Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony RX1 discussion  (Read 21485 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5884


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2012, 10:43:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve, are you saying that if I fork out that much money, I will have the same pleasure Eliot Spitzer did (while it lasted)? Grin
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Raul_82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2012, 02:23:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On the other hand, street photographers are rarely, if ever, terribly concerned by "spectacular" noise and sharpness performance, nor they print big.

Yet, even street photographers want the the same "short" DOF that a full frame can deliver, at least for me, that's the big missing in aps-c and micro 4/3 mirrorless today.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2012, 06:53:17 AM by Raul_82 » Logged
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 428


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2012, 11:25:21 AM »
ReplyReply

This camera requires thought:  How many of us 45+ went through Photography 101 and 102 armed only with a SLR and 50mm lens?  We learned to do a lot with a normal fixed lens.  I had a great 50mm (Zuiko F1.2) and still do, but about the only times I felt limited for my personal needs were the odd bird/squirrel and sports.  Most other things were obtainable......
Yes, but not much thought: whilst going through that stage we weren't obliged to hold the camera out in front of us like twerps or to buy an overpriced peephole to mount on top of the camera in emulation of cameras from the first quarter of the 20th century.

I hope I've finally reached the stage where the sort of hysteria associated with the release of new cameras like this one has completely abated. Shelling out close to 3 grand for a camera with a fixed 35mm world-view and no viewfinder... well, there's just no limit to the gullibility of this market it seems.
Roy
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2012, 01:06:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve, are you saying that if I fork out that much money, I will have the same pleasure Eliot Spitzer did (while it lasted)? Grin

I would call it well.. a similar experience.    I'm sure Mr. Spitzer enjoyed himself at least several times, but ultimately she couldn't be everything he needed in a woman.  Was his purchase a wise one?   I suspect when a man is in his twilight years and reflects back on his most fond memories she'll gain additional value.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2012, 01:15:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, but not much thought: whilst going through that stage we weren't obliged to hold the camera out in front of us like twerps or to buy an overpriced peephole to mount on top of the camera in emulation of cameras from the first quarter of the 20th century.

I hope I've finally reached the stage where the sort of hysteria associated with the release of new cameras like this one has completely abated. Shelling out close to 3 grand for a camera with a fixed 35mm world-view and no viewfinder... well, there's just no limit to the gullibility of this market it seems.
Roy

1.  I find with the x100 I use the optical 80%, EVF 15%, and live view 5%.   So I can't help but agree.  I can't wait to see the detail in the 24mp images composed through a viewfinder while holding the camera not only in a non-braced position, but one which duplicates stress positions used in physical punishments.  What were they thinking.. (probably, "now we can charge $599 for a viewfinder that works.")

2.  Some products excite for what they can do, and others for the underlying technology which we hope will be applied to future products.   I think the RX1 is the latter.  I'm hoping if Sony can put a FF sensor in a camera that size, then Fuji will notice and put one behind a proper viewfinder..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158



« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2012, 02:25:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope I've finally reached the stage where the sort of hysteria associated with the release of new cameras like this one has completely abated. Shelling out close to 3 grand for a camera with a fixed 35mm world-view and no viewfinder... well, there's just no limit to the gullibility of this market it seems.

+1
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7975



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2012, 08:01:19 PM »
ReplyReply

The RX1 is for sure an appealing camera, but the price is hard to justify when considered from a opportunity cost standpoint.

I guess that the question I will ask myself is "Assuming a finite budget for photographic expenditures, is this really the best way to help with my photography at this point of time?"

The truth is that it clearly is not. I will personnally save that money for the replacement of my workstation when the Mac Pro dies.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 13, 2012, 10:56:04 PM »
ReplyReply

...we weren't obliged to hold the camera out in front of us like twerps...

Mmmm. Such sentiments are frequent on LuLa, and I admit I much prefer a viewfinder myself, and an optical viewfinder to an electronic. But I wonder whether to some future photographers it might not be such a big deal. Image stabilization offsets some of the advantages of viewfinders and screens have some advantages for composition in that they make you focus on the small flat rectangle you are producing rather than its three-dimensional source.
Logged

JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 746


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2012, 11:45:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Damn shame they didn't put in a popup viewfinder in place of the popup flash.
Logged

AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158



« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2012, 11:48:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Mmmm. Such sentiments are frequent on LuLa, and I admit I much prefer a viewfinder myself, and an optical viewfinder to an electronic. But I wonder whether to some future photographers it might not be such a big deal. Image stabilization offsets some of the advantages of viewfinders and screens have some advantages for composition in that they make you focus on the small flat rectangle you are producing rather than its three-dimensional source.

And then there are demographics.  At my age, to use the rear LCD I have to put on my reading glasses, which is a real PITA out in the field (actually it's a PITA anywhere, just worse out in the field  Wink), at least with an EVF or OVF I can dial in diopter correction.
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2012, 01:20:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Mmmm. Such sentiments are frequent on LuLa, and I admit I much prefer a viewfinder myself, and an optical viewfinder to an electronic. But I wonder whether to some future photographers it might not be such a big deal. Image stabilization offsets some of the advantages of viewfinders and screens have some advantages for composition in that they make you focus on the small flat rectangle you are producing rather than its three-dimensional source.

Well.. maybe when/if evolution finds a way to support our outer wings in their lateral extended position with the same degree of steadiness the welded braced position offers.  And I'm not sure I want to wait that long, OR look at the evolved women..    I'm just sayin.   

