|
Goddamn, that looks nice. But will it sell? Three grand is an awful lot of money for a camera you can't even change the lens on. As much as I'd love to have one, I'd have to do a lot of shooting at 35mm to justify that cost. So, now we've got an RX1 and an RX100. Where's the RX10?
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:02 |
|
|
Not sure if the thing will sell, but it's a pretty amazing proof of concept as to how small a full 35mm frame digital camera could conceivably be. I mean look at this poo poo (not my image): I'm curious as to how the lens will perform, since it appears to be an entirely new Sonnar design with some macro capability. It wouldn't shock me if it sported a pretty dreamy look when wide open (not necessarily a bad thing). Either way, that camera (plus the EVF and OVF accessories that are apparently coming) would make for an amazing travel shooter. I'm looking forward to handling this thing at Photokina in a week. moonduck fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Sep 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Not really a valid comparison since it's comparing a fixed lens system to ones with interchangeable lenses. It's easier to make it small when the lens is built in and mated to the sensor. As sensor technology advances, we may have an "EVIL" full frame that is truly compact some day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
And sometimes the size of the lens can't be made too small due to the laws of physics in trying to produce an image circle that covers full-frame. Perhaps someday they might just produce optical material that can allow for much smaller lenses but I don't think anytime soon yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
My guess is that a lot of the problems making small lenses for full-frame digital have to do with the extreme angle of the light coming in from lenses designed to be that small. There has to be a reason we haven't seen anything like a digital Olympus XA. Maybe as microlenses keep getting better...
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:So all those rumors about a full frame NEX that were swirling around didn't make sense to most of us but I felt like something must be going on. Looks like Sony has a full frame fixed lens camera up thier sleeve instead. Full-frame or not, Sony's going to have a hard time getting people to pay $2800 for one of those when the X100 exists. It seems between this and the full-frame E-mount camcorder that a full-frame NEX is almost inevitable, but who knows when.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
I'm just hoping Fuji sees this as legitimate competition for the X100 and keeps the updated firmware coming. Has anyone heard if X100 is getting the same type of update as they just announced for the X-Pro 1?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:And sometimes the size of the lens can't be made too small due to the laws of physics in trying to produce an image circle that covers full-frame. Perhaps someday they might just produce optical material that can allow for much smaller lenses but I don't think anytime soon yet. How do Leica do it then? Their lenses are as tiny as m4/3 ones but cover a full frame image circle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Anmitzcuaca posted:How do Leica do it then? Their lenses are as tiny as m4/3 ones but cover a full frame image circle. It's not really an optics size thing. You can make a very simple lens that would be incredibly tiny and cover 35mm. If you want the lens to be corrected and fast and wide and tiny (and don't mind not having zoom or autofocus), then it's probably going to be casting light at a pretty oblique angle, which means you'll see color shift and detail smearing. Leica has corrected microlenses at the sensor level to try and control this, but telephoto lenses suffer as a result, since the position of the microlenses is fixed for wider optics. For conventional photography, the only short-term perfect solution would likely be some kind of dynamic micro-adjustment of microlenses. RustedChrome posted:Not really a valid comparison since it's comparing a fixed lens system to ones with interchangeable lenses. It's easier to make it small when the lens is built in and mated to the sensor. As sensor technology advances, we may have an "EVIL" full frame that is truly compact some day. If that size bears out (a big if, I'll admit), then the RX1 is the same size or smaller than than X100, X2, Canon G1X, Sigma DP2, and pretty much every single other modern fixed lens camera out there, while maintaining a significantly larger format. Yeah, the lens is big, but there's not a lot of ways around that at f/2. moonduck fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Sep 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
