# Leaked Sony RX1 Fits a DSLR in Your Pocket (rumor)



## molested_cow

Leaked Sony RX1 Fits a DSLR in Your Pocket

Woah woah woah!!!!! Full frame in that little thing! If it comes with interchangeable lens, it will be even more awesome!

Now that's only if they don't sell it at that ridiculous price.

( Is this actually a D600 inside????)


----------



## Solarflare

Err - Sony isnt Nikon ?

So nope, thats not a D600 at all ... which is btw much cheaper, too. Body only, though.

To me this camera makes no sense. They put together a standard lens and a standard fotochip - not carefully designed models like with the Fuji X100 to get the most out of it.

So then why make it compact ? I see no reason whatsoever.


----------



## cgipson1

Great.. a full frame point 'n' shoot! Sony....lol!


----------



## KmH

Solarflare said:


> Err - Sony isnt Nikon ?


Sony makes Nikon's image sensors. Sony uses Nikon made steppers (reduction lens system) in the photolithography process used during chip making.


----------



## molested_cow

The D600 is rumored to be 24mp, which is the same as this rumored Sony point and shoot. While (ignoring the price) looking like an attractive package, I wonder what's the impact of this design to their micro 4/3 system. Are they saying that soon they will phase out the micro 4/3 system and replace it with a FF compact system?

Talk about investment in a system... things happen too quickly these days.


----------



## Village Idiot

Solarflare said:


> Err - Sony isnt Nikon ?
> 
> So nope, thats not a D600 at all ... which is btw much cheaper, too. Body only, though.
> 
> To me this camera makes no sense. They put together a standard lens and a standard fotochip - not carefully designed models like with the Fuji X100 to get the most out of it.
> 
> So then why make it compact ? I see no reason whatsoever.



Why make it huge? Look at all the old Olympus, Contax, Pentax, etc.... DSLRs from the 70's onward that were in small compact bodies.


----------



## rexbobcat

For 2.8k? Hahahahahahahahaha

no


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

rexbobcat said:


> For 2.8k? Hahahahahahahahaha
> 
> no




^^^what he said


----------



## fjrabon

it will be hard to fit it in your pocket with that lens.  It's an intriguing package, but I dont see how it can compete with the XPro/X100 line if the price is real on it.  Sure, the specs would be a step up from those cameras, but for more than double the price.


----------



## unpopular

$1000, maybe, $2000, maybe if I was rich, $3,000 ... wtf?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

There's a reason Sony's business is down *40%* in the last year when most of their competitors are up


----------



## unpopular

Well, maybe they are trying to drive up the "oh wow, that's really nifty - it would be perfect if it were interchangeable" type of hype, only to come out and say "oh, but it is!!!" later on.

Yeah. We can dream, right?


----------



## Derrel

2WheelPhoto said:


> There's a reason Sony's business is down *40%* in the last year when most of their competitors are up



According to an article I read recently, Sony has NO class-leading sellers in ANY product category in which they are selling. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Ah-hah! They can try and CREATE new categories!!! Like the luxury, above $2,600, one-lens pocket camera category. Only half-kidding...their SLT schtick is an effort to create a new category of product, in which there is NO competition. Not_really_kidding_about_this_strategy_either... perhaps this kind of irrational,pride-driven, no-research-whatsoever "leadership" is why Sony is bleeding money.

*"Hey, look Ma! No competitors!"
*
*"Yes dear, that's wonderful! You be careful!"*


----------



## unpopular

yes! this will definitely make sony a leader in a market for which there is no demand.


----------



## Helen B

No longer a rumour. It's available for pre-order at B&H (link), and the price really is $2,800.

PS I know you guys don't want to hear this, but I think that the RX100 is easily the best in its class. There are other Sony products that are best in class, but you can dismiss them as irrelevant niche products if you wish.


----------



## fjrabon

I really don't get a $2,800 camera where all you can ever shoot is 35mm on a full frame.  I guess it's just the ultimate street camera, but even for street, wouldn't you OCCASIONALLY want to shoot at, I don't know, 50mm?  I get that the fixed lens with the fixed focal length allows it to be a bit smaller, but man, that seems like a HUGE tradeoff.


----------



## Helen B

If you are used to using a high quality fixed lens compact it isn't such a drawback. It doesn't suit everybody, but it does suit those of us who know that we can be perfectly happy with a fixed 35 mm lens (and superb image quality). I'll wait to see how it performs before buying one. If it meets the quality of a Rollei 35S I would seriously consider it.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Helen B said:


> No longer a rumour. It's available for pre-order at B&H (link), and the price really is $2,800.
> 
> PS I know you guys don't want to hear this, but I think that the RX100 is easily the best in its class. There are other Sony products that are best in class, but you can dismiss them as irrelevant niche products if you wish.



I mentioned niche the other thread because Sony products as a whole aren't fairing well, and seems they only target a small sector of a market with their "best of breed".  They fill a small "niche" in a few of their products lineups. 

Perhaps this new camera will sell like crazy. For Sony's sake I hope so because as a company and compared to their competitors they are performing poorly.  A quick financial google search of their financial trends past year or so as compared to their competitors will prove they need to do "something".  

I'm not knocking this camera or any of their products, but Sony needs to sell something on a mass scale, not have their awesome products in empty high tech Sony stores at the malls collecting dust.


----------



## Helen B

`At some point I wonder if the best Sony thing to buy will be SNE (Sony Corp stock) because it has taken such a beating - and there may be more to come.

Re the RX1. The Sigma DP2 Merrill ($1000, 45 mm equiv f/2.8 fixed lens) and DP1 Merrill (28 mm equiv, otherwise same as DP2 M) are almost in the same small niche, but they appear to have usability problems and they are quite large. The Rollei 35S is more compact, thanks mostly to its use of 35 mm film and a retractable 40 mm f/2.8 Sonnar - it was also much cheaper than the RX1 when new, even with inflation taken into account.


