Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/143

1       2       3              143      
144
       145              190       191       end

zhangyue
Registered: Jan 28, 2011
Total Posts: 2497
Country: United States

If we are talking about one lens fixed body. I don't mind bring 6D with a 35cron R (but could be any 35mmf2 for nongearhead). the overall size difference is not that big.

The MILC advantage to me is the whole system weight. fixed 35mm is very reasonable and valuable choice. But I see no much point to bring out 85fixed. I might use it 10% of time make it a questionable purchase compare more than 80% usage from 35mm. and digital march, I am stuck at both body and lens. Just like a 3 year old imac.

Instead of bring a RX1/35 and RX2/85, RX3/24, or RX1/35 with NEX6,7 with bunch of lens, I'd bring a 6D with 35/50cron/80clux and of course, my choice of lens selection is unlimited

Go back to Helena's question, I'd suggest a 6D, that is also suit your style of shooting.(at least from what I see so far) make 6D your main system and RX1 as nice complementary walk about camera. 6D is a lovely small body, light and responsive.




HelenaN
Registered: Jul 18, 2008
Total Posts: 966
Country: Norway

Wayne, sebboh and zhangyue, thank you for the input/suggestions! (Sorry for being a bit off topic.)

6D looks great, but switching from 5D would only save me about 150g. RX1 has become my main camera and until there is a mirrorless FF system that I can afford I just want something decent and light for the few times I need wider and longer, which is mostly when traveling.

What sebboh says about NEX colors and lenses sounds likely. Since I want AF I'm stuck with the Sony 55-210 for tele, which is my only lens at the moment and kind of mediocre, and I probably judge the NEX unfairly because of this. Maybe I'll try the Fuji too and then decide.



itai195
Registered: Aug 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1113
Country: United States

The Fuji with the new 55-200mm and/or 14mm lenses would probably complement an RX1 well. The physical controls are similar. That's essentially the kit I use most frequently. I do still have a DSLR around as well, though.



HelenaN
Registered: Jul 18, 2008
Total Posts: 966
Country: Norway

itai195 wrote:
The Fuji with the new 55-200mm and/or 14mm lenses would probably complement an RX1 well. The physical controls are similar. That's essentially the kit I use most frequently. I do still have a DSLR around as well, though.


Sounds good! However, I have decided to first be sensible and give NEX-6 another chance, so I have ordered the old version of Sigma 19mm. It's a very cheap lens, but I read that it's quite decent, so maybe it'll give me a more positive image of the camera. If so I may buy the Touit 12mm later. The Sigma could still be used to fill the gap between "18mm" and RX1's 35mm.

Since I complained a bit about the NEX I want to say that there are things that I like too. It sits well in my hand, it's quick and responsive and the EVF is nice. With a quality lens I think it'd be capable of excellent image quality.

Sometimes I regret getting RX1, because it has spoiled me.



vovkinson
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Total Posts: 786
Country: United States

got the chance to try Nex6 with Leica summilux 50 1.4 asph (sold my M9 a couple of weeks ago) using peaking and focus assist , it's awesome!

HelenaN wrote:
itai195 wrote:
The Fuji with the new 55-200mm and/or 14mm lenses would probably complement an RX1 well. The physical controls are similar. That's essentially the kit I use most frequently. I do still have a DSLR around as well, though.


Sounds good! However, I have decided to first be sensible and give NEX-6 another chance, so I have ordered the old version of Sigma 19mm. It's a very cheap lens, but I read that it's quite decent, so maybe it'll give me a more positive image of the camera. If so I may buy the Touit 12mm later. The Sigma could still be used to fill the gap between "18mm" and RX1's 35mm.

Since I complained a bit about the NEX I want to say that there are things that I like too. It sits well in my hand, it's quick and responsive and the EVF is nice. With a quality lens I think it'd be capable of excellent image quality.

Sometimes I regret getting RX1, because it has spoiled me.



HelenaN
Registered: Jul 18, 2008
Total Posts: 966
Country: Norway

Again, sorry for being off topic, but since I started it I want to say that I ended up with the Fuji X-E1 after all and really, really like it so far. It just feels right, and the 14mm is such a good lens. I'm not a pixel peeper and care only about the overall look of the files, and the Fuji doesn't disappoint.

