Any one here using Sony Rx1

[Eastgreenlander]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With the announcement of the Sony RX1r, I find myself increasingly interested in this camera. I find myself not using my canon 5DM3 and lenses, as my primary camera is a Leica MP, Tri X and 50 lux.

I would really like to hear some of your daily use opinions on this camera, if you own it?

[EvilTed]

I thought about it but with my older eyes (need reading glasses), I would have to keep my glasses on to use it or buy the $500+ EVF for it

 

It's a one trick pony, albeit a good one, but I chose the M 240 instead and have already added 35mm Lux FLE, 50 Lux ASPH and Elmarit 90. Got a Zeiss 21 F/2.8 to add and I have a pretty good 4 lens kit all using 46mm filters and I've got a Olympus EVF coming for the 21 and 90.

(BTW, I sold my 5D MK3 and all my L glass to move to the M 240).

 

For auto focus, I keep a Fuji XE-1 around, which with their M adapter gives me a 1.5x maginifer on all my M glass which works awesome.

I'm keeping my eye on Fuji for future AF stuff.

My wife has a Nex 6 and its a god awful thing to navigate. More computer than camera...

 

For a glorified point and shoot without an AA filter, I'd probably look at the new Nikon.

 

ET

[Eastgreenlander]

For a glorified point and shoot without an AA filter, I'd probably look at the new Nikon.

 

ET

 

The new Nikon? which one is that?... but its probably a point and shoot camera too

[Nick_S]

With the announcement of the Sony RX1r, I find myself increasingly interested in this camera.?

 

Maybe now they can go all the way and also remove the colour filter array to produce the RX1m for monochrome photography.

 

Nick

[zanydave]

I have an RX1 all I can say is "buy it you will not regret it" I would recommend the EVF though.

[lanetomlane]

I use and love the RX1. I bought it for when I travel on business and don't want to carry the M9 and an array of lenses. I tried the D-Lux but just wasn't happy when printing large. I certainly don't have that problem with the RX1.

I had problems initially when the first camera wouldn't start (this was exchanged without problem by B+H) and then the replacement wouldn't manual focus which was sorted out by Sony UK. Since then absolutely no problems. The battery life could be better but there're so small it's easy to carry a couple of spares.

Don't regret buying it, don't intend to sell it anytime soon.

_______________

Cheers, Tom

[almoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can anybody tell me a bit more about the EVF for the RX1? I've seen a number of references to it being difficult to see the full frame if you wear glasses. Is this true or just an internet myth?

[Ruhayat]

Tried the RX1, didn't like it. Went off, tested it again a few weeks later, still didn't like it. I couldn't figure out why all the hype about a camera I found difficult to grip due to the bad ergonomics. Not enough space on that body to accommodate the big lens, but I guess Sony really needed to maximise their bragging rights. But if you want image quality above all else, then by all means... buy a used M9 which is now very close in price!

 

Same with the X100 and X-Pro. I couldn't understand why people were gushing about the hybrid viewfinder so much. Strangely enough, I liked the X10 viewfinder. Fuji is the new Leica? Not when the design language is so fussy. I prefer Bauhaus. In the end I went with the Ricoh GXR with A12 M mount and was happy with that until I needed video. Then I searched, tested and finally ended up with the Canon EOS-M. Yes.

 

I was surprised to like it as much as I do. The narrow grip had the same problem as the RX1, but I got around that by using the half-case which I got for free. I stuck a 35mm C-Biogon on it and - voila! - a smaller RX1 wannabe that felt more compact, solid and heftier, with a real Zeiss lens giving a 50mm field of view (which I prefer over a 35mm). All that for a quarter of the price (I already had the C-Biogon). You lose autofocus, of course, but for that you have the Canon 22mm EF-M 2.0 which is no slouch: it's quite sharp and wonderful.

[colonel]

Summary using emotive words as the sun is shinning in the UK finally

 

1. The RX1 has ferocious amounts of detail. In many cases crop can really substitute for zoom.

2. Colours are devastatingly neutral and need your own workflow in Lightroom to deal with

3. Lens is a tad soft at f2, despite the reviews, close to tack at f2.8 and sharp end to end above this.

4. Extreme corners are good but not perfect at wide apertures

5. Build quality is lovely

6.Packaging is lowish rent

7. EVF is excellent, however does not clip on as tightly as the Olympus VF2 (4) mechanism. I found it falls off in the bag a bit

8. Lens sticks out, so the X100S is actually easier to slip into a smaller space, for example.

9. ISO performance is very good, not quite as good as the X100S

10. Dynamic range is close to state-of-the-art

 

In conclusion, the lens is not as good as the Summiliux FLE but is probably at 35mm Summarit standard (in my testing I liked the 35mm Summarit better then the 35mm Summicron, I know Erwin Putts had the same thought - but your mileage might be different).