----------



## unpopular

Hey Helen - while you're at it, can you buy me one too? I wouldn't mind owning one, but at that price I just can't justify it.

Seriously though, if you do end up with one, please post your thoughts on it. I kind of doubt there will be too many real users out there.


----------



## fjrabon

Helen B said:


> If you are used to using a high quality fixed lens compact it isn't such a drawback. It doesn't suit everybody, but it does suit those of us who know that we can be perfectly happy with a fixed 35 mm lens (and superb image quality). I'll wait to see how it performs before buying one. If it meets the quality of a Rollei 35S I would seriously consider it.



Yeah, I mean I get that it could work for certain shooters, in certain genres of photography.  But to me that seems like a lot of cash for a camera with such few applications.  Usually when you have to make that many concessions on a camera, it's because it's cheap.


----------



## unpopular

Like this one:

Fujifilm GF670 Rangefinder Folding Camera 16019089 B&H Photo

or this one:

Plaubel Makina W67 with case, mint- condition | eBay

There have been plenty of high end, fixed focal length cameras.


----------



## Derrel

Helen B said:


> No longer a rumour. It's available for pre-order at B&H (link), and the price really is $2,800.
> 
> PS I know you guys don't want to hear this, but I think that the RX100 is easily the best in its class. There are other Sony products that are best in class, but you can dismiss them as irrelevant niche products if you wish.



Just to be clear...I was not saying nor implying that Sony products are either irrelevant, or niche products, but merely point out that Sony's sales leadership position has VANISHED, totally, and they now have ZERO products leading in sales in ANY of the product categories they used to dominate. And this camera is indeed, in a class ALL BY ITSELF.

Personal music players, a category Sony pretty much invented??? Puh-thetic products and pathetic sales figures. Apple's iPod crushes the ****ty Sony music players, easily. DVD players? DVD recorders? Camcorders? Computers? TELEVISION sets??? Sony used to be a *sales leader* in multiple consumer electronics categories. And now they are wayyyyyyyy back in the pack, and are losing millions of yen every single week. As I recall, Sony's most recent quarter marked their worst-ever financial losses. But I could be mistaken, since Sony has reported multiple record losses multiple times over the past three years.

Sony makes some decent products, sure. But they have also lost the worldwide consumer electronics leadership position they used to enjoy, in every single category in which they sell products.


----------



## Helen B

High end fixed-lens cameras? Plenty.

All the Rollei 35 models
All the Rolleiflex TLRs (which are more expensive than the RX1)
The Plaubel Makina models (already mentioned by unpopular) - more expensive than the RX1
Voigtlander Bessas (original and current)
Various Zeiss cameras I'm not familiar with
The Hasselblad SWC series
The Minox 35 models
Many Fuji rangefinders
The Leica Minilux

I'm sure that there are more. Don't forget all the people, including a lot of famous and well-respected photographers, who buy an interchangeable lens camera and only use it with one normal-ish prime lens.


----------



## Scuba

I read about this camera this morning on gizmodo.com and thought for sure it was just a concept that would never make it to production.  Wow I can't believe that it is actually going to be sold.  I don't get the target market for this?  Is it for the people who don't really know anything about photography and have a lot of money?  I am sure it will take fantastic images being a full frame with a prime on it but without interchangeable lenses or a zoom it just doesn't make sense. Pro's won't use it....why would they. Most consumers won't because of the cost.  And those of use between the two either use a 4/3 or a mid range SLR that we can slowly accumulate lenses for.  But at the same time when the iPad came out there was no market for that either....


----------



## Derrel

Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape webs site JUST got done reviewing one of the new Sigma DP2 "Merrill" fixed-lens camera...he was very enthusiastic about the PURE IMAGE QUALITY the sensor and the excellent lens can produce; he likened it to medium format digital capture quality!!! Sigma DP2M Review

Unfortunately, the DP2 Merrill has, as Helen mentioned, what seem to be some very serious usability issues...like incredibly sucky software and basically no third-party software support, kind of a balky AF system--at times, and basically no supply of extra batteries anywhwre in North America. The camera apparently has absolutely dismal battery life, and ships with two batteries standard. I read the review...sounds like an interesting camera that's kind of a hassle. I bet the SONY fixed lens com pact will be much slicker in operation, and a better "machine". But, yet again, the price makes it a niche product, and FUJI's now seemingly the leader in high-end, luxury compact cameras designed for size-conscious hipsters and elitist pho-togs (grin).

Back to the Sony thing...here's a quickie summary of a few point the New York Times made in an article they ran this past April.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/technology/how-sony-fell-behind-in-the-tech-parade.html?pagewanted=all

Some selected quotes: "Sony, after all, hasn&#8217;t turned a profit since 2008. It now expects to lose $6.4 billion this year. The reason is plain: Sony hasn&#8217;t had a hit product in years."


Sony&#8217;s share price closed at 1,444 yen ($17.83) on Friday, a quarter of its value a decade ago and roughly where it stood in the mid-1980s, when the Walkman ruled. Sony&#8217;s market value is now one-ninth that of Samsung Electronics, and just one-thirtieth of Apple&#8217;s.
"...a proud company that was unwilling or unable to adapt to realities of the global marketplace."
"Lower-cost manufacturers from South Korea, China and elsewhere, meanwhile, are increasingly undercutting Sony and other high-end electronics makers. As Sony&#8217;s brand started losing much of its luster, the company found that it had a harder time charging a premium for its products."
"..undisputed global leadership has narrowed significantly, having being usurped or equaled by the likes of Apple and Samsung Electronics."
"...a confusing catalog of gadgets that overlap or even cannibalize one another. It has also continued to let its product lines mushroom: 10 different consumer-level camcorders and almost 30 different TVs, for instance, crowd and confuse consumers."
"...Some analysts wonder if Mr. Hirai &#8212; who previously ran the money-losing games and TV businesses &#8212; is the right man to lead Sony. A protégé of Mr. Stringer, he appears to have been appointed as much for his ease in English as his management skills, analysts say."