RX1, X-E1, 14mm and 55-200mm will be a great light kit, I think. Most of the time I'll continue to just carry RX1 though.

(The NEX-6 is a great camera but it needs better lenses than the ones that would have suited me. If I didn't mind MF I'd probably have stuck with the Sony.)



millsart
Registered: Apr 29, 2009
Total Posts: 4264
Country: N/A

HelenaN wrote:

(The NEX-6 is a great camera but it needs better lenses than the ones that would have suited me. If I didn't mind MF I'd probably have stuck with the Sony.)


I feel you regarding MF. My NEX7 really was a fantastic camera for MF with the peaking and the easy to switch to zoomed in liveview, and the flip up LCD plus EVF. Took to adapted glass really well too so on paper at least, it was really a great platform, and even when playing around testing different lens at home I was always getting really nice results with some various Zeiss and VC m-mounts plus some other adapted C/Y's, Minolta's etc. About everything you could ask for in the camera in regards to MF, save for the nice stabilized liveview the Olympus EM-5 could provide.

Reality of the situation though was that needing to be strictly MF all the time really started to drive me crazy when actually carrying the camera on trips or even hikes. As stated, its a pretty good MF camera, and I know a lot of people have great success with it, but I'm a bit lazy I guess, and my travel/hiking companions aren't always the most patient, so it just got to feel a bit stressful to always have to take the time to MF anytime I wanted to grab a quick shot.

Again, I know that some can do it really quickly, and even enjoy the process, but I just found it was making me always a block behind my companions and rushing to catch up with them. Joys of traveling with non-photographers perhaps....

Anyways, for me, having AF really is a valuable thing in a lot of situations. Just lets me shoot a little quicker on the move, and as such, enjoy shooting more as I'm not feeling stressed about making other wait for me, or rush and screw up the focusing.

When I'd go out on my own I even used to enjoy working with my 4x5 and the slow process that involved, but for a day to day camera in this hectic pace of modern life AF proves very beneficial to me.



sflxn
Registered: Mar 14, 2006
Total Posts: 818
Country: United States

Ok, looks like I will be joining the RX1 club. Amazon warehouse deal had it for $2260. It is $100 more than they had it 2 weeks ago and I live in a state that Amazon charges tax, but I'm going on a trip next week and would like to compare it to my NEX-7 + 24/1.8 and also my Ricoh GR. I have a feeling the 24/1.8's place in my bag will be determined by the trip. I have a feeling I will probably keep the GR with the RX1, but this trip might change that.



tulaev
Registered: Nov 17, 2012
Total Posts: 83
Country: Russia

Sony RX1R has no Anti Aliasing filter. Thatís the only difference with the RX1:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-rx1r-has-no-anti-aliasing-filter-thats-the-only-difference-with-the-rx1/



h00ligan
Registered: Jan 03, 2010
Total Posts: 2117
Country: United States

first camera i have been truly happy with



sflxn
Registered: Mar 14, 2006
Total Posts: 818
Country: United States

I did a quick test out of my window today. It was late and cold so I didn't get a chance to go outside and test it. I shot handheld the RX1 and NEX7 + 24/1.8. I then tested them both on a tripod. For noise, the RX1 seems to be atleast 1 stop better. That didn't surprise me. What surprised me was the sharpness. It made the 24/1.8 seem like a mediocre lens. Over the next few days, I'll get more comparison shots and maybe post them.

So far, I really like what I'm seeing, but the tests I did really help me see the contrast between the ergonomics of the NEX vs the RX1. Ergonomically, the RX1 is pretty bad. There is nothing to grip on. I may end up getting a RRS grip bracket. They really need to make a bigger version of this camera. They now have the record of world's smallest FF digicam. There is no need to push further down the smallness path. We now need bigger RXes.



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

sflxn wrote
Ergonomically, the RX1 is pretty bad. There is nothing to grip on. I may end up getting a RRS grip bracket. They really need to make a bigger version of this camera. They now have the record of world's smallest FF digicam. There is no need to push further down the smallness path. We now need bigger RXes.


