# BLOWN away.



## sanj (Jan 5, 2013)

http://rx1files.tumblr.com/

This is from a pocket camera!!!


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 5, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Really? At $2,800 without the $600 viewfinder I think your point is misplaced. Why wouldn't any camera with a 135 sized sensor put out 135 format IQ?



The lens alone is worth more than 1000$, so 1800$ is not too bad for a FF body.

Plus, you pay the premium for a momentarily unique product.


----------



## infared (Jan 5, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Really? At $2,800 without the $600 viewfinder I think your point is misplaced. Why wouldn't any camera with a 135 sized sensor put out 135 format IQ?


That is $3400 with viewfinder...PLUS..no battery charger $27
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/01/04/quick-tip-for-sony-rx100-and-rx1-owners-nice-external-charger-and-batteries

It is impressive IQ...I will give you that!


----------



## sanj (Jan 5, 2013)

I am talking purely of this awesome IQ from a a pocket size camera. I am very impressed.


----------



## GuyF (Jan 5, 2013)

That guru of all things photographic, Ken Rockwell , has this to say on the RX1:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/rx1.htm

Seems a bit over-priced to me but that never stopped me running out and buying the latest gizmo that I felt I needed to make life (momentarily) better.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 5, 2013)

Ken is always lolful.



> Shot in Professional ("P" mode) and Auto ISO, as I and my pro friends always shoot and as I think is the RX1's default, the RX1 does everything it can to shoot everything in most light at 1/80 and f/4.



I thought P was program mode 



> The other deal-breaker for me is second-rate color rendition. Sure, colors look fine to 99% of the general public who buy this, but to a Colorist like me for whom color is everything, the colors don't sing anywhere near as well as they do on my Nikons or Canons. In fact, my iPhone 5 even has better color rendition.
> 
> I'm an artist. When I speak of color rendition, I'm speaking of how well the camera interprets reality, not laboratory accuracy. Lab accuracy isn't relevant to me — I just need the photos to look great! right out of the camera.



That's a lot even for his standards.


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 5, 2013)

Leica makes very small cameras.


----------



## GuyF (Jan 5, 2013)

Hey Albi, be careful, he's an _artist_!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 5, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> The lens alone is worth more than 1000$, so 1800$ is not too bad for a FF body.
> 
> Plus, you pay the premium for a momentarily unique product.


How did you price a P&S lens? Its not interchangable, and, when the camera dies, so does the lens. Prices for P&S lenses are not the same as for interchangable lenses.


----------



## sanj (Jan 5, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Really? At $2,800 without the $600 viewfinder I think your point is misplaced. Why wouldn't any camera with a 135 sized sensor put out 135 format IQ?



And what do you think was my point? Just asking.


----------



## sanj (Jan 5, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



 Now I understand your confusion. Yep I meant I was blown away by this IQ from a pocket size camera. I am just very impressed by how technology has progressed. Cost factor or not. To have a camera that I can slip into my coat pocket and get this IQ does impress (blow ) ) me away. 

Is there anything else that can do this for its size?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 5, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > > The other deal-breaker for me is second-rate color rendition. Sure, colors look fine to 99% of the general public who buy this, but to a Colorist like me for whom color is everything, the colors don't sing anywhere near as well as they do on my Nikons or Canons. In fact, my iPhone 5 even has better color rendition.
> ...



Full Disclosure - I get a kick out of reading Ken. I think many take him too literally, half of his stuff is meant in a satirical way and the other half is often not too far off. Most folks _don't need_ most of the high end crap that is marketed to death every year by the big camera names. If people want to spend the high $$ because they can afford it, great. But honestly, if someone knows what they're doing, they can create great images with a rebel and a decent EF lens or two. D series bodies and L lenses aren't required. (Except for the 5Dc, that was a game changer for me and it won't break the bank either.)

That being said however, I also smirked when I was reading his comment (quoted above) about the color rendition, him being an artist, etc because I immediately thought the same thing as you: high saturation colors. However, that's his style. I don't fault him for it, that's just his thing.


----------



## infared (Jan 5, 2013)

GuyF said:


> Hey Albi, be careful, he's an _artist_!



(smirk).


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 5, 2013)

sanj said:


> http://rx1files.tumblr.com/
> 
> This is from a pocket camera!!!



