Jump to content

New Sony RX1 - An X100 killer?


elkman

Recommended Posts

@tom

read this, http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/09/22/photokina-thoughts-by-ralph-howald-with-my-thoughts-and-yours-sony-rx1-leica-m-fuji-x-e1/

Steve Huff complains to a Sony rep that it should have a VF.

Sony RX1: It was on display but they would not let me touch the camera. They also showed the separate EVF which looks quite ugly on the camera IMO. I asked the rep why they did not include a VF. He responded that all Cybershots would not have VF’s… I told him that this would not make sense to me. The target group that understands a fixed prime lens on a full frame sensor wants a VF, especially for the price. In my eyes, once again Sony marketing rules prevented a product from making complete sense. Making the smallest body apparently was seen more relevant than including a key feature. He responded that they would certainly use customer feedback for future developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

@tom

read this, http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/09/22/photokina-thoughts-by-ralph-howald-with-my-thoughts-and-yours-sony-rx1-leica-m-fuji-x-e1/

Steve Huff complains to a Sony rep that it should have a VF.

Sony RX1: It was on display but they would not let me touch the camera. They also showed the separate EVF which looks quite ugly on the camera IMO. I asked the rep why they did not include a VF. He responded that all Cybershots would not have VF’s… I told him that this would not make sense to me. The target group that understands a fixed prime lens on a full frame sensor wants a VF, especially for the price. In my eyes, once again Sony marketing rules prevented a product from making complete sense. Making the smallest body apparently was seen more relevant than including a key feature. He responded that they would certainly use customer feedback for future developments.

I remember reading that Matt. I guess I had a hard time believing it. It's hard for me to understand the "no viewfinder" concept, especially in a premium body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe this is a concept and if theres enough interest and units sold V2 will have a VF.

The atitude from Sony that their rep explains really doesnt surprise me though. Sony seem to be many companies all competing with each other making different products with little or no integrated.

They really need to work more like Apple and actually take advantage of their deep roots in many consumer electronics markets. THey do seem to be trying to some degree but I wonder if its too late.

Sony lost the 'walkman' market when they were too concerned with piracy over users and Apple took over.

Imagine if minidiscs could have used MP3s from the outset of MP3 becoming popular, opportunity squandered.

anyway /offtopic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@tom

read this, http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/09/22/photokina-thoughts-by-ralph-howald-with-my-thoughts-and-yours-sony-rx1-leica-m-fuji-x-e1/

Steve Huff complains to a Sony rep that it should have a VF.

Sony RX1: It was on display but they would not let me touch the camera. They also showed the separate EVF which looks quite ugly on the camera IMO. I asked the rep why they did not include a VF. He responded that all Cybershots would not have VF’s… I told him that this would not make sense to me. The target group that understands a fixed prime lens on a full frame sensor wants a VF, especially for the price. In my eyes, once again Sony marketing rules prevented a product from making complete sense. Making the smallest body apparently was seen more relevant than including a key feature. He responded that they would certainly use customer feedback for future developments.

Sony have been using the "we listen to feedback" schtick for years. As an ex-Minolta SLR user I've heard all about how they listen to feedback as they systematically removed DOF preview, removed direct access controls into menus, and replaced OVFs with EVFs. I don't think customers asked for any of these things. Conversely, they made grips smaller and then larger again on successive cameras as a response to focus groups, as well as a whole host of other "dumbing down" changes as a result of asking people who were not photographers what they wanted from a camera.

At Sony, as far as I can tell, marketing is king. It is the reason their SLRs now have EVFs and are optimised for video. It is the reason the first NEX cameras were so small they could not have proper external controls. Making a £3000 "enthusiast" Cybershot camera without a viewfinder, so it could be small, shows just how little they understand the potential customer for such a camera. It was designed by the marketing department as a Cybershot, not as a tool for photographers. Allegedly it came about after the success of the RX100; the Cybershot division asked for the new sensor from the sensor division, and made a product (in parallel with the Alpha division doing the same to produce the A99).

I'm quite bored with Sony's "innovation", which appears to involve throwing stuff out and seeing what sticks, regardless of their customers and the fact that all they have produced in a digital version of the kind of camera that was popular 30 or 40 years ago. They have completely lost sight of the innovations in that time that gave users far better tools. If we wait a few more generations they might "innovate" some of those developments too, and put a truly useful lens on it, and actually make it into a practical tool rather than a piece of over-priced jewelery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Anyone recall the prices of the earliest digital cameras? Perhaps the RX1 represents the first ripple on a new pond. Others will hopefully follow. It can only be good news for photographers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In probably a year or so, everybody will talk about the FF NEX (with PDAF and nice new Zeiss prim lenses). By then, the RX1 will almost be forgotten. Of course, this may force Fuji's hand, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In probably a year or so, everybody will talk about the FF NEX (with PDAF and nice new Zeiss prim lenses). By then, the RX1 will almost be forgotten. Of course, this may force Fuji's hand, as well.