I have large hands.
I purchased the half-case made by Gariz, type number: XS-CHRX1M. This well made case adds additional size around the RX1 and a good improvement of the grip. I now feel totally comfortable holding the RX1. You should grip the lens with your left hand. No need at all for making the RX1 larger.
I have been struggling long enough with large and heavy "computers with a lens attached"
What a pleasure to carry this beautiful well made camera!



joanlvh
Registered: Oct 19, 2008
Total Posts: 1096
Country: United States

Sorry to double post but am traveling so looking for a fix, I am traveling with my RX 1 and am getting the error message e 61:00. I have tried internet solutions for Sony cybershot cameras which basically involve whacking the camera. just thought I'd check and see if anyone had run into this problem with their RX 1 and if there is a fix. Thank u joanlvh


Quote ∑ Like



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 9920
Country: United States

Sorry, I have not had that error message. A quick search suggested to reset the camera but I'm sure you have tried that already.

Someone else that got this error at DpReview was able to fix it but I don't know that I would suggest this method:

"After trying reset, card format etc. I decided to try the 'Fonz' method. I put a t-shirt on the hotel desk and sharply but gently tapped the front of the camera (lens hood on) directly onto the towel. Unbelievably, it worked!"
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50959230

Apparently, it could have something to do with the AF motor engaging.



glacierpete
Registered: Sep 17, 2010
Total Posts: 148
Country: N/A

Tariq
Here is an interesting posting from kb2zuz showing how much CFA softens an image (made with a Hasselblad H4D-50MS).
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51617517
Add the results from a normal DSLR AA filter to the CFA softening. The foveon does produce more detail, it not so much about sharpening alone. But you are right, the standard SPP setting is too strong.
BTW in case the standard SPP settings bothers you, set sharpening to -1 or -2 and use the new topaz clarity instead. That gives very pleasing results.
The Bayer-Matrix patent is from 1975. I am glad for every manufacturer working on new sensor designs.
There is a lot of room for improvement, for all current technologies.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
wayne seltzer wrote:
Tariq glad you finally realized the Foveon LCE in cam era processing tricks which Alundeb pointed out awhile back. Foveon images always looked harsh and over sharpened/processed for my tastes. Your test shot needs a naked horse in the foreground.



Both Alundeb and I noticed this issue/ effect early on, probably independently and Ron picked up on it as well. I pointed the foveon processing effect out back in November last year when I compared the DP1M to my D800E at the time.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1150855/29

It was not something I "finally realized" later. With Sigma RAW files, the effect is not created "in-camera" but in the Sigma raw software. This is clear/ noticeable because, when one first opens a foveon raw file, it initially appears normal in contrast and color and, in fact looks quite neutral like a typical bayer image. The embedded jpeg has not undergone that processing. Once the Sigma software completes it's initial default processing, the image all of a sudden looks "Foveon". The other raw processor which handles Sigma forveon files, Iridient Developer, is also capable of giving a natural look to the image, unlike Sigma Photo Pro.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 9920
Country: United States

glacierpete wrote:
The foveon does produce more detail, it not so much about sharpening alone. But you are right, the standard SPP setting is too strong.
BTW in case the standard SPP settings bothers you, set sharpening to -1 or -2 and use the new topaz clarity instead. That gives very pleasing results.
The Bayer-Matrix patent is from 1975. I am glad for every manufacturer working on new sensor designs.
There is a lot of room for improvement, for all current technologies.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
wayne seltzer wrote:
Tariq glad you finally realized the Foveon LCE in cam era processing tricks which Alundeb pointed out awhile back. Foveon images always looked harsh and over sharpened/processed for my tastes. Your test shot needs a naked horse in the foreground.



Both Alundeb and I noticed this issue/ effect early on, probably independently and Ron picked up on it as well. I pointed the foveon processing effect out back in November last year when I compared the DP1M to my D800E at the time.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1150855/29

It was not something I "finally realized" later. With Sigma RAW files, the effect is not created "in-camera" but in the Sigma raw software. This is clear/ noticeable because, when one first opens a foveon raw file, it initially appears normal in contrast and color and, in fact looks quite neutral like a typical bayer image. The embedded jpeg has not undergone that processing. Once the Sigma software completes it's initial default processing, the image all of a sudden looks "Foveon". The other raw processor which handles Sigma forveon files, Iridient Developer, is also capable of giving a natural look to the image, unlike Sigma Photo Pro.


