Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/102

1       2       3              102      
103
       104              192       193       end

AhamB
Registered: Jul 11, 2008
Total Posts: 5074
Country: United States

douglasf13 wrote:
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.


I would say the AA filter isn't there to cause additional astigmatism.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6107
Country: United States

AhamB wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
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.


I would say the AA filter isn't there to cause additional astigmatism.


Yeah, that's a better way to put it.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1366
Country: Norway

douglasf13 wrote:
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.


Yes, I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm just saying "So what?" because, as you say, I much prefer this look.



artur5
Registered: Oct 09, 2005
Total Posts: 478
Country: Andorra

While the lack of AA filter causes some artifacts and false detail, inserting an AA filter 'kills' the finest detail and, even if you can recover part of it on post process, something is lost forever. Sharpening a filtered picture introduces also halos and artifacts to some extent.
In the end, apart from personal preferences, all depends on the strength of the AA filter and the pixel density. As things are right now -mainly 12 to 16 Mp APS-C or 24Mp FF sensors- my choice is without filter.
I'm a bit surprised Douglas that you 'support' the AA filter being mainly an M9 user.



frezeiss
Registered: Sep 13, 2011
Total Posts: 529
Country: Indonesia

My preference for cameras without AA filter came after comparing results from the 5N vs XE-1. Same 16 MP generation chip but the Fuji was more pleasing and sharper. I dont think its false detail, how cold you conclude the shaper appearance with false detail?



_julian_
Registered: Aug 21, 2012
Total Posts: 176
Country: N/A

I suspect there are two separate cases to consider.

AA filters work fine and help to reduce moire if the light rays are hitting relatively orthogonally to the sensor plane. This is the normal case for retrofocals, and (image space) telecentic lens designs used in most mirrorless cameras.

Alternatively, if rays are converging from different points on the exit pupil of a RF lens, then the tendency of the IR and AA layers (each with different refractive indices) will be to bend light in the same fashion as a lens.

The loss in corner performance (eg. when the rays are steepest) becomes too big a sacrifice.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6107
Country: United States

frezeiss wrote:
My preference for cameras without AA filter came after comparing results from the 5N vs XE-1. Same 16 MP generation chip but the Fuji was more pleasing and sharper. I dont think its false detail, how cold you conclude the shaper appearance with false detail?


I've done several tests between the 5N and XE-1, myself, and, at least with current raw processing, the 5N wins every time. RPP, in particular, while not showing as much chroma smoothing as other raw converters with the Fuji files, is riddled with zig-zag/stair step artifacts and color moire.



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 1819
Country: Belgium

Makten reported his first copy had a decentered lens, well Lloyd Chambers now also reports his copy has such a problem. So many complaints about the QC, I don't get it. Same story with the RX100.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6107
Country: United States

artur5 wrote:
While the lack of AA filter causes some artifacts and false detail, inserting an AA filter 'kills' the finest detail and, even if you can recover part of it on post process, something is lost forever. Sharpening a filtered picture introduces also halos and artifacts to some extent.
In the end, apart from personal preferences, all depends on the strength of the AA filter and the pixel density. As things are right now -mainly 12 to 16 Mp APS-C or 24Mp FF sensors- my choice is without filter.
I'm a bit surprised Douglas that you 'support' the AA filter being mainly an M9 user.



Removing the AA filter is a necessary evil for my M9, because the filter stack becomes a source of more astigmatism. If using a well designed AA filter was possible for the M9 and didn't become an issue at the edges, yes, I would prefer one. I know that new users to AA-less cameras are always wowed when viewing their files with all of this amazing "detail," and, in the case of Leica, many think that it is some kind of magic clarity, but it's really born out of Leica saving money and needing to sacrifice for good edge performance.

We must remember that there's a reason that the majority of aps-c and 35mm sensor cameras have AA filters. They aren't cheap, and the camera companies would love save money by not including them, but well designed AA filters provide the best balance of image quality in most cases, and I don't see a lot more real detail in a AA-less file over a properly sharpened file that had an AA.

I've owned more than one camera without an AA filter, and, even with today's tools, getting rid of moire can be a bear. I don't think the extra false detail is worth it, but I guess many are interested in the look of more detail, even if it isn't real detail. Of course, more megapixels will solve this, and then AA filters won't be needed, but we're not there yet.

My MFDB had larger pixels than my M9, and, man, that thing was moire city. Granted, for product photography, many pros use diffraction to their advantage by stopping down quite a bit, in order to eliminate the moire, so it often isn't as much of an issue.

