# Sony rx1 or Canon 6d with sigma 35mm 1.4



## roblewisphotoco (Jan 2, 2013)

Have to update my kit . I can only afford one camera I am a street photographer , and like to get in close so would love the size of the rx1 but when you have one camera and have a few canon lenses the flexibility of the Canon makes more sense . Head over heart ? Any opinion's


----------



## Derrel (Jan 2, 2013)

Yeah...I'd probably go with the 6D myself...just for the versatility of the Canon lens line, as well as the Canon's ability to use so many "other" mount lenses via adapter....Nikon, Olympus OM, m42, and so on...


----------



## gsgary (Jan 2, 2013)

Sony, if auto focus can be turned off and focus can be set to 10 feet,F8-11 if not Canon, i use my M4 for street @ 10 feet, F8 and shutter speed to suit light conditions


----------



## usayit (Jan 2, 2013)

At this moment, I'd probably go with the Sony RX1.  But it would actually be more expensive as I would require the EVF attachment for it to be usable.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 2, 2013)

The RX1 is not the camera you are looking for...


----------



## gsgary (Jan 2, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> The RX1 is not the camera you are looking for...



Leica Monochrom would be my choice if i had the money


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 2, 2013)

gsgary said:
			
		

> Leica Monochrom would be my choice if i had the money



If I had that kind of money... Instead of buying a Leica... I would probably flush a 3rd of it down a toilet in America. Then use a 3rd of it to get to Australia. After that I would flush the other 3rd down an Australian toilet to see if it went in the other direction. Then I would be out of money and in a foreign country. 

Shiiiiiiite...


----------



## gsgary (Jan 2, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My friend has am M9, M9p, M Monochrom, and most from the Leica 1 right throught the film range, he has 2 MP  film cameras one has never been used keeps it boxed


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 2, 2013)

gsgary said:
			
		

> My friend has am M9, M9p, M Monochrom, and most from the Leica 1 right throught the film range, he has 2 MP  film cameras one has never been used keeps it boxed



Think about all that money he could have spent doing cool stuff!


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 2, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just think about all the toilets he could have flushed in all the different locations on the planet with _that_ amount of money.  He could flush a few toilets at the equator to see if there's no swirl at all.

:mrgreen:


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 2, 2013)

TCampbell said:
			
		

> Just think about all the toilets he could have flushed in all the different locations on the planet with that amount of money.  He could flush a few toilets at the equator to see if there's no swirl at all.
> 
> :mrgreen:



I know right!!?!


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 2, 2013)

Hmm, 
Leica M + 35mm f2.0 = $10,000.00
Sony RX1 (35mm f2.0) = $2800.00

Have you considered one of the other mirrorless cameras (Sony NEX, Olympus E ...) ?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 2, 2013)

dxqcanada said:
			
		

> Hmm,
> Leica M + 35mm f2.0 = $10,000.00
> Sony RX1 (35mm f2.0) = $2800.00
> 
> Have you considered one of the other mirrorless cameras (Sony NEX, Olympus E ...) ?



The difference between the Leica and the Sony is the interchangeable lenses, and not being stuck with a tiny little 35/2 for the duration of the life of that FULL FRAME SENSOR in the Sony. Seems silly.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 2, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> ... being stuck with a tiny little 35/2 for the duration of the life of that FULL FRAME SENSOR in the Sony. Seems silly.



Yes ... and no.
gsgary's friend would have the Sony as a cheap pocket camera ... I think that is the target audience for the RX1 (though I would like one also).


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 2, 2013)

dxqcanada said:
			
		

> Yes ... and no.
> gsgary's friend would have the Sony as a cheap pocket camera ... I think that is the target audience for the RX1 (though I would like one also).



Cheap pocket camera??? At $2,800? 

It's about as much of a pocket camera as the X1 IMO.


