Obviously, this is a studio comparison under studio lights, so we're only able to glean very specific things about the cameras performance. That said, the lens doesn't perform as well as I was hoping. Granted, it is a 35mm lens being compared to cameras that all sport 85mm lenses, which are always sharper. The field shots that I've seen reveal a high-quality 35mm piece of glass. I think that my expectations were set a bit too high.
The sensor is more than up to snuff. It outperforms the Sony A99, which is suffering the usual hit to performance caused by its SLT mirror. Of interest, considering Sony's boasting about this being the best sensor that they have ever made, is that the D600 outperforms it. It's such a small difference as to make no real difference, but it is noticeable on the pixel level, and by ISO-12,800, color is a bit better in the Nikon shots.
Unfortunately, they mention some issues with the autofocus. They say that it aligns well with the current crop of NEX cameras, which is good, but for nearly $3,000, I was expecting an upgrade. As far as I know, almost everyone is working with pre-release cameras, so the AF may speed up. I certainly hope it does, because having a camera that is excellent in low-light but has AF that falls on its face in the same environment is brutally disappointing. All one has to do to experience this problem is look to the Fuji X Pro 1.
I am going to be super-critical of the RX1 going into the future because while I am a huge fan of the camera and will buy it as soon as my budget allows, the price that Sony is charging for its accessories sets my teeth on edge. It's the kind of behavior that Nikon and Canon exhibit. Sony is fighting for market share. They shouldn't be pulling this garbage.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All posts are moderated, so it may take a day for your comment to appear.