My thoughts on the SONY RX1…a little review

At 1/5 the cost maybe the RX100 might be better for us mere mortals. Smaller, lighter, zoom lens, and shares a lot of the RX1's technology. No accessories. Only has a 1" 21mp sensor though. :)

Post some photos Dan!

Without seeing your photos though, my thought is that the RX1 isn't worth it. I have a Sony NEX-6 which I think makes better trade offs for the photography-interested backpacker. Similar weight, similar image quality, interchangeable lenses (if you want that), and a litany of features that the RX1 doesn't include such as a tiltable screen, electronic view finder, optical image stabilization (imperative for video), built-in time lapse photography, etc. All this for thousands less.

Right now, the RX1 is a wonderful proof of concept. If you're rich and don't care about wanting to buy another camera in six months, fine. For us mere mortals, wait a year when the full-frame interchangeable mirrorless cameras come out, or buy into one of the existing systems that are better photography systems such as micro four thirds or the NEX system.

What's the point of an awesome full-frame sensor if you can't take an ultra-wide-angle landscape or capture a photo of a herd of elk across a drainage from you?

I think the major question here is: are you a photographer who backpacks, or backpacker that likes taking pictures? Because if your the later (which i imagine most everyone, including you @kylemeyer, on this forum is) then spending anything more than $500 on a one-camera quiver is totally unnecessary. That's not meant to be a put-down of any kind, Im just saying different strokes for different folks. I want to take pictures to sell and print and hang as art, as opposed to just having them on your HD and posting them to your FB or IG.

And while the NEX series is great (i have an NEX-7), the NEX-6 isnt even in the same conversation. First, after you get some decent lenses (ie the Zeiss 24mm, the 50mm 1.8) you have already spent at least 2k. So the nex-6 is NOT "thousands less"…its A thousand less. Ill tell you what's "thousands less"…a canon s110, a nikon p7700. These two powerhouses truly do have "similar image-quality" to the NEX. On that note, saying the NEX and RX1 have similar IQ is just wrong. Try blowing up a NEX RAW image to 100% and see what happens. Again the RX1 (as far as IQ goes) can only be compared to other FF sensors ie 5MkIII, Leica, etc.

"…if your rich and dont mind buying another camera in six months…wait a year…" So is it a year or six months that this new FF interchangeable camera is coming out that no brand has announced or heard of or mentioned ever? But your right im sure when that FF mirrorless comes out it'll be soooo much cheaper than $3k. WRONG! Not to mention the current NEX series lenses dont cover a FF sensor, so that means that a new line of lenses need to be manufactured and bought. Obviously, SONY will release an "RX2" within two years. But it wont have a removable lens, it will most likely come in a zoom lens configuration.

What's the point of having a picture of an ultra-wide angle landscape or a heard of elk that has such poor IQ that you can't print or crop it?

While not a terribly amazing shot these images will demonstrate what only a couple cameras (RX1, 5dMkIII, some Leicas) are capable of. The second image is 100% crop of the first image that i took with my RX1 by Mammoth, notice the limited loss of detail (definitely good enough to post to your profile).

Original: http://500px.com/photo/21897651

100% cropped image: http://500px.com/photo/21897653

Hi Dan,

Appreciate your thoughts and input, especially as somebody who's had one "out there." And your samples–yeow, that's some detail packed into that frame–good flare control too.

The little RX1 is the first digial equivalent to my favorite backpacking camera, the Contax T3–in many ways they're nearly identical, save for the Sony's extra stop and vast feature set. I bring this up in part to note we're about ten years since release of the N Digital–the first full frame digicam. The RX1 provides an interesting historical bookend.

I suspect Sony didn't anticipate the demand for what's in many ways an engineering exercise that was probably only greenlighted for production to serve as a halo camera for their other lines. Virtually everybody else has been caught flatfooted, but certainly others will follow. But for today, it's a one-pony race.

I get why non-photo enthusiasts don't understand the RX's appeal and as long as they don't tote a $600 cuban shelter I'll stay on the sidelines when they whinge about the price. ;-)

Looking forward to your further input as you get out more.

Cheers,

Rick

Dan,

I'm a somewhat-professional photographer with at least one wedding already booked this summer. I'm also a nerd—a software developer by day—that definitely keeps up with and understands the technical underpinnings and optical principles behind modern photography. Simply put, what you're showing in your (beautiful) photo isn't the result of a full-frame sensor, but rather a quality lens. Modern sensors consistently allow better resolutions than the lenses in front of them—with the exception of truly quality glass.

