Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/176

1       2       3              176      
177
       178              192       193       end

fredmirandafan
Registered: Aug 07, 2013
Total Posts: 92
Country: Canada

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Is it crazy? That all depends on what you want and how you use the RX1R. If you shoot at F2 a lot, yes it's crazy.

I almost never shoot with f2, actually I don't know what subjects to shoot with f2, simply too shallow for my street photography stuff.

Tariq Gibran wroteIf, like me, you use the EVF tilted up, then it would also be crazy.
After having my RX1R for three months, I still haven't received the EVF that I've ordered from Day 1, so I don't miss the big chunky EVF either.

Tariq Gibran wrote:Also keep in mind that the A7R + 35mm 2.8 will not likely match the RX1(r) in price. You are looking at $2200 for the A7r body and very likely $1000 for the 35 2.8. So, $3200 for a package that is one stop slower vs $2800 (RX1r).
Don't forget after the $450 EVF, the RX1R is effecively $3250, same or more than the A7R + $1000 lens.

Tariq Gibran wrotef course, what you get is interchangeable lens capability, more MP's (which we have to see how effective that is vs the RX1 (r)) and wether sealing for the body (but what about the lens?) so that's the trade off.
You're right, there is no mention of weather sealing for the lenses, so it will be odd if Sony introduces a weather-sealed body without weather-sealed lenses.


Tariq Gibran wrote:I should add, IF you like using an optical finder in the RX1 hotshoe, that probably does not make much sense with the A7r.
I never use an optical finder on the RX1, so this is not a problem.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10273
Country: United States

Sounds like you are a candidate for the A7r then. Turns out, that 35 2.8 is cheaper than I thought by $200 (so it's $800) though the A7r body is now $100 more.

Good point about adding the cost of the RX1 EVF.

I use F2 often for portraits and low light myself plus there is an increase to the already great quality of the RX1 when stopping down slightly and shooting at 2.8 and 4. I would imagine best performance on that 35 2.8 will require F4 and 5.6 - so one stop poorer than the RX1 all the way around. Obviously, that's just a guess though. If it performs as good as the Zeiss ZM Biogon 35 2.8, folks are going to be really happy. That's the lens I would likely use on the A7r myself.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5896
Country: United States

Yeah, even though I usually shoot stopped down some, I find f2 to be great for 35mm portraits, so it would be hard for me to give that option up, since I'm only shooting a single lens. It was one of the things that bugged me with my X100 cameras (f3.2 equivalent.).



fredmirandafan
Registered: Aug 07, 2013
Total Posts: 92
Country: Canada

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Sounds like you are a candidate for the A7r then. ...
I use F2 often for portraits and low light myself plus there is an increase to the already great quality of the RX1 when stopping down slightly and shooting at 2.8 and 4. I would imagine best performance on that 35 2.8 will require F4 and 5.6 - so one stop poorer than the RX1 all the way around.

yea, I wonder who else are like me may be getting the A7(R) due to its built-in EVF, weather sealing and tiltable LCD?

The "1-stop poorer" performance of the Zeiss 35mm/2.8 is my only concern, until the reviews come out, I guess we just won't know.

douglasf13 wrote:
It was one of the things that bugged me with my X100 cameras (f3.2 equivalent.).

Yea the Olympus 17mm/1.8 is also bugging me with its f3.5 equivalent at wide open which is not its best f-stop either. There is nothing as small and light as the RX1(R) that is f2.0 and still producing amazing images. I could compromise with f2.8 but not lower.

Speaking of f2.0, what sort of portraits do you shoot at this aperture? Head-shot? Shoulder? Half body or full body? I'm always afraid of missing focus at f2.0 and the background blur may be too much to reveal the "environment" too. Maybe I just need to see some good f2.0 shots to convince me to keep the RX1R!



