Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              58      
59
       60              192       193       end
  

Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
  
 
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #1 · p.59 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


mpmendenhall wrote:
Looking at the DPReview images: they definitely put a Zeiss lens on this camera! The general image rendering exemplified what the Zeiss "3D look" means to me.

Viewing at 100%, however, I was surprised not to find any examples that looked like the lens was beating the resolving power of the sensor. The images don't look like they came from a soft lens, but neither one that (even moderately stopped down, at the center) was blowing the sensor away. I only saw a few very weak examples of moire, and not much by way of high-contrast pixel-level texture. Maybe the camera
...Show more
sebboh wrote:
looks like standard sony jpegs to me, they never look sharp at 100%. i wouldn't draw conclusions about the AA filter from them. need to see raws.


Do you think the jpg images are corrected for lateral CA in camera processing?



Oct 09, 2012 at 10:27 AM
RickPerry
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.59 #2 · p.59 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


These images remind me of my old 5DII with the 35 f2 ZE - only not as good. I think the higher ISO's are a little better, but I still hate the "smoothing" that Sony Jpegs have at 1600 and above.


Oct 09, 2012 at 12:31 PM
michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #3 · p.59 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


Imaging-Resource.com's Dave Etchells added a comment regarding the first set of images he posted:
I used Sony's DRO (Dynamic Range Optimizer) pretty freely on these shots, especially the ones after dark. It does a great job of controlling contrast by bringing up the shadows, making the night shots in particular much more appealing and visually representative of what the original scene looked like to the human eye. Because it boosts brightness in the shadows, though, it boosts noise there as well, so noise in darker areas of many of these images will be higher than might have been if they were shot conventionally. Even at that, the noise isn't at all bad in my estimation,...Show more



Oct 09, 2012 at 12:56 PM
michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #4 · p.59 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


Steve Huff posted some images made at night:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/

"The high ISO is nothing short of astonishing"

Hey... these look pretty darn good.

High ISO is one thing which causes me some grief shooting the GXR. I'm sold at great ISO 5000 let alone the potential to use ISO 25600 even if only for B+W.



Oct 09, 2012 at 01:19 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #5 · p.59 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


RickPerry wrote:
These images remind me of my old 5DII with the 35 f2 ZE - only not as good. I think the higher ISO's are a little better, but I still hate the "smoothing" that Sony Jpegs have at 1600 and above.


what really gets to me is the "smoothing" at iso 100 that sony seems to do.

in any event, the lens looks very sharp to the edges wide open from the samples. better than the ZE 35/2 i believe.



Oct 09, 2012 at 04:22 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #6 · p.59 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


Yeah, Sony jpegs are not for pixel peeping. They're usually pretty heavy on the NR. Raw should be much better.


Oct 09, 2012 at 04:24 PM
michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #7 · p.59 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


Sony | ^insert other brand here^ - can produce jpegs? Who knew!

Never used 'em myself except to drive the rear LCD or EVF of cameras that rely upon a 'fine' version for max viewability especially when magnified.

I recall hearing some not liking Sony output for waxy looking skin / skin tones. Is that purely a jpeg / jpeg smoothing/NR issue? I sure don't recall having problems with this with the NEX-5N, again using nothing but raw output.



Oct 09, 2012 at 06:32 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #8 · p.59 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


michaelwatkins wrote:
I recall hearing some not liking Sony output for waxy looking skin / skin tones. Is that purely a jpeg / jpeg smoothing/NR issue? I sure don't recall having problems with this with the NEX-5N, again using nothing but raw output.


yes, as far as i know.



Oct 09, 2012 at 06:45 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.59 #9 · p.59 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


I didn't use to care for Sony JPEG's but their newer products like the NEX7 and RX100 I feel actually have pretty decent jpegs now, not the best I've seen, but certainly useable in most cases and a world better than the likes of someone such as Panasonic.

I'm perhaps less picky than some, but other than Panasonic, I don't really know any brands I'd say have "bad" jpegs these days. My Fuji X100 and Xpro, Olympus EM-5, Sony NEX7 and RX100, Nikon D800e etc all look pretty decent SOOC. Its not to say the files can't be improved upon but for most applications I could live with jpeg output.

Something like my Panny GH2, or Leica M8.2 and to a lesser degree M9 though, yuck, just horrible jpeg output that doesn't remotely show what the camera can deliver.



Oct 09, 2012 at 07:48 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #10 · p.59 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


I'm not meaning to imply that Sony jpegs aren't usable. I just mean that, in terms of NR, they've traditionally been a little over done.


Oct 09, 2012 at 07:58 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #11 · p.59 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


i actually like sony's jpegs pretty well now as well, but they never look sharp at 100% compared to the raws. this is only important for getting an idea how good the lens is, i don't really care how great things look at 100% in general.


Oct 09, 2012 at 08:19 PM
michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #12 · p.59 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


Agreed. It's fun to look at 100% to try to suss out lens or sensor implementation differences but in the real world it doesn't matter to me.

