The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Rx1r2

"I'm sure it's a nice camera; why anyone wants one remains a mystery to me."

One reason that tempts me is file consistency, between a larger camera and a smaller one that's a constant companion. Similarly, someone might choose an M240 for purposeful shooting, and Leica Q as a carry-around.

I have colleagues who've been using both D800e and A7r with same/similar sensors, so they can combine purposeful shooting and 'found images' in the same portfolio. I did pretty much the same thing with M9 and M-E, one in a bag with alternate lenses for landscapes, and the other with a small 40 Cron, to carry most of the time. Now that I use A7rII more than Leica, I'd like my carry-around camera to have the same sensor.

Maybe I'm fussy about this, but I've tried combining images from different digital bodies in the same projects/portfolios, and I've either had to do a lot of PS work, or I've ended up with differences in tone/rendering that I'd rather not see. Similarly, in years gone by, I wouldn't combine TX and PX images in the same project/portfolio. Just a personal preference, but not a mystery.

Kirk
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Kirk I agree that is one justification I have is it would match my A7rII plus it does serve as a backup if the crap hit the fan. I may still have a cheap 35 for the A7rII but I would sell my 35 1.4 to help fund . It's the extra 2 k that stops me but even as a business case scenario it's a 50 percent not a bad idea. If it was 2400-2700 price tag, I would consider it more. Now that was the Pro talk. Personally I could see taking it everywhere I go and love to have it. But I'm back to I need other stuff more.
 

Lucille

New member
I just might buy 2 of them. :clap:


Good thing I didn't waste my money on one of those crappy Batis lenses that don't exist. :banghead:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
One reason that tempts me is file consistency, between a larger camera and a smaller one that's a constant companion. Similarly, someone might choose an M240 for purposeful shooting, and Leica Q as a carry-around.
Such a thing does not exist here in Sony land. There is no NEX that is consistent with the FF NEX' that were actually introduced AFTER the RX1.

Even among the A7 series, every cam outputs different files despite all having crunched up lossy files.

A P&S cybershot ("stand alone") can accompany any other camera or just be a stand alone.

The RX2R1 does have a flash shoe. So, use of Nissin (not Sony) flashes are possible, although not all the time.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Here's a compact full-frame camera with eye level finder and classic lines that I won't be paying for until next spring:

I don't know about you guys, but I am not finding $3300 in change beneath my sofa cushions. Of course it might help if I owned a sofa (details).
I am looking for a titanium Contax T equivalent (size wise). The Panasonic GM5, Samsung NX mini (no finder but they are about the same price of an Oly RD1) are contenders. No need for a sofa. :D
 

bipbip

Member
Wouldn't it be $2500 cheaper just to start with a pre-cropped APS-C camera?
You're quite right and I did. I've had my a6000 for almost a year and a half now and it's the camera I most use - I still have the old NEX-6 that preceded it but the a6000 in my opinion is better, of course.
The thing is, coming from full-frame; Nikon F3, D700, I do miss the shallow depth of field. Ah well, I suppose it's not really the rx1rII that I pine for, rather the A7RII ...
 

Viramati

Member
I will go with whoever produces the camera that fits my needs and that's why at the moment I have the Leica Q and A7rII. The RX1rII is obviously a great camera but it's not for me
 

raist3d

Well-known member
It does I believe. They state clear/smart zoom of 1.4x, 2x and digital zoom of 4x, 6.2x & 8x (but you could just crop in post anyway).

I do like the sound of the new 1:1 and 4:3 image ratios too.

Ok, that's it, I'm putting this thread on ignore ... :ROTFL:
I am also trying to find info on the crop modes but looks like they only allow this when the camera is set to JPEG. What I would love is that the live view/preview/field of view changes to the crop you select even if the camera records the full RAW file.

The only camera I see doing this right around is the Ricoh GR. This could be a deal breaker for me.

- Ricardo

- - - Updated - - -

Wouldn't it be $2500 cheaper just to start with a pre-cropped APS-C camera?
Not if you want the 35/42mp *and* the crop mode.

- Ricardo
 

Annna T

Active member
I am also trying to find info on the crop modes but looks like they only allow this when the camera is set to JPEG. What I would love is that the live view/preview/field of view changes to the crop you select even if the camera records the full RAW file.

The only camera I see doing this right around is the Ricoh GR. This could be a deal breaker for me.

- Ricardo

- - - Updated - - -


Not if you want the 35/42mp *and* the crop mode.

- Ricardo
I think (?) that if you shoot raws plus jpegs, you may get the cropped image in the VF and a full raw, with the crop frame that you can either confirm or change although this may depends upon the raw converter used), then discard the jpeg.

BTW : the E-M5 does this too.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Honestly you can be a fanboy of any brand but the end of day Sony is after market share and they are extremely agressive about it. ...
I'm not really a fanboy of any brand. What benefit to me is the notion that Sony "is after market share and extremely aggressive about it"? I can't see that Sony aggressively obtaining some fancy numbers in market share affects my photography at all.

I guess if you're after producing poster-sized prints most of the time, the hyper-pixel-count has some benefit. But, you're not going to get the coupling of FoV and DoF that you do with a medium format capture. It's still just going to be a 35mm camera's digital image, albeit at very high resolution.