Except by the people who bought the RX1. They'll still have a wonderful and unique camera. If they don't want it anymore, I'll be glad to take it off their hands--provided I don't have an X100 by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The no view finder decision in insane. I think in time though people will come to understand more about what Sony is trying to achieve though. I don't think the RX1 is really indicative of the Sony philosiphy. The NEX line is indicative of what Sony is thinking.

I have both a NEX-7 and an X-Pro1. To be honest the ergonomics and control of the NEX-7 I prefer. I think many people who don't like the NEX line haven't used them much. Also I never miss the X-Pro's OVF when using the NEX-7, ever period. I've done plenty of shooting in all sorts of conditions and the EVF on the NEX-7 rocks. When you are in a hurry shooting under pressure on the NEX-7, you don't have to look at the light meter, you just look at the EVF as it correctly shows the exposure 99% of the time. The purists may hate this, but I think its actually quite innovative and I'm fairly certain that over the coming years, many cameras will head down this path. Also Sony is concentrating on live view operation of cameras and improving AF performance in live view. I would be very suprised if in 5 years time they even make translucent mirror cameras. I am thinking they will all be mirrorless regardless of form factor.

I love my X-Pro1 and its great under high ISO, has lovely colours and is a blast to use. But I don't find either its EVF or OVF to be as universally useful as the NEX-7 EVF. I think the EVF of the sony works better in low light than the OVF of the Fuji and the 3 way control system is great. And the dynamic range of the Sony is clearly superior. So each camera has its benefits but I think too many 'purists' think that the Fuji is a real camera while the sony is a gadget. The Sony in my view is the future of the camera. You don't have to adopt it but just sharing my view. The X-Pro1 / X-E1 are niche camera designs but clearly Fuji has plans to go mainstream. This is indicated by producing a zoom lens with IS in my opinion. I think the X-E1 will be a runaway success where the X-Pro1 is loved but wasn't as successful I suspect as Fuji might have liked.

I could easily be proven wrong but I think all camera manufacturers will be heading down the mirrorless / EVF, compact body path. I also think the FF fad will die back down quick enough as they next generation of APS-C sensors start to show similar performance to say a 5D MKII. On this basis I don't think Fuji will do a FF X camera.

I guess taking my own points on board that I believe Sony will make all cameras mirrorless eventually, it stands to reason they will produce a FF mirrorless. But I suspect it won't necessarily be a NEX. I really don't think Fuji will as they don't have a FF series at the moment and with further refinement, I am sure the X-Tran can compete with FF and has the clear advantage of lens size and to some extent body size.

The RX1 is no doubt a beautiful camera and will have some lasting appeal but not to that many people at that price. I like many others would take one if given the chance though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point that often seems to get forgotten when talk is of the X trans sensors being as good as many FF sensors and that therefore this DX size could be the future rather than FF - the maxim of bigger is better still holds true. A FF X-Trans sensor will be better than the current DX X-Trans and better than the current latest FF sensors. That of course is simplifying things but it's pretty much the truth. What if either Canon or Nikon made Fuji an offer they couldn't refuse to build a FF X-Trans sensor for their DSLRs - they would blow the other company out of the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as an X100 killer. It lacks a full viewfinder which is one of the dearest attributes of the X100. Yes the RX1 has a full frame 24mmx36mm sensor which is certainly appealing. I think the person who can afford such a camera would prefer to use it in the traditional way - via viewfinder. Heck I can't even dream about buying an X100 let alone the RX1....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Sony's much too expensive - full-frame DSLR territory. The X100's a classic.

So's the Canon G1 X but nobody has noticed that yet. The brick-like Canon has better IQ than my X100 and gives me more keepers ; now if the Sony had a tele lens like the Canon I'd pay the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK i touched it. Saw the output and was pretty impressed as the colour is very very accurate (at least on screen). A tad cool to my liking but it is nice.

And honestly it was quite tempting and the XE1 is already in the bag for that matter. SGD3100 in US is considered overkill. It will cost Singaporeans 3999 SGD and that is pure suicide. Heard that the 10 units coming in soon are all snapped up.

However the RX1 is quite half hearted in terms of practical usage. Why? IT has the aperture ring on the lens (f2.0 only but for FF is good enough IMHO) but when it comes to changing of shutter, it is no where near the old school way of doing things. That means I would have to look at the screen to know where my shutter speed is.

Half baked. A pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say it's an X100 killer simply because its aimed more as an alternative to Leica M or X series cameras. It's a very fine camera, one that I'd thought about buying, but it was too compromised for me in the end. Yes, it has a fixed lens the same as the X100, it has a much better sensor as its a full frame sensor which is an advantage. But the X100 also has its advantages too - the optical/evf viewfinder is its biggest advantage — no need to buy an expensive optical or evf finder. Lens wise I would say the Sony has the edge but only just. At the end of the day, both cameras are disadvantaged because of the fixed lens both which are wide angled lenses — the Sony wins because you can do a software magnification so that it imitates a 50mm — but I'd still prefer my x-pro1 as I can change my lens to suit my need. At the end of the day it really down to the user which is best for them though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...