Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/135

1       2       3              135      
136
       137              192       193       end

Sami Ruusunen
Registered: Jul 30, 2010
Total Posts: 703
Country: Finland

Jonas B wrote:

Pano head anyone?
My old trusty Nodal Ninja doesn't work with the RX1. The camera is too small making it impossible to get the entrance pupil correctly. The camera needs to be closer to the rotation axis than the Nodal Ninja permits.

Is there a working option?


Is it possible to set a long quick release plate or some kind of other plate between the RX1 and NN, with this method you could push the camera forward and get entrace pupil front enough.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4156
Country: United States

Makten wrote:
wayne seltzer wrote:
I never referred to your cases where you had bad copies. I was talking about those people who had said the lens was not sharp when the first images were posted.


So how do you know they were wrong? If there are a lot of bad copies of this camera, it's a problem and if you get one of those it doesn't help a bit if someone else gets a good one. It doesn't have to be "false" or "over negative" posts.

I have high expectations on gear and in a camera at this price there simply should not exist decentered lenses. I was very happy with the RX1 except for the random output and it was nearly exactly what I had been waiting for, for years. Of course I'm upset after spending a lot of money on crap.


Obviously, if there were more bad copies out there we would have heard from them about it just like you and Morty. There would be more buzz on the internet saying this camera has QC problems. So far just you fine gentlemen.
And the people who I was referring to about saying the lens was not sharp were ones who did not have the camera and were just looking at images on the net.



Jonas B
Registered: Jun 05, 2005
Total Posts: 2433
Country: Sweden

Makten wrote:

[parts cut away]
If there are a lot of bad copies of this camera, it's a problem and if you get one of those it doesn't help a bit if someone else gets a good one. It doesn't have to be "false" or "over negative" posts.

I have high expectations on gear and in a camera at this price there simply should not exist decentered lenses. I was very happy with the RX1 except for the random output and it was nearly exactly what I had been waiting for, for years. Of course I'm upset after spending a lot of money on crap.


I agree, if not totally so nearly so.

When I wrote I'm happy having got a good copy of the camera that is very true. I paid a premium (as anyone else have) and made sure in the store they would accept an exchange rather than a repair if the boxed copy I got would turn out to be a bad one.

The problem here is Sony who decided there were no need for a quality control matching the amount of money they asked for.

A working RX1 is an excellent camera no doubt. Or, really, it is better than just "excellent". Things should have been a bit different though - and here we come to opinions. In my opinion the camera should have been equipped with an IR remote control (one sensor at the front, one at the back) instead of a stupid retro style mechanic control. The shutter release should have been angled a bit towards the front, the aperture control should have been at the front of the lens instead of so close to the camera body, the camera eats batteries as if they were M&Ms, there are many things that aren't perfect. But it is a freak'n good camera for me.

I hope it lasts not making me have to do with the Sony customer support.



Jonas B
Registered: Jun 05, 2005
Total Posts: 2433
Country: Sweden

Sami Ruusunen wrote:
Jonas B wrote:

Pano head anyone?
My old trusty Nodal Ninja doesn't work with the RX1. The camera is too small making it impossible to get the entrance pupil correctly. The camera needs to be closer to the rotation axis than the Nodal Ninja permits.

Is there a working option?


Is it possible to set a long quick release plate or some kind of other plate between the RX1 and NN, with this method you could push the camera forward and get entrace pupil front enough.


I'll check and get back here on a possible solution. It would be nice if I don't have to buy another pano head. Thank you Sami.



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4044
Country: Sweden

wayne seltzer wrote:
Obviously, if there were more bad copies out there we would have heard from them about it just like you and Morty. There would be more buzz on the internet saying this camera has QC problems. So far just you fine gentlemen.
And the people who I was referring to about saying the lens was not sharp were ones who did not have the camera and were just looking at images on the net.


Again; how do you know that the weakness that many people have reported was not decentered lenses? And what about the thread at Dpreview where a whole bunch of people found their aperture to be oval, after looking? And what about the yellow spot (also not only Morty)?

Enjoy your great camera but please don't dismiss other photographers opinions and experiences.
Talking about "false" claims based on the performance of your own copy isn't a good idea.

Over and out.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4156
Country: United States

You did not get it. False claims I was talking about were people who did not even have /used the camera and were either commenting about lens sharpness based on pictures posted on the net or what they heard about the AF. One of the early claims I was talking about was this lens was not sharp at infinity. These people did not have or had used the camera. YOU GOT THAT PART
Was not referring to you and your QC problems.
Not everything is about you you know.



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1364
Country: Norway

Please accept my apologies for not keeping a $4200 camera with obvious QC issues. (Two in a row.)



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1364
Country: Norway

wayne seltzer wrote:
Morty, I really don`t what your problem with what I said. If I remember right you got rid of your RX1 mainly due to corner color shift and a display with bad pixels. You then mentioned you would try it again when the price comes down. Did I refer to your case specifically above in my previous post?


I just saw this. I 'liked' Makten's post, and you write a paragraph about me. Sweet! I liked his post because I agree with him. But hey, it's great that you're enjoying the camera, and maybe I'll do to when price comes down here.



