Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

If you managed to get this far through the enormous number of reviews of the camera, you're either a glutton for punishment, are you really are a researcher and aficionado of high-end digital photography. Let's assume it's the latter and get to the really interesting stuff. This camera is in a class of one. There's really nothing like it anywhere in the marketplace. It's absurdly expensive for a point-and-shoot, and yet it takes pictures that rival in overall image quality - and in many cases equal or even exceed - what the very best full frame professional cameras are capable of generating . . . . . while fitting fairly comfortably in your jacket pocket. It looks like your neighbor's point-and-shoot $350 Canon, but costs more than your last vacation. It doesn't even have a viewfinder, either optical or electronic - although you can get a great electronic one, if you don't mind being soaked for another $450 on top of what you've already shelled out for this expensive but marvelous piece of technology. Or you can get really hosed by Zeiss, and get an optical viewfinder for another $650 - easily the most overpriced accessory in digital photography. It isn't the fastest focusing, and it requires you to move closer or farther to get the shot that you want instead of zooming in or out given the fixed focal length lens. It can be both maddening to struggle with under the wrong circumstances . . . and at the same time a breeze to use like any other point-and-shoot. It seems wildly overpriced in some sense (compared to any other compact?), but is a genuine bargain in terms of what you are getting (best current 35mm 2.0 lens, best 24MP FF sensor in tiny package with highly customizable operating system). It's like nothing else really. Its high ISO performance is equal to anything and I do mean anything out there (UPDATE - ALMOST anything - it is a big step behind its cousin, the Sony A7S, and the new Nikon D4S, which is close to Sony's A7S low light performance - but it's right there with most other FF cameras). It's capable of taking low noise images at ISO 6400, and with a little bit of cleanup and working in RAW, you can easily salvage fairly high quality pictures at ISO 12,800 with lots of detail and little loss of information due to noise. This competes with some of the most expensive FF models in terms of low light ability (the Canon 1Dx, 6D, 5DIII, Nikon D4 and D600 - at worst, it is very close to those benchmark systems in terms of low light ability - at best it is equal to any of them). Overall, the camera is something of a walking contradiction in terms in many ways (a full frame compact), and at the same time, it's a camera that's capable of inspiring enormous loyalty and will likely generate a truly cult-like following, while many other people may simply shake their heads at what they see as Sony's foolishness. People will complain about the cost, but it's really a good value and you get what you pay for. Pros: 1) Remarkable compactness and portability for such enormous low light capabilities w/full frame sensor - an engineering tour de force in terms of cramming full frame capabilities into a point-and-shoot size and form factor (achievable only with a fixed lens). 2) Capable of remarkable detail due to its 24 megapixel full frame sensor with excellent color and dynamic range. DxO sensor score of 93 (4th highest of any tested camera including some medium format sensors). 3) Superb Carl Zeiss 35mm F 2.0 fixed lens that is sharp edge-to-edge (which for FF camera might cost $1200 or so by itself). (F4-f8 offers sharpest pictures edge to edge but f2 is still impressive). Highest rated 35mm lens available by DxO testing. 4) As good high ISO as virtually any full frame camera. 5) Intuitive but deep operating system and menu structures, immediately familiar to those coming from Sony Alpha background. Easy to run as full manual camera (excellent manual control dials for exposure, lens aperture, etc) . . . or put on full AUTO, and all shades in between. Good aperture priority mode operation (my personal fav). 6) Capable of shooting 1080 at 60p and taking good video in low light, and with full IS (image stabilization) but see cons. 7) Macro functionality in CZ lens (but see cons). Macro mode works well with built-in flash (not always the case suggesting they paid attention to this issue). 8) Customizable buttons and other nice user config operating system features. 9) Crop/zoom functionality of x1.4 and x2.0 partially mitigates fixed lens restrictions (equivalent to 50 and 70 mm lens but with obvious loss of resolution). 10) High build quality w/ nice magnesium chassis - has very solid feel (it ought to for this much $!). 11) Decent flash. 12) Nice JPEGs vs. the competition - Sony's stay fairly sharp to 3200 at least, while Nikon and (to a much lesser extent) Canon default JPEGs are losing detail at those ISOs. Adjustable NR on high ISO images in JPEG - setting to LOW can help to preserve details. 13) ISO scale goes all the way down to 50 and all the way up to 25,600 (ISO 50 is useful in bright light to get super clean noise free images). 14) More standard ISO hot shoe (but see cons) - can be adapted to older Sony flashes with neat accessory from Sony. Older flashes then work flawlessly. 