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10042
Country: United States

fredmirandafan wrote:
Speaking of f2.0, what sort of portraits do you shoot at this aperture? Head-shot? Shoulder? Half body or full body? I'm always afraid of missing focus at f2.0 and the background blur may be too much to reveal the "environment" too. Maybe I just need to see some good f2.0 shots to convince me to keep the RX1R!


speaking just for myself i think 35mm at f/2 is just about perfect for environmental protraiture usually waist up or more + considerable amount of the surroundings. a few examples if you're willing to endure more pics of my daughter:






it's works nicely for head shots too, though i'm not terribly fond of that type of portrait to begin with and you do have to watch the perspective and angle, otherwise it can look a bit unflattering:

the rx1 lens is great for manual focus because it gives so much pop when it's in focus, imho the AF is too slow for use on people in portraits unless they are posing.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10273
Country: United States

fredmirandafan wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Sounds like you are a candidate for the A7r then. ...
I use F2 often for portraits and low light myself plus there is an increase to the already great quality of the RX1 when stopping down slightly and shooting at 2.8 and 4. I would imagine best performance on that 35 2.8 will require F4 and 5.6 - so one stop poorer than the RX1 all the way around.

yea, I wonder who else are like me may be getting the A7(R) due to its built-in EVF, weather sealing and tiltable LCD?

The "1-stop poorer" performance of the Zeiss 35mm/2.8 is my only concern, until the reviews come out, I guess we just won't know.


We will not know for sure until we see some tests and comparisons. I'm just basing my educated guess on the fact that almost all lenses perform better stopped down at least a little from wide open - typically two or three stops. I find the RX1 to be better in this respect in that it's wide open performance is already really good, though it too gets better one or two stops down.

It will certainly be interesting to see how the new 35 2.8 performs on both A7 and A7r as Sony has previously stated that the RX1 performance was not achievable on an interchangeable lens camera. It may just be they mean at F2 which is why the new lens is 2.8.



Picture This!
Registered: Aug 03, 2010
Total Posts: 1906
Country: United States

beautiful shots Sebboh ! Goes to show that today's cameras will still work and put out great pics even after the A7*



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15106
Country: Germany

Tariq Gibran wrote:
We will not know for sure until we see some tests and comparisons. I'm just basing my educated guess on the fact that almost all lenses perform better stopped down at least a little from wide open - typically two or three stops. I find the RX1 to be better in this respect in that it's wide open performance is already really good, though it too gets better one or two stops down.

It will certainly be interesting to see how the new 35 2.8 performs on both A7 and A7r as Sony has previously stated that the RX1 performance was not achievable on an interchangeable lens camera. It may just be they mean at F2 which is why the new lens is 2.8.


It doesn't have to be like that. The 35/2.8 could be an RX1 35/2 stopped down to 2.8 and all the unnecessary bits cut off



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10273
Country: United States

carstenw wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
We will not know for sure until we see some tests and comparisons. I'm just basing my educated guess on the fact that almost all lenses perform better stopped down at least a little from wide open - typically two or three stops. I find the RX1 to be better in this respect in that it's wide open performance is already really good, though it too gets better one or two stops down.

It will certainly be interesting to see how the new 35 2.8 performs on both A7 and A7r as Sony has previously stated that the RX1 performance was not achievable on an interchangeable lens camera. It may just be they mean at F2 which is why the new lens is 2.8.


It doesn't have to be like that. The 35/2.8 could be an RX1 35/2 stopped down to 2.8 and all the unnecessary bits cut off


It can't physically be like that because of how extremely close to the sensor the RX1 35mm lens sits. This new lens may be loosely based on the RX1 lens but it is certainly modified greatly due to the rear element proximity to the sensor. There may also be a question as to whether the HUGE RX1 rear element would even go through the front of the mount!



fredmirandafan
Registered: Aug 07, 2013
Total Posts: 92
Country: Canada

sebboh wrote:
speaking just for myself i think 35mm at f/2 is just about perfect for environmental protraiture usually waist up or more + considerable amount of the surroundings. a few examples if you're willing to endure more pics of my daughter