----------



## gsgary

fjrabon said:
			
		

> I really don't get a $2,800 camera where all you can ever shoot is 35mm on a full frame.  I guess it's just the ultimate street camera, but even for street, wouldn't you OCCASIONALLY want to shoot at, I don't know, 50mm?  I get that the fixed lens with the fixed focal length allows it to be a bit smaller, but man, that seems like a HUGE tradeoff.



Leica is ultimate street camera and street is best shot at 28mm fullframe, if auto focus cannot be turned off it will be no good for street photography real street there is no time to focus


----------



## jake337

Wish it had interchangeable Lenses for it.

Sol cheaper than its leica competition....


----------



## gsgary

jake337 said:
			
		

> Wish it had interchangeable Lenses for it.
> 
> Sol cheaper than its leica competition....



I meant M series is ultimate street camera, but i would rather have an X1 pro than this Sony


----------



## unpopular

Regardless that Sony has been having tough times lately (I think they will bounce back) their products are good within their market.

I don't think Sony is just going to go belly up. You might not buy a walkman in the future, but they will continue to sell products that are profitable, and cut those which aren't.


----------



## Helen B

Scuba said:


> snip
> I don't get the target market for this?  -snip- Pro's won't use it....why would they.



Actually, I think that pros will use it if it meets image quality and usability expectations. As for the cost, compare it to a single Leica M lens - the 35 mm Summicron (an f/2) is $400 more than the RX1.

I see that Sony have also announced a full-frame video camera with the same sensor (it's in the RX1 and the A99) for less than $4000 (B&H list it, but haven't priced it yet).


----------



## bhop

(Sorry if it's been mentioned already..but)
Speaking of the lens, Carl Zeiss lenses are not slouches.. I think that's part of the reason of the high price.  The M-Mount Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2 sells new for around $1100 on its own.  Sonnar lenses have their own fans as well...  Don't get me wrong though, I still think the price for this camera is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:


> Regardless that Sony has been having tough times lately (I think they will bounce back) their products are good within their market.
> 
> I don't think Sony is just going to go belly up. You might not buy a walkman in the future, but they will continue to sell products that are profitable, and cut those which aren't.



Sony hasn't turned a profit since 2008...yeah...the bounce-back is due...wait for it, wait for it...any day now! Nobody thought KODAK would go belly-up either....I mean look, they shed divisions and products, slimmed down, trimmed fat, and...made it to Chapter 11 bankruptcy!!! Woo-hoo!


----------



## fjrabon

Again, I get that this thing does have applications.  And sure, I'd be plenty excited to get one in the mail.  But, it just seems to be a weird product for a company like Sony to come out with.  They could sell hundreds of these.  They'll be big with a couple of street pros and wealthy street hobbyists.  And while in some ways it is in a class all of its own, it will have to thoroughly CLOBBER the fuji XPro1 for working pros to adopt it as their street camera (which it should do, but they will compete for sales, even though this is full frame) and a lot of the wealthy hobbyists are just going to prefer Leicas because of the name brand factor.  If Leica came out with this thing, nobody would even bat an eye, but that's part of the problem, a wealthy hobbyist isn't going to buy a Sony over a comparable Leica M, even for slightly less money, they're going to pay the extra and get Leica printed on it instead of Sony.  It's the same reason people pay hundreds of dollars more for basically identical Leica DLux over the Lumix LX series.    

Perhaps this is just the early flagship version of the line and Sony will soon be releasing a more 'consumer friendly' version, but given their management, really, who knows?


----------



## usayit

bhop said:


> Speaking of the lens, Carl Zeiss lenses are not slouches.. I think that's part of the reason of the high price.



Is it really? or just another branding job?  See Panasonic lenses with Leica branding....

In the current markets, I think a fixed lens high end camera is not going to compete very well.  In the past, it would simpify and shrink the packaging.  Today, we have plentiful choices of similar sizes WITH interchangeable lenses.  Street shooters vary in focal lenght choice; 24, 28, 35, 50.... with a fixed lens of 35mm you are bound to alienate at least some...

One of the issues Sony had with NEX was its choice of lenses...  is this a good solution?


----------



## bhop

usayit said:


> Is it really? or just another branding job?  See Panasonic lenses with Leica branding....
> 
> In the current markets, I think a fixed lens high end camera is not going to compete very well.  In the past, it would simpify and shrink the packaging.  Today, we have plentiful choices of similar sizes WITH interchangeable lenses.  Street shooters vary in focal lenght choice; 24, 28, 35, 50.... with a fixed lens of 35mm you are bound to alienate at least some...
> 
> One of the issues Sony had with NEX was its choice of lenses...  is this a good solution?



Good points.


----------



## mjhoward

The lens hood will only set you back $179!


----------



## sapper6fd

rexbobcat said:


> For 2.8k? Hahahahahahahahaha
> 
> no



Just like almost every other Sony Product out there.  R&D costs need to be paid.  But before they get a chance the product tanks...  Betamax, MemoryStick, Minidisc, ATRAC, BluRay...  Wait, they finaly had a hit with Bluray.  My bad!  Well one out of six aint too bad!