I hope all of you who are buying one find it terrific. I'll look forward to seeing all the fantastic photographs, while I sit back on the sidelines and keep doing my thing. :watch:

G
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
You're quite right and I did. I've had my a6000 for almost a year and a half now and it's the camera I most use - I still have the old NEX-6 that preceded it but the a6000 in my opinion is better, of course.
The thing is, coming from full-frame; Nikon F3, D700, I do miss the shallow depth of field. Ah well, I suppose it's not really the rx1rII that I pine for, rather the A7RII ...
I'm not really a fanboy of any brand. What benefit to me is the notion that Sony "is after market share and extremely aggressive about it"? I can't see that Sony aggressively obtaining some fancy numbers in market share affects my photography at all.

I guess if you're after producing poster-sized prints most of the time, the hyper-pixel-count has some benefit. But, you're not going to get the coupling of FoV and DoF that you do with a medium format capture. It's still just going to be a 35mm camera's digital image, albeit at very high resolution.

I hope all of you who are buying one find it terrific. I'll look forward to seeing all the fantastic photographs, while I sit back on the sidelines and keep doing my thing. :watch:

G

Sorry but that's where your wrong. Without companies going after market share than whatever camera your shooting may not exist. It's all related to market share and stock holder value be it Leica, Nikon, canon or whomever. It's about selling product. That's the business end of it. It's directly related to the camera you have. otherwise it may never have been produced in the first place. You may think it does not effect you but the business end dictates what is made or not.

You tend to think YOU which is fine but this industry is based on market share or it may never get made.

I understand the YOU part of it because we all make our choices on what works for you. Key word is choices and without market share driven most of this technology and brand models might never get made.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Guy, It is an ever shrinking market.

The RX1 (new because not many bought them) can now be bought for 1400 Euros instead of the 3500 at its debut.

RX2R1 will be ~2000 in a few months.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
I suspect Leica is going to keep producing Leica cameras, not Sonys. ]'-)

Absolutely zero interest in the "Rx1r2" for me, regardless of price. I'm sure it's a nice camera; why anyone wants one remains a mystery to me.

G
Horse for courses. What floats your boat may not float mine and vice versa. Personally, for what I want a camera to do it is near perfect on paper which is why I want one. Probably not the same as what you want. Sometimes our choices may coincide but that really isn't of great interest.

I just might buy 2 of them. :clap:


Good thing I didn't waste my money on one of those crappy Batis lenses that don't exist. :banghead:
I really did 'LOL' to this. I've so far pre-ordered and cancelled the Batis 25 twice. I'm not convinced there has ever been any supply here in the UK. Zeiss is becoming very Leica-like in this regard. Announce a product and you may get one in 6-9 months if the moon, stars and horoscope are in alignment.

LouisB
 

algrove

Well-known member
I am also trying to find info on the crop modes but looks like they only allow this when the camera is set to JPEG. What I would love is that the live view/preview/field of view changes to the crop you select even if the camera records the full RAW file.

The only camera I see doing this right around is the Ricoh GR. This could be a deal breaker for me.

- Ricardo

- - - Updated - - -

Not if you want the 35/42mp *and* the crop mode.

- Ricardo
AFA the Leica Q, it has crop modes like FF 24Mp for 28mm, 15MP for 35mm and 8MP for 50mm. If you change your mind later, one can revert back to the full 24MP 28mm image.
 
Thank god this has a 35mm lens (my least favorite focal length). I just might be able to resist.

The Leica Q, on the other hand, with its lovely 28mm lens, continues to sing its siren song. :cry:
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Sorry but that's where your wrong. Without companies going after market share than whatever camera your shooting may not exist. It's all related to market share and stock holder value be it Leica, Nikon, canon or whomever. It's about selling product. That's the business end of it. It's directly related to the camera you have. otherwise it may never have been produced in the first place. You may think it does not effect you but the business end dictates what is made or not.
I'm a photographer. If there's only one camera made in the world, I'll use that. If there are none, I'd either be making my own or there wouldn't be photography for me to be a photographer and the question would be moot.

Leica, Nikon, Canon... They all make cameras because they're camera manufacturers. Nikon could have stopped with the F3 and Leica with the M4-P, and that would have been just fine by me. Then all this digital stuff came about.

Leica has continued to refine their camera products model after model. Are they shooting to take over the industry on market share? I strongly doubt it. They're looking to make a high quality camera and top notch lenses, from which they expect to make a sensible profit. I suspect that Nikon is similar.

Companies like Sony, if their goal is to dominate the market, will be the undoing of photography. Why? Because they're not really focused on the production of improved cameras to create improved photographs so much as on the output of product to generate more money ... for them, not photographers or photography. They need to sell, sell, sell more and more of them to keep the hamster wheel going. (And they're markedly not doing very well at that in the past couple of years...)

It's called "financialization" and has destroyed other businesses already. Take airlines ... None give a damn anymore about the quality of the passengers' flying experience, they're more concerned with the hedging of fuel, the manipulation of holdings, and stuffing planes as full as possible with passenger cattle to maximize profits ... As a result, many travelers now fly less than they might.

Is this what you prefer to happen in photographic equipment? More and more "hot features" every three months rather than persistent, incremental development to make the equipment you use work more seamlessly, more effectively, and make your work as a photographer better, more productive, more nuanced and expressive? Oh, some of the 'hot new fearures' may help, for sure, but with every round of these things I hear many of the same complaints iterated over, and over, and over again, generation after generation of latest hot camera.

I'm truly tired of it all.

G
 
Top