15) Many excellent shooting modes, including fascinating watercolor and illustration modes for some really amazing posters (part of Sony's firmware). 16) Much better than average AUTO WB. With most cameras, leaving WB on auto is invitation to some funky pictures. Sony is able to get this close to 'spot on' more than almost anybody in their recent operating systems. 17) Noise at high ISO is really almost film-like. Cons: 1) Price. Decent value for the money, but still costly. 2) Fixed focal length lens means extra work to get the shot properly framed - and forget about shooting subjects at a distance. 3) Problems with focus lock in low light - mostly a standard contrast detection focus issue (but for example OM5 does better job). Fixable in firmware updates? Can take a long time to acquire focus, missing key moments. Slow focus even in good light. 4) Blinding auto-focus assist lamp. At nighttime light levels, where autofocus really struggles, almost as bad as flash. Without it (can be defeated), forget about focus in low light. Problems 3/4 underscore that Sony hasn't really figured out contrast detection autofocus on this sensor. 5) Possibility of semi-planned obsolescence, as Sony may release a zoom lens version sometime in the next year or two (would require another set of engineering breakthroughs to get FF zoom lens down in size). UPDATE - Sony A7 ILC series is really the replacement to the RX1 (see discussion below), and Sony sadly appears to have abandoned this camera :-(. 6) Disappointing that Sony did not include an electronic viewfinder as either standard equipment at this price, or at a discount. 7) Macro mode won't get closer than about 8 inches. 8) No IS for stills - given that this is always sensor-based in Sony systems, not sure why omitted (hi ISO performance plus 35mm focal length?). Would still potentially give two stops advantage - not trivial even with great ISO performance. 9) Sony STILL hasn't made viewing photos and videos in any kind of alternating fashion easy - must surf menus or shoot video to get easy viewing access to videos on card. 10) Poor battery life. Must carry two batteries for any extended shooting. 11) Lens zoom and crop functionality not available if shooting in RAW. 12) Flash has really quite modest output and no bounce functionality. 13) Can't use both optional viewfinder and external flash at the same time. 14) Poor thumb grip with not enough contour - not easy to hold onto the camera with one hand. Optional thumb grip goes for $250? 15) Charging only in-camera, and only with proprietary micro USB interface - can't charge with typical USB charger (if connected to computer that is on and camera detects an active data line). What is the logic of that? Absolutely bizarre. 16) Accessories cost? $250 for a decent case? $250 for better (add-on) thumb grip? $650 for a simple OPTICAL viewfinder - you're kidding right? 17) Disappointing video quality with both moire and fuzziness (shouldn't have both?) despite impressive specs - realistically lucky if you get 720 lines or so, and with again at best average focus lock. Video is passable overall w/ excellent color but still disappointing in FF camera where one expects better. 18) Auto compensation for vignetting (corner shading) introduces subtle color artifacts. Baked in to RAW files too, not just JPEG - but this auto correction can be turned off in menu (probably easily fixable in firmware updates?). Having more cons than pros doesn't mean that I don't like/love this camera. I'm a bit stunned by its capabilities on the one hand, and frustrated with its limitations and very quirky design logic on the other (such as the bizarre charging limitations!?*&^%! that prevent charging with most micro-USB chargers). On balance, it's obvious that what makes it so remarkable actually locks in some of its limitations. You simply couldn't get this compact form factor with an EVF and even a 3x zoom lens. The lens alone would be huge, and this Zeiss lens itself is an engineering marvel, in terms of how small it really is for a FF sensor 2.0 lens. In the end, it's all about image quality, and here, at least in stills if not in video (which is a bit disappointing frankly - like the A99 video), there is little to complain about. One also wonders how much the somewhat fuzzy video could be fixed in future firmware - it would appear that the A99 has been saddled with the same weakness, suggesting that Sony hasn't figured out how to get the best video out of this new chip at least not yet. But if you take this pocketable wonder instead of your huge DSLR and bag of lenses, just because it's so damned convenient, isn't that in the end the strongest endorsement one can make? I find that I am transitioning away from a very favorite Sony A65 w/a very fine 16-50 2.8 as my default camera, just because this is so easy to carry, and makes the DSLT seem huge and bulky by comparison. I'm still exploring the performance envelope of the RX-1, and will update this review as I go. Some have commented that this is a Leica 'wannabe'. But Leica would LOVE to have the image quality of this camera (not really all that close frankly, not even the M9 which was way better than the X1), so perhaps it's really the other way around. It's a