Sony RX1 claims title to smallest full-frame camera
But is it a dream camera or priced frustratingly out of reach for most of us?
Almost nothing is technologically out of reach if you throw enough money at the problem; the real trick is doing it for the right price. So while Sony justifiably gets to check the box next to "first full-frame compact" with its Cyber-shot DSC-RX1, at a price of $2,799, I'm not sure it'll also be able to check the box next to "first commercially successful full-frame compact."
The most obvious question here is "why does full frame matter?" To recap: a full-frame sensor is the equivalent size of a frame of 35mm film. Larger sensors are generally more desirable for two main reasons: they potentially allow for larger photosites (light receptors) per pixel for a given resolution, and they provide more creative flexibility with respect to depth of field (DOF) at a given focal length. Larger photosites mean better light sensitivity, which usually means higher-quality photos. As for DOF, for a given distance from the subject, for example, f2 at 35mm will produce a more defocused background with a full-frame sensor compared than an APS-C. (Want to see the math? Here's a lovely depth-of-field calculator.)
Thus, for professional and hobbyist photographers, a pocketable camera offering most of the creative options of a high-end dSLR really is a bit of a holy grail.
But how much is that grail worth to you? The RX1 is smaller than, say, the NEX-7, but the fixed focal-length lens juts out pretty far, rendering the camera jacket-pocketable at best. As long as it's that big, a few inches more doesn't make that much of a difference -- and based on some conversations with Sony, it sounds like the company opted for a fixed lens instead of interchangeable simply to shave off those few inches. When I pointed out how I disagreed with that decision, I was treated to a Mona Lisa smile and the comment "don't rule anything out." So unless you absolutely must have the latest and greatest and have the money to toss after it -- especially since you're going to want the ILC version, too, whenever it appears -- there are real drawbacks to purchasing one.
So much for the philosophy; what's in the camera? It uses the same sensor and image-processing engine as the A99 (and NEX-VG900 camcorder); the chip has larger photo diodes and improved on-chip lenses than predecessors, and the new processor incorporates Sony's latest area-specific noise-reduction technology. The camera can output 14-bit raw files. The lens looks quite nice, with Zeiss T* coatings, a mechanical switch for macro mode (though 7.9 inches isn't awfully close) and a nine-bladed aperture. The unit we saw during the briefing wasn't made of the final materials, but it felt nice and solid, as you'd expect from its magnesium-alloy construction. It uses the same display as the RX100.
Sony's rolling out a host of accessories for the camera, including an optical (Galilean type) viewfinder, a large thumb grip (perhaps to compensate for the gripless front?) and an updated version of the existing add-on EVF that works with the new Multi Interface Shoe. Sony claims similar performance to the NEX-7, which would make it good, but not great.
While the RX1 doesn't have any direct competitors, it certainly has alternatives, such as Fujifilm's cheaper APS-C-based X100, the relatively compact but breathtakingly expensive interchangeable-lens Leica M9 or M9-P, or Sony's own excellent and far less expensive, smaller-sensored RX100. Here's how they compare:
| Fujifilm X100 | Leica M9 | Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 | Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensor (effective resolution) | 12.3mp CMOS | 18mp CCD | 24.3mp Exmor CMOS | 20.2mp Exmor CMOS |
| 23.6 x 15.8mm | 36 x 24mm | 35.8 x 23.9mm | 1-inch (13.2 x 8.8mm) | |
| Sensitivity range | ISO 100 (expanded)/200 - ISO 6400/12,800 (expanded) | ISO 160 - ISO 2500 | ISO 50 (expanded) / ISO 100 - ISO 51200 / ISO 102400 (expanded, via multishot NR) | ISO 100 - ISO 25600 |
| Lens (35mm-equivalent focal-length multiplier) | 35mm f2 1.5x | n/a 1x | 35mm f2 1x | 28-100mm f1.8-4.9 3.6x |
| Closest focus (inches) | 3.9 | n/a | 7.9 | 1.9 |
| Continuous shooting | 5fps 10 JPEG/8 raw | 2fps 8 frames | 2.5fps (5 fps with fixed exposure) n/a | 2.5fps (10fps with fixed exposure) n/a |
| Viewfinder | Optical/EVF switchable | Optical | Optional Optical, EVF | None |
| Autofocus | 49-area Contrast AF | n/a | 25-area contrast AF | 25-area contrast AF |
| Metering | 256 zones | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Shutter | 30 - 1/4000 sec; bulb to 60 min | 32 - 1/4000 sec; bulb to 4 min; 1/180 x-sync | 30-1/2000 sec; bulb | 30-1/2000 sec; bulb |
| Flash | Yes | Optional add-on | Yes | Yes |
| Hot shoe | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| LCD | 2.8-inch fixed 460,000 dots | 2.5-inch 230,000 dots | 3-inch fixed 921,600 dots (plus another set of white dots for brightness) | 3-inch fixed 921,600 dots |
| Image stabilization | None | None | Electronic (movie only) | Optical |
| Video (best quality) | 720/24p H.264 QuickTime MOV stereo | None | AVCHD: 1080/60p/50p @28Mbps; 1080/60i/50i @ 24, 17Mbps; 1080/24p/25p @ 24, 17Mbps stereo | AVCHD: 1080/60p/50p stereo |
| Manual iris and shutter in video | Iris only | n/a | Yes | Yes |
| Optical zoom while recording | n/a | n/a | n/a | Yes |
| External mic support | No | n/a | Yes | No |
| Battery life (CIPA rating) | 300 shots | n/a | 270 shots | 330 shots |
| Dimensions (WHD, inches) | 5.0 x 2.9 x 2.1 | 5.5 x 3.1 x 1.5 | 4.5 x 2.6 x 2.8 | 4.0 x 2.4 x 1.4 |
| Weight (ounces) | 15.8 | 20.6 | 17 (est) | 8.5 (est) |
| Mfr. Price | $1,195.95 | $6995 (est) | $2799 | $649.99 |
| Availability | March 2011 | October 2009 | November 2012 | July 2012 |
If the X100 is the poor man's Leica, than the RX1 looks like the middle-class man's Leica. Do I think Sony can achieve great photo quality with it? Yes; all the pieces are there. And it looks especially yummy if you like street shooting. Do I want to try it? Hell yeah. But for $2,799, especially for a first-generation model, as a potential buyer I'd expect a little more. Wi- Fi and/or geotagging support would have been nice, for example. Then again, while it'll never be a mass-market product, unless there's some showstopper production or operational issue, I suspect enough people will buy it to have made it worth Sony's while.