Would You Buy This Camera?

Discussion in 'Open Gear Talk' started by Amin Sabet, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    Note: This camera does not exist. But I wish it did.

    -18.3mm (50mm equivalent) f/1.2 optically stabilized prime lens
    -Similar size to RX100 (slightly thicker).
    -Same sensor, AF, display as RX100
    -$650 street price

    Let's call it the RX50.

    Would you buy it?
  2. bkxmnr

    bkxmnr New Member

    Jan 26, 2011
    Probably yes. But a 35mm equivalent would make it a definite yes.
  3. Chris2500dk

    Chris2500dk Top Veteran

    Dec 22, 2011
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    I wouldn't buy a 50mm equivalent "prime compact", too limiting for my taste. A 35mm equivalent would be interesting.
    A 10mm (28mm equivalent) f2.8 lens, this sensor and the Ricoh GRD control system would be lovely though.
  4. Andrewteee

    Andrewteee All-Pro

    Jul 8, 2010
    50/1.2 would be interesting. You'd have to stop down for sharpness, but fast when you need it. 50mm is my preferred focal length. Might buy it.
  5. Lili

    Lili Hall of Famer

    Oct 17, 2010
    Dallas, TX
    In a heart beat. But then my favorite carry-camera is my Ricoh GRD. so using a fast prime lens is familiar and happy to me :)
  6. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    I'd generally prefer a 35mm equivalent but was thinking that 50 would basically give unprecedented DOF control in this (size) class of camera.

    Would be interesting for sure, and I would definitely buy it.

    A year or two ago, this would have been considered impossible to make. However, the LX3, S90, and RX100 have each taken a step beyond was had been done in terms of speed for a given body size and format size, so I believe this concept RX50 to be possible.
  7. retow

    retow All-Pro

    Jul 24, 2010
    Definitely. But I preferred a 40mm equivalent focal length (a slight trade off between dof control and versatility) and it should have at least the option to use an external OVF.
  8. Landshark

    Landshark PhotoDog

    Jul 15, 2010
    nope, would need to be a 35 or 28, then yes, the dof in a compact would not motivate me
  9. Biro

    Biro Super Moderator

    Aug 7, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    You're absolutely right about that, Amin. And, as we all know, everything's a trade-off and compromise. But I still think 35mm would be far more useful for general use. Yes, you'd have more depth-of-field control with a 50, but it's just a bit too tight for my personal tastes.

    It's funny. Your recent purchase of a Voigtlander Bessa had me looking at them today - and thinking about optimal focal lengths if I had one lens only. I loved 35mm on film cameras. I was seriously considering picking up a Bessa L zone-focus camera but the only screw-mount lenses still available for it were too wide (15 and 21). I wouldn't go wider than 25 on a general-use film camera.
  10. Julien

    Julien Top Veteran

    Jan 6, 2012
    Paris, France
    I'd definitely consider a 35mm f1.4 IS version of this.
  11. greyelm

    greyelm All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2011
    London, England
    No. No viewfinder.
  12. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    Tough crowd :biggrin:. I thought the "buy" rate would be much higher.
  13. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Regardless of the focal length, I still wonder about the tactile feel of such a small camera.
  14. flash

    flash Veteran

    May 6, 2011
    yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

  15. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    I'm on a bit of a 50mm kick of late. Between the Bessa and 50mm Nokton and my Pana Leica 25 being all but crazy glued to the OM-D, it's how I've been rolling for a few weeks now.

    Lili and Gordon - thanks - because of your replies, I don't feel like such a loonie :biggrin:.
  16. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    I know nothing of development costs, marketing, etc, but posts like these make me wonder what would happen if Sony were to release a whole series of RX cameras with prime lenses across a range of focal lengths: Eg RX20, RX24, RX28, RX35, RX50, RX85. I bet a lot of folks would pick two or even three of them over the option of an interchangeable lens camera system. I'd personally pick either the combination of an RX35 and an RX85 or maybe just an RX50.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Boid

    Boid All-Pro

    Dec 15, 2011
    Bangalore, India
    24mm 1.2 with a viewfinder for me. Going that wide, I wouldn't care for IS. Between this and the 35mm on the X100, I would be set for life (or till I get a 645D). But seriously, I would be done with small compacts with these two.
  18. serhan

    serhan All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    Why not:) I prefer the leica 25mm on my m43 also...
  19. what about a neat 24-35-50mm stepzoom lens? :-D
    Not sure if it would actually make it easier to create a high quality "zoom"-lens that way, but I've always been intrigued by the concept of having three quality primes in one :)
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    I barely ever use my 50ish equivalent lenses on my system cameras - would never buy a camera limited to that. In the film days, I used em because it was all I had. Once good wide angles were available at reasonable prices, I was done with 50s.

    Put a 24 or 28 in it and add a focus/distance scale in the manual focus and I'm there. In fact, if Sony had put any sort of distance scale in their MF display, I'd buy the RX100 - probably already would have. As is, I won't.