Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/166

1       2       3              166      
167
       168              192       193       end

Jonas B
Registered: Jun 05, 2005
Total Posts: 2426
Country: Sweden

philip_pj wrote:
Over at DxO, a comparison review of the RX1r and RX1 showing the RX1 getting a better score than the AA less version - they sound almost perplexed by this, with some head-scratching over the DR data:

It is interesting because the only real difference is only at peak DR, at ISO 100. Time will tell.


They certainly trust their measurements as they are publishing their data. My first guess is they run into some glitch. They don't say anything about having measured over and over again, or tried another copy of the camera(s). I know Sony is about making beliefs.... but they could have told us about how they got this somewhat controversial figure when measuring the DR.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10721
Country: United States

That DxO comparison showing a .7 stop dynamic range advantage to the RX1 is not insignificant. If test error nor camera sample error is the cause (which I don't expect it is), this result would confirm the slightly harsh/ digital RX1r rendering (as compared to RX) in the highlights (the RX1 looks to have a smoother roll-off) I first noticed when looking at RX1r images. It will be interesting to see if DxO posts a follow up at some point for this DR difference.



Jonas B
Registered: Jun 05, 2005
Total Posts: 2426
Country: Sweden

It is puzzling though; why only at base ISO?



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6064
Country: United States

I kind of love that the DXO Mark tests show varying DR results, regardless of the reason. Now, those who were debating on whether to slightly improve resolution with the RX1R are going to toil over the decision to loose a bit of DR to gain that resolution. It's a camera nerd's worst nightmare!



Jonas B
Registered: Jun 05, 2005
Total Posts: 2426
Country: Sweden

Oh.... don't you enjoy this 166+ pages thread?

And for the record, I much prefer more dynamic range and less artifacts to the increase in resolution.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6064
Country: United States

Oh, for the record, I certainly think I fall under the category of camera nerd.



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

douglasf13 wrote:
Now, those who were debating on whether to slightly improve resolution with the RX1R are going to toil over the decision to loose a bit of DR to gain that resolution. It's a camera nerd's worst nightmare!


This is really a shock, why would removing the AA filter lead to lower DR?

More importantly, 0.7 stop sounds quite a bit. How much does this affect Highlight Recover in ACR/LR?

I only have a few days left before I can exchange the RX1R for RX1 at Sony, any tests I could do in the meantime to see if there's real world difference? But without the RX1, I don't know what to compare to?!



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 1798
Country: Belgium

fredmirandafan wrote:
I only have a few days left before I can exchange the RX1R for RX1 at Sony, any tests I could do in the meantime to see if there's real world difference? But without the RX1, I don't know what to compare to?!


Were you happy with the RX1R before these DxO ratings? If yes... keep it and worry less.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10640
Country: United States

Jochenb wrote:
fredmirandafan wrote:
I only have a few days left before I can exchange the RX1R for RX1 at Sony, any tests I could do in the meantime to see if there's real world difference? But without the RX1, I don't know what to compare to?!


Were you happy with the RX1R before these DxO ratings? If yes... keep it and worry less.


+1



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

Tariq Gibran wrote:
That DxO comparison showing a .7 stop dynamic range advantage to the RX1 is not insignificant. If test error nor camera sample error is the cause (which I don't expect it is), this result would confirm the slightly harsh/ digital RX1r rendering (as compared to RX) in the highlights (the RX1 looks to have a smoother roll-off) I first noticed when looking at RX1r images. It will be interesting to see if DxO posts a follow up at some point for this DR difference.


@Tariq, which of these RX1R images did you see? I was actually surprised by how harsh the highlights are from my first images of RX1R even at base ISO shot in RAW. At first I thought it was me, but I have done three days of shooting test and they all come out the same.

These files just don't have the smooth highlight roll-off of my D800, Ricoh GR and EM5. But then I've also owned these cameras much longer so maybe I'm just not familiar with RX1R's metering yet. In any case, having another RX1 to shoot with will definitely confirm it, but I'm running out of time from my 14-day and I don't know if the Sony Store guy will loan me a RX1 to compare with



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10721
Country: United States

fredmirandafan wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That DxO comparison showing a .7 stop dynamic range advantage to the RX1 is not insignificant. If test error nor camera sample error is the cause (which I don't expect it is), this result would confirm the slightly harsh/ digital RX1r rendering (as compared to RX) in the highlights (the RX1 looks to have a smoother roll-off) I first noticed when looking at RX1r images. It will be interesting to see if DxO posts a follow up at some point for this DR difference.


@Tariq, which of these RX1R images did you see? I was actually surprised by how harsh the highlights are from my first images of RX1R even at base ISO shot in RAW. At first I thought it was me, but I have done three days of shooting test and they all come out the same.

These files just don't have the smooth highlight roll-off of my D800, Ricoh GR and EM5. But then I've also owned these cameras much longer so maybe I'm just not familiar with RX1R's metering yet. In any case, having another RX1 to shoot with will definitely confirm it, but I'm running out of time from my 14-day and I don't know if the Sony Store guy will loan me a RX1 to compare with


It was an image from Steve Huff's review of the RX1r which I first commented on a while back as having harsh transitions and a steeper contrast than what I am used to out of the RX1. Here was the post midway down the page:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1222995/7

I have noticed it in other RX1r images as well though, pretty much exactly what you are saying above. You might be able to tame the contrast with more underexposure to protect the highlights and then bring the shadows up a bit in raw conversion.



