Shashin wrote:
>>
It seems we can't keep what we dislike about the RX1 straight
On the contrary, Shashin, for me that's an easy one, because personally I only miss 2 basic things to regard it as no less than the prototype of the high-end camera of tomorrow:
a built-in viewfinder and a mount for interchangeable lenses.
(Marc has also mentioned the need for a
sync port, but that's not a crucial part for
my personal use).
I did not forget that the RX1 is a fixed lens camera, see this last line in my initial post # 313:
"As an example I can make the fixed lens Sony look good by choosing this crop ... "
My silly mistake was that I imagined they had put similar 35mm focal length optics on the three system cameras as well for the comparison.
But of course you are right that these test target shots are made totally independent of, and isolated from, each other (and for system cameras probably usually with ~ 50mm normal lenses or something like that).
Our present comparison selection was just put together for the purpose here (by Peter in the first place).
And with regards to viewfinders: I'm an old dog from the days where a built-in eyelevel viewfinder was a given on a 35mm format camera.
For me the viewfinder is almost the single most important part of a camera because it is what I use to imagine and make the picture.
Luckily there are no obligations here so you can feel free to regard the display as a viewfinder.
"What is in a name?"