Beautiful family, sebboh. I see what you mean with the f2.0 pop, the rendering is just so 3D and smooth, this has inspired me to try more portraits at f2.0, but without the EVF, it's really hard to confirm focus. But when I move in closer to try to fill the frame, I run into the issue of distorting faces too. Those of you who regularly shoot at f2.0, do you find the EVF helping or critical in nailing the focus?



fredmirandafan
Registered: Aug 07, 2013
Total Posts: 92
Country: Canada

carstenw wrote:
It doesn't have to be like that. The 35/2.8 could be an RX1 35/2 stopped down to 2.8 and all the unnecessary bits cut off

I want to believe this too, but it's probably just wishful thinking on my part, ie. Retaining the form factor of RX1(R) while achieving the same or better quality of the Zeiss 35mm/2.0 lens.

If 35mm/2.8 is not a good performer, does one have to go to Sigma ART 35mm/1.4 lens on the A7(R) to get the IQ of the 35/2.0

I guess time will tell.



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

Having seen all manner of comparisons with the RX1 Sonnar, its images look dissimilar to everything else, so if they get 'close' that will be a win, the Sonnar is the obvious design reference point.

The 35/2.8 is reported as costing ~$800, with the somewhat large 55/1.8 being $1000...that one might be to head off the need for a 50mm 'RX1', that much will mean a very good 50mm, or an overpriced fail of course.

Putting a 665 gram DSLR lens with largish adapter on a ~330-350 gram mirrorless body might not be ideal. Speaking of adapters, I hope someone makes a very high quality dumb A mount one for the a7r. One also with a good tripod mount for the non-IBIS cameras would be neat, there will be room.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15106
Country: Germany

Tariq Gibran wrote:
It can't physically be like that because of how extremely close to the sensor the RX1 35mm lens sits. This new lens may be loosely based on the RX1 lens but it is certainly modified greatly due to the rear element proximity to the sensor. There may also be a question as to whether the HUGE RX1 rear element would even go through the front of the mount!


Well, not necessarily again The importance isn't how close the glass is to the sensor, but at what angle the rays are allowed to land, with good image quality. If Zeiss can design the f/2.8 lens with a rear element which isn't as close (which was presumably needed to cancel some aberrations which won't be there on an f/2.8 lens), but lets the rays fall at the same angle, well, Bob's your uncle, eh?

Let's see. I think the 35/2.8 could hold some promise, image quality wise, but obviously the special look at f/2 will be gone forever, never to return.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15106
Country: Germany

fredmirandafan wrote:
If 35mm/2.8 is not a good performer


I cannot imagine this scenario. It may lose some of the magic of the RX1, but it will surely be good.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10273
Country: United States

carstenw wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It can't physically be like that because of how extremely close to the sensor the RX1 35mm lens sits. This new lens may be loosely based on the RX1 lens but it is certainly modified greatly due to the rear element proximity to the sensor. There may also be a question as to whether the HUGE RX1 rear element would even go through the front of the mount!


Well, not necessarily again The importance isn't how close the glass is to the sensor, but at what angle the rays are allowed to land, with good image quality. If Zeiss can design the f/2.8 lens with a rear element which isn't as close (which was presumably needed to cancel some aberrations which won't be there on an f/2.8 lens), but lets the rays fall at the same angle, well, Bob's your uncle, eh?

Let's see. I think the 35/2.8 could hold some promise, image quality wise, but obviously the special look at f/2 will be gone forever, never to return.


Oh, I'm sure the 35 2.8 will be a good lens - possibly great- but the design, strictly speaking, of the RX1 35 is different just from what we already know. The RX1 35 lens consists of 8 elements in 7 groups with 3 of those elements being aspherical (one of which being what Sony Zeiss call "Advanced Aspherical" whatever that means). The new FE 35 2.8 consists of 7 elements in 5 groups. We don't know about asphericals yet. Both are designated Sonnars. That's not to say Zeiss did not use the same or similar design principles but it's not going to be the same exact design just scaled down.



fredmirandafan
Registered: Aug 07, 2013
Total Posts: 92
Country: Canada

I desperately need a FF 50mm or 85mm in a small package like the RX1(R), but there is no indication if Sony will ever make a RX2/3 at longer fixed FL, so the A7R will be the only option for 2013 it seems. But then the FF Zeiss lenses are huge already at 50mm, can't imagine how big the 85mm will be. The only compromise is to pair it with the excellent Nikon 50 and 85 f/1.8 with but who knows how big the adapters are and if there will be ray angle issues with the Nikon??