----------



## usayit (Jan 2, 2013)

There were some really successful fixed lens film cameras back in the day...  don't really understand the contempt for one now.  Of course, its a niche camera but it doesn't necessarily translate to a failed one.

A fixed lens camera has some distinct advantages that cannot be realized in a system that has its designs rooted in an interchangeable lens mount.  Often this means a leaf shutter for example.

RX1 specifically has produced some impressive samples online....   It sync's up to 1/4000th ... what's the sync speed of the Canon?



I'm considering one but it would mean passing up on a 35mm lens I've been eyeing.  With appropriate savings, I can see owning two of such type of camera: 35mm and 50mm flavors.




I sense Tyler's maturity towards the RX1 has more to do with the Sony branding than the actually design.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 2, 2013)

usayit said:
			
		

> A fixed lens camera has some distinct advantages that cannot be realized in a system that has its designs rooted in an interchangeable lens mount.



Well, I trust that you can tell me the advantages... Since you've had experience with both I'd reckon. I would be interested to learn the advantages Mr. Sayit.


----------



## usayit (Jan 2, 2013)

You can look it up if you can get pass your already formulated preconceived notions and biases.

Here's two to get you started.

1) Leaf Shutter (hint: I already mentioned max sync speed)
2) Sonnar optical design.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 2, 2013)

usayit said:
			
		

> You can look it up if you can get pass your already formulated preconceived notions and biases.
> 
> Here's two to get you started.
> 
> ...



I agree that the leaf shutter is nice, but it's only attainable with a 35mm f/2 lens on a full frame sensor? Kind of wide for most work that would involve syncing a lot of flashes at a fast shutter speed. 

Sonnar optical design means very little to me. It was designed to be small and offer a fast aperture. The 28/1.8 sonnar is neither small nor blazingly fast. Are there better examples of to why this would be a benefit?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 2, 2013)

I would do the 6D myself..That siggy 35 is insane.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 2, 2013)

I personally would like an optically great 35mm lens on a full frame compact camera ... hmm.
One of the reason's I have an Olympus XA (and have had numerous other cameras with fixed lenses).
I walk around with a 24mm on my APS-C most of the time.

I can see what usayit is saying ... and I can see what you are saying ... but the target audience for the Sony RX1 is not you.
usayit  and I (if I could afford it) would buy this camera because of the fixed  leaf shutter lens (and other properties), which to many photographers  does not make any sense and a waste of money. Difficult to explain ...  though usayit may attempt to do so.


----------



## usayit (Jan 2, 2013)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> I agree that the leaf shutter is nice, but it's only attainable with a 35mm f/2 lens on a full frame sensor? Kind of wide for most work that would involve syncing a lot of flashes at a fast shutter speed.
> 
> Sonnar optical design means very little to me. It was designed to be small and offer a fast aperture. The 28/1.8 sonnar is neither small nor blazingly fast. Are there better examples of to why this would be a benefit?



There is a lot more to an optic than simply specs on paper......   Some of the greatest lenses are slower than f/1.4.




Some designs appeal to me.  Others do not.... I may express an opinion why.  But I do not down talk them nor those that like them.   I also like to learn about something before judging them.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 2, 2013)

usayit said:
			
		

> There is a lot more to an optic than simply specs on paper......   Some of the greatest lenses are slower than f/1.4.
> 
> Some designs appeal to me.  Others do not.... I may express an opinion why.  But I do not down talk them nor those that like them.   I also like to learn about something before judging them.



I'm not down talking lenses or people that like small cameras. I was legitimately interested in the "why" of the RX1 and you were able to shed some light on it.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 2, 2013)

Maybe this might shed some light .... Sony RX1 Review
or maybe not.