That's what kind of bugs me. They could have gone with an f/2.8 lens and made it really compact instead of a big f/2 lens. With Sony's sensor tech as good as it is, it wouldn't make that much difference with regards to low light performance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Helicity posted:I'm just hoping Fuji sees this as legitimate competition for the X100 and keeps the updated firmware coming. Has anyone heard if X100 is getting the same type of update as they just announced for the X-Pro 1? That would be nice. If you haven't seen the auto and manual focus improvements in action, scrub to 2:20 and 3:00 minutes in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PF4OMNQkmA I wouldn't mind a fancy Q menu, 1:1 aspect and multiple exposures added either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
Three new Sony lenses. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/12/Sony-creates-10-18mm-F4-16-50mm-F3-5-5-6-power-zoom-and-35mm-F1-8-for-NEX-E-mount 35mm f/1.8 should make people pretty happy. TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Sep 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
I don't know why I am surprised that the 35 1.8 costs as much as it does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Ill be happy with the 18-50 compact lens. Seems like it will be small enough that I can fit my nex in pocket
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
rio posted:I don't know why I am surprised that the 35 1.8 costs as much as it does. IF the lens is good quality, that's not that bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
Assuming it's the same optical formula as the a-mount 35mm f/1.8, the image quality is worth the price - best price to performance ratio out of Sony's lineup. I see they added image stabilization as well. Add in a sturdier build than the a-mount version, and yeah, I see the path to $450. Still though, a number that started with a 3 would have been better. I'm more excited about the NEX-6. It's got the best parts of a NEX-5 and a NEX-7, and the price is right. I'm really torn about replacing my backup / low light DSLR with it so that my backup body can also serve as a tiny travel camera, or replacing my primary DSLR with the a99. Guess I have a couple of months to think about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Assuming it's the same optical formula as the a-mount 35mm f/1.8, the image quality is worth the price - best price to performance ratio out of Sony's lineup. I see they added image stabilization as well. Add in a sturdier build than the a-mount version, and yeah, I see the path to $450. Still though, a number that started with a 3 would have been better. Yeah, I was initially a bit dismissive when I saw the price, but IS would be nice. My current low light walkaround is an Olympus 42mm f/1.2 on an adapter... I think I'd be OK with losing a stop and a half (or whatever) if it meant gaining AF and OSS. I do kinda like the longer reach of the 42mm though, makes it able to do an OK job at both portraits and general walkaround stuff. Actually, I'm a terrible human being and haven't updated my NEX-3 for peaking, so maybe once I did that the AF wouldn't be quite so necessary. I'll have to fool around with the 35mm in the store when it comes out and see. Definitely interested in the 18-50. I'm a little confused on the construction though, is it zoom-by-wire when the AF is engaged, or is it true mechanical zoom? If it's not the former, might cool my enthusiasm quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
Bad news, it's zoom-by-wire. I assume it's a compromise they made to keep the size down (less than a quarter inch when fully retracted). Per Sony's product page:quote:The SELP-1650 is the first lens with an electrically driven zoom mechanism. As soon as the camera is powered on, the lens extends and is instantly ready for shooting. A dual-function control ring is used for both zooming and manual focus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Bad news, it's zoom-by-wire. I assume it's a compromise they made to keep the size down (less than a quarter inch when fully retracted). Per Sony's product page: I feel like Sony just likes trolling me at this point. Releases NEX system, is great! but there are no lenses Comes out with NEX-7! Professional-ish NEX! Spotty initial availability in America, ones in Japan are Japanese-menu only, making resale value crap Full frame! camcorder or really expensive, fixed-lens camera Releases some new lenses expensive 35mm f/1.8 prime, new zoom lens I was interested is by wire
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
$450 isn't that bad. Look at how much the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 costs and it doesn't have stabilization and is big as a house.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 09:37
|
|
|
$850 for the wide-angle zoom and it's only f/4? I could just get a faster Alpha-mount lens like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and still have enough leftover for a LA-EA1 adapter for when I don't want the LA-EA2 to sap any light. Granted, I'll lose image stabilization but it shouldn't be a big issue with a lens that wide. Either way it won't be available in time for my Disney trip so I'm going to be renting the Tokina and the LA-EA1. (I can't quite justify buying them yet after just getting the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the LA-EA2.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
