Like it. Very neat and capable.
The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread
- Thread starter Fusion
- Start date
Like it. Very neat and capable.
I still have the habit of picking it up close to my face before realising, no viewfinder!
You would think after years of not using a DSLR, and primarily shooting witha mobile, I'd have lost that habit. Apparently not.
Latest additions....
DSC01037 - Copy by chris_rabe, on Flickr
And almost filling my e-mount lens line-up... there's still one more lens I want, but I should really wait...
PC080003 - Copy by chris_rabe, on Flickr
DSC01037 - Copy by chris_rabe, on FlickrAnd almost filling my e-mount lens line-up... there's still one more lens I want, but I should really wait...
PC080003 - Copy by chris_rabe, on Flickr
That's a cracking lens, had a play with one at this years photography show, some sample shots with the D810 would be nice
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,903
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I really want the new Sony RX1RII (that is a mouthful)
It looks to be the perfect compact, finally, FF sensor, variable low pass filter, a 35/2.0 prime, built in EVF, good AF, Wifi, NPC even.
£2k though !
It looks to be the perfect compact, finally, FF sensor, variable low pass filter, a 35/2.0 prime, built in EVF, good AF, Wifi, NPC even.
£2k though !
I must admit though its a lot of camera for that money and looks the best compact you can buy. 399 AF points alone tells you where some fot he money has been spent. And 42.4 megapixels
It does seem like the absolute perfect compact just need the price to drop a little or should that be a lot!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,903
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I must admit though its a lot of camera for that money and looks the best compact you can buy. 399 AF points alone tells you where some fot he money has been spent. And 42.4 megapixels
399....that's in auto/matrix or whatever Sony calls it. I only need or really use 9.
I agree. On paper is should be a stunner and I would love one but £2k seems a long way over priced in my opinion. I am not sure a compact with vaguely similar specs exists though does it? Even at half the mp.
I don't think its overpriced at all, not once you read the specs. On the sam basis you could say a Canon 5d was overpriced since you can just buy a 100D.
On the other hand, its a lot of money for just a "compact".
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,903
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
The previous model is about £1200...as this is an annual release, as opposed to 5D's 4/5 years life cycle...£2k is not money well spent. I still want it though.
RX1 mark II isn't overpriced at all, considering what it adds to the RX1/R mark I.
Bear in mind the RX1/R were released around the same price, with 24 megapixels and no EVF. The EVF for those cameras cost £331.
Full frame, latest Sony 46 megapixel sensor , built in EVF, a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 lens in a compact sized body - absolute bargain when you work out what a comparable full frame SLR or Rangefinder with Zeiss quality 35mm optics would cost you.
The RX1/R produces some beautiful images, even the JPEGS are very very impressive never mind the RAW files. The lens is simply stunning and the build quality when you hold it in your hand knocks spots off other cameras. The only downside is that Sony didn't make a metal door for the battery compartment, it's plastic which sort of lets the camera down a bit.
As for a compact Camera with vaguely similar specs at half the megapixels? Its called the Sony RX1/R, since judging by Sonys recent trend with the RX10 and RX100 they aren't too bothered with Mark I's selling alongside the newer models.
Bear in mind the RX1/R were released around the same price, with 24 megapixels and no EVF. The EVF for those cameras cost £331.
Full frame, latest Sony 46 megapixel sensor , built in EVF, a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 lens in a compact sized body - absolute bargain when you work out what a comparable full frame SLR or Rangefinder with Zeiss quality 35mm optics would cost you.
The RX1/R produces some beautiful images, even the JPEGS are very very impressive never mind the RAW files. The lens is simply stunning and the build quality when you hold it in your hand knocks spots off other cameras. The only downside is that Sony didn't make a metal door for the battery compartment, it's plastic which sort of lets the camera down a bit.
As for a compact Camera with vaguely similar specs at half the megapixels? Its called the Sony RX1/R, since judging by Sonys recent trend with the RX10 and RX100 they aren't too bothered with Mark I's selling alongside the newer models.