----------



## fjrabon

sapper6fd said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> For 2.8k? Hahahahahahahahaha
> 
> no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like almost every other Sony Product out there.  R&D costs need to be paid.  But before they get a chance the product tanks...  Betamax, MemoryStick, Minidisc, ATRAC, BluRay...  Wait, they finaly had a hit with Bluray.  My bad!  Well one out of six aint too bad!
Click to expand...


Yeah, too bad that Blu-Ray was more of a collaborative effort and they dont get very much money from the actual licensing fees, because in general their blu-ray players don't sell particularly well (aside from the PS3)


----------



## mjhoward

fjrabon said:


> Yeah, too bad that Blu-Ray was more of a collaborative effort and they dont get very much money from the actual licensing fees, because in general their blu-ray players don't sell particularly well (aside from the PS3)



Every PS3 is sold at a loss, so don't count those dollars!


----------



## rexbobcat

mjhoward said:
			
		

> Every PS3 is sold at a loss, so don't count those dollars!



I don't care, I'll take it over the Xbox any day XD


----------



## fjrabon

mjhoward said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, too bad that Blu-Ray was more of a collaborative effort and they dont get very much money from the actual licensing fees, because in general their blu-ray players don't sell particularly well (aside from the PS3)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every PS3 is sold at a loss, so don't count those dollars!
Click to expand...


Oh, I know.  I was just saying that they do sell decently well, even though they don't make the company any money.


----------



## Derrel

"Carl Zeiss" lenses. By Yashica.... Errm....by Kyocera....ummm...by Cosina! Carl Zeiss is the name of a long-dead dude. "Zeiss" lenses are now made by Cosina, which has long, long been a maker of some of the cheapest, tinniest "Nikon" OEM products EVER made, like the "Nikon" FM-10... As usayit mentioned, this is a massive "Branding" thing going on here. 

One of the most hilarious things is the line of "Zeiss" manual focus lenses, retailing for $1,000-$1899 or so, with the flimsiest, cheapest, squeakiest, crappiest lens caps made since Kalimar entered the $2.99 aftermarket lenscap biz back in the 1980's...I looked at multiple Zeiss ZF lenses a couple months ago in-store, and the lens caps were an utter JOKE! Just the cheeziest, thinnest, ugliest, crappiest caps one can even IMAGINE! If you ever get the chance, check it out. It's like a BMW with the sideview mirror held on by duct tape, right from the factory!

I loved the comment, "*Sony could sell hundreds of these things*." lol


----------



## fjrabon

Derrel said:


> "Carl Zeiss" lenses. By Yashica.... Errm....by Kyocera....ummm...by Cosina! Carl Zeiss is the name of a long-dead dude. "Zeiss" lenses are now made by Cosina, which has long, long been a maker of some of the cheapest, tinniest "Nikon" OEM products EVER made, like the "Nikon" FM-10... As usayit mentioned, this is a massive "Branding" thing going on here.
> 
> One of the most hilarious things is the line of "Zeiss" manual focus lenses, retailing for $1,000-$1899 or so, with the flimsiest, cheapest, squeakiest, crappiest lens caps made since Kalimar entered the $2.99 aftermarket lenscap biz back in the 1980's...I looked at multiple Zeiss ZF lenses a couple months ago in-store, and the lens caps were an utter JOKE! Just the cheeziest, thinnest, ugliest, crappiest caps one can even IMAGINE! If you ever get the chance, check it out. It's like a BMW with the sideview mirror held on by duct tape, right from the factory!
> 
> I loved the comment, "*Sony could sell hundreds of these things*." lol



Yep, to me that's the weirdest part of this whole thing.  If they're trying to ride the relatively obscure Zeiss name, they're going to completely be undermined by the Sony name.  

It's like if a Carrol Shelby edition Hyundai came out for $200,000


----------



## unpopular

I think this is the only lens review which spends this much attention to the lenscap.

Derrel, did you forget to take your Aricept?

---

Are Mexican-made BMW's not really BMW's because they're made by a bunch of beaners? Are Zeiss lenses not really Zeiss because they're made by a bunch of chinks? I can't help but feel that these arguments of inferior Asian-made Zeiss glass is inherently racist.


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:


> I think this is the only lens review which spends this much attention to the lenscap.
> 
> Derrel, did you forget to take your Aricept?
> 
> ---
> 
> Are Mexican-made BMW's not really BMW's because they're made by a bunch of beaners? Are Zeiss lenses not really Zeiss because they're made by a bunch of chinks? I can't help but feel that these arguments of inferior Asian-made Zeiss glass is inherently racist.



Racist? WTF is your problem? Your comments are unacceptable to me.

Hell, look at the quality of a Canon or a Nikon lens cap...GOOD...then look at what "Zeiss" is giving the customer as protection for an $1800 "Zeiss" wide-angle prime lens....a POS plastic cap that squeaks, and is made to simply unacceptable standards. Utter crap. Nikon, Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Canon, Pentax, etc,etc.. all make good quality lens caps...the point is a "luxury" lens like the ENTIRE Zeiss ZF series is fitted with, and I will state it again, the cheapest, CRAPPIEST, most ill-made lens caps I have ever seen in my life, from any maker. Ever. See, that's the "snow job" I am trying to point out here. There's nothing "racist" about $hi+-quality luxury-priced products. I'm pointing out that the "Zeiss" name is nothing any more...it's a name only...the lens production is farmed out to whoever can do it at the best price....it's like Vivitar Series 1, made by 15 different lens makers!! There never was any "Vivitar" company--it's not a company, like Nikon, or Canon, but merely a "brand name."


----------



## unpopular

My point is more the "It wasn't made in Germany" aspect. I've had Zeiss CY lenses made in Japan, they were plenty well built, just as well built, if not better, than my german-built 135mm Sonnar - though I don't really remember the lens cap specifically; though maybe I should, being a true measure of optical and mechanical quality aparently.

