Sony RX1 First Impressions
Edit 15/12/2012: more info on remote flash sync at 1/2000th added with pic.
Having parted with my Leica M9 a while back, I've been working hard on my withdrawal symptoms but have been unable to stay away from sites like Steve Huff's and all the other camera info websites out there. The M9 with a Zeiss 2/50 was just beautiful. The pictures I took with it are amongst my most memorable, largely because of how involving it is to take a picture with that camera, but also because the image quality was astounding. I've been hankering for a small, very high quality camera ever since.
When the Sony RX1 was announced my gear acquisition syndrome (G.A.S.) flared up again. I had been keeping it under fairly under control, with only the odd lapse (Canon 24 1.4 for example), but the RX1 with its full frame sensor, compact size and Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 lens specs started getting under my skin.
Now there's nothing I'd like more than a new Leica M and 3 Summilux lenses (I'd have a 24, 50 and 75 I think). However, that's a very large amount of money. A very very large amount of money. Given that it's unlikely that I'll have that amount of money in the near future, particularly if I keep buying other stuff, the RX1 looked like an excellent alternative to give superb image quality in a small package.
Regular readers will know that I have an Olympus OM-D which I like a lot. It has filled the small camera slot in my kit list for a while now, and I have a nice selection of lenses to go with it. It is a super little camera, and does remote duty at football and rugby games as well as at a lot of the events I photograph. It is also my primary travel camera and has seen duty in Iceland and the Faroe Islands recently.
So, with the very nice image quality, small size and multiple lens options, why add an RX1 as well? That is obviously a very good question, and one which I was struggling quite hard to answer when standing in Park Cameras in Burgess Hill with their first and only RX1 in my hand with my name on the box. This really was a tricky purchase.
Basically, I want another Leica M but know I can't afford it. I've been looking at second hand M9s but they are still lurking around the £3k mark. Add in the cost of just one lens, let's say a 35mm Summicron and you're quickly up above £5k. Add into that all the flaws with the M9, from it's extremely unpredictable white balance to the very noisy sensor, and the card lockups that I had, and that's £5k for a flawed (but very nice) piece of kit. The only solution would be to hold out for the new Leica M, which is £5k before you put a lens on it, so say £7k with a 35mm Summicron.Seeing as I'd be unlikely to be able to afford another lens for a while, if I bought another Leica I'd would have, as before, a full frame compact(ish) camera with one lens on it. And that's exactly what the RX1 is. OK, so it doesn't have a rangefinder, manual focus etc, but it's less than half the price and has a sensor and lens specifically matched to perform extremely well together.
And that's why I was standing in Park Cameras having a fondle of the little beast (and nothing to do with Steve Huff's glowing reviews, honest). I could have gone for full frame goodness with a used Canon 5D II which was going for £1200 in their second hand display case, but it is just too big and bulky with a lens on for a take anywhere pocketable camera (even the M9 is too big for that). The RX1 is a teeny little thing by comparison. I was a bit worried about the lens sticking out a long way, but the camera is no deeper than my OM-D with a Panasonic 20mm lens on it. The RX1 also has a lower profile compared to the OM-D due to the latter's sticky up viewfinder bulge on the top. So, a full frame camera which is a bit smaller than the Olympus, and a lot smaller than my Canon 1D bodies. Yum.And the RX1 is beautifully built. It has a density to it which the Fuji X-Pro1 for example, doesn't have. The X-Pro1 feels like a toy by comparison - lightweight and plasticky. Dare I say it, the RX1 feels like my M9 did, cold and metallic to the touch, solid, with a reassuring weight. The dials have no slack in them. Everything is very precise. The aperture ring is amazing, and the focus ring feels smooth as though it's running in syrup. A nice on-off switch at the top is quite Leica-esque as well and much easier than the one on the OM-D.Compared to the OM-D, the other controls are much nicer. My best description of the OM-D is "fiddly". From the teeny, squishy buttons to the highly complex menu, it is a bit of a pain to use which is the biggest turn-off for me. Here's a scientifically analysed hierarchy of fiddliness from some cameras I've owned from not fiddly to very fiddly:Leica M9 > Sony RX1 > Canon 1DIV > Olympus OM-DThe Sony's menus are clear enough, easier than the myriad of options on the OM-D, but still have a bunch of fuff in there like preferred face detection and smile detection for example. Thankfully you can turn them off and restrict the display screen complexity significantly. The buttons are customisable so I've got it set up how I like it using the rear dial to get drive, metering and autofocus options in easy reach, and the top "C" button was already set to ISO out of the box which is nice.
On to usability. Firstly, the OM-D focuses more quickly. The RX1 seems to hesitate briefly before nailing the focus whereas the OM-D just grabs it straight away. It's not much of a delay, but it's there. However, I'd venture that it's a lot faster than me trying to focus my M9 wide open. The RX1's lens-based aperture ring is simplicity itself and I do like being able to just glance at the top of the camera to see what aperture I'm on. I wish the same could be said for the shutter speed - this camera is crying out for a shutter speed dial on the top plate like the Leica or X-Pro1. A nested shutter speed and exposure compensation dial would be very nice indeed, or put the shutter speed dial on the left of the top plate instead of the flash (more of which later). Instead, you adjust the shutter speed with the rear control dial (the one at the top, just below the top plate). Whilst adjustment is simple, you do lose that immediacy you have with a "proper" shutter speed dial on the to of the camera.