This is exactly my point. The Sony RX1 is a resolution monster that takes great photos. Unfortunately, it's high technology mated to a fixed lens, where it's potential is limited to a single field of view. I'd rather have a 60% smaller sensor (APS-C) but have more flexibility in composition, enabling creativity and the capture of moments that the RX1 simply can't.

At base ISO, any NEX camera is capable of equivalent resolution to the photo you posted (given quality glass) and by switching lenses, would crush your 100% crop. It's silly to talk about the RX1 and NEX cameras like there's a huge gulf between them. There's not. You're just furthering the full-frame snobbery by saying that point-and-shoot cameras (which are only 13% the size of an ASP-C sensor) have similar quality as the NEX, but the RX1 is in a league of it's own.

An RX1 with a lens hood and an EVF is $3,400. A NEX-6 with the Zeiss 24mm is $1950. For an additional $1500, you could buy a litany of truly quality lenses to mate with it. And a year from now, when sensor technology is leaps and bounds better, you can spend another $850 to upgrade your camera body and keep the $2000 you invested in lenses.

Last point I'll make —

The NEX-6 has a 16 megapixel sensor while the RX1 has a 24 megapixel sensor. That's 33.3% less pixels.

The NEX-6 has a sensor area of 328.6mm while the RX1 has a sensor area of 864mm. That's 62% smaller.

The difference between the size and number of photosites dictates the ultimate per-pixel resolution. The photosites are approximately 28% smaller in the NEX-6 according to this math. While significant, it's not as big a deal as one might think. At least, until high ISOs where the differences are significant.

To get to the same pixel "quality", one would need to scale the 16 megapixel photo from a NEX-6 to 9 megapixels, which is fine to print at great quality at up to 8×10.

So to conclude—if you want to take photos at night and print poster-sized images, get the RX1. Otherwise, get the NEX-6.

Interesting discussion. As I take photos for publication in books and magazines and occasionally sell fairly large prints image quality is important for me – I need to keep publishers happy apart from wanting good results anyway. I've also always wanted the lightest camera gear that would get me those results. With sensors APS-C is the smallest that's okay, which used to mean a DSLR. Megapixels comes next. My first DSLR had 6mp – images from it appeared in a photo book last year along with ones from follow-up cameras of 8 and 12mp. These were Canon cameras and most images were taken with the 18-55 kit lens. They all look fine, regardless of which camera was used.

Recently I changed to the NEX system because of the low weight and bulk. I started with the NEX 5 and now have the 6 and the 7. The latter is 24mp, which is useful for images that will be cropped – which I take with that intention. The NEX 6 is slightly better in low light. Images from all three NEX cameras are higher quality than those from my Canon DSLRs.

The RX1 looks a great camera but the fixed lens puts me off and I'm not convinced it would actually produce much better quality images than the NEX 6 or 7.

"So to conclude—if you want to take photos at night and print poster-sized images, get the RX1. Otherwise, get the NEX-6."

Or get an OM-D instead of both those options and have an incredible selection of native glass, IBIS, and a weather proof body. :) Come on, you Sony people can't have all the fun.

That's a whole different set of math :]

A micro four thirds sensor area is 243mm—72% smaller than full frame and 26% smaller than APS-C. Seeing as the sensor is also 16 megapixels, the photosites are even smaller.

And yet, the E-M5 has better high-ISO noise characteristics than the NEX cameras, including the 6, demonstrating the folly of picking cameras solely based on arithmetic.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/12/11/the-sony-nex-6-and-nex-5r-review-the-best-nex-cameras-yet/

Like the man said, the E-M5 is a fantastic backpacking camera.

Cheers,

Rick

Just for the sake of conversation, I have to add…….If you are going to argue that there is practically no difference in IQ between a FF and an NEX, it is ludicrous to contend there is any difference between a OM-D and an NEX.

The OM-D won camera of the year at DPReview, Sansmirror…just sayin :) And like you said above, it's all about the glass.

Anyways, both the NEX6 and the OM-D are great cameras. Neither come close to the quality you can get out of a FF, IMO, especially if you want to crop pictures and/or blow them up big.

Actually, there are two things at work there. First, there is noise reduction applied to the photos from the E-M5 that Steve Huff posted, but not any from the other cameras. The second is that the E-M5 actually lies about it's ISO; at ISO 3200, you'll need to use a roughly 50% longer shutter speed to get the same exposure compared to any of the Sony cameras, which rate their ISO sensitivities much more accurately. At ISO3200, the E-M5 is actually only at ISO1489, which is a full stop discrepancy and one of the largest lies currently on the market in the camera world.