I agree that the foveon sensor produces more detail at the pixel level than a traditional bayer sensor but the difference is not as great as many think. For what it does offer at the current price, the Merrills in particular are a great bargain for certain uses, no doubt about that.

What I found though, after shooting the Merrills for a while, is that it's not just a matter of the sharpening - using -1, -2 or whatever - but that there is clearly major image processing occurring in SPP which contributes to the look and the appearance of detail (and the appearance of artifacts). For me, the evidence is partly in what happens when an alternative raw converter is used, such as Iridient Developer. The results from foveon raws look suspiciously like those from any other bayer sensor AND, they also look like the initial preview image in SPP before the program has finished doing it's initial processing. So, that's a bit suspicious. No amount of negative sharpening in SPP will allow for a natural look from a foveon raw. Furthermore, one can process a bayer image in other software, Topaz or Photoninja for example, and come fairly close to the processing look SPP gives to foveon raws.

Anyway, this example below is a little over the top (I would never process the RX1 image to this extreme) but I think it does prove this point. The camera was on a tripod and not moved between shots with the DP2 Merrill and the RX1 so the DP2 has the advantage of using a longer lens (for a narrower angle of view). The RX1, of course, has the advantage of more MP's (which, imo, more than compensates for the per pixel difference).

The scene:





Sigma Photo Pro vs Iridient Developer, default sharpening on both.





RX1 with sharpening in ACR and then the same image (after ACR processing) tweaked in PhotoNinja







HelenaN
Registered: Jul 18, 2008
Total Posts: 966
Country: Norway

joanlvh, sorry to hear that! How frustrating that it happened in a middle of a trip. Hope it'll work out somehow.


From one thing to another. A while back Wayne said that some polarizers may be worse than others when it comes to uneven coloration of the sky. It sounded unlikely, but I didn't rule it out.

Now I have a Fuji X-E1 with the 14mm lens and decided to try the old Hoya polarizer I happened to have lying around. I took a whole bunch of photos, and some are posted here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1097477/98#11625534
As you can see, the filter had very little negative effect on those shots, except the last one. What's so surprising is that I took a near identical version of that with RX1 and its sky is much worse! Being less wide I would have thought that it would have been the other way around. It wasn't an isolated occurrence, I could see the same in other shots where I had used both cameras.

So, I guess my Sigma filter is the cause after all. Or possible something about the design of RX1's lens, but since Wayne has less problems than I that's unlikely.



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 1636
Country: Belgium

Not really about the RX1, but the latest rumours say that you can use the RX1 EVF on the upcoming RX100 mkII. That's great. Together with the tiltable screen it's a great update IMHO.



glacierpete
Registered: Sep 17, 2010
Total Posts: 148
Country: N/A

Tariq
the DSC-RX1 is for sure a great very compact powerhouse. A sonnar type design must have a nice bokeh.
And regarding the appearance of artifacts in spp. That is the nice thing about topaz clarity, it does not create artifacts. The current version of spp is the weakest link in the merrill chain. I takes a bit to learn how to post process these merrill files, but once you figure it out, you get amazing results.
Pete



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 9920
Country: United States

glacierpete wrote:
Tariq
the DSC-RX1 is for sure a great very compact powerhouse. A sonnar type design must have a nice bokeh.
And regarding the appearance of artifacts in spp. The nice thing about topaz clarity is that it does not create artifacts.
Pete


Pete, there seems to be more control over the enhancements in Topaz Clarity, whereas PhotoNinja is more of an automated, "intelligent" process (and PhotoNinja seems to create automatic masks on the fly). I need to experiment more with Topaz but from what I'm seeing, it is not able to maintain highlight detail to the degree PhotoNinja does automatically with a similar degree of enhancement. One can go in to specific areas with a masking brush in Topaz whereas that's not really necessary in PhotoNinja. But, again, I have spent more time with PhotoNinja so perhaps I'm missing something with Topaz Clarity.

That artifact in the foveon file I circled above seems to be inherent in the raw file (it's obvious at even -2 in SPP for instance) - it's just brought out more with stronger post processing.



1       2       3              143      
144
       145              190       191       end