rscheffler wrote:
Not sure, it might be Boris. Some commenters on his Patagonia series were critical of his preference for vibrant colors.
Boris, very nice additional series! Curious if you're contemplating the new 50 Cron? I found a few full rez samples on Flickr of it on the MM compared informally against the 50 Lux ASPH and was amazed at the difference in stopped down performance in favor of the 50AA. It would appear to be a pretty remarkable landscape lens.
The RX100 images are all JPEGs and I've not done any significant changes regarding the color and/or WB. There was no need for in my opinion. Sony seems to have the same preference for vibrant colors as I do ;-). With the M9 I had to do a lot more changes, especially the auto WB is often quite wrong.
Regarding the 50AA I will for sure test the lens and if it is clearly better than the Lux (stopped down for landscapes) I will buy it, if not I will keep the Lux, wich is not at all a bad lens.
Thanks fotografur. It seems that several RX100 have problems with soft images on the right edge (and always on the right side!). You can find some more examples on the dpreview forum.
A lot of people are complaining about lens decentering on their RX100. I haven't shot many tele photos with it yet, but I think mine also has it to some degree at the tele end. I'll have to do some testing to be sure.
It seems that the 20MP sensor requires tighter assembly tolerances for the lens.
Can you keep us updated about it? I'm curious what Sony will say.
Yes, they are.
But if you only shoot f8, does it really make sense to use lenses which are designed
to shoot wide open and which are priced accordingly?
Of course R100 is great, but show me any side by side shot at f1.4...
Andrew, I'm not sure, what you want to say with your comment.
If I shoot landscapes from a tripod that are far away with no close foreground in the image I use either f/5.6 or f/8. Everything would make no sense in my opinion.
The same is true if I have something in the foreground and want everything within DOF (again shot from a tripod).
In Croatia I've also shoot many image at f/2. f/2.8 or f/4 with the Summicron. But only in situations, where the camera was handheld or I wanted a limited DOF to emphasize the foreground.
I don't think that it makes any sense to always shoot wide open, just because a lens is designed (and priced) with high performance wide open.
Regarding the RX100: The center sharpness at f/1.8 is very good. In my opinion comparable to the Summicron. But I've not done any systematic testing yet. The images in this thread are just some vacation shots with both cameras.
At the moment I'm trying to return the RX100 to Sony, because of the decentered lens, but I missed the 30 day return period by 4 days, therefore the CS could not decide this directly and will contact me again.
Apparently if one has a lens that can be shot wide open, it must always be shot wide open, for its all the better to impress others on internet forums with and showcase its superiority over lesser cameras/slower lens, which in turn helps reinforce the purchase decisions of others who have the same lens.
Lets face it, no one wants to just see a nice photo, they rather want to see purchase affirmations
Andrew, I'm not sure, what you want to say with your comment.
I just wanted to say that the small difference between RX100 and your M9 might simply
be a result of shooting at f8, that's all Somehow nobody mentioned that...
Your pictures are great, but you rarely shoot wide open which is the biggest advantage
of the high quality lenses IMO. Nothing more hidden in my comment
Some commenters on his Patagonia series were critical of his preference for vibrant colors.