 

The electronics and sensor are ahead of anything Leica makes, but remember when you want to replace this you have to replace the whole camera and in 1-2 years it will be worth 50% of what you paid.

 

best rgds

[Faïcal Diable]

But if you want image quality above all else, then by all means... buy a used M9 which is now very close in price!

 

I can understand that a Leica user is attired in his Leica, but if it comes to image quality the RX1 outdraws the M9 in almost every aspect.

 

The rest of your post to me sounds like fanboy talking. Sorry for that, but ergonomics of a Leica is far from perfect as well if you compare to DSLRs. You can handle almost every camera if you get used to it.

 

I was one of the first swiss users of an RX1 and I shoot it regularly. A Leica M9 can deliver an image quality only close to an RX1 with base ISO and perfectly executed light conditions. The RX1 outdraws the performance of the M9 in every other ISO then base ISO clearly.

 

I also used the XPro1 for half a year, the build and feel is not even close to an RX1. Nor the image quality can deliver what an RX1 delivers if you use a common RAW Converter like Photoshop or Lightroom.

 

The RX1 has some flaws as well when it comes to automatic modes. I do also not like that you can not fix the EVF. It falls off in your bag easily. What i also can confirm that it is difficult to see full frame with glasses as I wear glasses. And it does not make difference if you use the small or the big eyecup. You can see full frame easy if you remove the eyecup, wich makes no sense at all, I know. The only solution is contacts. If you don't want to use contacts, I would not prefer the RX1 without any reservation. You have to go and test it.

 

At the end I would agree to colonels list and conclusion.

 

best regards

Tmo

[Ruhayat]

Points well taken. But okay, even if the OP were looking for the SECOND best image quality , I still say the M9 would suit him better than the RX1. He can use his lenses on both bodies, he would have both film and digital M in a familiar package, and he'd have a backup camera to use his lenses on should one fail in the field. Unless a brand new camera is part of the must-have features list, of course.

 

That said, I don't like the digital M myself, solely because of the fatter body. Just a slight difference, maybe, but it bugged me enough to sell off my M8 after 2 months, even though it took great B&W jpegs. And I swore I'd never buy a digital Leica again until they come out with one in the exact body of the film Ms. So I'm not as loyal to Leica as I'd like to be. Hehe.

[Faïcal Diable]

Points well taken. But okay, even if the OP were looking for the SECOND best image quality , I still say the M9 would suit him better than the RX1. He can use his lenses on both bodies, he would have both film and digital M in a familiar package, and he'd have a backup camera to use his lenses on should one fail in the field. Unless a brand new camera is part of the must-have features list, of course.

 

I think you are right! As colonel said, we should not forget that Sony has not the standing Leica has. The financial loss in value is probably much bigger with the RX1.

[lanetomlane]

Can anybody tell me a bit more about the EVF for the RX1? I've seen a number of references to it being difficult to see the full frame if you wear glasses. Is this true or just an internet myth?

 

I wear specs and haven't found a problem with it.

__________________

Regards, Tom

[Faïcal Diable]

My wife has a Nex 6 and its a god awful thing to navigate. More computer than camera...

 

ET

 

You should not compare a Nex 6 with an RX1, completely different menu and built and feel, not to mention the price

[almoore]

I wear specs and haven't found a problem with it

 

The plot thickens. The guy above you thinks it is an issue. Can anybody else chip in on this?

 

I guess I'll have to hunt one down and see if it works for me.

[Faïcal Diable]

The plot thickens. The guy above you thinks it is an issue. Can anybody else chip in on this?

 

I guess I'll have to hunt one down and see if it works for me.

 

As I said, you should. For one it is an issue, for the other one it's not. Let's precise... If you put your glasses very hard against the finder you can see full frame. For me it's impractical, my glasses are getting greasy which I hate. I prefer contacts.

 

For one other contacts are impractical... individual I think.

[almoore]

As I said, you should...

 

And I will.

