Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/161

1       2       3              161      
162
       163              192       193       end

millsart
Registered: Apr 29, 2009
Total Posts: 4864
Country: N/A

I tried the thumb grip on the RX1 ans simply hated it. I've had them on cameras like the X100 and thought they were more than worth their price in gold on that camera, but I wouldn't even pay $5 for the RX1 grip simply because it doesn't work for me.

Where the factory rubber thumb pad goes is just where my thumb falls naturally on the camera. With the thumb grip added on I'm just holding the camera too much into the palm of my hand due to the shifted thumb position.

Additionally, it gets in the way of the playback button, thus the hinge design.

They could perhaps build a thumb grip more ergonomically comfortable, but then it would have to also cover the rear horizontal dial which wouldn't help matters.

To each his/her own of course, but I simply found the thumb grip to be a very worthless accessory



fredmirandafan
Registered: Aug 07, 2013
Total Posts: 97
Country: Canada

ricardovaste wrote:
Not awful, I guess, but still not terribly useful for many. To me, a quick grab shot will likely be something in front of me, rather than far away. So if reasonable focus only reaches to 3.48meters away, that can be quite far / OOF. At f16, that goes down to 2.48 meters. Better-ish. Anyway, I HOPE they clock onto this and fix it. Sony do eventually do firmware upgrades, it just takes years, but hopefully this will be sooner...


What is the default MF distance after a power cycle? I truly can't believe Sony engineers thought about superfluous things such as auto-crop but they didn't think about the importance of retaining MF distance? Did they do this on purpose?

millsart wrote:
They could perhaps build a thumb grip more ergonomically comfortable, but then it would have to also cover the rear horizontal dial which wouldn't help matters. To each his/her own of course, but I simply found the thumb grip to be a very worthless accessory

Has anyone tried the Fotodiox grip, it seems to be much larger than the Sony grip and it's more ergonomically designed?



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10680
Country: United States

fredmirandafan wrote:
ricardovaste wrote:
Not awful, I guess, but still not terribly useful for many. To me, a quick grab shot will likely be something in front of me, rather than far away. So if reasonable focus only reaches to 3.48meters away, that can be quite far / OOF. At f16, that goes down to 2.48 meters. Better-ish. Anyway, I HOPE they clock onto this and fix it. Sony do eventually do firmware upgrades, it just takes years, but hopefully this will be sooner...


What is the default MF distance after a power cycle? I truly can't believe Sony engineers thought about superfluous things such as auto-crop but they didn't think about the importance of retaining MF distance? Did they do this on purpose?


focus is always set to infinity after powering up. my guess is sony did that as some sort of calibration check.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6080
Country: United States

fredmirandafan wrote:
ricardovaste wrote:
Not awful, I guess, but still not terribly useful for many. To me, a quick grab shot will likely be something in front of me, rather than far away. So if reasonable focus only reaches to 3.48meters away, that can be quite far / OOF. At f16, that goes down to 2.48 meters. Better-ish. Anyway, I HOPE they clock onto this and fix it. Sony do eventually do firmware upgrades, it just takes years, but hopefully this will be sooner...


What is the default MF distance after a power cycle? I truly can't believe Sony engineers thought about superfluous things such as auto-crop but they didn't think about the importance of retaining MF distance? Did they do this on purpose?

millsart wrote:
They could perhaps build a thumb grip more ergonomically comfortable, but then it would have to also cover the rear horizontal dial which wouldn't help matters. To each his/her own of course, but I simply found the thumb grip to be a very worthless accessory

Has anyone tried the Fotodiox grip, it seems to be much larger than the Sony grip and it's more ergonomically designed?



As sebboh said, the camera always returns to infinity when powering up. I don't find this to be the worst thing in the world, but it would be nice if that distance was assignable.

I tried the Fotodiox grip, but I returned it. I just didn't need it, so I didn't want the extra bulk.



ricardovaste
Registered: Jan 25, 2010
Total Posts: 3750
Country: United Kingdom

After just trying a half-case briefly today, I can't say I have much interest in trying a regular grip either. And in defence of Sony, they've made the thumb grip for their own product, not anticipating how it would feel with a third party grip attached.

The return to infinity isn't terrible, as it is easy to move it back to wherever via manual focus. But it would sure be very welcome.

I was going to take it for a test run Saturday afternoon, but rain is scheduled apparently!



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10793
Country: United States

fredmirandafan wrote:

Has anyone tried the Fotodiox grip, it seems to be much larger than the Sony grip and it's more ergonomically designed?