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

Tariq Gibran wrote:
It was an image from Steve Huff's review of the RX1r which I first commented on a while back as having harsh transitions and a steeper contrast than what I am used to out of the RX1. Here was the post midway down the page:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1222995/7

I have noticed it in other RX1r images as well though, pretty much exactly what you are saying above. You might be able to tame the contrast with more underexposure to protect the highlights and then bring the shadows up a bit in raw conversion.


Thanks for the link, interesting observations! I thought there's something wrong with me in the past few days, because I usually could do a lot of tonal adjustments but the files from RX1R (especially at Base ISO) break down in highlight areas much faster than other "inferior" cameras that I currently, which I thought was odd.

My guess is, the removal of AA filter may have enhanced "micro-contrast" but it also takes away processing latitude?! Or maybe for cameras without AA filters, the processing pipeline has to be different/tweaked, and I just haven't mastered it yet?

I have started shooting yesterday (before I read the report) with -0.3EV to compensate but it still doesn't seem to be enough, so I'll try -0.7 today (at the expense of shadow noise). I wonder if this translates to the "-0.7EV" DR deficiency that DXO mentioned.



moosehead222
Registered: Oct 20, 2012
Total Posts: 160
Country: United States

I have purchased the RX1R today ... It is being shipped to my local camera shop (from one of their other locations) to pick up Tuesday.
I am sure I can purchase the RX1 instead tuesday and save $400. I know dynamic range is a big deal but I am confused but have not read all the posts. I am interested in the best IQ and process from RAW in LR. Basically the reason for selecting the RX1/R.. Awesome pictures on this forum.

I just read the recent view posts.

Could anyone summarize the real world difference in IQ.
I just ordered the RX1R due to thinking the best IQ.
I normally process all my photos in LR from RAW pics.

I will backup and read additional posts but any help at the risk of repeating would really help me.

Thanks in advance.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10640
Country: United States

makes sense to me that removing a blurring filter would produce images with higher contrast at high spatial frequencies. that's kinda the point of removing the AA filter isn't it?



moosehead222
Registered: Oct 20, 2012
Total Posts: 160
Country: United States

sebboh wrote:
makes sense to me that removing a blurring filter would produce images with higher contrast at high spatial frequencies. that's kinda the point of removing the AA filter isn't it?


That's true.
I just read the Steve Huff review.. I am not having any second thought about the R
The high ISO looks incredible



moosehead222
Registered: Oct 20, 2012
Total Posts: 160
Country: United States

I have not looked through the electronic VF but if eyeglasses is not an issue, why would folks want the optical VF vs electronic. Is it all about being easier to look through?



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10721
Country: United States

moosehead222 wrote:
I have not looked through the electronic VF but if eyeglasses is not an issue, why would folks want the optical VF vs electronic. Is it all about being easier to look through?


CAN + WORMS = OPEN NOW!



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10640
Country: United States

moosehead222 wrote:
I have not looked through the electronic VF but if eyeglasses is not an issue, why would folks want the optical VF vs electronic. Is it all about being easier to look through?



some people prefer to:
1) see the real world rather than the image the camera will take.
2) see outside of the boundaries of what the lens will capture (helpful for seeing the scene develop before the subject arrives in the desired framing). i honestly don't understand this one myself, why not just open both eyes when you look through the viewfinder?
3) see a brightly lit scene at it's actual brightness.
4) look through glass because it's what they're used to.
5) avoid evfs because that makes it not a "real" camera.

i'm sure i missed a few reasons...



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10721
Country: United States

sebboh wrote:

2) see outside of the boundaries of what the lens will capture (helpful for seeing the scene develop before the subject arrives in the desired framing). i honestly don't understand this one myself, why not just open both eyes when you look through the viewfinder?



That technique of using both eyes with one looking through the optical finder will only work if the finder is a 1:1 finder. These are rare under 50mm. Otherwise, if you use one eye to look through a reduced magnification finder and the other to look at reality, you end up seeing two pseudo superimposed images with one smaller than the other. There is no way someone could do this in practice. Have you tried this?



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10640
Country: United States

Tariq Gibran wrote:
sebboh wrote:

2) see outside of the boundaries of what the lens will capture (helpful for seeing the scene develop before the subject arrives in the desired framing). i honestly don't understand this one myself, why not just open both eyes when you look through the viewfinder?



That technique of using both eyes with one looking through the optical finder will only work if the finder is a 1:1 finder. These are rare under 50mm. Otherwise, if you use one eye to look through a reduced magnification finder and the other to look at reality, you end up seeing two pseudo superimposed images with one smaller than the other. There is no way someone could do this in practice. Have you tried this?


i do this all the time because i can't wink. i do it with super-telephotos (great for tracking birds) down to wide angle lenses.

edit: it's actually easier with non-normal lenses because the images don't superimpose. manual focus is trickier with normal lenses because the images superimpose and your mine tends to disregard the out of focus one.



1       2       3              166      
167
       168              192       193       end