remarkable camera by any standard, and perhaps the most INTERESTING/INTRIGUING camera that has been made in the last 10 years, with the possible exception of the new SLTs made also by Sony. Suggests that Sony is thinking outside the box, and doing so more creatively than anyone else. 4.5 out of 5 stars - but Amazon doesn't allow such a rating so settling for 4/5. If they had fixed the (lack of) external charger situation, and provided a cheaper EVF option at purchase, would easily give 5/5. UPDATE April 4th, 2013 This camera continues to grow on me. Its upside is pretty amazing. I have been able to print out 19x13 prints from ISO 3200 images, and have them be sharp, detailed and with excellent color - something I would have thought impossible two years ago. On the other hand, I am still at times frustrated with the poor focus lock, but am finding ways to work around it. Have gotten two extra batteries with an external charger to obviate the craziness of the USB charging (Wasabi power - highly recommended for $16) and the EVF, which really makes shooting stills a lot easier. Pictures are often just superb, even just stock JPEGs. Most of the time run with high ISO NR set to low, and sharpness at +2 - wouldn't want to do that with a Canon, but with the default JPEGs being rather over-smooth to begin with, this gets the most detail out of the sensor without any sharpness artifacts that I have been able to find so far. RAW images can be turned into decent large size prints with some work up to ISO 12800 - also something I would have thought impossible several years ago. I also believe that the default JPEG settings (overly smoothed) are probably a function of Sony compensating for the relatively weak anti-aliasing (otherwise known as a low pass filter). More and more camera makers are weakening that or leaving it out altogether (like the Nikon D800E and new 7100) chasing the consumer's endless demand for sharpness and resolution. In any case, I haven't seen any increase in aliasing or moire artifacts at the 2+ sharpening - but don't use for portraits of your wife or girlfriend or they won't be posing for you much longer :-). Movies are still a minor disappointment in terms of resolution, but color and dynamic range are excellent so I am living with the roughly 720p instead of the 1080p I thought I was getting. Hoping that some of the camera's quirks can be fixed or at least improved with firmware updates - although after consultation with Tim Naff (see his superb review of the A99 on Amazon) I suspect that a simple firmware re-write probably won't be able to fix the fuzzy video, as the problems may lie deeper in Sony's processing of video, as the same video is seen on the A99, and milder versions of the video issues are seen on other product lines. A real puzzle given Sony's broadcast video resume, which is among the best. Surprised at least a bit that Sony hasn't released firmware 1.1. I suspect they are probably busy with all the change items. There have been several blogs devoted to the wish-list for the 1.1 firmware re-write. Curious how much Sony has been listening. They know they have a huge hit on their hands. This camera is going to be a classic. I love the images that it is capable of making if you know how to max out its performance, and it is just so much more convenient than the big 20+ lb bag for the DSLR and three lenses. It's a keeper. Update June 2013 Still no news on the firmware update front. However Sony did release the RX-1R which drops the anti-aliasing (AA) filter - consistent with an increasing trend in the marketplace to push resolution as much as possible and successful (from a marketing standpoint and sales standpoint anyway) in relationship to the Nikon D800E, and the recently released Nikon 7100, along with several other cameras including a couple of new Pentax models where the AA filter has been removed. Otherwise the cameras are identical, and after looking at moiré vulnerability of the new RX-1R, I think the plain ordinary RX-1 with the AA filter is the smarter choice for almost everybody except for studio photographers or people shooting exclusively nature scenes where small fine repeating patterns rarely exist. In all honesty, I can't really see that much extra resolution from the RX-1R, as the AA filter was rather weak to begin with (at least IMO) in the original RX-1. In any case, the camera continues to hum along, working flawlessly and continuing to create superb stills both in JPEG and RAW, except for some problems with lowlight autofocus that I've learned to live with. It works also superbly with an older Sony flash unit HVL-F42AM which gives it excellent bounce flash. And unlike on the Sony A65, flash is NEVER overexposed. The one significant limitation of the camera is the lack of any real capacity to shoot anything at a distance, but for 95% of the shooting that I do, moderate wide-angle along with the 1.4 crop (which yields about a 50 mm view) is adequate. And for when I need really wide-angle, composite stitching of images also works just fine, even without using Sony's panorama mode which sacrifices too much resolution. HIGHLY recommended - if you can live with the camera's few major limitations (fixed lens and weak focus lock being the two biggies). Update October 2013 