Sounds normal for contrast detection AF Chris. It depends on how much contrast there is on the target.

Hi Chris - when I was watching Steve Huff's video I tried to see if there was a difference in center point vs spot focus, I could not reproduce it, but I tried AF vs. DMF and AF seems much better! In DMF mode, going back and forth between two focus distances, I would get a fair share of quick back-and-forth focus searches. Doing the same thing in AF mode gives me much faster lock, either straight-on or a very minimal search. I wonder if somebody else has seen that.

And who says that the live view closes to f/2.8 or f/4? Because my aperture blades do not close, they are wide open at f/2 or closed to the corresponding aperture, even during focusing. This is unlike the NEX that opens wide to focus and closes up again to the selected aperture, which could lead to focus shift.

NEX only opens up wide open to focus in lowlight. In good light, it focuses at shooting aperture.

Julio Marcos wrote:
And who says that the live view closes to f/2.8 or f/4? Because my aperture blades do not close, they are wide open at f/2 or closed to the corresponding aperture, even during focusing. This is unlike the NEX that opens wide to focus and closes up again to the selected aperture, which could lead to focus shift.

joe88 says that twice on the previous page and says that lloyd chambers also mentions it in his review (i have no desire to pay for lloyd's content so i can't verify that). this is the first i've heard of it and hence my surprise. i would love to hear more people chime in on whether this is true because it doesn't make any sense to me and would be a deal breaker for my use of the camera.

douglasf13 wrote:
NEX only opens up wide open to focus in lowlight. In good light, it focuses at shooting aperture.

Thanks for clarifying, Douglas. I was indeed trying in low light with the NEX.

sebboh wrote:
Julio Marcos wrote:
And who says that the live view closes to f/2.8 or f/4? Because my aperture blades do not close, they are wide open at f/2 or closed to the corresponding aperture, even during focusing. This is unlike the NEX that opens wide to focus and closes up again to the selected aperture, which could lead to focus shift.

joe88 says that twice on the previous page and says that lloyd chambers also mentions it in his review (i have no desire to pay for lloyd's content so i can't verify that). this is the first i've heard of it and hence my surprise. i would love to hear more people chime in on whether this is true because it doesn't make any sense to me and would be a deal breaker for my use of the camera.



My RX1 uses the aperture selected while MF'ing with focus peaking. I can see the difference in how much the focus peaking highlighting extends front to back on the subject I am focusing on.
BTW, the AF is accurrate enough for me most of the time that is what I use most and I am a MF lens and dslr guy for last six years. I can see using MF for wide open portraits and you want to make sure perfect focus on the eyes.
Or in very low light when CDAF is hunting.

wayne seltzer wrote:
My RX1 uses the aperture selected while MF'ing with focus peaking. I can see the difference in how much the focus peaking highlighting extends front to back on the subject I am focusing on.
BTW, the AF is accurrate enough for me most of the time that is what I use most and I am a MF lens and dslr guy for last six years. I can see using MF for wide open portraits and you want to make sure perfect focus on the eyes.
Or in very low light when CDAF is hunting.

thanks wayne! that's great to hear. most of my shooting is wide open portraits in low light, so this matters a lot to me. perhaps the behavior joe is seeing occurs only in extremely bright light to protect the sensor or maybe it has to do with shooting mode?

Wayne, if you don't mind me asking - how would you rate the manual focus experience of the RX1 in general? I can see why AF is appealing with it for many/most uses and users, but did they do a good job with the lens rings and does it feel like a manual focus experience?

sebboh wrote:
thanks wayne! that's great to hear. most of my shooting is wide open portraits in low light, so this matters a lot to me. perhaps the behavior joe is seeing occurs only in extremely bright light to protect the sensor or maybe it has to do with shooting mode?

