The Sony RX1 and rage blogging :-)

The eagerly awaited reviews of the Sony RX1 are trickling out. Steve Huff was one of the first out of the traps:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/12/03/the-sony-rx1-camera-review-part-2-my-pick-for-camera-of-the-year-2012/

I do not have the RX1 in my hands; and I do not intend to buy one. But reading the review and the comments provides one with a tabloid version of how confusing and confused we all are, camera-makers and photographers alike.
Where to start?

• Apparently, the Sony RX1 is the answer to "quality starved enthusiasts". 

Did he really say "starved"? Because, for my money, enthusiasts had never had it so good.
You want FF? Walk into any second hand reputable dealer and pick up a 5D or a 1DSmkII for peanuts. And let's all stop complaining about "high ISO noise" and "slow AF": these sort of cameras put food on thousands of tables over the last ten years. And now they are not good enough for people to take photos of their toddlers?
You fancy mirrorless? Some of the latest NEX models are down by 35% in three months (Sony's F3 and 5R); a Panasonic G3 or an Olympus EP2 can be bought for loose change second hand (I have seen mint EP2s going for £99).
I am not even going into modern APS-C DSLRs which are super-performers and on permanent sale, cash-back or whatever. You'd struggle to find a duff model; realistically, only ergonomics and choice of lenses make any serious difference to "which camera should I buy?" question.

•  Can the Sony RX1 (unproven product, just beginning to ship now) be Camera of the year 2012?

I certainly don't think that Steve Huff is on the take; not because I know him and can vouch for his character, but simply because you can only be on the take once. Then you become a busted flush.
Having said that, there is a difference between child-like entusiasm (a good thing) vs childish over-eagerness. This review is full of the latter.

"The RX1 is hands down my favorite camera of 2012 and one of my favorites of all time and this is only with just over 3 weeks of use. The build is solid, the lens feels great, the manual control of aperture on the lens is a godsend and the silent shutter means that for street shooters this camera will be just what they have been looking for. High ISO is superb as well."

There are many equally solid, quick to configure, quiet, good ISO cameras out there. What on earth is so special about this £2,500 monster? Is it the "Zeiss look" as stated elsewhere in the review (a look which can be achieved with any camera that can take a Zeiss lens via adapter)? Hooray for marketing and hype over substance.

• Have photographers finally lost the plot?

The comments below the line are confusing but so are some of the "minus points" in this camera's review. Apparently, lack of EVF is a killer for many: these folk believe that shooting a medium-wide lens (ie, a "true" FF 35mm) demands the use of an EVF. Not simply that "it would be nice"; it is gosh-darned essential!

The AF performance is questionable; FF sensor + Fast lens + contrast detection + low light = ropey AF performance. Is anyone really shocked by this? But, at the same time, every forum from sonyalpharumors to DPreview is chock-full of people who really, really want an interchangeable FF mirror-less. Not a single one of them gives a good explanation why they'd want such an expensive gadget plus new lines of lenses (as opposed to the 2nd-hand Canon 5D solution described earlier).

Is it any wonder that the camera companies keep iterating and produce meaningless models with cut-down features in tiny price increments (say "hi" to the dozens of Nikon Coolpix models)? We (as consumers) keep giving them confused messages. Maybe it's not their fault that we end up with fascinating (and the RX1 is a trully fascinating miniaturisation project), but ultimately impractical works of madness :-)

Normal service (ie, photos) will resume soon: can't stop watching Breaking Bad!