wayne seltzer wrote:
joe88 wrote:
Wayne, I might need to test my lens out as I normally shoot with infinity in focus at f/8 to f/11 and never really noticed it, but then again, I wasn't shooting landscapes. Thanks for the info. I agree that not all Leica lenses are perfect, for instance, on the 50Lux ASPH, FC is present even wide open and I have noticed that in many of my pics.

I went through the Lofoten 2011 thread but could not find the example m 35 lux landscape shot where Luka showed crops of the far distant background and how the FC made it blur more towards the sides. Must have been in the Leica thread some time just after that trip.


here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1067136/1&year=2011#10152335

I remember that post as well. I can see the FC in my lux ASPH compare to my 50cron rigid. mainly because of Astigmatism of ASPH. as 50lux ASPH tangential performance is not good at f5.6.

Judge from 35lux's FC performance, somehow, I feel luka's lens performance might be worse than the MTF suggested. as you can see the performance difference is huge which shouldn't be the case if you see both sagittal and tangential curve are almost above 60% at 40lp/mm. (Astigmatism performance is pretty good for 35lux ASPH) That is a very decent performance even in that slightly FC zone.

Make me wonder if 35lux ASPH pre-FLE has worse performance than FLE. also might be the reason why its widely different BOKEH.

Found it, in Leica pocket book. 35lux ASPH, pre-FLE has dip below 40% compare to 60% of ASPH FLE along with poorer center performance as well. Astigmatism performance is also noticeable poorer than 35lux FLE. That kind of match Luka's image. (Note: but PRE-FLE has better Bokeh from all comparison so far)

I use to think 35ASPH FLE is not good for landscape. but judge from its MTF, I take it back. You would not expect any better performance than this at 35mm focal length over all. It will definitely be better than 50lux ASPH.

NEX-9 will be more expensive than the RX1:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-nex-9-will-be-more-expensive-than-the-rx1-what-is-your-opinion/

Nuts.

I posted this on another thread, but my my personal view posted on the "site that shouldn't be mentioned":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50968125

I recommend Sean Reid's review on "reidreviews" if you are a subscriber as the best one I have read and pretty spot on.

in summary the RX1 needs to be handled as a professional (which I am not BTW). Particulary the colours are devastatingly neutral, so good workflow in Lightroom or other is required

Due to the closeness of the back lens element to the sensor, there is some distortion and also softness at the extreme corners when wide open.
The DR and detail is astonishing.
The controls and switches, surprisingly, are the best I have used, including Leica. The aperture ring is a dream.

welcome to look at my amateurish photos on:
http://harold.co.il
They are all RX1 until the picture of snow in France, which was an OM-D

best rgds

carstenw wrote:
Nuts.

+1

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I feel it is in human nature to complain.
In the case of the excellent Sony RX1 it is no different.
Lot's of (specialist?) people repeating and repeating what other people have said before about the RX1.
As a result we now know about the RX1 that AF is weak; the lens is bad at infinity and certainly not sharp; in addition there is horrible barrel distortion, vignetting, with a "roll-off bokeh" (who knows what that means?). The RX1 is also too small for normal hands. A mistake to put a 35mm in the RX1: a 50mm would have been better etc etc... and I could go on with a lot of more negative opinions and most of all nonsense!
Most likely most of these wise-noses have never even touched a RX1!

Sean Reid did test the RX1 and published the results on his site.
He is known as a rather critical reviewer how will be clear in his conclusions.
I invite the "wise noses" to read Sean Reid's review of the RX1 and learn the truth about the RX1: no problems with AF, excellent lens etc. One of the best ever camera's Reid tested!

I am a new RX1 owner and I am absolutely amazed and surprised with the unbelievable image quality and the ease of handling of this beautiful piece of photographic engineering.
I am also a Leica M9 user but have to admit that the RX1produces better IQ and I would not be surprised if the new Leica M can not generate better IQ!

I expect that the coniko companies will soon imitate Sony and launch the same type of cameras with high portability, easy of handling and FF top image quality.
In addition more and more too large and far too heavy cameras will be replaced by the RX1 type of cameras in the near future.

Nice to see you decided to buy one Muizen. Congrats!

I agree with your post. Because of all those opinions I decided to just try one myself.
Overall I'm extremely happy with this camera. The files are stunning. The best I've seen yet on my computer. They can take a lot of beating without falling apart.
Since I'm mostly using the central AF point (and recompose) I'm not really having problems with the AF anymore.
It's great to use such a tiny camera without having any feelings of regret for leaving the big DSLR at home (quite the opposite now).

When you think about the the complaints re the price, and they are selling for $2500 or so with another ~$450 for the EVF, how much would you pay for the lens if it were available separately? The new CZ lenses for APS-C NEXs are estimated to be $1000-1400, so this one, which is special obviously - leaf shutter/ 9 blade aperture/asph elements, would be valued at perhaps $1500-1600...

..making the body $900, or equipped with EVF around $1350 - a pretty cheap (and great) FF sensor in a well made tiny body, nice controls - an impartial observer might agree this is actually quite cheap. Good on Reid and Huff for their insights.

Sean Reid has published a comparative test with new Leica M 240. Leica has a slightly higher resolution (no AA filter), but more noticeable noise after ISO1600. Color reproduction is almost identical (IMHO).

M240 sounds good then, tulaev, colour is so important for high ISO, it helps fend off the brassy look as tonal gradation falls apart and DR diminishes. What do you think of the noise quality of the Leica as it nears the edge, compared with the RX1? I find there is a wide 'grey area' of usability before you see a big drop-off to a clearly unacceptable appearance with the Sony sensor, for well-exposed subject matter.

In my opinion the character of Leica noise is about the same, but the noise level is higher (a half stop or a bit more).

philip_pj wrote:
When you think about the the complaints re the price,

I have found virtually no one used to FF cameras is complaining about the price, it's more aps-c DSLR users and p&s camera users.

colonelpurple wrote:
philip_pj wrote:
When you think about the the complaints re the price,

I have found virtually no one used to FF cameras is complaining about the price, it's more aps-c DSLR users and p&s camera users.


Yes. As a result, these APS-C consumers have not shot with FF nor processed FF files to understand the quality difference. Nor do they understand the FF price segmentation of existing hardware.

To me, price complaints are not complaints at all, just whining. Any business person knows to sell more units, just lower the price. I would assume a sophisticated consumer marketing company like Sony runs discreet choice modeling with all their new product lines to determine price elasticity and optimal price points to generate the greatest return. Most people don't understand it is a function of margin AND units sold, and there is an actual price point where any lower, the company gives away margin, any higher, sales drop to a point that lowers total margin generated.

I suspect the RX1 was determined to be quite price inelastic, up to and down to a point. Higher than $2800 US, sales begin to plummet, anything down to >$2000 and sales would increase minimally vs. margin lost across all sales.

However, if no competitors join in, and the appreciation for this mini-marvel grows by consumers, either its price increases or the RX2 comes to market, with internal EVF, bounce flash, all the little niggles worked out, etc... At a $3900 price point.

We had a guy here who was going to wait for one year after the RX1 release, when it would sell for $1000, lol...actually the RX1 price has gone up on the site I use to keep track.

On value for money, here is a short extract from one Leica user at DPR:

"The Leica M240 sensor has been quite well reviewed. It has a tiny amount more detail at low ISOs due to the absence of the AA filter but looses ground rapidly to the RX1 at 1600 and above. The M also has a banding problem which starts to be visible at ISO 3200. The RX1 has no banding and is better at 6400 then the M is at 3200. To me it shows how much more mature Sony sensors are compared to others, particularly CMOSIS."

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1634/compact-leica-m-bruit-electronique-12.html

Actually I remember that Sony has a bad track record for lowering prices.

I remember the A850 and A900 remained stubbornly high up to decommissioning, only a few outlets were doing at 25% off (in the UK) in the last few months of shelf life

I think Sony would rather make less of a product or decommission it, then sell it at less then budgeted profit margin.

RX1 vs M9+ZM35/2.
http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.ru/2013/03/sony-rx1-vs-leica-m9-with-zeiss-35mm.html

Haha, Rob beat me to it! I'll also be posting a comparison of the RX1 vs. the M9 with ZM 35/2 and a couple other 35s shortly.

Part of the reason was my curiosity about how well the Sonnar actually works for infinity shots because there were a number of comments that it wasn't all that strong at that distance. That's not really what I'm seeing so far. Interestingly, what I am seeing in the Sonnar is a slight touch of the same mid zone resolution/sharpness dip as commented by Luka about the 35 Lux ASPH (and that is also strongly evident in the 21 Lux). But it's no slouch for infinity shots and is really impressive, IMO, at nearer distances.