Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/101

1       2       3              101      
102
       103              190       191       end

Yakim Peled
Registered: Nov 18, 2004
Total Posts: 16903
Country: Israel

Can the EVF move sideways as well or just up and down?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



vario1
Registered: Feb 18, 2009
Total Posts: 591
Country: United States

What is the benefit of moving sideways?



Yakim Peled
Registered: Nov 18, 2004
Total Posts: 16903
Country: Israel

vario1 wrote:
What is the benefit of moving sideways?


I was thinking it's the same as a screen that moves sideways.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Vern Dewit
Registered: Sep 27, 2006
Total Posts: 2401
Country: Canada

Yakim Peled wrote:
Can the EVF move sideways as well or just up and down?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


Nope.



desvenne
Registered: Oct 30, 2012
Total Posts: 44
Country: Belgium

vario1 wrote:
What is the benefit of moving sideways?


Maybe he wants to shoot around a corner?



vario1
Registered: Feb 18, 2009
Total Posts: 591
Country: United States

desvenne wrote:
vario1 wrote:
What is the benefit of moving sideways?


Maybe he wants to shoot around a corner?



, that thought occured to me.



frezeiss
Registered: Sep 13, 2011
Total Posts: 480
Country: Indonesia

where are the pictureees, and the 100% crops

Since I bouth the XE-1 which doesnt have AA filter, I kind of hesitate going back to a camera that have one.



jason9101
Registered: Dec 22, 2012
Total Posts: 32
Country: N/A

The lens look much bigger as compared to the body. Otherwise I really like the concept.



Yakim Peled
Registered: Nov 18, 2004
Total Posts: 16903
Country: Israel

Vern Dewit wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
Can the EVF move sideways as well or just up and down?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


Nope.


Thanks for the info. If I was drawn into such a camera I think I'd prefer an OVF.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 14905
Country: Germany

Do you mean rangefinder? Otherwise a mirror and prism are needed, and then the camera won't be small.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5740
Country: United States

frezeiss wrote:
where are the pictureees, and the 100% crops

Since I bouth the XE-1 which doesnt have AA filter, I kind of hesitate going back to a camera that have one.


Why? Compared to properly sharpened output from a camera with an AA filter, removing the AA filter only gives the impression of more detail through artifacts, and, in the case of the XE-1, even that impression of more detail isn't any higher than a regular 16mp sensor, because raw conversion is still pretty bad for X-Trans.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1361
Country: Norway

I agree the X-E1 doesn't (at least to me) have that typical non-AA filter look. It has very nice clarity, but I think that's because of something else. But the Kodak SLR/c gave stunning results no matter what lens you put on it. To "discredit" the effects of non AA filter by saying it's artifacts and false detail is IMO kind of pointless. Looking at a A3 print or a 1048 px resize from the Kodak, results speak for themselves.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 14905
Country: Germany

The Kodak doesn't give the typical modern AA-less camera look though. It has a sort of unusual watercolour look at 100%, and thus it really isn't typical compared to, say, a Leica M9 or S2.

Btw, I thought the SLR/c and SLR/n were identical apart from body and mount, but my SLR/n definitely doesn't look great with every lens. It had real problems with the Zeiss 21/2.8. Weird colours in the corners, and a strong reaction to the sun anywhere near the edge of the frame.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1361
Country: Norway

The SLR/c even made the Canon 50/1.8 look great. My point is - I trust my eyes. Looking at a 1048 px image online, an A3+ print or a 1,5x1,5 m canvas - if it looks good, that's what matters. The AA-less SLR/c looked better than about all other cameras I've had. Watercolor, false detail - so what? The end results were awesome, and that's what matters to me.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 14905
Country: Germany

I wasn't criticising the watercolour look, it does seem to work. It looks weird at 100% but it enlarges well. I think Kodak knew what they were doing with it.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1361
Country: Norway

Agreed. I still have my SLR/c, never use it though. Too quirky.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 14905
Country: Germany

Yeah, me too I am keeping it to do a colour comparison one day between my D3, D800, SLR/n and the Fuji S5.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1361
Country: Norway

I prefer the color while you prefer the colour.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 14905
Country: Germany

Your version of colour lacks nuance



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5740
Country: United States

mortyb wrote:
I agree the X-E1 doesn't (at least to me) have that typical non-AA filter look. It has very nice clarity, but I think that's because of something else. But the Kodak SLR/c gave stunning results no matter what lens you put on it. To "discredit" the effects of non AA filter by saying it's artifacts and false detail is IMO kind of pointless. Looking at a A3 print or a 1048 px resize from the Kodak, results speak for themselves.


Hey, I'm solely an M9 shooter these days, but it still holds true, as TheSuede has pointed out and illustrated many times. Of course, as pixel count goes up, AA filters will be less and less necessary, but, as its stands now, it is false detail that we're seeing with our AA-less cameras. That being said, it seems that many prefer this look, regardless of where it comes from.

p.s. The big advantage of no AA filter, outside of cost, is that it does improve things at the periphery of the sensor, since the AA filter isn't there to cause astigmatism.



1       2       3              101      
102
       103              190       191       end