Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review: A pricey slice of heaven

Is the full-frame Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 a great camera? Sure it is. But that's almost beside the point; at about $2,800, the real question becomes, "Is it $1,500 better than its APS-C competitors"? Despite the squirming of my inner budgeteer, I have to say that the answer is a qualified yes.

8.0

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1

The Good

Great photo and good video quality in a camera with a nicely functional and fluid shooting design are the <b>Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1</b>'s highlights.

The Bad

It lacks a viewfinder, autofocus is sluggish, and there's no focus peaking in video mode.

The Bottom Line

With a terrific lens and a great full-frame sensor, the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 delivers the best photos we've seen from a fixed-lens camera. But that doesn't come cheap.

Qualified, because there are things about this camera that drive me a little nuts. It lacks a built-in viewfinder; the macro ring, focus mode switch, and record button are hard to manipulate, especially with gloves on; the lens requires endless rotations for manual focus; the autofocus is inconsistent and frustrating at times; there's no peaking during video shooting; and the SD card shouldn't be in the battery compartment. But the stellar image quality, awesome lens, tanklike build and functional, attractive design compensate for its deficiencies enough that I have to say, if you've got the money, and photo quality is more important than any other consideration, it's worth it. (I tested the Fujifilm X100S at the same time and really the perfect camera would be a mashup of the two.)

While the RX1 doesn't have any direct competitors, there certainly are cheaper APS-C-based alternatives, such as the Fujifilm X100S, the Leica X2, and new Nikon Coolpix A. There's also the relatively compact but seriously expensive interchangeable-lens Leica M9 or M9-P, or Sony's own excellent and far less expensive but smaller-sensored Cyber-shot DSC-RX100. Sony emphasizes that it sees Leica as making its chief competitors for this camera, which, given that Leica doesn't offer a full-frame fixed-lens compact, is a fairly safe way to position it. If Leica did offer a direct competitor...well, that would be very interesting.

To recap why full-frame makes a difference: 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 and better ability to resolve detail, which usually means higher-quality photos. As for DOF, for a given distance from the subject, f2 at 35mm for example, you'll get a more defocused background with a full-frame sensor than with an APS-C. (Want to see the math? Here's a lovely depth-of-field calculator.)

Image quality
The photos that emerge from the RX1 are beautiful, and the camera delivers that right up through ISO 1600. The RX1 uses the same sensor and image-processing engine as the SLT-A99 (and NEX-VG900 camcorder); the chip has larger photo diodes than predecessors and improved on-chip lenses, and the new processor incorporates Sony's latest area-specific noise-reduction technology.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 photo samples

+12 More

See all photos

The combination of the full-frame sensor, great lens, and solid JPEG processing delivers extremely clean photos up through ISO 800, very good at ISO 1600, and reasonably good at ISO 3200. I wouldn't recommend shooting ISO 6400 or above in JPEG. You can gain some noise and exposure latitude shooting raw above ISO 1600, and I had some raw images that were quite usable as high as ISO 12800.

But the real secret to the RX1's stellar photo quality is the Zeiss T*-coated (T-star) lens. It's got great edge-to-edge sharpness and f2 looks as sharp as f8; f22 is a little softer than the rest of the range, but not seriously so. The lens has a nine-bladed aperture which produces gorgeous bokeh, and the combination of intelligent noise processing and the lens produces a lovely gradual transition from in focus to out, even in midrange-ISO-sensitivity shots. There's the usual wide-angle distortion you'd expect from a 35mm lens, but even so there's only a hair of resulting chromatic aberration in the corners at f2.

Click to download

ISO 100

ISO 1600

ISO 6400

It's capable of excellent auto white balance under challenging conditions, but like most Sony cameras it defaults to a color profile (Creative Style) that shifts the hues annoyingly. As usual, switching to the Neutral Creative Style fixes that.

Video looks relatively sharp with nice tonality. There's a little bit of moire and rainbows under tough conditions -- like layers of weaves -- and aliasing on edges, especially at midrange-to-high ISO sensitivities.

Performance
Performance is mixed, though there's less to complain about if you manually focus than if you rely on autofocus -- less, but not nothing. Time to power on, focus, expose, and shoot runs 2.3 seconds. That's thanks to a sluggish lens and the necessity of waiting until the camera is fully ready before touching the shutter (with many cameras you can hold the shutter down while powering up). It takes 0.7 second to focus, expose, and shoot in both bright and dim conditions; that's relatively slow for an expensive camera, and mostly occurs because the AF system hunts excessively before locking (I smell a firmware upgrade in the future). On the other hand, shot-to-shot time is very good, only 0.3 second for either JPEG or raw; it increases to about 1.7 seconds with the flash enabled. It can maintain a burst of 2.6fps for about 17 raw shots or 22 JPEG, after which it slows considerably. Those are good runs, but not a terrific speed.

Continuous autofocus in video operates quietly but tends to pulse, which isn't unusual. Manual focus for video has its own drawback, unfortunately, detailed below.