Well things have gotten a whole lot more interesting . . . Sony has blown everyone out of the water with the announcement of the A7 and A7R (please don't call them NEX cameras as this will upset Sony's cachet/rebranding strategy) but let's face it, that's what they are, souped-up NEX cameras. However, on paper, they simply are leagues ahead of anything else at this form factor in terms of potential performance, with the really interesting one being the A7R with its 36 megapixel sensor without an anti-aliasing filter - clearly the basic sensor from the Nikon D800E (which only the hard-core Nikon fan boys ever denied was a Sony sensor). The reality is that the A7/7R competes with the Sony RX 1 directly, and may have been Sony's notion of how the upgrade path would work for that camera all along. It's about the same weight, and about the same size even, as long as you have the smaller 35mm lens on the A7, with the same sensor in the A7, and a very similar operating system albeit with a different shutter (way louder on the A7 unfortunately) and better autofocus on the AR7. The A7 and of course the A7R obviously will have a big advantage that the RX 1 of course can't claim - the option for multiple lenses. The really interesting one of the proposed 5 new full frame FE lenses is the Zeiss 24-70 F4, which is priced at $1200 (prior generation NEX E lenses are not full frame and will result in severe vignetting unless you select significant image cropping). The biggest problem with the NEX series was simply mediocre lenses unless you are willing to spend a boatload to get a Zeiss lens, and some believe that even the Zeiss lenses in the E mount system were a step down from their A mount lenses (but I haven't seen enough hard testing data to draw a conclusion on that). Because of all this, I believe that the Zeiss 24-70 needs to be a virtual homerun in terms of its performance for this system really to take off. If it is as good as the Alpha mount 24-70 2.8 (a monster lens BTW in terms of both size and price), the A7/7R becomes a viable alternative to the RX 1 and begins to look like a compact pro camera. I haven't actually shot yet with either model and I'm looking forward to getting my hands on an early release model to really evaluate it. A major question is whether they have done something to improve the video quality, which was not bad but not great on the Alpha 99/RX 1. Here's my parsing of pros and cons of the RX-1 against the new AR7/7R. Pluses of the AR7-7R versus RX-1 1) interchangeable lenses - far and away its biggest selling point and advantage. 2) included OLED electronic viewfinder (extra cost upgrade option on the RX-1). 3) slightly cheaper identically equipped (AR7 with 35mm 2.8) $2500 versus $3200 for the RX-1 with Sony's add-on EVF. 4) improved auto focus system relative to RX-1 with phase detection on sensor (but A7R stuck with just contrast detection after deleting AA filter). 5) significantly better accessory support including a nice battery grip - Sony appears to be positioning this as a viable professional camera and not just something for photography enthusiasts with money to spend. 6) significant resolution bump for A7R with identical sensor to Nikon D800E - making it a potential alternative to medium format in a way-smaller form factor (but watch out for moiré if you're not shooting exclusively natural scenes). Having that much resolution in this little a package is really a bullet point for Sony. 7) No firmware update for the RX-1 in over a year since release! Does this mean that Sony has already orphaned this fantastic camera, with all their attention on the A7/7r? Pluses of the RX-1 versus the AR7-7R 1) a true coat pocket camera versus I don't know what kind of pocket for the AR7? Without taking the lens off no AR7 is going to fit in even a generous coat pocket (unless it has the 35mm 2.8 which puts it close in size to the RX-1). But with the 24-70 f4 Zeiss, forget about any pocketability. Removing lenses frequently obviously exposes the sensor to dust and other potential environmental negatives. 2) questionable and frankly disappointing lens systems for NEX camera group up to now means a bit of an uphill push for Sony to get the new FE lenses up to alpha Zeiss/G lens standards. (UPDATE: Testing on the first of the FE full frame Zeiss lenses suggests that the 55m 1.8 lens is exceptionally sharp!) 3) even roughly identically equipped, the RX-1 has a faster lens (2.0 versus 2.8). In any case, the lens on the RX-1 is by any measure a screaming homerun and might be the best 35mm lens anyone has made up to this point. 4) lighter weight for the RX-1. 5) nice little flash on the RX-1, nothing on the AR7-7R. A dedicated flash is going to really add bulk. This is one of my biggest concerns about the A7/7r - I find that the flash on the RX-1 really comes in handy, and provides very consistent exposures. I have an older Sony HVL-F42AM which I love for bounce flash, but it is large and bulky. 