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 1811
Country: Belgium

Wayne, I don't understand your attitude. You act like people that get a bad one are noticing things that aren't true and/or just want to talk bad about the camera?
My first copy also was a bad one and that's a FACT. Decentered lens (and big dust on the sensor), I posted the evidence. My second one is great and I love it.
Sony's QC is very average for this camera, because I've seen quite a few similar reports.
It's very good that people talk about it, maybe that way Sony will get the message one day. They shouldn't be ignored because there are also good copies.



Muizen
Registered: Mar 31, 2006
Total Posts: 23
Country: Belgium

Jochen,
I wonder what the abbreviation "QC" you use, stands for? See: Sony's QC is very average for this camera, because I've seen quite a few similar reports. Is that perhaps Quality Control?
Harry





corndog
Registered: Sep 05, 2006
Total Posts: 4110
Country: United States

Yes, QC is an acronym for Quality Control. Unless of course you work in Quality, then you tend to prefer QA (Quality Assurance).

So, I've scanned back the last 15+ pages and found plenty of bickering, but only three pics (a cat, an ISO 12.8 test shot, and kewt gurl). Anyone actually own one of these and even more important...use it?



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1364
Country: Norway

Yes.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1168684



corndog
Registered: Sep 05, 2006
Total Posts: 4110
Country: United States

Oh wow....136 pages is just for discussing the camera?!?



mortyb
Registered: Feb 15, 2009
Total Posts: 1364
Country: Norway

Yeah.



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4044
Country: Sweden

wayne seltzer wrote:
You did not get it. False claims I was talking about were people who did not even have /used the camera and were either commenting about lens sharpness based on pictures posted on the net or what they heard about the AF. One of the early claims I was talking about was this lens was not sharp at infinity. These people did not have or had used the camera. YOU GOT THAT PART
Was not referring to you and your QC problems.
Not everything is about you you know.


What about people that downloaded full-sized images and found them unsharp? Are you really saying that one cannot express negative things about something you haven't owned?

So, lets talk about the images. One at f/5.6 close to infinity:







Does this look sharp for a 100% crop? No? Could you say what's wrong with the camera? Decentered? Fucked up photographer? Whining about nothing?








But of course, if you didn't own the camera you wouldn't be able to tell if it was sharp or not. Must buy first.

Edit: This is the right border of the image. The left was fine. Problem is, I could get the opposite result in the next picture. Sharp right hand side, unsharp left.


ricardovaste
Registered: Jan 25, 2010
Total Posts: 3756
Country: United Kingdom

I wonder why you've shot at f5.6?



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 1811
Country: Belgium

ricardovaste wrote:
I wonder why you've shot at f5.6?


F5.6 is just fine for this kind of shot (no close foreground) and is a sweet spot of many (Zeiss) lenses.



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4044
Country: Sweden

ricardovaste wrote:
I wonder why you've shot at f5.6?


I wonder why anyone that knows anything about technical photography wonders about that.



philip_pj
Registered: Apr 03, 2009
Total Posts: 3103
Country: Australia

'136 pages is just for discussing the camera?!?'

Sorry, it just kinda happened ;-)
It's, uh, not quite an everyday camera, you see.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4156
Country: United States

Jochenb wrote:
Wayne, I don't understand your attitude. You act like people that get a bad one are noticing things that aren't true and/or just want to talk bad about the camera?
My first copy also was a bad one and that's a FACT. Decentered lens (and big dust on the sensor), I posted the evidence. My second one is great and I love it.
Sony's QC is very average for this camera, because I've seen quite a few similar reports.
It's very good that people talk about it, maybe that way Sony will get the message one day. They shouldn't be ignored because there are also good copies.


As I have said before, I was not referring to you, Morty or martin, those who had bad copies, QC problems.
I was talking about those people who did not have the camera making statements like the lens is not that good or not good at infinity distance. Do you think that is true? Philip posted a link to a guy who showed this was false.
Very early on, the first images posted here by aswnavy02, some were saying the lens was not sharp etc.
This is separate from the QC problems.
If you guys want to still talk about QC then you need to get more data than just the small sample size in this forum before you can make any accurate statements about QC for this camera.
I have been sent a decentered 21zf before. I have no idea if the lens got mishandeled in shipping or what.
The fact that your copy had dust in side and was decentered, maybe someone used it, dropped it , and then returned it. Also I never saw you post any images showing the decentering. I only remember Martin posting some test images of some book pages shot at way too close distance to not rule out the camera not being square to the target. The amount of difference in those shots from left and right side was not huge.
Mr. Cicala at Lens rentals who tests a lot of lenses can tell you how often the left and right sides differ by a small amount in imatest scores.
The images and testamony from lots of different photographers plus all the solid reviews of the RX1 prove the excellent IQ from this Zeiss lens and sensor.
People who never used the camera made negative statements about the camera and it was not like they were saying it was a QC issue. They were not seeing the sharp images and acknowledging them. They did not even say what particular image they were basing their statement on. Now people who just got the camera are saying how the AF was better than what they were expecting after seeing all the negative comments.
And because of the high price, some expected perfection which is unrealistic.



1       2       3              135      
136
       137              192       193       end