Upload & Sell: Off
| p.5 #2 · RX1 bokeh vs other cams/lens at F/2.0 |
hot linking is not cool...
There is link towards that review/impressions just two posts up ffs. Beside that it has quite huge watermark.
After see the comparison. I agree there are more similarity than difference. But I don't agree RX did anything poorer, or change my view about it.
Color, I slightly prefer RX, for it has more saturation and slightly orange hint. Nikon has yellow/warmer hint, which I find latest G always have. I don't like that personally. But here the censors are also different, so I don't think we can draw any conclusion on color.
Bokeh, I also slightly prefer RX. I don't feel this comparison change my view about this little camera on Bokeh: beautiful. Here is the reason, For WA lens, I am not seeking blur, or more DOF in Bokeh, but mainly how the bokeh can keep relative shape of background without jittery and harsh representation. Here, the difference is again small but RX1 did better. Usually, fast glass will perform very good once stop down 1 stop on this department, but RX1 seems still smoother which really surprise me. For Bokeh highlight, RX has cat eye, I believe that is come from smaller physical size, mechanic vignette. But Nikon didn't do better, actually, worse to my eye, wired highlight shape close to corner suggesting its poor coma performance. My 35cron R has the same problem. I feel it is ugly.
As for blur, I find fast glass always has more blur at the same aperture compare to f2 lens. from personal experience: 35lux R vs 35cron R. Zeiss 35f2 vs 35f1.4, Zeiss P50 vs MP50, Leica 50lux MASPH vs 50cron rigid. So, I am not surprised to see that, though I don't really know the reason for this.
I think for what it is, its amazing. Sure it has fixed lens, but I would say its as good as possible. Comparable IQ would be only from D3X or A900 paired with Zeiss or Leica lens. Or future M-240 (that will be probably better, just quite a bit more expensive).
As I wrote before (or I didnt) I would get one if I could without hesitation. It reminds me old R1 a bit, at least that IQ part.
The differences on this shot may be larger than on most of the shots, yet they are still quite small. I would say that the largest difference is a lower contrast/saturation in the Nikon shot, possibly caused by larger dynamic range, and the slight colour differences may be largely counteracted by a slightly different white balance. Overall, there is a difference, but it is so small that it really is of no consequence at all, and may be equalised with only slight PP. In fact, maybe they were even caused by slight differences in PP, in the raw developer or by the person.
Hm, not really.
D4 - 13.1 eV
RX1 - 14.3 eV
D4 - 77/74
RX1 - 84/81 (expected better, but its expensive as it is)
Its sorta funny, but RX1 has better DR and better colors than D4 paired with comparable lens (tho truly comparable would be Zeiss not Nikkor).
Colors are given by camera/lens combo and to certain degree its fixable in PP (good color profile can do amazing stuff). But you can do same with RX1 and get even better result. People often dont get that theres certain limited amount of data that you can PP and camera that gives you more data that you need is simply better if you do PP.
Without doing PP its less relevant and manufacturer JPEG engine or quality of RAW converter is more important. Buying D4 and shooting JPEG seems bit like heresy to me, but there are people that actually do that.. to each its own.
Yea and since my monitor is calibrated and does have 100% sRGB coverage I might see bit more than others.. Which is sometimes actually downside for me.