who wants to spend $3300 on a pocket camera??

[Jennifer Mitol]

Now THIS is a backpacking photographer's dream: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7600509041/sony-announces-rx1r-ii-full-frame-compact-camera

[Tipi Walter]

For that price I'd get a Leica, for sure. Try putting the Sony in your shorts pocket—the front lense kills the deal.

[Roger Caffin]

Dream? At $3300 I'd be a bit terrified of damaging it when backpacking! Dunno – 42 Mpix is a total overkill for any web-viewing, which is where most pics are seen today. The images will take HUGE space on your disk drive too (but disks are getting bigger). Zeiss lens – that's OK, but fixed-lens – um. The lack of IS seems a seriously retrograde step imho. Seems to be a bit of an experiment to see how taking this somewhat extreme format into the market against all the stock DSLRs will fare. For that matter, one could perhaps see the Canon G16 as being a major (and far more affordable) competitor in that class as well. It will be interesting to see the results. I suspect that it might turn out to be a bit of a yuppie thing, unless they bring the price down. Me cynic, big time … Cheers

[Stuart .]

For $3k, you might be able to afford one Leica lens. Or a used early generation digital M. But not both. As a former Leica film user I could not contemplate buying into the M rangefinder since the switch to digital. I tried the "Panaleica" micro 4/3 but was underwhelmed by the image quality. Such a pity as the lenses outperform the sensor. I really like my Ricoh GR, although the 28mm equivalent focal length does take a little getting used to. This is the most intuitive camera I've used in years.

[Tipi Walter]

Stuart— This is the Leica I was once thinking about getting—and around $1,300. Point and shoot—all I care to do. Called the Leica X2. Figured it would outperform my old Sonys and Panasonic Lumixs etc. Never took the plunge—too much cash when compared to others.

[Richard May]

On paper it's a gorgeous camera… I wouldn't turn one down if handed to me! > The images will take HUGE space on your disk drive too … And if you shoot RAW then you'll probably need to upgrade the entire computer system so it can handle a few hundred of those images in a reasonable way. Even JPEGs could overload some systems.

[Charlie W]

I rented an RX1 for a week last year. Kind of hard to use (with no EVF) but still fun. I don't know if these ever sold well but it was clearly a prototype for the a7 series, so maybe it didn't need to. It was only about 3 oz lighter than my current a7r + 35mm Zeiss lens setup (although the RX1 lens is better). But RX1RII should be much lighter than a7rII + 35mm since the IIs got substantially heavier when they added image stabilization. I'm guessing this won't sell very widely, but design cost was probably not too great since it's just a7rII sensor and R100IV EVF jammed into an RX1 body. I'd like to have one, sure. But I think the target audience is the photographer carrying $30000 of gear and 5 cameras. This is what they grab when they need 35mm. Frankly, I think Sony has been brilliant lately in their long-term camera strategy. Canikon fans should be happy too since it's putting price pressure their higher-end DSLRs (though from watching some disturbing YouTube videos, it appears that some are not at all happy). Edit: I don't know why the fuss above about the large file size. I do all my photography on a $700 windows laptop with a not-very-large hard drive. Amazon gives me unlimited photo storage for archiving raw (free with Prime) and every photo sharing site in the world is happy to take all my jpegs for free. (The Amazon user interface is awful, but there are 3rd party sync programs for that.) Yes, I agree that 42Mpx is not needed for web posting. It's also very hard to take a photo that really has more that 20Mpx of detail.

[Tom D.]

"42 Mpix is a total overkill for any web-viewing, which is where most pics are seen today."

---

This does give you a lot of room to crop, which is especially helpful for moving subjects such as wildlife that can be difficult to keep nicely in the sweet spot of the frame. I have a friend who spotted a bobcat in Wyoming and waited patiently for hours with his camera on a tripod. The bobcat pounced on a rodent and my friend caught the initial burst with the camera. Because the bobcat had moved so fast he was already well onto the right side of the frame, but because he had enough resolution, he was able to crop it into one of the my favorite wildlife pics. http://fineartamerica.com/featured/focused-on-lunch-christopher-brookhart.html

[Dale Wambaugh]