----------



## usayit (Jan 2, 2013)

He is usually a bit enthusiastic but some info here

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/all-reviews/mirrorless-central/


----------



## gsgary (Jan 3, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> Just think about all the toilets he could have flushed in all the different locations on the planet with that amount of money.  He could flush a few toilets at the equator to see if there's no swirl at all.
> 
> :mrgreen:



Dont worry he goes all over the World


----------



## gsgary (Jan 3, 2013)

dxqcanada said:


> Yes ... and no.
> gsgary's friend would have the Sony as a cheap pocket camera ... I think that is the target audience for the RX1 (though I would like one also).



He uses a Panasonic G1 and loves it


----------



## Sarmad (Jan 3, 2013)

Buy a Canon 6D, with a fast lens and try to get a wide angle as soon as possible, For me that would do the job fine. But one thing I like in Sony is that it has extremely low size as compared to 6D, That may help you in taking shots in places where you're not allowed :greenpbl:. You mentioned that you'd do street photography!


----------



## gsgary (Jan 3, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What about shooting skate boarding, skiing, BMX, dance, lots of things you could shoot with 1/4000 sinc, i'm only shooting 28mm with my M4 and it does not restrict me one bit


----------



## gsgary (Jan 3, 2013)

usayit said:


> He is usually a bit enthusiastic but some info here
> 
> Mirrorless Central &#8211; My reviews of all Mirrorless Cameras | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS



I'm getting one, it beats the D4,D800,5Dmk3


----------



## Helen B (Jan 3, 2013)

I think that if you know that the features of the RX1 fit your preferences, then it is the right camera. If you aren't sure that a fixed lens camera is right for you then maybe avoid it. I'm glad to see that we are now beginning to get the variety of types of digital camera to match the choices of film camera types we have. Those of us who have used fixed lens film cameras that make the RX1 look like it has a bargain basement price have an easier time deciding whether or not it is right for us. I think the RX1 is unmatched for its size, optical quality and sensor performance. If those matter to you, and you know that a fixed 35 mm lens would work for you then go for it if you can justify the cost to yourself. No need to justify it to us, of course, but hey, this is the internet and here you have to justify everything you do to complete strangers who are totally unaffected by your personal decisions.

There is a Maserati shop next door to our studio. I often spend my free time in there telling the customers that they would be better off spending the money doing cool stuff. Their usual reaction is 'Hey, thanks, I never thought of that. I would only have had $15 left after buying this Maserati.'


----------



## roblewisphotoco (Jan 3, 2013)

Thanks everyone for there input although I would like it to be smaller.canon 6D and 1.4 35mm sigma it is.just waiting for the sigma art 1.4 35mm to arrive in the uk .


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 3, 2013)

roblewisphotoco said:
			
		

> Thanks everyone for there input although I would like it to be smaller.canon 6D and 1.4 35mm sigma it is.just waiting for the sigma art 1.4 35mm to arrive in the uk .



You might want to consider the 35/1.4L or the 50/1.4. The bokeh on the sigma is not desirable at all when compared to the 35/1.4L. Just throwing that out there.


----------



## roblewisphotoco (Jan 3, 2013)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> You might want to consider the 35/1.4L or the 50/1.4. The bokeh on the sigma is not desirable at all when compared to the 35/1.4L. Just throwing that out there.



Oh ok yes I'd love the Canon 35mm 1.4L but a lot of money has anyone tried the canon  35mm is think its f2


----------



## roblewisphotoco (Jan 3, 2013)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> You might want to consider the 35/1.4L or the 50/1.4. The bokeh on the sigma is not desirable at all when compared to the 35/1.4L. Just throwing that out there.



Oh ok I'd love the 35mm 1.4.L but can't afford it yet has anyone tried the new cheaper Canon with image stabilisation .


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 3, 2013)

roblewisphotoco said:
			
		

> Oh ok I'd love the 35mm 1.4.L but can't afford it yet has anyone tried the new cheaper Canon with image stabilisation .



I haven't, but I have had experience with the old 35/2, and it wasn't amazing. I would expect the new version to be better, but haven't looked at the mtf charts. Plus, mtf charts are not the end all photographic benchmark.


----------