Aside from that, the RX1 is simple enough to use. The shutter button is silky smooth and all the other buttons feel very nice. The exposure compensation dial is very positive and I can't really see it being turned accidentally as others have reported as it isn't loose or vague in any way and it takes a decent bit of force to turn it.Focus can be set to several options. I usually use centre point only on my 1D bodies, so I have the RX1 set up to single point focusing, and a quick press of the centre "OK" button in the rear dial allows you to move the focus point around. I did fiddle with face detection and subject tracking which seem to work fine but I don't see myself using them much personally (though they would be pretty cool for street photography I imagine).The lack of a viewfinder has attracted a lot of comment in the blogs. I do like the viewfinder on the OM-D and find myself using it a lot rather than using the rear screen. I don't mind not having one, but to have one available just helps especially in bright light. I think Sony should have done away with the inbuilt flash, which I'm never likely to use, raised the top plate a bit and put an electronic viewfinder in the space the flash currently occupies. I can't see many people who have shelled out big money for this camera wanting to use a little harsh pop up flash anyway. And why would you, with a very high ISO capability and and an f/2 lens, surely there is enough capability to take pictures in almost any light. So, for me the flash is redundant and an electronic viewfinder would have been a much better option, though I guess the price would have been somewhat higher as a result.I may investigate the clip on electonic viewfinder once they become available and see what I think. There's no doubt it would be a useful addition although it's pricey (£500 or so) and adds bulk. In the meantime I'm not overly fazed by using just the rear screen. Yes, it "feels" a bit odd with such an expensive camera, but the screen is excellent and perfectly usable, albeit not tilting like the OM-D's.
Another interesting feature of the RX1 is it's ability to sync remote flash up to 1/2000th of a second at f/2. Above is a direct sunlight self portrait with 4 flashes shooting through an umbrella camera left triggered by a Pocket Wizard Plus II on the RX1. The sun is coming from the right side (see shadow on my neck). There's a Canon 580 EXII that is triggered by the remote PW, and 3 Yongnuo flashes in slave mode which pop when the 580 goes off. This capability will be very interesting to explore when shooting with flash outdoors in sunny conditions. You cant get the shutter speed up above 1/2000th at f/2. Once you go to f/4 you can get to 1/3200th and at f/5.6 you can get to 1/4000th. I didn't manage to get the remote flash to fire at 1/3200th or above for some reason. I'll play with this more extensively in the near future.The RX1 is also amazingly quiet. The shutter makes almost no noise at all. I can barely hear it when holding the camera in front of me - it makes a tiny "snick" that you almost have to hold the camera to your ear to hear. It is much quieter than the OM-D would you believe, and definitely quieter than an M9. My Canon 1DIV sounds like a machine gun by comparison.
Lastly, image quality. Well, it's early days yet and I've only had a time to shoot a few brief pictures as you've seen above. Initial impressions are very good even from some "snaps". I'll happily admit that I want shallow depth of field, and the RX1 delivers on that very well as you'd expect from a full frame with a 35 f/2 lens, and in a much smaller package than a 5D with a 35 L lens, and much cheaper than a Leica M with a 35 Summicron.Sharpness and clarity is top notch. I've been longing for the look that I got from my M9 and 2/50 Zeiss Planar lens and it looks like the RX1 can deliver on this. I'm talking about a sort of "sparkliness" that exists within the pictures which I think others may refer to as "micro-contrast". Levels of detail in the in-focus areas are very impressive and it looks like the lens and the body are very well matched together. It is also nice to know that I won't have any dust problems or sensor/lens alignment problems either.
So in summary, I think it's very possible I'll fall in love with this little camera. From a couple of days use, my initial reticence whilst reaching for my credit card in Park Cameras has fallen away. It has some drawbacks which will be more important to some people than others. Yes, it is expensive, but compared to what? I was seriously eyeing up a used M9 and 35 Summicron which would have been £5k so the RX1 looks like a bargain by comparison. Using "man logic" I've actually saved myself about £2400 which I can now spend on something else!It's difficult to compare though it as there's nothing out there like it. It's much cheaper than a Leica combo, has better image quality than an OM-D and 20 1.7, would blow away a Leica M9 from an ISO perspective, is far smaller than my Canon 1D bodies, and smaller/lighter than a 5D. It's fixed lens only so you're stuck with 35mm (not a bad thing), and therefore lose flexibility, but perhaps this increases creativity.I'm lucky in that I've had a good few months lately and have the spare cash to buy an RX1. It will be the camera that goes everywhere with me. I'll happily admit that it's a luxury as my OM-D and lenses can do a very good job (and will continue to do so) as a travel/utility camera. It fills the void that my M9 left. People will say that it'll depreciate, which I'm sure it will as all digital cameras do. You only have to look at the M9 to see the depreciation effect (Leica lenses excepted of course). If you're happy to accept that, and want an amazing, compact and delightful camera then the RX1 sets a new benchmark.