Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I agree. I mentioned it more to illustrate that adding those items doesn't cost much for the maker. Sometimes, I get the feeling that they ommit things for political reasons rather than financial. One of the great things with m4/3 is that they have skipped politics. The tiny E-PL5 offers the same image quality as the OM-D and the GH3 apparently offers video quality that is superior to some of their video camera that cost more. The RX-1 is more like a Leica: You pay a lot to get a marginal improvement in image quality. Hopefully, that image quality is a bit like from a Leica as wellJorgen, I don't think anything comes close to m43 for value
That's about right. Based on sensor size, the RX1 is 4 times the camera. :grin:The viewfinder and articulated screen of the Panasonic G5 costs $700, but that includes a complete camera :grin:
I would be interested to see how well the RX1 retains detail on distant landscapes with lots of fine foliage, particularly at infinity focus.Thanks, Mike. This cameras detail rivals the Dp2M and I haven't seen any other camera besides the D800 that could do that. However the DP2M lacks the bokeh this camera and lens produce as well as the incredibly clean high ISO images.
Much appreciated, John.i have only had my RX1 briefly but it is everything Steve Huff said and more. The IQ is truly amazing. I have been working with the RAW files in C1 and it works well but it is a preliminary version of the conversion and they don't yet offer the lens profile for correction. Nonetheless, this camera amazes me.
Here is a comparison of a shot taken with the DP2M and the RX1 at 100% crop in C1 (The RX1 is to the left, both shot with flash followed by a comparison of the RX1 v DP2M where RX1 was shot without flash but DP2M used flash):
In general I would have to agree with that statement in that you get very good IQ in a relatively small package with a good selection of quality lenses that are affordable. However, even with the EM-5 which produces as good an image as I have seen from any m43 and as good or better than many APS-C, I still can see the noise, even at low ISO and it takes away some detail that I want in my images.Jorgen, I don't think anything comes close to m43 for value
Matt, it looks like I can contribute on the 11. I just got my shipping notice from B&H. Then you can see my pet.No new photos today (work). I'll just read tonight and let my head spin around.
Cheers, Matt
Guess what my RX1 is replacing? For a long time, the image quality from model to model was an incremental improvement, and I am really referring to high ISO, and so I just kept my E-P1 and enjoyed using it. I think the OM-D was a jump. I think the RX1 is going to be better than my E-P1.Reminds me of the E-P1, clunky ground breaker... but it's 2012 and as Jorgen says - you could consider the image quality to be only a marginal improvement.
I need to see more enthusiast samples, love the cat shots, but I could stand back a bit with a 45mm f1.8 or back a bit further with the 57mm f1.2, or 75mm f1.8 and get shallow dof plus (imho) nicer colour signature.
Still not writing it off! want to try the RX-1 in person - I loved the E-P1, slow focus and all... maybe this will be a nostalgic experience?
Cheers
Brian
Couldn't agree more Douglas....6x6, the Nex-6 and Nex-7 have an EVF positioned exactly as you described. By trying to make the RX-1 as small as possible, I think Sony missed the boat in not including a similar, built-in EVF (they should have also included the tilt-up LCD, IMO.)