Anyways, sorry to get off topic. It seems the RX-1 has good edge performance, so I think Sony's AA filter choice looks to be ok.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1366
Country: Norway

Douglas, may I ask out of curiosity - what subjects do you normally shoot - and what are your output requirements? How big do you normally print?

(Apologize for the serious OT... I'll keep it on topic hereafter.)



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6107
Country: United States

mortyb wrote:
Douglas, may I ask out of curiosity - what subjects do you normally shoot - and what are your output requirements? How big do you normally print?

(Apologize for the serious OT... I'll keep it on topic hereafter.)


Sure thing. Subject wise lately, I'm all over the place: a little street, a little architectral/abstract, a little landscape, and a little bit of portraiture. I used to shoot products, people and architecture (for television) professionally, and I've been an assistant on major fine art shoots, so I'm into a lot of different things, although fine art (and shooting my family) is my only interest of late. These days, I normally don't print larger than my usual print size of 13x19 for my personal stuff, although I occasionally do go larger.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1366
Country: Norway

Thanks.

---

Too bad about the reports of decentered lens etc. I think it's unacceptable that I as a customer of a $2800 ($4200 here) cutting-edge camera have to check for faults and try to get lucky getting a copy which is without any defects. I'm also surprised about this because my A900 was the best tweaked camera I've had. The Nex-5n has also been working as it should.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6107
Country: United States

mortyb wrote:
Thanks.

---

Too bad about the reports of decentered lens etc. I think it's unacceptable that I as a customer of a $2800 ($4200 here) cutting-edge camera have to check for faults and try to get lucky getting a copy which is without any defects. I'm also surprised about this because my A900 was the best tweaked camera I've had. The Nex-5n has also been working as it should.



Yeah, my NEXs and A900 were great, too, although I guess adding in the complication of a lens makes things tough. I've read that decentered lenses from Sony isn't exactly uncommon, although I don't have that experience, myself.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1366
Country: Norway

I think Lloyd says it well: "My personal feeling is that a $2800 fixed-lens camera ought to be perfect."



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6107
Country: United States

mortyb wrote:
I think Lloyd says it well: "My personal feeling is that a $2800 fixed-lens camera ought to be perfect."


I think that is fair, although I guess there are assembly issues with cameras at all price points. M9s haven't exactly been trouble free in all cases.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4175
Country: United States

Since I don't have a subscription anymore can someone tell me how much it was decentered. Martin's. 1st copy seemed to be very little decentered and his closeup test was not a good test as tiny misalignment errors of lens to subject could have introduced errors.
Lloyd has found a lot of decentered lenses from different makers including zeiss.
Lloyd has bashed a lot of different camera makers including Leica whose M9 has been famous for focus inaccuracies between viewfinder and lens needing calibration sometimes or trying another copy of the lens.
Morty, did you ever post a picture of the back screen bleeding issue you complained about earlier? Not sure what you talking about asy screen seems fine to me.
This line from Lloyd sounds great but it is a little naive and unrealistic and funny since Leica M systems are a hell of a lot more expensive and not perfect either. Lloyd and MR like to sound all high and mighty and rant about camera makers but I think that is just their call for attention.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1366
Country: Norway

Well, the M9 is the M9. You sort of know what you're getting into when you buy it. It's a mechanical rangefinder.

The RX1 is totally different. I understand all manufacturers have certain tolerances for what is considered "within spec.", but a decentered lens is IMO not okay, esp. not on the RX1.

No, I didn't photograph the bleeding LCD. I suspect the 2nd body I got was a returned item. I've learned what to look for. The camera store I normally use didn't have the RX1 in stock, so I went with another one.

As I've said, I don't look for faults per se, but paying $4200 and almost instantly getting the feeling that my camera isn't assembled well, that's not a nice feeling. This is the first camera where I got this feeling.

I won't hesitate getting one in a few months time.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4175
Country: United States

Ok, but if I look at the one church shot on his blog I don't see any decentering, I just see some barrel distortion. How much decentering is he talking about?



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1366
Country: Norway

Not much, you can tell by looking at 100 % crops side-by-side, but I probably wouldn't return it because of this.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4175
Country: United States

Ok, a tiny amount sharper on one side vs. the other at 100%. I would not call that a QC problem. Just some angst over the high price. People have been cherry picking the best copies of lenses and cameras for a long time.
My D800E left focus sensor problem is a lot more flagrant and has been proven to have shown up on a lot of copies and Nikon still hasn't owned up to it. And I paid $3300 for that. But I still love my D800E and didn't return it.



1       2       3              102      
103
       104              192       193       end