I guess it's not time to pre-order yet?



fredmirandafan
Registered: Aug 07, 2013
Total Posts: 92
Country: Canada

carstenw wrote:
Let's see. I think the 35/2.8 could hold some promise, image quality wise, but obviously the special look at f/2 will be gone forever, never to return.


Unless i keep my RX1R and just use A7R for 50mm or 85mm? But wow isn't this heavy on my wallet?

But then I may be able to convince myself that a single Leica lens is already more than A7R+lens combined



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10273
Country: United States

fredmirandafan wrote:
I desperately need a FF 50mm or 85mm in a small package like the RX1(R), but there is no indication if Sony will ever make a RX2/3 at longer fixed FL, so the A7R will be the only option for 2013 it seems. But then the FF Zeiss lenses are huge already at 50mm, can't imagine how big the 85mm will be. The only compromise is to pair it with the excellent Nikon 50 and 85 f/1.8 with but who knows how big the adapters are and if there will be ray angle issues with the Nikon??

I guess it's not time to pre-order yet?


The Nikon F register distance is 46.5mm and the Sony E-Mount is 18mm so I guess the Nikon adapter must be the difference (28.5mm), just over an inch. I highly doubt there would be any mechanical vignetting issues with a 50 or 85.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5896
Country: United States

Tariq Gibran wrote:
carstenw wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It can't physically be like that because of how extremely close to the sensor the RX1 35mm lens sits. This new lens may be loosely based on the RX1 lens but it is certainly modified greatly due to the rear element proximity to the sensor. There may also be a question as to whether the HUGE RX1 rear element would even go through the front of the mount!


Well, not necessarily again The importance isn't how close the glass is to the sensor, but at what angle the rays are allowed to land, with good image quality. If Zeiss can design the f/2.8 lens with a rear element which isn't as close (which was presumably needed to cancel some aberrations which won't be there on an f/2.8 lens), but lets the rays fall at the same angle, well, Bob's your uncle, eh?

Let's see. I think the 35/2.8 could hold some promise, image quality wise, but obviously the special look at f/2 will be gone forever, never to return.


Oh, I'm sure the 35 2.8 will be a good lens - possibly great- but the design, strictly speaking, of the RX1 35 is different just from what we already know. The RX1 35 lens consists of 8 elements in 7 groups with 3 of those elements being aspherical (one of which being what Sony Zeiss call "Advanced Aspherical" whatever that means). The new FE 35 2.8 consists of 7 elements in 5 groups. We don't know about asphericals yet. Both are designated Sonnars. That's not to say Zeiss did not use the same or similar design principles but it's not going to be the same exact design just scaled down.


It's the rear element that is "advanced aspherical." It is really complex:







charles.K
Registered: Nov 07, 2009
Total Posts: 3588
Country: Australia

fredmirandafan wrote:
I desperately need a FF 50mm or 85mm in a small package like the RX1(R), but there is no indication if Sony will ever make a RX2/3 at longer fixed FL, so the A7R will be the only option for 2013 it seems. But then the FF Zeiss lenses are huge already at 50mm, can't imagine how big the 85mm will be. The only compromise is to pair it with the excellent Nikon 50 and 85 f/1.8 with but who knows how big the adapters are and if there will be ray angle issues with the Nikon??

I guess it's not time to pre-order yet?


With you here, as I love the RX1R, but I am not a 35mm shooter. I most definitely prefer the 50mm, so the A7r paired with a smaller Leica 50, should play well together...hoping anyway I think the 50 won't be the issue, as the Zeiss 35/2.8 looks great, but WA's will be the test!



1       2       3              176      
177
       178              192       193       end