Photographic gear is a never-ending trail of outdated technology. My first digital camera was 1mp and I had a ball with it. I remember getting a 32mb CF card for under $100 and felt like I got the deal of the century. And I spent tens of thousands to learn the art and technology of silver based photography, amassing full 35mm, 6x6cm and 4×5 systems. Sigh. 42mp seems like overkill now. It won't in a couple years. It pays to be a late adopter with technology, but some need the extra ya-yas or they have the spare change for expensive toys. For professionals, the cost of the camera is just one part of the expenses of travel, shelter, food, etc, and it's a tool that is (hopefully) providing profit. $3300 is small change in the photo equipment world (not at my house!!). Yeah, I would want a zoom. Prime lenses are sharper and faster and a 42mp sensor may be able to take advantage of the extra sharpness. Prime lenses may have better color, contrast, and handle extreme lighting conditions better than zooms too. A zoom would turn that into a great video cam. Cool camera though. That would be a great press camera methinks.

[Ian]

Meh. Not for me at even half the cost. Nice that they now offer a pop up EVF and whatever voodoo they're offering with the variable filter chingadera thingy but seems like there are much better options out there with the A7 family and primes. As mentioned above, since the RX1ii isn't a truly pocketable camera, I'm left wondering, why bother, especially when you can take a modest step down in size to APSC with the Ricoh GR at less than 20% the cost. Maybe if I was rich I'd look at it differently.

[Cameron M]

This camera is a very interesting, special purpose item that is not remotely suited for backpacking. It is *relatively* heavy; 35mm is not close to being adequate for landscapes; and it does not have zoom ability for those looking for close-ups/animal shots.

[Stuart .]

Walter's comparison with a Leica is a good one, if you live by the "one body, one lens" mantra that a lot of street photographers follow. I learned a lot using nothing but a 35mm or a 50mm lens and making your brain and feet do the composing. A fixed 35mm is far from ideal for nature photography, if you expect to get everything that a superzoom can handle. I take my 28mm equivalent Ricoh GR backpacking, knowing full well that I won't get close-ups of a moose unless I want to put my life at risk. Not having a slew of focal lengths, I've missed a few shots out there on the trail, but I've captured a lot more because I wasn't futzing around deciding which lens to use for a given scene. I suppose most of mine fall into the 'atmospheric portrait' category. I'm totally ok with that. Oh and Walter, agreed – you were wise to leave that point 'n' squirt X2 on the shelf.

[Franco Darioli]

The cost may make more sense if specs are compared. For example with the Leica X2 mentioned above. The Sony is 160g heavier and 2cm deeper , however it has a 42mp sensor 2.3 x larger than the 16mp X2 sensor. Brighter lens too and I would think a lot sharper as well. But yes it will not fit inside a pocket, not that the Leica X2 would be much better there.

[Brendan Swihart]

While the launch price seems crazy, consider: -The lens on the RX1 series is pretty widely considered the best 35mm lens ever made and would easily cost $2000+ on its own if it could even be made for an interchangable system (it can't because the rear element is basically on top of the sensor). -The most comparable body currently available only costs $100 less that the Rx1rII (without any lenses). -The most comparable camera currently available, the Leica Q, costs $4250. I'd never buy one at that price, but I picked up a used original RX1 briefly earlier this year and that lens is unreal. There is nothing like it. The other thing I'll say about price is it's not just "rich" people that buy stuff like this, just like it's not only "rich" people that buy mountain bikes that cost a decent bit more than this camera or cuben shelters. If it's something you're into and it meets needs that other options don't, you cut costs elsewhere and spend the money. I'm sure there's some people who will buy this camera who are driving 92 Corollas with 300k miles making modest income.

[Ian]

True. If that's what you want, you're willing to spend the money, and 35mm focal length suits you fine, vaya con dios. Have fun with it. If it was my $3300, I'd get the a7ri, the Zeiss FE 35mm, and a plane ticket to Costa Rica with money left over. But that's me. Different strokes for different folks. Ain't life grand?

[Charlie W]

I'm still a proud owner of a Sony R1 from 2005, which I believe was the first non-DSLR with an APS-C sensor. It was bulky and ugly but I liked the concept: stick a great sensor behind a great zoom lens and there you have it: There were rumors a year ago about a Sony RX1(k?) that was going to be an RX1 with a zoom. Problem with that rumor, I think, is that full-frame zoom would be both huge (compared to RX1 body) and so absurdly mismatched in image quality (compared to existing RX1 35mm) that you would have a camera that is expensive, not great IQ, and not compact. However, lens design is advancing too. And Sony continues to surprise us in good ways…

[Tom D.]