What I am interested in is how strong the AA filter is, although honestly with a fixed lens camera if the results are good I guess I don't care as much as I do with others where lens selection makes a big difference.

Imaging-Resource is going to check out the virtual 50mm lens / "smart teleconverter" feature.



Oct 09, 2012 at 08:33 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #13 · p.59 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


michaelwatkins wrote:
Imaging-Resource is going to check out the virtual 50mm lens / "smart teleconverter" feature.


That will essentially be like shooting a 35/2 lens on an 11mp aps-c sensor, which shouldn't be bad, although it isn't something I'd be interested much in for $2800+.



Oct 09, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #14 · p.59 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


Considering per-pixel quality which is already high even in JPEGs, I think theres quite a lot of space for crops. Web sized 100% crop will give quite a lot.

Tho they should maybe create some wide-angle convertor. And perhaps tele/macro too. But then it would be as old R1. (without zoom.. sigh)



Oct 09, 2012 at 08:48 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.59 #15 · p.59 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


Indeed, I can't say I really see the point of what is just in camera cropping on a $2800 camera that is targeted to the high end enthusiast crowd.

Its a feature that has its place I suppose, but given I would think a majority of the target market is photographers who are going to be shooting raw, doing their own post processing etc anyways, is there really much point in doing an in camera crop ?

You could market it however you want, as it had a 35/50/70mm equiv lens with the "teleconverter" options, and that might sound good to a newbie, but I would think (hope) any enthusiast who wants a $2800 FF fixed lens camera knows all your doing is cropping, and also realize its something they can do in post, with no only more control but typically better results.


Only other thing I could think is that maybe there are some that don't like 35mm, that prefer 50mm, so they could set it to 50mm all the time and just treat it as a 50mm, but then you've really got to wonder who wants to buy a $2800 FF camera just to have it shoot like a 11meg APS-C camera.

Whats the point in that ?



Oct 09, 2012 at 08:51 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #16 · p.59 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


millsart wrote:
Only other thing I could think is that maybe there are some that don't like 35mm, that prefer 50mm, so they could set it to 50mm all the time and just treat it as a 50mm, but then you've really got to wonder who wants to buy a $2800 FF camera just to have it shoot like a 11meg APS-C camera.

Whats the point in that ?


Yeah, that's all I'm saying.



Oct 09, 2012 at 08:55 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.59 #17 · p.59 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


Guess it doesn't actually cost anything to add the "feature" and if maybe it somehow, for some reason, ends up selling them a few more camera's, its smart business



Oct 09, 2012 at 09:14 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #18 · p.59 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


Considering that most of the image circle "growth" happens on the inside side of the aperture, the outside diameter is pretty small. This means that a normal accessory front teleconverter would be pretty easy to construct...

I think the images look pretty awesome, even though one could wish for some more large aperture, more detail in-focus shots. Given a better postprocessing, I've no doubt the images will at least equal the Leica M + 35-cron ~10k$ combo. Which might put the package cost in a different perspective.



Oct 09, 2012 at 09:15 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.59 #19 · p.59 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


theSuede wrote:
Considering that most of the image circle "growth" happens on the inside side of the aperture, the outside diameter is pretty small. This means that a normal accessory front teleconverter would be pretty easy to construct...

I think the images look pretty awesome, even though one could wish for some more large aperture, more detail in-focus shots. Given a better postprocessing, I've no doubt the images will at least equal the Leica M + 35-cron ~10k$ combo. Which might put the package cost in a different perspective.


I hear you. I'm still hoping Fuji comes out with a tele converter for the X100, since their wide angle converter was so well received.

I think the price for the Rx1 isn't too bad, considering, although the EVF adds another $600, which is a little tougher to swallow, and I'm not interested in such a camera without either a tilt LCD or EVF. My wallet is still thanking Sony for not including an internal EVF, as they may have pushed it over the edge for me.



Oct 09, 2012 at 09:21 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.59 #20 · p.59 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)


I think making a tele conversion lens has to be pretty tough for wider focal lengths. I had pretty good success with wide angle conversion lens on the X100, and Fuji even came out with one, but darn if every single thing I tried as far as tele conversion lenses went didn't produce just awful results. They can work, and work pretty well on longer focal lengths such as superzooms, but those are also very small image circles and the lenses are still pretty big and heavy, sometimes bigger/heavier than the cameras themselves.

All and all I think it would be a bit of a losing venture on a camera like the RX1, where your paying a huge premium for both IQ and size. Carrying around a conversion lens with the camera, or mounted is going to defeat any size advantage you paid such a steep price for and also its going to hurt the IQ which also was probably a prime reason one bought the camera in the first place.

Probably better to just add something like a NEX6 or 5r and the new 35mm f1.8 or Sigma 30mm f2.8, 50mm 1.8 etc if you also have a need for longer focal length coverage



Oct 09, 2012 at 09:38 PM
1       2       3              58      
59
       60              192       193       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              58      
59
       60              192       193       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password