There's zero folly in using science to choose a better photographic instrument. Don't get me wrong—the OM-5 is an excellent camera, but don't go basing opinions based on a nonscientific, mistaken test.

All that said, I agree that it's a great camera :)

@Rick Dreher: I agree completely. I used to have a Contax too! What a great little camera THAT was!

I think the RX1 was always meant to appeal to photographers with a full Canon/Nikon rig, as opposed to people looking to upgrade.

@Kyle Meyer: Obviously if you add up all the obscenely priced accessories, that you don't need to maximize IQ, its going to be more expensive. I was just trying to point out that one would also need to invest a considerable amount of money to get the best IQ out of the NEX system.

However, i do disagree with you about the "gulf". I think there is indeed a huge difference between the RX1 and the NEX-7 (which I own, I cant speak to the IQ of the 6). If nothing else, the IQ gulf is certainly bigger between the NEX and the RX1, than the NEX and something like the S110 or RX100 (both of which I also have).

I also will take issue with your claim that "…any NEX camera is capable of equivalent resolution to the photo you posted (given quality glass) and by switching lenses, would crush your 100% crop". Im not sure I understand what your trying to say here. If your saying that ANY (3, really?) NEX camera (with this theoretical quality glass) is capable of coming anywhere close to the IQ of the RX1 your smoking the good stuff. If, on the other hand, your saying that you can buy glass for the NEX in a longer focal length that will have better results than the 100% crop then that may be true….I would invite you post such a picture. Because with my NEX-7 and the best glass currently available (canon "L" series lenses mounted with a NEX adapter), the NEX is still miles behind the RX1.

It's interesting, i have heard this reference to "full-frame snobbery" a lot lately (and always by someone that doesn't own a FF camera). I dont understand why by stating a fact (ie. "everything else being equal, FF sensors will always outperform smaller sensors") that's considered "snobbery" (if I drop the money for a ferrari you better believe i'm going around and making fun of everyone in a porsche boxter). Its funny, because i am actually a huge photo snob…but not about FF cameras. Rather, i have found that people who get into photography without working with film, can not (in any way), contribute to a meaningful discussion about the art of photography. I'm sorry but a film-based background is crucial. And I think this where a lot of backlash for the RX1 comes from…ie photogs that buy a $1k+ rig and call themselves professionals. Again, not trying to put anyone down (or include you in that group), but it seems that this group is the most vocal when it comes to the focal length issue. When I first got hired at ESPN magazine, they forced all the rookies to go out on their first shoot with a fixed-focal length film camera (everyone grumbled, except me, I had a huge smile and pulled out my A-1). I would suggest you do the same thing. You might find that focusing on what your camera CAN do and forgetting about what it can't will make you a better photographer.

Look, Im def not the king of all photography. And im def not saying that the RX1 is the perfect camera (there's no such thing). These are just my opinions, which are based on 10 years of my personal experience as a professional staff photographer.

I shot film for well over 20 years (mostly low ISO transparency film) and I agree that this teaches you a great deal, especially when you start, as I did, with a fully manual camera and a separate light meter. However there's a whole generation appearing that has grown up with digital. Their views on the art of photography are just as valid as those of us who started with film.

When it comes to cameras I'm sure that the differences between APS-C and Micro Four-Thirds cameras isn't that great and that any of these cameras, whether DSLR or compact, can take excellent quality images. I've chosen Sony NEX because it seemed the best for my needs and I liked the ergonomics (I spent some time handling cameras – one was quickly rejected because it was so hard to hold firmly I was afraid I'd drop it). If I'd chosen Olympus or Panasonic or Fuji or Samsung I'd probably be just as happy. I've gone from a DSLR to a CSC because of the weight and bulk not because I expected better quality images – I just wanted the same quality from a smaller, lighter camera. If a full frame camera with interchangeable lenses at the same weight and size as the NEXs appears then I'll be interested. As it is FF cameras are just too heavy so I've never considered one, just as I never considered Medium Format when I shot film. The RX1 obviously isn't heavy or bulky but that 35mm lens would be just too limiting for me.

When it comes down to it composition, lighting, knowledge of a camera's limitations and capabilities and care in getting the right settings are all more important than whether you have an OM-D or a Sony NEX or ………….

This thread is starting to make me cringe.