I don't see it as quite a pocket camera. A big jacket pocket, maybe. Is it a LOT smaller than the rest of the FF SLRs? Yea, for sure! It's quite small, but it's still bigger than a pocket camera. Gotta fit in my jeans pocket for me to call it pocketable.


----------



## infared (Jan 5, 2013)

"Gotta fit in my jeans pocket for me to call it pocketable."....
guess it depends on who is wearing the jeans, no?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 5, 2013)

infared said:


> "Gotta fit in my jeans pocket for me to call it pocketable."....
> guess it depends on who is wearing the jeans, no?



LOL, point taken.


----------



## infared (Jan 6, 2013)

Couldn't resist!


----------



## rpt (Jan 6, 2013)

infared said:


> Couldn't resist!


 
May be do one more with cargo pants? One could get an slr in those...


----------



## Meh (Jan 6, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



He's so funny. His posts are entertaining. I donated $10 because he asked me to... feeding the growing family and all.


----------



## serendipidy (Jan 6, 2013)

rpt said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't resist!
> ...



and perhaps a 600mmL too ;D


----------



## sanj (Jan 6, 2013)

I enjoy reading Ken as well. If I filter out few things he says, there is lots to learn there. To me he is not an artist or a colorist but a very practical teacher for the masses. 

Ok point taken about pocket camera. But it IS small. And much less attention grabbing than a DSLR with similar IQ.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 6, 2013)

sanj said:


> http://rx1files.tumblr.com/
> 
> This is from a pocket camera!!!



Not only it takes amazing photos, the chassis is very solid and AF is really fast too. I'm waiting for the price to go down a bit.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jan 6, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...


I agree with you here. He's very entertaining and clearly knowledgeable. I've learnt a lot from reading his articles, as I have done at this forum. Calling him a clown and other degrding things only says more about the person doing it. I haven't seen any of those guys displaying that deep knowledge about technoology and, more importantly, photography. I guess these people fit in the Category 0 as Rockwell explains it. This forum is normally very interesting but sometimes degrade into quite childish discussions which is a shame as it is mostly driven by the same people.


----------



## serendipidy (Jan 6, 2013)

It takes a village...


----------



## sandymandy (Jan 6, 2013)

sanj said:


> Is there anything else that can do this for its size?



old film slrs or rangefinders...cheaper a lot too . p.s. a good lense makes the difference. if the photos would have been taken with a stock lens i would be impressed but not like this.


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 6, 2013)

sanj said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Maybe you were blown away because you thought that camera size equals (technical) quality. In reality, it's the sensor size that equals (technical) quality (which in this case is full frame). If someone can stick that in a phone, it would output the same quality.

As an aside, I think Canon no longer has to fear Sony, it has to fear Samsung (with its latest photo gadgetry).


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 6, 2013)

#not impressed @ 2800$.


----------



## agierke (Jan 6, 2013)

> Calling him a clown and other degrding things only says more about the person doing it. I haven't seen any of those guys displaying that deep knowledge about technoology and, more importantly, photography. I guess these people fit in the Category 0 as Rockwell explains it.



from ken rockwell himself....



> Someone with a decent portfolio is not an equipment measurbator. Someone with more cameras than decent photos just may be. People with websites teeming with technical articles but few interesting photographs probably are.
> 
> Do not under any circumstances deal with these people, talk to them, read their websites or especially ask them for photography advice.



http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

be careful to not elevate KR beyond what he is, an opinionated forum talking head with an inflated sense of his own ability and a very skewed view of the larger landscape of the world of photography.

if you glean a bit of information from him then great! despite his own declaration of being the highest standard of photographer (an artist!) in reality he falls much farther down his own delusional rating scale.

as far as the camera goes...the images from the original link looked really great. but as a camera system i'm not sure what niche it really serves that another system doesn't already serve just as good but cheaper.

its neat....but it won't find its way into my bag.


----------



## infared (Jan 6, 2013)

"Someone with a decent portfolio is not an equipment measurbator. Someone with more cameras than decent photos just may be. People with websites teeming with technical articles but few interesting photographs probably are.

Do not under any circumstances deal with these people, talk to them, read their websites or especially ask them for photography advice."


Did KR REALLY say this?


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 6, 2013)

Yeah he's an obvious mark for criticism but for people new to the craft if you can get ONE helpful piece of advice that strengthens your ability it was worth it.


----------



## agierke (Jan 6, 2013)

hit the link i provided. scroll down to level 1 or 2. read the drivel contained within.