I went back and checked my camera again indoors in low light, set the aperture ring to f/2 and selected manual focus. The aperture stayed open at the f/2 setting. I clicked the shutter and the aperture blades did not open wider. I tried with both magnification enabled and disabled. Same results. Apologies if I caused a skipped heartbeat, go ahead and order your camera

A few weeks back I was comparing sharpness of the RX1's Zeiss 35 Sonnar with my 35 Summilux ASPH on a M9 (I posted the results on the Leica thread). I had the RX1 set to manual focus with focus magnification and low peaking. Camera was set on a tripod and I focused on my (crudely made) test chart approx 3ft away. The peaking level seem accurate enough on the LCD but when I reviewed the image on my monitor, the focus point appears back focused. It could be other issues (focus shift? but I this was f/2 so it can't be), or maybe there are other issues with my camera. I haven't had time to redo the test but right now I have decided to set focus peaking to minimum and prefer to use magnification and my own eyes to focus rather than rely on focus assist.

philip_pj wrote:
Wayne, if you don't mind me asking - how would you rate the manual focus experience of the RX1 in general? I can see why AF is appealing with it for many/most uses and users, but did they do a good job with the lens rings and does it feel like a manual focus experience?

Not sure about Wayne, but although I like the manual focus on the RX1, it cannot replicate the feel of a real manual focus lens with hard stops. But it does work fast enough as others have mentioned that if you move the focus ring fast, it moves at a higher ratio and if you are slow and deliberate it moves at at smaller ratio. Also the the MF distance chart shows 0.3, 0.5 1, 3m and then infinity. I wish it had more distance measurement for accurate hyperfocal use. The focus movement is similar to my M mount lenses - clockwise to focus closer, anti-clockwise to focus farther objects.

I'm getting mixed results with AF. The focus point seems too large and if I have a busy composition at mid distances, say 6 to 10 ft away with foreground and background objects and my subject in the center, I am not 100% confident with AF. Also the AF on my copy never seems to work in macro mode at 0.2m (MFD). It won't focus close enough and I always have to use manual focus. Again this is solely my own experience.

thanks joe, I was trying to get a feel for how RX1 users, who are mostly pretty experienced and astute, see the MF capability, as in: 'never use it, AF is good enough', 'not bad, but not as good as it might be', or 'it's great and I prefer it'...

Maybe they will improve both forms (MF/AF) in the next model ;-) It seems like they aimed for a hybrid usage pattern, such as you use. This is pure Sony, always trying to give you eveything, but maybe not perfectly.

Also interested to read Michael Reichmann say that you get both peaking and magnification in manual focus mode or neither outside of MF.

It's interesting that there are so many different opinions about the AF. I wonder if it's just because of different expectations or if there is an actual copy variation?

I wouldn't call the AF fast, but mine is fast enough to take candid pictures of people in normal indoors evening light, as long as they aren't running around. Overall I find the AF somewhat slow, but not annoyingly so, and very reliable. When it says it's in focus it is and it rarely hunts.

philip_pj wrote:
Wayne, if you don't mind me asking - how would you rate the manual focus experience of the RX1 in general? I can see why AF is appealing with it for many/most uses and users, but did they do a good job with the lens rings and does it feel like a manual focus experience?

I rate it very high because:
1) liveview implementation is much better than my D800E as it adjusts brightness using auto iso and uses selected aperture so DOF and focusing is accurate. More like my 1ds3.with mf lenses stopped down.
2) Focus peaking for me is very accurate, whether close atMFD or medium 10ft distance at f2. My 1ds3 and D800E obviously don't have FP.
3) I like the automatic magnify/zoom in while FP MFing. Saves me fron having to hit those buttons like on my 1ds3 and D800E. Once you stop turning focus ring it zooms out automatically so you can check comp/framing and click shutter.
4) Focusing ring doesn't have the classic feel of a true MF lens but is still very nice as it senses how quickly you rotate the focus ring and either makes large adjustments in focus or fine adjustments like Joe mentioned. Of course no hard infinity stops.
I think Sony did a good job with LV and FP and MF implementations but I know this is subjective and depends on personal preferences.
LC doesn'I even mention the RX1 in his top 5 camera list even though the Sony FF sensor is the best and the lens compares well with ZF.2 35/2 and 35/1.4 lenses.
Philip, I think the RX1 would be perfect for your type of shooting of shy villagers in low light settings. No shutter sound and small size, much more stealthy and better for social settings.No lens changing in dusty environments.