Dan, you realize that the RX1, behind the Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2 lens, is simply an analogue device that collects light, right? Now would you believe me if I said that it's the same technology that drives the NEX-6, NEX-7, and RX1 (and the NEX-5R, NEX-5N, and Nikon D7000 for that matter) with simple differences in the size of the photosites and the ultimate dimensions of the sensor?

Further, you understand that while a sensor dictates maximum potential resolution (e.g. 16 megapixels), it has very little to do with the ultimate clarity of the photograph taken, right? The fact remains that most lenses do not resolve detail to the level that modern sensors are capable of resolving.

The RX1 is the combination of a high-end lens mated to a high-end sensor—there's nothing more to it. My entire argument is that the NEX range of cameras is just as capable as any of resolving detail, whether or not you've found that in practice with your subset of lenses.

And then you devolve to an ad hominem attack about not owning a full frame camera or being too young and not having shot film. I've shot a 5D Mark II professionally for years. I own fully manual 35mm film cameras and use them. I also own a Fuji X100 and understand the appeal folks have for the RX1. None of this matters though.

The argument I'm making is that you're simply wrong about there being a large difference between the RX1 and a CSC camera. You're quantitatively, scientifically, incorrect about your assertion that there is a bigger difference between the RX1 and a NEX-7 then there is between a NEX-7 and a compact camera with a 1/1.7" sensor.

You're just arguing partisan photographer nonsense to make any such claim and you do a disservice to those trying to better understand this incredibly complex world of modern, lightweight photography.

"This thread is starting to make me cringe."-Well, at least we agree about one thing.

You're doing a disservice to readers by boiling down the "…incredibly complex world of modern, lightweight photography" to a math equation (I like the "modern" part, like I have no idea what im talking about…im 29 btw).

Its the ART of photography, not the MATH of photography.

You might have missed this above the samples:

These are from RAW with ZERO Noise Reduction and no sharpening at all:

"First, there is noise reduction applied to the photos from the E-M5 that Steve Huff posted, but not any from the other cameras."

Noise is clearly better managed on the E-M5–more critical if one shoots at higher shutter speeds in dim conditions. Effective IBIS and fast native primes do
allow one to shoot longer exposures to keep ISO lower, of course.

Enough thread drift for now.

Cheers,

Rick

I know it says there is zero noise reduction applied, but that is in fact noise reduction applied. He’s mistaken. You can tell by the complete lack of color noise that’s visible in the photo at ISO6400.

Here’s a real test of the OM-D’s noise levels at ISO6400 in a controlled environment:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews_data/oly_em5/boxshot/p1010017.acr.jpg

So…Steve Huff is deluded or a liar. Got it.

I think you have exactly the right camera. Carry on.

Jesus Christ, can’t people be civil on this forum?

People (even Steve Huff, shockingly) make mistakes. I gave you proof that the comparison was incorrect. Look at the color noise in the above linked photo. Look at the metadata. Here, I’ll make it easier: http://cl.ly/image/0Q3r3f3Q3D0D

Believe it or not, my whole point of contributing to this thread was to help people reading the photography forum on BPL. I’m not here trying to espouse my philosophy, but rather trying to provide an analytical, science-based, look at the technologies being discussed here. This perspective may sound familiar because that is what all of BPL is based on.

The fact that you guys act so petty and derisive serves to further ruin this community, and I’d plead that you consider being nicer. I’m actually trying to help folks, not belittle your choice of expensive toys.

The RX1 is a great camera. Any NEX camera is a great camera. The E-M5 is a great camera.

Sorry for trying to contribute.

Geez, back in the old days, the only way we could get a decent camera argument going was if it was Nikon versus Canon. Now the contagion is spreading to Sony and the rest.

–B.G.–

The NEX-6 has a 16 megapixel sensor while the RX1 has a 24 megapixel sensor. That's 33.3% less pixels.

The NEX-6 has a sensor area of 328.6mm while the RX1 has a sensor area of 864mm. That's 62% smaller.

Another way to look at that is to say that the RX1 has 50% more pixels and a 263% bigger sensor.

But I must remember that when someone complains about an $850 tent, I'll tell them that the $330 version is really only 60% less expensive.

Anyway I don't recall in 30 years of retailing having ever had a professional customer pull out the calculator to work out the difference in quality to them between say Canon L 70-210 F2.8 lens and the Pentax F 70-210 4.5/5.6 or whatever…

" say Franco, should I pay 18.75x more for this Leica CL compared to my Trip 35 ? Anything else you can show me ?"
"Yes sir , the door"

del

For those who like off camera flash, the leaf shutter is a plus. I just did a flash test at 1/3200 with an Einstein Flash unit at full power.