Like everything else, it's of course subjective but I really like having the Fotodiox grip on the RX1. It adds another hand holding position and makes it really easy to grab the RX1 out of my small pouch single-handedly. Without it, I always struggled to pull the RX1 from the bag quickly. Before using this grip, I would cradle the camera in my left hand and use my right hand for all controls. This was really the only secure hold I found with the naked body without either a Thumbs Up or something else attached, though I still use that hold quite a bit. For me, the Fotodiox grip is positioned perfectly for a traditional right hand hold and my index finger sits right over the shutter button (adding a screw in soft release aids this as well). The only place it adds any significant bulk is where you grip it in the front and since the lens protrudes there much further, having the grip on or off make no difference at all with storage in my camera pouch. I have not taken this grip off my RX1 since I bought it.



fredmirandafan
Registered: Aug 07, 2013
Total Posts: 97
Country: Canada

Thanks Tariq for the user experience. It sounds like comparable experience with my OMD landscape grip, adding ergonomics and security, but not bulk. Will definitely place an order if I go for RX1.

By the way, Fotodiox has a grip+hood bundle, just wondering how others are liking the Fotodiox "Leica-style" hood? Is it really better than Sony's "delicate flower" hood like Fotodiox claims?



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10793
Country: United States

I had that fotodiox hood briefly before returning as the one I received had some flaws with the finish. It did fit securely. Douglas also bought one and I believe liked it (I think he is now using the 49mm to 37mm step down ring as a hood, which I will eventually try as well). I also bought one of the inexpensive round screw on hoods and it worked fine. Eventually though, I pretty much quite using it when I picked up a B+W UV filter for lens protection since I mainly bought the hood for lens protection rather than flare resistance (the lens is fairly flare resistant anyway).



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

I field tested the 49-37mm 'hood' extensively and it works a charm, with a lot of protection, and the added bonus of enabling the camera to be more 'shoot ready' when needed.

It also means you can fit the camera and hood in a handier (narrower) sized bag with the EVF intact - for EVF users. An old 51mm push on cap and trad neck strap completes the 'hardening and protection detail' on my setup. A Gariz half case is good enough a grip for me - personal matter of course.

'Return to infinity' - sounds like a Ridley Scott movie, Ricardo.



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

I thought about the complaints about the RX1 for street shooting when I came across this article by Eric Kim:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6815348687/eric-kim-what-to-consider-when-buying-a-new-camera-for-street-photography

'One of the things that I love most about street photography is that we don't need uber-good image quality or high-ISO performance. Sure if you are a fashion photographer or a landscape photographer this may be important but I still know many street photographers (check out the Mobile Photo Group) who use iPhones and take incredible photographs.'

and some words on 'satisficing' and 'maximizing':

'a satisficer might go to a store looking for a camera that suits his or her needs - and once he/she finds the camera that they find to be reasonably good, they will buy it.

The maximizer is the type of person that is looking for the "perfect camera" and spends hours agonizing over reviews, sharpness tests, and specification tables.

Guess who tends to be more regretful/miserable when it comes to making decisions? You guessed it - the maximizer.'



millsart
Registered: Apr 29, 2009
Total Posts: 4864
Country: N/A

I think it could be argued that you don't need uber-good image quality or high ISO performance for any types of photography really.

Super detailed files are well and good for things like landscapes of course, but you have to ask if your impressed by the landscape itself of the technical quality of the photograph.

Lets face it, some contact prints from an 8x10 LF camera are technically awesome, even if the subject matter is a bore, but that alone doesn't make them great photos.

Likewise, even if technical quality isn't great an image can still be a great photograph.

For example, the 2002 Orange Bowl game winning TD. I was shooting a 1D or maybe a 1D mkII back then and given it was a night game the files were noisy as heck but still an iconic photo.

However, if you can have a great photograph and also make it great technically, then all the better really. If I was capturing a once in a lifetime landscape shot would I prefer it to be on an Alpa rather than iPHone ? Of course.


Some street shooters though I notice tend to sort of embrace lesser IQ almost in the same way some of the more hipster bands go for the purposely "lo-fi" sound. Playing cheap pawn shop instruments rather than custom Gibson guitars and recording on a cheap board rather than in a high end studio.

Its all well and good though. I don't know if the lack of quality makes an image any better per say, but perhaps it makes one focus more on the content of the image.

As I stated previously, one thing I enjoy about my Nikon V1 is that I know before I even hit the shutter its not going to be a file to pixel peep. Its 10 megs and can get kinda grainy. I've gotten some great images with it though just because its so responsive. Shots that I don't think would be overall "better" with a RX1, even though they would be cleaner, higher rez, etc.