----------



## sanj (Jan 7, 2013)

Agierke!
No no no. You need to read the whole thing:


Does poring over a microscope analyzing test images have anything to do with photographing a Joshua tree at dawn? Of course not. Even worse, time wasted concentrating on tests is time not spent learning useful aspects of photography and certainly time that could have been better spent actually photographing. Test just enough to know what your gear can do, and then get on with real photography.

They are interested solely in equipment for its own sake. They will talk your ear off for hours if you let them, but as soon as you ask to see their portfolio their bravado scurries away, or they think you want to see their cameras or stocks. You can read why cameras simply don't matter here.

Most seem to come from technical avocations, like engineering, computers and sciences. These people worry so much about trying to put numerical ratings on things that they are completely oblivious to the fact that cameras or test charts have nothing to do with the spirit of an image. Because they worry so much about measuring camera performance we have dubbed them "Measurbators." Unfortunately, many of them wander into KenRockwell.com looking for information on camera performance.

Many of them also play with audio equipment, computers or automobiles. They enjoy these toys just like their cameras for their own sake, but rarely if ever actually use them for the intended purposes.

Younger ones play video games or engage in chat rooms and web surfing. Older ones join "camera" clubs. (You should join photography clubs, but never camera clubs or any clubs that try to score art, since art is entirely subjective and cannot be scored numerically.) Likewise, these people never create anything notable with any of this other gear either, but they sure get excited by just having, getting or talking to you about it.

The one type of gear these people ignore is the only type of gear that actually helps: lighting.

Someone with a decent portfolio is not an equipment measurbator. Someone with more cameras than decent photos just may be. People with websites teeming with technical articles but few interesting photographs probably are.

Do not under any circumstances deal with these people, talk to them, read their websites or especially ask them for photography advice. To the innocent they seem like founts of knowledge, however their sick, lifeless souls would love to drag you into their own personal Hells and have your spirit forever mired in worrying about how sharp your lens is. If you start worrying about this and you'll never photograph anything again except brick walls and test charts.

These people are easy to identify. If you've read this far you've probably seen their websites. They always have lots of info about equipment, but very few real photographs. Beware of any information from any website not loaded with photography you admire.

Other people have other words for these people. This article here adds some more perspective.

I had to pull most of the photos of equipment off my site because these people were spending more time looking at my equipment than my art! The bandwidth for which I pay was being eaten up by these idiots looking at my lenses, instead of looking at the photos in my gallery which is the whole point of this site. That's why all the stupid pages like this one are in yellow, so that their eyes hurt too much to waste too much time on the nuts and bolts.

Most people who waste my time e-mailing me with technical and equipment questions through this site unfortunately belong to this unenlightened bottom group. Almost anyone who actually worries about the level they occupy belong to the bottom. Many of these folks stalk the Internet, and spend hours getting off "contributing" to technical websites and photography chat rooms like Photo.net, www.dpreview.com and photocritique.net instead of making photos. The guys here aren't too bad, and most of the Leica people here are just equipment collectors.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jan 7, 2013)

sanj said:


> Agierke!
> No no no. You need to read the whole thing:
> 
> 
> ...


You did note that he describes it as satire did you?


----------



## infared (Jan 7, 2013)

[/quote]
You did note that he describes it as satire did you?
[/quote]

Does he note the comment as satire where he describes himself as an artist?


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 7, 2013)

All this hate for KR sure starts coming off as mental masturbation. Fixation anyone? If you don't consider him relevant, perhaps not devoting so much time to him might be a wiser choice. This post was originally about a pocket camera.


----------



## sanj (Jan 7, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Yeah he's an obvious mark for criticism but for people new to the craft if you can get ONE helpful piece of advice that strengthens your ability it was worth it.



Yes.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Jan 7, 2013)

"The lens alone is worth more than 1000$, so 1800$ is not too bad for a FF body."

Who said that was a $1,000 lens?? It's got a cute Zeiss sticker on a Sony built lens, if it were real "made in Germany" Zeiss then I would expect F2 to be sharper and the colors to be a lot better, especially if it were 1K


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jan 8, 2013)

You did note that he describes it as satire did you?
[/quote]

Does he note the comment as satire where he describes himself as an artist?


[/quote]
;D nevertheless, I enjoy reading his stuff and I learn a lot, not only is he skilled, I think he's fun to read also.


----------



## bycostello (Jan 8, 2013)

some wild titles for those images!


----------