But, it doesn't matter the color of skin, if an Asian factory can meet Zeiss specification, *then it's a Zeiss. *If the is a quality problem with the Zeiss brand, that's a problem with Zeiss, not the nationality of whomever assembled the lens.


----------



## Helen B

Fortunately not everyone cares about the name on a camera more than they care about the performance of it, and not everyone who cares about the name (or the company) looks down on Sony. Sony has a long history of class-leading innovation, though perhaps it is more obvious at the relatively high end. 

Now that more details are available about the RX1, it is obvious that it owes much more to the RX100 than to the NEX line. The RX100 is an outstanding camera with some groundbreaking usability and image quality features for both stills and video. It puts all its rivals, including those from Canon and Nikon, in the shade.


----------



## cgipson1

sapper6fd said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> For 2.8k? Hahahahahahahahaha
> 
> no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like almost every other Sony Product out there.  R&D costs need to be paid.  But before they get a chance the product tanks...  Betamax, MemoryStick, Minidisc, ATRAC, BluRay...  *Wait, they finaly had a hit with Bluray*.  My bad!  Well one out of six aint too bad!
Click to expand...


NO.. they FORCED Blu-Ray on us by making deals with the studios that they work with (threatening the studios, basically). HD-DVD was a superior format... and the consumer loses again, stuck with SONY crap that requires constant firmware updates on all non-Sony Blu-Ray players, that are even then flaky (even the really high end ones!)


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> I think this is the only lens review which spends this much attention to the lenscap.
> 
> Derrel, did you forget to take your Aricept?
> 
> ---
> 
> Are Mexican-made BMW's not really BMW's because they're made by a bunch of beaners? Are Zeiss lenses not really Zeiss because they're made by a bunch of chinks? I can't help but feel that these arguments of inferior Asian-made Zeiss glass is inherently racist.



Bro.. you have to be KIDDING! Cosina is well known for making inferior products.... and nowhere did Derrel make a any racist references.... YOU DID! Beaners and Chinks.. what's up with that! Rude! It has also been shown that the SONY Zeiss lenses do NOT match up to the actual German made lenses! I think Derrel's point was that if they can't even build a decent lens cap... how good can the lenses be?


----------



## cgipson1

Helen B said:


> Fortunately not everyone cares about the name on a camera more than they care about the performance of it, and not everyone who cares about the name (or the company) looks down on Sony. Sony has a long history of class-leading innovation, though perhaps it is more obvious at the relatively high end.
> 
> Now that more details are available about the RX1, it is obvious that it owes much more to the RX100 than to the NEX line. The RX100 is an outstanding camera with some groundbreaking usability and image quality features for both stills and video. It puts all its rivals, including those from Canon and Nikon, in the shade.



Helen.. I respect your knowledge very much. 

I assume you are also aware of the many bad products, bad decisions, extremely proprietary nonsense, customer ripoffs, changing products after they are released to limit customer use (PS3 for instance), failed promises about upgrades, malware they put on thier CD's and DVDs as Copy Protection, Using their "clout" to promote their products in a very monopolistic way, etc, etc, etc?


----------



## mjhoward

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> HD-DVD was a superior format...



Because it would only hold 60% of the data that BD will and can deliver only 67% of the bitrate that BD can?


----------



## molested_cow

Helen, given that the A99 is priced the same(actually a bit cheaper) than the RX1, and that it's considerably smaller and lighter than its competitions and has a much wider range of focal length options, are the "pros" still going to see value in the RX1?

I am curious what exactly is the "pro" usage that you are referring to. Photo journalism?


----------



## cgipson1

mjhoward said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HD-DVD was a superior format...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would only hold 60% of the data that BD will and can deliver only 67% of the bitrate that BD can?
Click to expand...


Bitrate and size isn't everything.. is it?


----------



## MK3Brent

oooo this is getting good.


----------



## bhop




----------



## unpopular

cgipson1 said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately not everyone cares about the name on a camera more than they care about the performance of it, and not everyone who cares about the name (or the company) looks down on Sony. Sony has a long history of class-leading innovation, though perhaps it is more obvious at the relatively high end.
> 
> Now that more details are available about the RX1, it is obvious that it owes much more to the RX100 than to the NEX line. The RX100 is an outstanding camera with some groundbreaking usability and image quality features for both stills and video. It puts all its rivals, including those from Canon and Nikon, in the shade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helen.. I respect your knowledge very much.
> 
> I assume you are also aware of the many bad products, bad decisions, extremely proprietary nonsense, customer ripoffs, changing products after they are released to limit customer use (PS3 for instance), failed promises about upgrades, malware they put on thier CD's and DVDs as Copy Protection, Using their "clout" to promote their products in a very monopolistic way, etc, etc, etc?
Click to expand...


See. This is EXACTLY my point. You can infer all this racist crap, like how Asian-made Zeiss isn't as good as German made Zeiss without any real reason aside from the stereotype that Germans make good lenses, while Asians (aside from the Big Two) don't.

But instead of blaming Zeiss for going lax on standards and specifications of their lens caps, people like to blame the manufacturer - and always bring up the fact that these "inferior Asian lenses" are made somewhere other than Germany. I can guarantee you that it's not Yashica, Cosina or Kyocera that's cutting the corners - it's Zeiss; and if Zeiss wanted to control the quality of the brand, Yashica, Cosina or Kyocera, would be plenty capable of producing the quality which we normally associate with Zeiss. Whether these manufacturers are located in Europe or Asia is entirely irrelevant.

Personally, I think it's racist to conclude that a nationality or race is inherently less capable than any other by virtue of race or nationality alone. Unfortunately, when we think of racism we think of slurs and slogans, not the beliefs which are commonly held as truth.