"35mm is not close to being adequate for landscapes"

---

You don't need a medium format camera to do landscape photography. Certainly, they are the top of the line and you want the best tool for the job, but they are not necessary. Some of the best digital landscape photographs I've ever seen were taken with full frame sensors, and the vast majority of pros and serious amateurs use them. It will always be the person behind the camera that makes the biggest difference.

[Ian]

I *believe* the comment was directed at the 35mm lens on this camera, not the sensor. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'd ike to have a 35mm (or APSC equivalent) for street photography but it's obviously not wide enough for landscapes.

[Tom D.]

Yep, I "believe" you are correct. I've been talking to too many "gotta have the best of everything" folks lately and forgot about th 35mm lens on this. Correct, 35mm is too narrow for landscape.

[Charlie W]

Edit: Ah! Google is my friend. Scroll down to table at bottom here. Seems that 35mm(ish) equivalent was a favorite of Ansel Adams, and 64 – 78mm was a second favorite. I'll certainly agree that wider can be wonderful. It's also very clear that the vast majority of high quality and popular landscapes now being produced are wider.

[Richard May]

> Correct, 35mm is too narrow for landscape. Not necessarily. Wides will get an entire range of mountains or a lake you are close to. Tele-lenses will pick out features like a peak, a pair of mountains or other landscape feature. 35mm is a challenging lens. It really isn't very wide but it's still wider than normal vision. So in many ways it's neither and both depending on how far you are from the subject. Because it has lowish distortion (compared to wider lenses) you can get closer to a person (like for a portrait) without it looking too weird. Or, you can back off and incorporate more of the scene. 50mm is too narrow to do this while maintaining proximity with the subject and 28mm begins to distort noticeably. It's the "neither wide nor normal" quality of lens that makes it appealing to many as their primary lens of choice.

[Charlie W]

Super-wide is extremely popular now and makes it very easy to get a foreground object (even a very small one) into your landscape frame. The downside I see, especially for beginners, is that it encourages the "need get everything into the photo" tendency that we all have. In my view it makes it harder to get an intimate photo of the land features themselves. Certainly a lot of great photographers do exactly that and get wide shots that do feel very intimate with the subject. But I'm not in that group. You can look at Ansel Adams individual photos and try to get a sense of what he was doing when in the 34-40mm (equivalent) range, which he seems to have favored, or up at 60-78mm or longer. His photos are not much like what is most popular today. I don't necessarily want to imitate Ansel Adams. But I also don't think it is necessarily good to do what everyone else is doing today. I took an 85mm lens on my JMT. While I found it very difficult to compose many landscape shots with it, I did get two of my favorites with it.

[Tom D.]

You're right, I guess 35mm isn't too bad, on a full frame sensor, although maybe somewhat limiting being a fixed lens. I played around a bit at the 35mm equivalent on my APS-C camera and while it was a tad narrower field of view than what I like for most landscape images, it is still quite usable. For wildlife though, there not much reach at 35mm. II've always been more of a video guy who is getting more serious about still photography. I used my cell phone for pics and video on my 2012 JMT hike., along with a small Gorillapod. You got some good stuff there Charlie. I look forward to seeing more of your gallery.

[BlackHatGuy]

How about this? "The eye-level viewfinder is insane. It has a resolution of 4.4 million dots, which is so sharp that it will cut up your eye like a Buñuel movie. Oh, but there is more sharp—there is much more sharp. That sharpness can be found in the photos, because this camera does not have an optical low-pass filter. That is not enough. (It is never enough, because you paid a ton for this camera.) There’s also a 3-inch touchscreen under the EVF. It will be good for viewing the 11 photos you just shot in a second with it, a gargling noise escaping from your mouth, your eyes, still stinging from the sharpness, rolling back in your head. A jolt of endorphins floods your brain. Everything shot with a Leica is double-dipped in marvelous. Probably even at ISO 50,000, which is this camera’s top setting." Of course it weighs 2 pounds without a lens…. More here: http://www.wired.com/2015/10/leica-sl-mirrorless-camera-4k/

[Skyy E]

Hey, this is actually my camera :)

[Author]

Posts