HPL posted:$450 isn't that bad. Look at how much the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 costs and it doesn't have stabilization and is big as a house. Yeah but that's 1.4, those always cost $400. $450 is too much for a regular standard prime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
FWIW, I just sold a Leica 50/1.4 for $4500. And it didn't even have IS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
You add a zero for the fetishists. Another Pentax Q announced, and a K-to-Q adapter. So they're all in I guess. This one is kind of cute. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
When they have such a good 35 1.8 A mount that is available for under 200 bucks, more than twice that seems hard to swallow. I was expecting 300 which would have been on par with their 50 1.8 but realistically expected more just because they knew that people want it and why not take advantage of the customer base.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
moonduck posted:Not sure if the thing will sell, but it's a pretty amazing proof of concept as to how small a full 35mm frame digital camera could conceivably be. I mean look at this poo poo (not my image): God sony fanboys are the worst. Is a $750 camera (counting the lens) compared to $2799 camera system even a valid comparison?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:God sony fanboys are the worst. Is a $750 camera (counting the lens) compared to $2799 camera system even a valid comparison? I don't own a single Sony. I don't see how you can call someone a "fanboy" for pointing out that Sony has proven that one can fit a full-frame sensor into a tiny body.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
thetzar posted:I don't own a single Sony. I don't see how you can call someone a "fanboy" for pointing out that Sony has proven that one can fit a full-frame sensor into a tiny body. Did you add the copy "Olympus and Panasonic Should Be Ashamed..." because you expressly noted that it's not your image. I'm just commenting on the fact that someone would add that copy when the Sony is a $2799 camera with a fixed lens and the GX1 is a $450 camera with a $350 lens. A more honest comparison would involve a Fuji X100 or whatever Leica has for a faux-rangefinder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
I just hope Sony can stick to the production schedule for the new lenses. The pancake zoom is the kind of lens I've been waiting for (as long as IQ turns out alright).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:Did you add the copy "Olympus and Panasonic Should Be Ashamed..." because you expressly noted that it's not your image. I'm just commenting on the fact that someone would add that copy when the Sony is a $2799 camera with a fixed lens and the GX1 is a $450 camera with a $350 lens. Who are you talking to? I didn't post the image.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:So all those rumors about a full frame NEX that were swirling around didn't make sense to most of us but I felt like something must be going on. Looks like Sony has a full frame fixed lens camera up thier sleeve instead. This thing would have been amazing if it included a optical or oled VF. I am drat impressed how sony managed to fit a full frame into something so compact. Here is hoping the price falls down in a year or two so I can get one. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
keyframe posted:This thing would have been amazing if it included a optical or oled VF. I am drat impressed how sony managed to fit a full frame into something so compact. Here is hoping the price falls down in a year or two so I can get one. You mean like this?  
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
keyframe posted:This thing would have been amazing if it included a optical or oled VF. I am drat impressed how sony managed to fit a full frame into something so compact. Here is hoping the price falls down in a year or two so I can get one. I agree. I feel like this is a prestige product for Sony. I can't imagine they'll sell many at that price point. But I'm very excited about the prospect of a full-frame NEX next year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:You mean like this? Yea I know it has the EVF and optical addons but it is already expensive without those. I read on steve huff that the optical vf costs $600. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
keyframe posted:$600. wat 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
The lens hood is $179.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
You know, it reminds me of an Olympus 35RC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
I was wrong sorry. The EFV costs $600. OVF only costs a mere $450!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
I guess they are competing with Leica in more ways than one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:02 |
|
|
The RX1 control scheme really bug me. No shutter dial; physically switch for macro; zoom by wire; no EVF buildin; a fix lens that doesn't shrink (at least half way) into the body; did I mention no viewfinder of any kind? There is only one explanation: this camera was designed by the Sony P&S team.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 03:58
|
|