----------



## unpopular

Oh. And I want to make it absolutely clear I don't think anyone here is "a racist". But I do have a real problem with this mentality that Zeiss isn't a "real Zeiss" unless it's made in Germany.


----------



## fractionofasecond

I am totally new to photography and this forum but the idea is great, the price tag is high and the idea of having a fixed lens ruins the whole thing.  I don't really see who would buy this camera?  And what kind of audience it appeals too?  Just my opinion- you can get a much better camera for under that price (I believe), and who cares if it's not small enough.  If a professional photographer showed up to my wedding with that camera, I'd be like wtf?


----------



## mjhoward

I often find that those that try and put a racist spin on something that was otherwise completely nonracial are generally racists themselves without realizing it.


----------



## usayit

Unpopular,

The factory often does matter... and not just in this case but in many consumer products.  What it boils down to is craftsmanship, proper management, and skilled hands.  All human aspects that vary from one facility to another.  I don't think Derrel meant Asian vs German but the quality of the original Zeiss lenses that earned their reputation versus the lenses produced by Cosina today.  

* VW's went through some serious quality issues when made in Mexico.  Many consumers would even search dealers for cars that were actually made in Germany.
* Leica moved manufacturing from Weitzler Germany to Canada back when the company was struggling.   Some of the products during that time are considered inferior to the earlier german ones made.  On the bright side, many of the Canadian Leica products are given credit to keeping the company alive.  It was moved back to Solms, Germany.
* Toyota manufacturing in the US went through a long stint of problems as well.  My father's 89 Camry (Japanese built) hit 300,000 miles before it died.  He was a die hard Toyota fan for many years until he purchased the Sienna.  Non-stop problems with quality and it died at 160,000... again a Japanese designed but American built vehicle.   He discovered the same for any Toyota that was intended for the North American market... and generally avoids them.
* Often we see very low quality manufacturing out of China.  Foxconn for example is capable (other controversies aside) of producing quality work.

Cosina is the worlds largest manufacturer of optics.  Many of their off the shelf optics have found (whether openly admitted or not) their way into other branded products.  In the Leica M world, Voigtlander rangefinder lenses have earned a good reputation as an alternative to Leica optics.   I personally have (and like) the 28mm f/1.9 ultron in screwmount, 21 Color-skopar, 12mm Heliar, as well as the 35mm f/1.2 Nokton.  All good lenses for their price... decent build quality too.  Oh yeh... Voigtlander (another long dead German name) was indirectly acquired (and manufactured) by Cosina through their acquisition of the Zeiss.  I found Zeiss M lenses FEEL good too (expensive) but I have only handled them in the store with no time spent behind them.  I hear differently for lenses of other mounts.  I have seen other crappy products out of Cosina as well... which often boggles my mind.  It seems their quality is all over the place.


----------



## unpopular

Oh please, Howard. This isn't a "spin". How else can anyone say that Zeiss lenses are inferior simply because they were manufactured in Asia?

Whether Japanese made Zeiss is "really Zeiss" is an old debate.


----------



## rexbobcat

unpopular said:
			
		

> Oh please, Howard. This isn't a "spin". How else can anyone say that Zeiss lenses are inferior simply because they were manufactured in Asia?
> 
> Whether Japanese made Zeiss is "really Zeiss" is an old debate.



What if the manufacturing in a country is quantifiably and consistently inferior...


----------



## unpopular

usayit said:


> I don't think Derrel meant Asian vs German but the quality of the original Zeiss lenses that earned their reputation versus the lenses produced by Cosina today.



That does make sense, and I did misunderstand the point here. As I've said, this is an OLD debate. But I would still blame Zeiss, not so much Cosina. I doubt that Zeiss does not know know what it's getting. That's assuming ofcourse that the lens cap isn't the extent of the Zeiss/Cosina problem.

I've never felt that the CY "made in Japan" lenses were at all inferior to the German made lenses. I have no idea about these newest series. 

Still, at the prices of the CF and CZ series - I'd hope that you're getting more than a "Made in Germany" stamp.


----------



## unpopular

rexbobcat said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, Howard. This isn't a "spin". How else can anyone say that Zeiss lenses are inferior simply because they were manufactured in Asia?
> 
> Whether Japanese made Zeiss is "really Zeiss" is an old debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if the manufacturing in a country is quantifiably and consistently inferior...
Click to expand...


If a country does not have access to modern manufacturing technology and suitable education, then yeah, it's a legitimate complaint. I'd still blame Zeiss for cutting corners, sending their formulas to a third world country.

But reputation and stereotype doesn't cut it for me.


----------



## molested_cow

The factory does matter.
Cars, electric appliances, hard disks, consumer electronics etc. Anything that requires certain amount of precision will depend on how the factory is managed to ensure its quality. The culture of the factory workers matters too. If you issue a minimum standard, the Japanese will pride themselves by exceeding the scale, while the Chinese will be satisfied just passing it(cheats included). No I am not being racist. I'm Chinese.


----------



## mjhoward

unpopular said:


> Oh please, Howard. This isn't a "spin". How else can anyone say that Zeiss lenses are inferior simply because they were manufactured in Asia?
> 
> Whether Japanese made Zeiss is "really Zeiss" is an old debate.



See, that's the thing... Derrel never once mentioned the country or ethnicity, YOU did,  Derrel simply stated the name of a company that is known for producing budget lenses.  YOU are the one that brought the company's race into the discussion.  Derrel's comment had absolutely nothing to do with Asians, but instead the company.  Just like anywhere else, there are companies that produce quality products, and there are those that produce inferior products.  He never said they were inferior because they were produced by Asians.  Perhaps you should stop putting words into peoples mouths.


----------



## usayit

unpopular said:


> But I would still blame Zeiss, not so much Cosina. I doubt that Zeiss does not know know what it's getting. That's assuming ofcourse that the lens cap isn't the extent of the Zeiss/Cosina problem.