 

I've not had the chance to try the RX1 yet, but assuming that I can see enough of the frame through the EVF it seems to offer pretty much everything I need in a compact camera. I've used film Leicas for a long time but up to now I've found their digital offerings disappointing - bloated, clumsy and unbalanced - but the Sony looks great. A guy up thread referred to it as a one trick pony but a small light camera with a 35mm f2 and solid file quality is just the pony I've been looking for. My 5DIIIs are every bit as good and functional as the last EOS1vs but up until now there's been a big gap when it comes to a smaller digital alternative - Ms too big/heavy and Fuji X100 too glitchy.

[Ivan Muller]

I prefer Bauhaus. Then I searched, tested and finally ended up with the Canon EOS-M. Yes.

 

I was surprised to like it as much as I do. The narrow grip had the same problem as the RX1, but I got around that by using the half-case which I got for free. I stuck a 35mm C-Biogon on it and - voila! - a smaller RX1 wannabe that felt more compact, solid and heftier, with a real Zeiss lens giving a 50mm field of view (which I prefer over a 35mm). All that for a quarter of the price (I already had the C-Biogon). You lose autofocus, of course, but for that you have the Canon 22mm EF-M 2.0 which is no slouch: it's quite sharp and wonderful.

 

Now stick a OVF, like the one for the X on it and it becomes even better... I must say I am amazed that you can manage MF without putting the body on a tripod! The M has now largely replaced my X, but without ever having had a RX1 R in hand, I must say that if I had the funds, and the M (eos) wasn't so good, I would buy one sight unseen!

 

Personally I don't think we have ever had it so good in the digital age where there is literally something for everyone at any price point without even having to sacrifice image quality...all these new cameras are just so good! And with all the competition and each brand having to outdo the next, the future looks rosy. Btw I just bought my daughter a used Fiat 500 for less than what the Leica M plus cheapest Leica lens, is listed for over here..puts things in perspective and justifies 'lesser' brands like Sony making superb cameras for the rest of us that just cant use MF and just don't have the sort of money needed for a 'real' M....

[douglasf13]

Summary using emotive words as the sun is shinning in the UK finally

 

1. The RX1 has ferocious amounts of detail. In many cases crop can really substitute for zoom.

2. Colours are devastatingly neutral and need your own workflow in Lightroom to deal with

3. Lens is a tad soft at f2, despite the reviews, close to tack at f2.8 and sharp end to end above this.

4. Extreme corners are good but not perfect at wide apertures

5. Build quality is lovely

6.Packaging is lowish rent

7. EVF is excellent, however does not clip on as tightly as the Olympus VF2 (4) mechanism. I found it falls off in the bag a bit

8. Lens sticks out, so the X100S is actually easier to slip into a smaller space, for example.

9. ISO performance is very good, not quite as good as the X100S

10. Dynamic range is close to state-of-the-art

 

In conclusion, the lens is not as good as the Summiliux FLE but is probably at 35mm Summarit standard (in my testing I liked the 35mm Summarit better then the 35mm Summicron, I know Erwin Putts had the same thought - but your mileage might be different).

 

The electronics and sensor are ahead of anything Leica makes, but remember when you want to replace this you have to replace the whole camera and in 1-2 years it will be worth 50% of what you paid.

 

best rgds

 

I pretty much agree with all of the above, although I have a couple of niggles. I've found the lens to be outrageously sharp at f2, so I'm wondering if, either your copy is off, or maybe it is your focus. I can't really think of any lens that I've used that is noticeably sharper at f2, and most reviews would agree. I also don't agree about the high ISO compared to the X100s (which I also own.) Fuji overrates their ISOs by nearly a full stop, which gives the appearance that the files are cleaner than others when making comparisons. Tricky.

 

Since I had turned into a single lens, 35mm shooter with the M9, I couldn't resist trying the RX1, and I love it. I don't think there's a 35mm+Leica body combo who's IQ can keep pace with this little rig (at least if you shoot color.) The modularity of the camera is great, so you can add grips and what not, if the size is an issue.

 

Speaking of modularity, I actually like that Sony didn't build-in an EVF. I bought the EVF, but ended up returning it in favor of a Voigtlander OVF. It works SURPRISINGLY well with the camera's center-point AF, and I use it in tandem with the LCD, depending on the scene. This camera may not have a rangefinder, but using the OVF is great, and I've sold all of my digital Leica gear in favor of it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Mixalis]

Can anybody tell me a bit more about the EVF for the RX1? I've seen a number of references to it being difficult to see the full frame if you wear glasses. Is this true or just an internet myth?

 

The EVF comes with two rubber eyepieces, a small one and a large one. As a glasses wearer I found it best to leave the EVF naked. Even the smaller hood causes the problem you mention. Without the eyepiece I feel I can see more or less all the frame.