If you use manual focus most of the time, the sluggish autofocus doesn't matter. However, it takes at least five partial rotations of the lens ring -- my hand at least can't rotate the ring 360 degrees in one movement -- to go from one focus extreme to the other, and in practice always took more rotations than I felt comfortable with. This is a tradeoff for the fully mechanical lens operation rather than the full or partial servo-mechanical that's found on other cameras. So, not a criticism as much as a warning.

The battery life is rated as pretty short, and seems even shorter with the optional EVF attached. I operated predominantly with the back display set to standard quality instead of high in order to conserve charge, and didn't notice an appreciable difference in the display. (It uses the same display as the RX100.) The RX1 uses USB battery charging, about which I have mixed feelings. It doesn't work with every USB charger -- for instance, it doesn't work with my LG phone charger but it does with a Samsung charger -- so it doesn't always save you from carrying an extra piece of equipment. Plus, since the battery life is short, USB charging makes it difficult to use the camera while charging a spare. You can buy an optional external charger, though.

Design and features
Though reasonably compact, especially for a full-frame camera, the RX1 is no lightweight; at over a pound, it weighs almost as much as some consumer dSLRs. Of course, that's because it's tanklike, made of magnesium alloy. Some weatherproofing would have been nice for the money, though. There's a rubberized layer on the front and back to improve grippability, but a real outset grip would make it a little more comfortable to hold. Sony offers an optional -- and at $250, pretty expensive -- thumb grip (which I didn't get to try), but it looks like the grip covers both the playback button and adjustment dial.

The top of the camera has large exposure-compensation and mode dials, the latter with the usual manual, semimanual, and automatic modes, including a dedicated movie mode and three custom settings slots. The shutter button has an old-fashioned threaded remote release, and there's a small programmable button nearby. The hot shoe uses Sony's updated multi-interface connection; the pop-up flash doesn't tilt, unfortunately.

On the back, there's an adjustment dial at the top as well as a physically NEX-like programmable thumb dial, plus an AE-lock button and Fn button to pull up all the most frequently needed shooting settings; including some that don't really belong on a camera of this class, like soft Skin Effect, Smile/Face detection, and auto portrait framing. (I suppose you could operate the camera in full automatic if you really want to, but if that's your plan buy an RX100 instead and save the money.) Embedded on the right side is a tiny recessed record button that is difficult to operate under normal conditions and even harder with cold hands or gloves.

The lens has three rings on it: a manual aperture ring with one-third stop demarcations from f2 through f22; a ring with the choice between two focus distances, 0.2m - 0.35m and 0.3m through infinity; and a focus ring. I love the feel of the aperture ring -- it has just the right tensioning and produces the perfect click feel as you rotate through the stops. (It'd be really cool if Sony could figure out a way to make it feel just a little different as you passed through the full stops compared with the third stops.) I wish the lens could focus closer than 7.9 inches, though, and found myself cursing a bit because I was just outside one focus range or the other.

A small, moderately difficult-to-control switch on the front selects between auto, manual, and Sony's DMF (manual focus with automatic prefocus on partial shutter press) focus modes. The camera has tracking autofocus as well, which works out to the edges of the scene.

Despite the aperture ring, from an operational perspective, Sony definitely takes a modern approach compared with the X100S' or X2's completely retro ideal. (The latter two cameras have a shutter-speed dial as well as an aperture dial instead of a mode dial.) So if you're looking for an old-fashioned shooting experience, this isn't your camera; functionally, it has the same interface as Sony's SLT dSLR-type models.

I also tested the expensive EVF -- the optional optical viewfinder is even more costly, if you can believe it -- and have to admit that it's great, if huge. It's especially nice for shooting video. Speaking of video, you can shoot using full or partially manual controls or program. But there's no manual-focus peaking (edge highlighting) in movie mode, which is nuts. I don't mean that there's no peaking while you're shooting. If you're in the movie mode, which you must be in to adjust aperture or shutter speed, there's no peaking.

While there's a full set of manual shooting features, there's nothing above and beyond that, such as wireless connectivity or geotagging. Factoring in the lack of any type of built-in viewfinder, and I find the feature set a bit lackluster for the price; in fact, it would be kind of lackluster at $1,000 less.

Conclusion
If you're looking for the best photo quality you can get in a unibody digital camera, this is it. The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 delivers a more natural-looking sharpness than even the OLPF-free X-Trans sensor of the Fujifilm X100S and based on my preliminary testing, better color. Plus, the Zeiss lens blows away the Fujifilm's (I haven't seen the Leica's or Nikon's yet). While I'm not crazy about the slowish performance, it's pretty typical for these types of cameras, regardless of price segment.

That said, if you want a great "compact" and still want money for food, unless you're really picky the APS-C models are still an excellent choice.

Shooting speed (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)

Fujifilm X100S

1.5

1

1

0.7

0.6

2.3

0.3

0.3

0.7

0.7