At the same time though, technical perfection is a perfectly fine pursuit. Doesn't every athlete want to do better ?

Does Bolt just want to keep setting the same 100 yard dash time ? No, he wants to improve on his record, its what drives him.

I certainly enjoy trying to produce the sharpest and most detailed images possible. Its the reason why I enjoy my Sigma Merrill so much. I for one would love a FF Merrill with a 36meg X3 sensor.

All really comes down to balance though and knowing what is important when. Sometimes getting the shot is more important than the best quality. I could shoot something with the V1 and have an nice capture, or I could set up a tripod and miss the shot trying to get the most detail with a DP2m. When the moment allows it though, by all means put the camera on a tripod, base ISO, mount your best glass etc. Produce a technically great image.

Photography is great because we can be both a master craftsman and also an artist.



ricardovaste
Registered: Jan 25, 2010
Total Posts: 3750
Country: United Kingdom

Well that cheap VF I ordered arrived. It's quite cute, fits on there well and is very small. I'm amazed at the inaccuracy of the frame lines though. I understand parallax, but the 35mm frame lines are just way, way shorter than 35mm - probably more like 40mm or 45mm. Craptastic.

p.s. please don't tell me this is normal even with good viewfinders ? eg voigtlander.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6080
Country: United States

There's always some "air" in non-TTL viewfinders, and the lens of the RX1 seems a bit wider than 35mm. Do the frame lines match up when focusing on something close, like at .5 meters?



ricardovaste
Registered: Jan 25, 2010
Total Posts: 3750
Country: United Kingdom

The VF says it's calibrated for infinity to 3 meters, and you'll need to consider parallax below that (eg no correction or extra frame line involved). My view is way off at both infinity at close up. I can try and take a photo to describe if you like...



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15814
Country: Germany

Does it sit solidly in the hotshoe?



ricardovaste
Registered: Jan 25, 2010
Total Posts: 3750
Country: United Kingdom

It slides in snug, yeah. No wobble or anything like that. But of course it doesn't have any locking mechanism.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10793
Country: United States

Unfortunately, the accuracy issue (well, as accurate as a direct view finder can be) is compounded by:

1) RX1 lens - depending on if you correct for the distortion or not, it can be quite a bit wider than a typical 35mm fov (more-so of course if you choose not to correct for distortion as distortion correction ends up cropping the frame a bit).

2) Using a finder with frame lines intended for a different aspect ratio format.

3) Inherent inaccuracy of direct view finders in general.

Taken together, all these variables likely become difficult to mentally adjust for. I suspect with a finder set up with frame lines of the correct aspect ratio, one would have an easier go at mentally correcting for slight discrepancies at various distances once you got used to using it a bit. If you really want 100% accuracy in a finder on the RX1, the EVF is the only game in town.




ricardovaste
Registered: Jan 25, 2010
Total Posts: 3750
Country: United Kingdom

The VF is designed for 35mm film, so shouldn't have aspect ratio issues. AFAIK the camera is set to correct distortions and other things too. So... if the lens is indeed a touch wider, and then cropped a tiny bit with corrections, it should still be roughly right. I guess it's hard to demonstrate without a photo, but this is hugely off guys... sadly dark /raining, so don't really want to go out to demonstrate right now, and I have to be up at 6am :/

Anyone any experience with the voigtlander 28/35 mini-finder? I'm coming to the conclusion that the full 35mm voigtlander finder is the only one worth having, after the big zeiss thing.



millsart
Registered: Apr 29, 2009
Total Posts: 4864
Country: N/A

The latest model VC works great, and is "reasonable" at $209.

I've tried a few old cheapie's of Ebay that state they are 35mm, but they were never very accurate and/or not very bright.

Get what you pay for to a point (the latest VC) but the Zeiss surely isn't 3x better for 3x the price. However, I did have their 18mm for my M and it was a very nice VF, super bright, so I'm sure the 35mm is just as nice, but $600 ? No thanks. Maybe if it had shooting info displayed for that that kind of money



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6080
Country: United States

My 35mm Voigtlander viewfinder is about right at .5m, in terms of the horizontal view, and the "air" around the frame increases from there. I wish it was correct in the 1-2m range, instead of .5m, but it's ok. I guess I could always just slide the OVF back in the shoe a bit, but I haven't bothered. Non-TTL OVFs are just rough guidelines most of the time, anyways.



1       2       3              161      
162
       163              192       193       end