6) UPDATE!! - big problems with sensor reflections (or some other type of artifacts) are emerging in the early reviews of the A7, in relation to bright light sources. See discussion of this on DPReviews Sony Users blog, where you can also find some striking examples of this - other cameras have demonstrated these types of artifacts, but the A7 and even the A7r show major problems (streetlights, other bright light sources, esp. sun - and this is NOT simple lens flare, which is universal at least to some degree). In addition, both the A7 and A7r show more dramatic 'sun-star' artifacts than most cameras show. These are a potential downside. Sony is doing their usual damage control - minimizing, denying, and basically just hoping that the negative press dies out. If you shoot a lot at night with street scenes and various artificial lights, the sensor reflections on the A7/7r are going to be a potential distraction. Troubling that Sony didn't pick up on this and fix it. On the other hand, let's hope that the Zeiss FE lenses (35 2.8, 55 1.8 and 24-70 F4) are good to great and every bit as good as the Zeiss lens on the RX-1. If so, these will allow the A7r to really exploit that fantastic sensor. JULY 2013 UPDATE - formal testing of the FE lenses by Imaging Resource shows that the 24-70 F4 is really a big disappointment for a Zeiss lens, and simply not very sharp in the corners zoomed out, and the 35 2.8 is good but not quite as sharp as the 2.0 35mm lens on the RX-1. This means that for my money, this system still isn't able to really exploit the fantastic sensor in the A7r, outside of the 55 1.8, which is REALLY sharp. So Sony still hasn't solved the lens problem that plagued the NEX line, even if that line is technically dead and replaced by their Alpha branding strategy. This detracts from the A7/A7r as an upgrade path for RX-1 owners looking for more lens options, until someone comes out with a native FE zoom lens that is really sharp - although you can use almost any lens with an adapter, but that kills the compact form factor. Don't hold your breath in terms of anyone solving the zoom lens equation for this body. I had high hopes for the 24-70 F4 as a killer full frame system with the A7r. Big disappointment . . . . but there is good news in that Zeiss is planning to release a whole new line of FE prime lenses, including a Zeiss Loxia 2/50, a 2/35 and perhaps one other. CONCLUSIONS? So aside from the usual trade-offs here of lowered weight and portability versus operational flexibility, lens and other support ecosystem options, what separates the RX-1 from the A7/7r? Not much. The interesting thing here is that Sony is clearly going to be competing with themselves given that no one else, well almost no one else excepting Leica whose products are simply out of reach, is making a full frame relatively compact ILC. It's a real throwdown to the rest of the ILC world and looks positioned to capture most of the high-end of the ILC market. Will be interesting to see what the marketplace does with this. Meanwhile back at the RX-1 ranch, I have to conclude that not even Sony (with the new A7/A7r) can beat the portability of the full frame RX-1 - and neither can anyone else. My overall conclusion is that if you can live with the limitations of a fixed lens, there is still nothing out there close to this camera right now. UPDATE JULY 2014 I have had this camera for over 18 months. It still hums along taking great pictures, mostly without a hitch. It's biggest limitation is clearly the fixed lens, and the somewhat funky autofocus in low light and in video. I have decided that the RX1's stiffest competition is actually the Sony RX-100 III - as a camera with a (very) small footprint (smaller than the RX1) and high image quality. It beats the RX1 soundly in video quality (due the upgraded processor enabling a better sampling paradigm than the RX1 line skipping approach), and beats it also in flexibility, but just not in picture quality, most esp. in low light. Its 24-70 lens is a huge advantage over the RX1, and its inclusion of a high quality EVF means that in exchange for a small drop in image quality and in low light shooting, the RX-100 III beats the RX1 almost everywhere else, while getting close in image quality. I may buy one as a travel camera, and keep the RX1 for home shooting. UPDATE SEPT 2014 I believe sadly that Sony has orphaned this camera, as they have not updated the firmware in two years. Part of the problem is that it competes poorly with Sony's own A7, which offers only a slightly larger footprint, interchangeable lens options, a great built-in EVF (costs $400 extra on the RX1), all for less money, even equipped with a 35mm 2.8 Zeiss. And for about the same money, you can get the A7r with the same 2.8 35. For WAY less money, there is the RX100iii, which has better video, 3x zoom in the very useful 24-70mm range, and is even more pocketable, and its image quality (particularly using the two stop advantage of its great IS) is shockingly close to the RX1 - not quite its equal obviously, but for $2000 less, the margins are surprisingly slim. Given all these competitors, Sony has simply outdone themselves. What was a very attractive niche camera has been marginalized by all these developments. I still love the pictures it takes, but progress marches on, and eventually leaves everything behind it, even what were benchmarks at one point. Get a used one in good shape and if you can live with the fixed 35 perspective, you'll love the pictures. But I wouldn't recommend buying an orphaned camera from its manufacturer.