I don't like the AF. Speed isn't an issue, but the AF box is just too big (even when using flexible spot). You are guessing where the actual focus will be if you're shooting with thin DOF. (When using the EVF you can judge the DOF better so you can refocus if necessary.)
It also has a tendency to backfocus when there's more contrast or light in the background.
I shot a tree in an open field last week, wide open. I had to try 5 (!) times to actually get the AF to lock on the tree and not on the background.
Really mediocre. However: for me it's not really a dealbreaker, because I'm used to slow-paced shooting with my MF Zeiss lenses.

Sorry to hear that Jochen! That is what I meant with my previous post, that maybe there is some copy variation when it comes to AF too, because mine does not behave like you describe, at least not on such an obvious subject like a tree on a field. If anything I have been surprised at how surefooted it is most of the time.

That said; I of course wouldn't mind if it were faster and the focus box could be made smaller. I read at another forum that someone has talked with Sony and that they said that they are aware of the complaints and are working on a new firmware. I have no idea if this is true though.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you will receive your replacement RX1 soon and that it will be a good one this time!

I don't really believe in copy variation when it comes to AF. It's just the downside of having an AF box that's too large. About the example with the tree: the more contrasty background could be seen through the branches. Within the AF box contrast detection chooses the target with the most contrast, in this case the background. My X-E1 also does this when I use a large AF box.

Thank you Helena, I also hope to get a good one this time because I adore the IQ.

wayne seltzer wrote:
2) Focus peaking for me is very accurate, whether close atMFD or medium 10ft distance at f2. My 1ds3 and D800E obviously don't have FP.


Wayne, you never experienced back focused shots with focus peaking wide open on the RX1? Maybe I have to send mine in to Sony for checking.

For me, so far, AF is not really a deal breaker. Speed is not really an issue for me but I'm getting a fair share of shots back-focused in AF mode at f/2. Not significant but maybe 1 or 2 shots in 10.

The biggest gripe for me is very poor video implementation. No focus peaking or magnified focus view in manual video mode and no display of live histogram and no manual audio gain control. Basically for critical focus at objects that are further away, I have to switch the dial to M mode, check focus and histogram and then switch it back to manual video mode. Too many steps involved, but then again I think 95% of RX1 users are probably not interested in shooting videos seriously. But for serious videographers or hobbyist, the quality of the Zeiss lens up close , full frame, 24fps and high iso usability in such a compact package is groundbreaking. One could discretely take this camera and shoot low light documentary video in places where a 5D3, 1Dc or even the C300 cameras seems too noticeable.

My EVF arrives tomorrow, hopefully it will make it even more enjoyable to shoot the RX1 with it

Jochen, yes, you're probably right that AF should be the same in all of them. It's strange that I don't experience that problem, but since my 5D also isn't very good in those situations, perhaps I have gotten used to it and subconsciously work around it.

Agree about the image quality, it is amazing.

Thanks so much, Wayne and Helena.
It sounds a very good balance to me, and the results speak for themselves,as seen here and over at getdpi/sony. Helena, the AF sounds just like that on the a900 - it takes its time, not much of a delay but not blazing like a pro Canon body, then latches on well. AF is very nice to have of course, and important for this camera's acceptance, but we all gripe about AF, it never seems perfect in almost any camera!

For those interested, I want to note that the RX1 is now $2600 in the US. I guess that softens the blow of the EVF cost, and people seem pretty happy with that unit.

joe88 wrote:
A few weeks back I was comparing sharpness of the RX1's Zeiss 35 Sonnar with my 35 Summilux ASPH on a M9 (I posted the results on the Leica thread).
Where is this comparison?