Just to be clear... (not just to unpopular's account).  My original comment:



> Is it really? or just another branding job? See Panasonic lenses with Leica branding....



Was specifically pointing towards the licensing agreement between Panasonic and Leica... not towards Leica itself.   Just like Sony has a licensing agreement with Zeiss.. not towards Zeiss itself.   More specifically, the Leica branded Lumix lenses are actually manufactured by Panasonic with perhaps designs, specifications provided by Leica.  Hence.... branding job... in which the name itself may be a marketing maneuver rather than an indication of quality itself.

Just to be even more clear....   The Lumix micro 4/3 lenses branded Leica are actually pretty good.   I have nothing against them.


----------



## unpopular

fjrabon said:


> Yep, to me that's the weirdest part of this whole thing.  If they're trying to ride the relatively obscure Zeiss name, they're going to completely be undermined by the Sony name.
> 
> It's like if a Carrol Shelby edition Hyundai came out for $200,000



It's actually this sentiment that inspired my statement.


----------



## unpopular

usayit said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I would still blame Zeiss, not so much Cosina. I doubt that Zeiss does not know know what it's getting. That's assuming ofcourse that the lens cap isn't the extent of the Zeiss/Cosina problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear... (not just to unpopular's account).  My original comment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really? or just another branding job? See Panasonic lenses with Leica branding....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was specifically pointing towards the licensing agreement between Panasonic and Leica... not towards Leica itself.   Just like Sony has a licensing agreement with Zeiss.. not towards Zeiss itself.   More specifically, the Leica branded Lumix lenses are actually manufactured by Panasonic with perhaps designs, specifications provided by Leica.  Hence.... branding job... in which the name itself may be a marketing maneuver rather than an indication of quality itself.
> 
> Just to be even more clear....   The Lumix micro 4/3 lenses branded Leica are actually pretty good.   I have nothing against them.
Click to expand...




ok. piss.

I was wrong. I misunderstood the conversation and applied my own feelings from unrelated topics to this discussion.

you all can put down the pitch forks and torches and go home now....


----------



## fjrabon

I don't see how you could infer that it was the country that mattered in Derrel's analysis, not the factory.  Especially considering how much Derrel often goes on about the quality of Nikon.  

The German Zeiss factory has employees still around who have been there for years, manufacturing the highest quality Zeiss lenses.  Even the newer employees were often trained by the older employees.  The Cosina employees don't have such training, and are 'just making it to spec'  There's a big difference.  

Sure, in a sense Zeiss made the choice to put its brand name on the line by farming out work to less experienced factories.  But to say that questioning which factory the lens was made at as a concern is racist is patently absurd, if not outright inflammatory and classless.


edit: didn't read the last post unpopular made until after I posted this.


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately not everyone cares about the name on a camera more than they care about the performance of it, and not everyone who cares about the name (or the company) looks down on Sony. Sony has a long history of class-leading innovation, though perhaps it is more obvious at the relatively high end.
> 
> Now that more details are available about the RX1, it is obvious that it owes much more to the RX100 than to the NEX line. The RX100 is an outstanding camera with some groundbreaking usability and image quality features for both stills and video. It puts all its rivals, including those from Canon and Nikon, in the shade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helen.. I respect your knowledge very much.
> 
> I assume you are also aware of the many bad products, bad decisions, extremely proprietary nonsense, customer ripoffs, changing products after they are released to limit customer use (PS3 for instance), failed promises about upgrades, malware they put on thier CD's and DVDs as Copy Protection, Using their "clout" to promote their products in a very monopolistic way, etc, etc, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See. This is EXACTLY my point. You can infer all this racist crap, like how Asian-made Zeiss isn't as good as German made Zeiss without any real reason aside from the stereotype that Germans make good lenses, while Asians (aside from the Big Two) don't.
> 
> But instead of blaming Zeiss for going lax on standards and specifications of their lens caps, people like to blame the manufacturer - and always bring up the fact that these "inferior Asian lenses" are made somewhere other than Germany. I can guarantee you that it's not Yashica, Cosina or Kyocera that's cutting the corners - it's Zeiss; and if Zeiss wanted to control the quality of the brand, Yashica, Cosina or Kyocera, would be plenty capable of producing the quality which we normally associate with Zeiss. Whether these manufacturers are located in Europe or Asia is entirely irrelevant.
> 
> Personally, I think it's racist to conclude that a nationality or race is inherently less capable than any other by virtue of race or nationality alone. Unfortunately, when we think of racism we think of slurs and slogans, not the beliefs which are commonly held as truth.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with race! It has to do with quality.. some COMPANIES produce quality.... Some COMPANIES produce lesser quality. Get off the RACE thing... that makes no sense at all! My Nikon is Japanese... My Honda is Japanese... All of my stereo equipment is Japanese.... and I love SUSHI and Tempura! So get off the silly race thing. 

As far as Zeiss goes... if SONY pays enough for the licensing and name... then they get it, whether what they produce under is as good as the stuff as Zeiss or not! And no.. Cosina has never produced the kind of quality I associate with Zeiss!


----------



## unpopular

my comments weren't meant to be directed at anyone in particular.

Like I said. This is an old debate. There has for a long time been a baseless belief that Zeiss lenses which are stamped "Made in Japan" are inferior or in-genuine for no other specific reason than this fact.

I mistakenly believed that this is what this discussion was about.


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> Oh. And I want to make it absolutely clear I don't think anyone here is "a racist". But I do have a real problem with this mentality that Zeiss isn't a "real Zeiss" unless it's made in Germany.



It isn't a real ZEISS, unless it has the famous ZEISS quality, no matter where it is made! And the SONY branded ones.... do not cut the mustard!