There are appropriate uses for a live view screen, when the screen articulates it's easy to find a braced position from several shooting perspectives.  And they excel for video.   Mounted macro work comes to mind as well.  But to replace the traditional braced position that allows us to easily manipulate the controls, move in/out of other people and obstacles quickly, and still remain balanced on our core axis.. what were they thinking?
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2012, 06:30:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not saying there won't be a use for viewfinders - just that expressions such as "hold the camera out in front of us like twerps" might come to seem a little - how should I say - elderly.
Logged

DaveL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2012, 12:43:27 PM »
ReplyReply

1.  I find with the x100 I use the optical 80%, EVF 15%, and live view 5%.   So I can't help but agree.  I can't wait to see the detail in the 24mp images composed through a viewfinder while holding the camera not only in a non-braced position, but one which duplicates stress positions used in physical punishments.  What were they thinking.. (probably, "now we can charge $599 for a viewfinder that works.")

2.  Some products excite for what they can do, and others for the underlying technology which we hope will be applied to future products.   I think the RX1 is the latter.  I'm hoping if Sony can put a FF sensor in a camera that size, then Fuji will notice and put one behind a proper viewfinder..

Thank you Steve. Bookworthy!

(I am intrigued that Sony has designed this product. I am appalled at its cost. "What were they thinking?" is a polite translation of what I said at the time.)


It's all about images. I can't see this camera producing images I might take with other equipment. It's a pass for me.

Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2012, 06:24:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, Sony just showed that they can use FF sensor with E-mount.
...
It will probably allow to mount existing APS lenses using only APS part of the sensor.
I think you are right on the second point: the Sony NEX-VG900 [Edit: corrected name] video camera has a full 36x24mm sensor and E mount, but when NEX lenses are used on it, the camera automatically crops to the roughly 24x16mm format of other NEX cameras. (So you need to use alpha-mount lenses via an adaptor to actually use all of the sensor!)

This indicates that NEX lenses and lens mount are _not_ designed to cover 36x24mm format: there might even be vignetting of the larger image circle by the lens mount. So I see no evidence that E mount can or will be used in a 36x24mm system.

However, I can easily imagine Sony launching a new "Super-NEX" mirrorless system based on 36x24mm format but with a different lens mount to accommodate the larger image circle.


By the way, it is disappointing that Sony has not put PDAF in the sensor, despite now doing so in some NEX cameras. This means that the RX1 will _not_ have good focus tracking for still photography. Sony has just clarified the absence of C-AF for still photography in a revision/clarification of the previous feature list.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 09:51:38 AM by BJL » Logged
qwz
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82



WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2012, 10:49:26 AM »
ReplyReply

BJL
Nope.
E-mount can be used with 36mm wide sensor.
But current lenses don't cover this size.
You should use supplied LA-EA3 adapter to mount A-mount Sony|Minolta lens or other adapter for different mount lens.

Sony will make new E-mount lens, covering full-frame but obviously it will be in the not near future.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2012, 03:17:37 PM »
ReplyReply

E-mount can be used with 36mm wide sensor.
But current lenses don't cover this size.
Do you have a source for the ability of the E-mount to properly cover the 42mm image circle needed by 36x24mm format? One issue is whether the diameter of the opening in the mount exceeds the 42mm diagonal of the 36x24mm frame by enough to let through the entire incoming light cones of lenses at minimum f-stop. For example, to support f/1.4 lenses, the diameter of the opening needs to be about
        sensor diagonal size + (depth of mount)/1.4
so the minimum required diameter is about 14mm more for 36x24mm than the NEX sensors require (the sensor diagonals are about 42mm and 28mm respectively).

In other words, the question is whether Sony made the E-mount opening 14mm wider than is needed by NEX sensors.


Not that it matters much: it seems that new lenses would be needed for the larger format either way, and then even if the mount is different, those new lenses could easily be made usable on NEX bodies via a full-function adaptor.
Logged
peterv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #36 on: October 06, 2012, 05:31:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you have a source for the ability of the E-mount to properly cover the 42mm image circle needed by 36x24mm format?

Sony Alpha authority David Kilpatrick wrote about this:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/08/19/should-nex-go-full-frame/
Logged
Vivec
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 07, 2012, 02:23:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I would call it well.. a similar experience.    I'm sure Mr. Spitzer enjoyed himself at least several times, but ultimately she couldn't be everything he needed in a woman.  Was his purchase a wise one?   I suspect when a man is in his twilight years and reflects back on his most fond memories she'll gain additional value.

Awesome post! Thanks for making me smile :-)
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #38 on: October 11, 2012, 01:47:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Sony Alpha authority David Kilpatrick wrote about this:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/08/19/should-nex-go-full-frame/
Thanks for that link. It does persuade me that it would be impossible to use the current E-mount in full 35mm format with sensor-shift stabilization, which would be a bit sad for backward compatability with exisisting alpha mount lenses. It is true that NEX also abandons sensor-shift stabilization, but I would think that users of 35mm format would be more interested in lens backward compatibility.

[EDIT: I take the following back, having looked at details of the NEX-VG900 video camera with its E-mount and 36x24mm sensor. If there is any slight corner vignetting at low f-stops, Sony seems wiling to accept it, in video mode at least.]

On the other hand, I suspect that Kilpatrick has only checked that the chief ray can squeeze through that 39mm throat and reach the corners of the frame, on the 42.5mm image circle, while overlooking vignetting of other light in the broad incoming light cone with large apertures. It seems to me that there would be some partial vignetting near the corners at low f-stops, and so a different mount with a larger diameter would work better with 35mm format.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 04:39:30 PM by BJL » Logged
allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2012, 07:14:55 AM »
ReplyReply

The problem with this camera is the same as buying an Apple laptop. You just know in a few months at most an improved rendition will be available with the additional feature(s) you really wanted.

$2700 experiment in Marketing...

Don't get me wrong, I have three Apple laptops, but I use them. This is, as someone noted a fling, not a tool.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad