Ron, not surprised re very good infinity performance of the 35/2 Sonnar. Despite hearsay, unless Sony measure MTF (calculated) at a distance other than infinity (that would be both naughty and non-standard), the flat shape of the lines in the f2 and f8 charts published by Michael Reichmann here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_rx1_review.shtml

...indicate a very steady decline - what Zeiss would describe as near to ideal. Ignoring the spatial frequencies used as we are looking at line profiles here, at f2 for a moderate wide angle the RX1 is very close to ideal - a great achievement. There is not so much a dip as a levelling out of the slow decline (on the optical bench at least) wide open.

It would likely show up in shots like Jochen's one here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1168684/27
...due to the subject matter.

Users should see the corners improve considerably at apertures of say f5.6-f8, the centre is already high at f2. The image thread has lots of fine deep landscapes see HelenaN's work for example. Maybe people like the look at f2 so much they tend to shoot wide open?

MR reports some LoCA open clearing at f4 - has anyone seen this?

Infinity infinity how I love thee!

To put an end to the question of infinity performance, just shoot a landscape with a lot of distant detail and post a link to the original file. Free free to show unedited 100% crops of the center and corner at f/5.6 or 8. I have already seen a few of them posted, and the published MTF's did not match the actual performance for the samples I viewed at 100%. The center was not as good as close up, and the corners were noticeably worse.

I can't post a sample because I don't own the camera. Don't get me wrong - I do think it is a decent camera overall. But, why is there so much talk in defense of infinity performance from owners, but not a good example (or better yet - many?) to settle the issue from owners?

There is no infinity issue
No idea who came up with it in the first place

Its true that the extreme corners at f2 are not as good as the centre.
I have also found that although the extreme corners sharpen up as you stop down, they never get to quite the acuity of the centre, although once any sharpening is applied they become indistinguishable.
Generally though, the non-extreme corners, sides and edges are almost as good as the centre at f2 and as good above that.
In my experience.

Things spread like wildfire. I suppose this camera is very talked about.
I have a M9 and D800E and OM-D and the RX1 is better then some at infinity.
I don't post unedited raws.I might show some crops

Best rgds

I was worried about infinity before buying it, but it was soon clear there's no issue. I can post some crops later today.

I had some issues with infinity the first days (don't think I complained about it online though ), but I quickly found out that I was treating the camera just like any other P&S and didn't pay attention to the shutter speeds. It was the darkest month of the year and even in the middle of the day shutter speed was often at 1/80. My sloppy hand holding (+ that I had never used such a high resolution camera before) caused photos to be less sharp than they should have been. Once becoming aware of this I no longer have any sharpness issues.

A nice side effect to this - that I had to make sure to treat RX1 like a "real" camera - is that it soon started to feel like one.

HelenaN wrote:

A nice side effect to this - that I had to make sure to treat RX1 like a "real" camera - is that it soon started to feel like one.

This is the key comment in this thread.

Sony is fully familiar with professional camera use, mostly in the video space.

The RX1, both the quality of construction, and in its devastatingly (I love that word ) neutral colours, requires the hands of an experienced photographer. The lack of OVF/EVF built in fools some people.

I find I have had to do more work with the RX1 on colour profiles in lightroom. Unlike Canon (with its over warm processed RAW file), Nikon (with its over saturated processed RAW file) or Leica (with its weirdly processed (or unprocessed) RAW file) the Sony RX1 expertly analyizes the scene.

If you take a scene with bland colours, the RX1 will reproduce it stunningly blandly. You need to enhance the colours yourself if you want to lie

It reminds me of a hifi analogy. The most important thing is the source. Expert hifiers know that if you have £1500 to spend on a good CD or vinyl setup, £1000 on the CD player, £300 on the amp and £200 on the speakers.i.e. a good amp and speakers just perfectly reproduce the source. So a cr@p source on a good amp and speakers will be shown to be wonderfully cr@p.

People buying the RX1 thinking they are getting a luxury P&S camera will be disappointed.

Sony's biggest crime was making this part of the cybershot series

pdmphoto wrote:
To put an end to the question of infinity performance, just shoot a landscape with a lot of distant detail and post a link to the original file. Free free to show unedited 100% crops of the center and corner at f/5.6 or 8. I have already seen a few of them posted, and the published MTF's did not match the actual performance for the samples I viewed at 100%. The center was not as good as close up, and the corners were noticeably worse.

I can't post a sample because I don't own the camera. Don't get me wrong - I do think it is a decent camera overall. But, why is there so much talk in defense of infinity performance from owners, but not a good example (or better yet - many?) to settle the issue from owners?


hmm, i remember seeing a number of infinity comparisons with other high end FF 35mm lenses where the rx1 was clearly equal or superior them (i believe the latest sigma was sharper in the corners though). i do remember a lot of early samples that looked bad, but those must have been due to user error or bad samples because what i've seen lately is competitive with anything out there (and smokes my c/y 35/1.4 for landscape).

sebboh wrote:
i believe the latest sigma was sharper in the corners though
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sony-Cyber-shot-RX1-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-2-35-Is-this-the-ultimate-moderate-wide-angle-lens/Comparison
http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/2/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-possibly-great

tulaev wrote:
sebboh wrote:
i believe the latest sigma was sharper in the corners though
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sony-Cyber-shot-RX1-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-2-35-Is-this-the-ultimate-moderate-wide-angle-lens/Comparison
http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/2/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-possibly-great



i don't really find dxo to be useful in any regard for lens reviews, i was just talking about 100% crops and comparisons i'd seen on various forums and blogs.

Ok here's a quick example.
100% crops from the extreme left & right edge + center.
Shot at F6.3.


The barn by Jochen-B, on Flickr


center by Jochen-B, on Flickr


left by Jochen-B, on Flickr


right by Jochen-B, on Flickr

If this isn't good enough at infinity I don't know what is...

Jochenb wrote:
Ok here's a quick example.
100% crops from the extreme left & right edge + center.
Shot at F6.3.

If this isn't good enough at infinity I don't know what is...

Nice pic thanks
Makes me a feel a psycho is living in that Barn ...

zhangyue wrote:
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.


Here is Luka's post about it: link

Here's my RX1 vs. M9 & ZM35/2, ZM35/2.8 and CV35/1.2 comparison, including links to the high rez files at various distances: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=188

I think the RX1 does pretty well at infinity, but it's not the best. It definitely, from my observations has some mid zone dip in resolution/sharpness:

Full image:

That looks more like Montréal than Toronto

Haha, shot from our own Mont-Royal it would seem. Kind of wish it was, but Hamilton's not a bad place either.

colonelpurple wrote:
I find I have had to do more work with the RX1 on colour profiles in lightroom. Unlike Canon (with its over warm processed RAW file), Nikon (with its over saturated processed RAW file) or Leica (with its weirdly processed (or unprocessed) RAW file) the Sony RX1 expertly analyizes the scene.

If you take a scene with bland colours, the RX1 will reproduce it stunningly blandly. You need to enhance the colours yourself if you want to lie


That's kind of the impression I have of the camera. But it's pretty much that way with any 'new' camera, you need to get a feel for its images.

SOOC (at f/5.6) with default LR other than setting to Camera Standard rather than Adobe's profile:

rscheffler wrote:
Here's my RX1 vs. M9 & ZM35/2, ZM35/2.8 and CV35/1.2 comparison, including links to the high rez files at various distances: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=188

I think the RX1 does pretty well at infinity, but it's not the best. It definitely, from my observations has some mid zone dip in resolution/sharpness:

Full image:

douglasf13 wrote:
zhangyue wrote:
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.


Here is Luka's post about it: link

Exact I meant that his results is worse than MTF suggested. look at 40lp/mm curve, both almost above 60% and that is a VERY decent performance. certainly not as the blur boat tail suggested.

His 35lux is ASPH pre-FLE and the MTF he quote is FLE version. That answers my doubt about such dramatic difference there.

rscheffler wrote:
Haha, shot from our own Mont-Royal it would seem. Kind of wish it was, but Hamilton's not a bad place either.


Wow, Hamilton has really grown up, I never would have guessed!

I Iike your tree shots.

Ron, thanks for the effort. somehow, I can't see the results from Zeiss biogon and VC35 as for now.

I did a similar test between VC35f1.2, Zeiss biogon f2 and Leica summicron V1. And found out VC35 not as strong performer as other two at infinity at all aperture. and Leica is better at f2. about same at f2.8 and worse than Zeiss at f4 and f5.6 cross frame and about same again after f8.

I feel Zeiss biogon might be extreme good at f4 or f5.6 that out-solve most of the portion of leica M9's sensor. But Summicron V1 is adequate for me for all the situation I needed.

Rx1 has very decent performance at infinity though I can't say it is the best judge from 100% crop from you and JC. But we are really reach max pixel PP level here and it almost has nothing to do with real world image to me.