----------



## Derrel

Since I was the one accused of being a racist by unpopular, I'd like to clarify MY OWN post. What I meant is that the "Zeiss lens" slapped on the new SONY camera is, as overread stated, a big "branding" thing. Furthermore, as I stated, "Carl Zeiss" is simply the name of a long-dead man. As I pointed out, "Zeiss" lenses have been made by Yashica, Kyocera, and now, by Cosina. Which proves my point--"Zeiss" is simply a "brand"...it is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT a camera or a lens manufacturer, as are Nikon, and Canon...Zeiss is a brand-name...like the brand "Voigtlander"...which was bought, as a name only, and resurrected by the Cosina company.

No racist overtones. No use of the word "beaners" and "chinks"-- that was all from Mr. unpopular. My point was that the "Zeiss" lens slapped onto the new Sony represents a "branding" move by Sony. Sony cameras have no real collector base, and a tiny user base, so as HelenB apparently misunderstood, a camera branded SONY on the front has crap resale value, since there are no Sony collectors, as there are for expensive Leica and Nikon cameras. When a person pays an exorbitant amount of money for a fancy necklace, the customer is quite often a yuppie, or hipster, or a Leicaphile. Sony realizes this, and has tapped into the "Zeiss" name as a way to appeal to hipsters and dweebs who think it means something...and that is all Zeiss really is...a name...a brand name...Zeiss is *not* a lens maker...Zeiss is a brand name, that farms out the lens making to whoever. "Carl Zeiss" was resurrected by Yashica, years ago. Later, Kyocera made "Carl Zeiss" lenses. Carl Zeiss is pretty much the same as Vivitar was--a brand name for products whose actual manufacturing was farmed out to OTHER, actual companies.


----------



## unpopular

Zeiss still does make lenses, as far as I know their cinema lenses are still being made in Germany by Zeiss. There is no reason why you couldn't drop $4-15,000 and buy one and use it on a still camera. Would they be better? At those prices I sure as hell hope so, no matter who built it.

I do not know the exact arrangement of the Cosina lenses, and as far as I've understood it, these are lenses being manufactured by Cosina on behalf of Zeiss, rather than Cosina simply rebranding one of their lenses as Zeiss. It's not like Kyocera buying the rights to use the name Contax and do pretty much whatever it feels like.

I do not know the arrangement with Sony, and I had assumed that Zeiss had Sony manufacture the ZA line under contract, including specific specification and formula. Maybe those specifications are pretty loose, I don't know. But I am pretty sure that Zeiss isn't going to let Sony slap on a red T* without some specification as to what T* is or what Distagon or Planar means.

Having Zeiss license their technologies and specifications is not the same thing as Minolta or Nikon slapping their logo on a cheap Tamron or Cosina OEM. Zeiss has specifications which are to be met, and I maintain that it does not matter where geographically the factory is located, provided that the factory is technologically capable of producing the product to specification. I also do not believe that if third parties are producing an inferior licensed product Zeiss is in the dark about it.

I also did not mean to accuse any specific person of being a racist, and while I understand why Derrel felt this way, I also don't appreciate MJHoward here outright accusing me of being racist for no other reason than being racially sensitive myself.

As for lens makers - it doesn't really matter. Lenses are "made" in the laboratory, they are manufactured in factories. So long as the factory is capable, it doesn't matter _where_ that factory is. That's all that my point ever was. I'm sorry I misinterpreted the conversation as something it wasn't.


----------



## gsgary

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Bro.. you have to be KIDDING! Cosina is well known for making inferior products.... and nowhere did Derrel make a any racist references.... YOU DID! Beaners and Chinks.. what's up with that! Rude! It has also been shown that the SONY Zeiss lenses do NOT match up to the actual German made lenses! I think Derrel's point was that if they can't even build a decent lens cap... how good can the lenses be?



There is nothing  inferior about Voigtlander lenses


----------



## Kolia

molested_cow said:
			
		

> Helen, given that the A99 is priced the same(actually a bit cheaper) than the RX1, and that it's considerably smaller and lighter than its competitions and has a much wider range of focal length options, are the "pros" still going to see value in the RX1?
> 
> I am curious what exactly is the "pro" usage that you are referring to. Photo journalism?



I'll pull that post up to the top since its the last topic related !

Once you add lenses to the a99 the price goes much higher so I doubt they will really compete each other. 

I like the idea of the high quality fixed lens. I don't have the money for it though ! Lol


----------



## Helen B

I think that, by and large, most pros know exactly what sort of camera they want, so the choice between an A99 and an RX1 is either easy, or it isn't even a choice - after all, we aren't restricted to using just one camera for everything. We can use whatever is most appropriate for the situation, whatever we feel is right for us - but only if that choice is available. I see that as one of the ways in which digital is maturing - the choice of types of camera is growing.

Here we are talking about a camera that probably has exceptional low light capabilities, while being unobtrusive and near silent. I mostly use a Leica for that purpose, and there are plenty of times when I don't feel the need to carry anything other than the 35 mm lens.


----------



## unpopular

Oddly enough, the RX1 is selling, and is ranked #13 in Cameras and Photos on Amazon, significantly outselling the a99 (#44) and slightly out selling the d800 (#15). The d600 seems DOA. Maybe these are a bunch of hipsters, franky, I doubt that Sony - and more important the competition, care.

Furthermore the NEX 6 is the #1 ranked camera.

Can they keep up the pace? I sort of doubt it. But the RX1 is selling ATM.

As far as Sony not being a leader in any market, if they aren't leading in Mirrorless, they must be close. If you think this market 'doesn't really matter', that's like saying Apple doesn't lead in any market because mobile 'doesn't really matter'.


----------