Last edited:
There are fire sales of a D800 or $900 at Best buy but you can get a D800 for $1700 refurbished quite easily. Nikon 35mm f/1.8 FX is $600 new (you coudl also look at a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART for $800)
So for $2300 you get a more capable camera albeit larger, faster lens and a proper OVF, and the ability to put whatever lenses you want on it. The Sony RX1RII is $3300 so for an extra $1000 you get a really small FF camera that has a fixed lens which greatly limits its appeal.
I know what I would rather have. Sure if money is unlimited then it would be a great camera to add to the collection but it is a specialized tool with the fixed lens. For me 35mm is no where near wide enough for landscape work and obviously less for nature. a 24mm /f1.8 version would be more interesting for me but the price would have to be substantially lower than buying a D800 + 24mm lens to be worth while. I can see wedding Togs like Raymond would have much more use of the 35mm version, he could have the RX1 in one hand and his Canon 5D/85mm in the other. At the end of the day it is still limiting though, e.g. at a wedding you want to take a bug group shot and move to a 20 or 24mm prime, well you cant on the sony so now you have a DSLR with 24mm prime and the RX1 with 35mm, you spot a key moment happening a little further away but you don't have the reach. I always like to have complementary lenses on my bodies shooting events so I don't miss important occasions and opportunities.
So for $2300 you get a more capable camera albeit larger, faster lens and a proper OVF, and the ability to put whatever lenses you want on it. The Sony RX1RII is $3300 so for an extra $1000 you get a really small FF camera that has a fixed lens which greatly limits its appeal.
I know what I would rather have. Sure if money is unlimited then it would be a great camera to add to the collection but it is a specialized tool with the fixed lens. For me 35mm is no where near wide enough for landscape work and obviously less for nature. a 24mm /f1.8 version would be more interesting for me but the price would have to be substantially lower than buying a D800 + 24mm lens to be worth while. I can see wedding Togs like Raymond would have much more use of the 35mm version, he could have the RX1 in one hand and his Canon 5D/85mm in the other. At the end of the day it is still limiting though, e.g. at a wedding you want to take a bug group shot and move to a 20 or 24mm prime, well you cant on the sony so now you have a DSLR with 24mm prime and the RX1 with 35mm, you spot a key moment happening a little further away but you don't have the reach. I always like to have complementary lenses on my bodies shooting events so I don't miss important occasions and opportunities.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,903
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
If it weren't for the imminent replacement in 12 months, as opposed to 3 years, I'll be all over it.
Ps I would not get it for wedding, it'll be for travel 99% of the time.
Ps I would not get it for wedding, it'll be for travel 99% of the time.
Last edited:
Your loss DP, trust me they're nice cameras to own
It is not my loss, it would be my loss if I owned one because I could have put that money into a more capable camera with a selection of lenses and the ability to change lens to whatever I wanted, like my 70-200,mm f2.8.
I didn't say they weren't nice cameras, they are just highly limiting and expensive.
It woudl be ncie to own a Phase1 MF, Nikon D4s and the Hubble space telescope.
Wouldn't work for travel for me, no where near wide or long enough. for steet work it would be nice but I don't really travel for that.
Ideal travel camera for me would be a FF 15-35mm f/4 (keep the weight down and allow filters) with the ability to swap to one of the new 150-600mm lenses
Last edited:
Doubtful if it will be replaced in 12 months. The RX1 was announced in September 2012. In June 2013, Sony introduced the R variant without the AA filter, so that version is coming up to two and a half years old.
I think you've got the idea behind the Camera Raymond. It is compact and lightweight. It has a stunning lens, strong body construction, an amazing sensor. The RX1/R has the ability to crop to 50mm and 70mm which can be set to a button. The switchable macro mode (activated by turning a ring on the lens) allows it to focus to 14cm from the lens front. Its also far less intrusive than a DLSR.
Whilst there are clearly no Mark II reviews out at the moment, you could take a look at some of the following sites to give you some idea of what to expect (bearing in mind it will be a 46 megapixel sensor rather than 24!)
https://luminous-landscape.com/sony-rx1r/
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/...-medium-format-quality-in-your-pocket-almost/
http://duncandavidson.com/gear/sony/rx1/
http://www.minimallyminimal.com/blog/sonyrx1
that last one has some additional pages on the RX1 under the archive button at the top of the page - he does a lot of travelling all over the far east and tbh, his style of shooting reminds me a lot of yours Raymond