a bit limiting, especially considering a likely high price.

It wouldn't interest me at all.

On the contrary... I see it as a mighty fine camera (possibly) and I am definitely a photographer
 
Speculative size comparison with the GX1 and a 20mm lens

LvCIe.jpg
 
And what did the film street shooters use? FF and 35mm or 50mm I'd say. Buth they knew how to stop down when more dof was desired rather than thinking cropped film=more dof. I'm rather amused when a disadvantage (cropped sensor) is talked into an advantage.

And what other options did we have in the film days? 35mm, as Pictor rightly notes, WAS small back then. It caught on because it was small and convenient - it was not somehow sanctified by the various deities as THE one true and proper size - we just got used to it. Every sword has two edges, though, and this format has its own advantages and disadvantages, but as sensor technology gets better and better, smaller sensors have advantages of their own, along with their less and less significant disadvantages. Use what you like - full frame is great if it suits the kind of shooting you do. I doubt I'll ever feel the desire for anything larger than APS and would probably be fine with m43 except that I don't really like the 4:3 aspect. And I'd probably be quite happy with the 1" sensor in the RX100 for most uses once they get around to putting it in a camera I actually like.

-Ray
 
Wow, great size comparison. It didn't seem as if the body would be that that small. One shouldn't complain when camera makers test the waters but maybe a f2.8 pancake would be a better fit with the small body.

Does this mean Sony is working on a FF NEx :)
 
If the images are accurate, it's interesting to see Sony play around with interface options. Their DSLRs are known for extensive direct controls, while most of the Nex family is minimalist. The Nex 7 took a new approach, and here we have a more traditional Exp Comp dial.

I suppose a Full Frame, interchangeable lens compact camera from someone other than Leica is inevitable. I just hope that the obsession with small size doesn't dominate the approach.
 
I would love a 35mm full framed compact camera but this camera has two problems for me. First, the fixed 35 mm lens, limited in use as its too wide for general use and more for street work or landscape, and secondly, its lack do a built in viewfinder. Not only would a viewfinder help with stabilizing the camera at slow speeds or low light levels but your relying on the rear screen to be useable in bright sunlight. Nice idea but...


Cheers, Macjim.
 
I would love a 35mm full framed compact camera but this camera has two problems for me. First, the fixed 35 mm lens, limited in use as its too wide for general use and more for street work or landscape, and secondly, its lack do a built in viewfinder. Not only would a viewfinder help with stabilizing the camera at slow speeds or low light levels but your relying on the rear screen to be useable in bright sunlight. Nice idea but...


Cheers, Macjim.
when I see people write that 35mm is too wide for general use, I always wonder what their general use is... it seems to me that there's hardly a more versatile focal length available! You can do landscapes, street, environmental portrait, documentary, still life, and with some compromise also architecture and maybe even tighter portraits (and otherwise you can always crop for more tightness, particularly with a 24mp sensor), and depending on the lens, macro (although that's unlikely to really work for a full frame 35mm).
 
I also consider 35mm the most versatile focal length, and the most obvious choice for a fixed-lens camera. 50mm gives you a slightly more "natural" field of view, but there are shots that simply can't be framed, using a 50mm. You rarely have that sort of problem when using a 35mm.
 
I also consider 35mm the most versatile focal length, and the most obvious choice for a fixed-lens camera. 50mm gives you a slightly more "natural" field of view, but there are shots that simply can't be framed, using a 50mm. You rarely have that sort of problem when using a 35mm.

It is strange that there are people who think they can dictate others what they should prefer. 35mm is definitely not the most obvious choice and there is some reason why cameras with a fixed focal length used to have a fixed 50mm lens and cameras with interchangeable lenses used to have a 50mm as kit lens in former days. I also know that I feel very limited when I have only my E-P1 and the 17mm with me, but never miss anything when I have only my 24mm. There are people who prefer 35mm to 50mm and there are people who prefer 50mm to 35mm.
 
Camera systems are popular because folks have different preferences. The SC forum is devoted to many cameras that essentially cannot be modified. They have the advantage of size (and weight) and tighter integration. It also means that you could be stuck with a 35 when you want a 50. In my case, I live in a rural area and often need a bit more reach unless I want to fight my way through the cows to get close enough to use a wide angle. During my Philly trip, however the Q's 47 mm equivalent did seems a bit long at times. I like compacts with zooms, despite the sacrifice of some IQ. For this very reason I'm gun shy about single FL fixed lenses. OTOH. I suppose you buy a "system" which is essentially a collection of your favorite primes with a tiny body permanently attached. Pricey, but I bet it's still cheaper then just buying Leica lenses ;-)
 
The more I see this camera the more I hope it is true. Not that I'd buy one (for $3000), but it sets a new precedent that will eventually trickle down. The mockup looks real to me since it has the orange lens connector ring same as pictures of the rumored A99 FF DSLR. Looks like a new branding element to distinguish their FF cameras.

Not that the FF serious compact is the end all be all of serious compacts, but it gives us choice depending on wants and needs - small sensors, APS (medium) sensors and FF (large) sensors. Takes your pick.
 
and if they could fit some sort of mirror arrangement so you could see through the lens while you were focusing that would be good.
 
Back
Top