The rendering of the lens is nice, but the way the camera handles highlights doesn't please me at all. Very digital.

carstenw wrote:
The rendering of the lens is nice, but the way the camera handles highlights doesn't please me at all. Very digital.

i would wait for raws to make any judgement about that.

Sony JPGs are pretty good, but okay, let's see what the RAWs look like.

michael49 wrote:
Crap-load of money for a fixed lens camera though.


Unless you were trying to price out a new Leica M Type 240 with 35mm 'cron. Then it's downright cheap... (I know, I know, it's not the SAME THING but still kind of true...)

carstenw wrote:
Sony JPGs are pretty good, but okay, let's see what the RAWs look like.

I guess, but from using a 5N and a77, the SOOC Jpegs tend to have a fair amount of smoothing, even with NR off.

Makten wrote:
navyasw02 wrote:
Sample Photos

Ohhhhhh, the bokeh is downright amazing!!! Not even the ZF 35/1.4 does this well at that distance.



I agree, the background blur for mid distance subjects looks really good. If anything bugs me, it's the bullseye/onion ring effect seen in the OOF specular light sources in the Christmas tree... but it's probably a result of the aspherical elements...

Link to mentioned photo

carstenw wrote:
Sony JPGs are pretty good, but okay, let's see what the RAWs look like.

i've never been happy with anything about sony jpegs except (sometimes) the color.

sebboh wrote:
i've never been happy with anything about sony jpegs except (sometimes) the color.

I agree, except for landscape JPEGs which I find pretty decent.

Brandon Woo on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandonwoo/sets/72157632023307133/with/8190530765/

His comments on DPR: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3337335

Hmm, it seems that everyone is down on Sony's JPGs? I guess I have to examine them closer the next time I get a chance. I thought they were better than that, but I haven't owned a recent Sony.

rscheffler wrote:
I agree, the background blur for mid distance subjects looks really good. If anything bugs me, it's the bullseye/onion ring effect seen in the OOF specular light sources in the Christmas tree... but it's probably a result of the aspherical elements...

Link to mentioned photo

Maybe, but it doesn't matter at all to me. The holy Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM also gives a "blob" in the middle of the blur disc at some distances, so it doesn't have to do with an aspherical surface either.

Edit: Carsten, the highlights-thing might come from the tweaking of exposure metering and gamma in relation to the actual saturation of the pixels. The M9 tolerates almost no overexposure at all, but on the other hand you have plenty of shadows recovery possibilities. This of course gives lower noise since you will expose higher than with other cameras, and it could be the route Sony chose for the RX1. Actually, I think I would prefer that over having to overexpose every shot and "pull back" in PP to get the most out of the camera.

Makten wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
I agree, the background blur for mid distance subjects looks really good. If anything bugs me, it's the bullseye/onion ring effect seen in the OOF specular light sources in the Christmas tree... but it's probably a result of the aspherical elements...

Link to mentioned photo

Maybe, but it doesn't matter at all to me. The holy Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM also gives a "blob" in the middle of the blur disc at some distances, so it doesn't have to do with an aspherical surface either.


the blob you're referring to is quite common in many lenses and is different in look and cause from the onion ring effect of molded aspherics (two or more concentric rings) that is quite obvious in some of these pictures. the c/y 35/1.4 is also prone to these in some situations as is the sigmalux and i believe the 35mm lux asph (i should double check this) along with many other lenses with aspherical elements. i don't care for the onion rings but they usually don't show up to often and the aspherical elements certainly help out in other ways.

Can anyone comment on if teleconverter feature that turns the Rx1 into a 50mm and 75mm works in video mode? My guess is no, just something that would be a huge plus for me.

'Hmm, it seems that everyone is down on Sony's JPGs?'
It's long been a cult movement, carsten.

The IR comparometer now has the RX1, so you can compare it against everything else.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

and RX1/a99 high ISO crops:

Interesting comparison site, I had forgotten that it existed, thanks. I compared the RX1 to the D3x, which before the current batch of cameras was pretty much considered the best digital camera ever made, and the RX1 did very well. I am left with the impression that the RX1 doesn't hold the highlights quite as well, i.e. the bright tones in the images are brighter than the D3x, but the difference in those images is smaller than I expected, in comparison with the images linked to above. I guess more real-life testing is in order.

25600?

25600?

Sorry guys. Last time I gave ISO much thought was when 6400 was extreme (and I thought that was ridiculous).

25600.... uuuuhhh.

Maybe I should just go back to ISO 100 film.

cogitech wrote:
25600?

25600?

Sorry guys. Last time I gave ISO much thought was when 6400 was extreme (and I thought that was ridiculous).

25600.... uuuuhhh.

Maybe I should just go back to ISO 100 film.

i tried to take some pictures of my daughter trick or treating in the city with an f/1.4 lens and iso 6400 definitely wasn't enough (and was also too noisy), so i'm not gonna complain about continuing to up the high iso capability. low iso performance is still more important though...

sebboh wrote:
cogitech wrote:
25600?

25600?

Sorry guys. Last time I gave ISO much thought was when 6400 was extreme (and I thought that was ridiculous).

25600.... uuuuhhh.

Maybe I should just go back to ISO 100 film.

i tried to take some pictures of my daughter trick or treating in the city with an f/1.4 lens and iso 6400 definitely wasn't enough (and was also too noisy), so i'm not gonna complain about continuing to up the high iso capability. low iso performance is still more important though...

Well, I am genuinely caught off guard here, rather than complaining per se. It's... surreal. Yes, surreal, and it makes me feel older than I am. Press the pause button for 18 months and things change much more than you expect them to...

Yeah, I compared ISO 100 and 3200 above, and 3200 I use very rarely. I use 1600 somewhat often, but most of the time I am from 100-400.

Steve Huff just received an RX1 and released another video. Most interesting part he finds the AF "pretty quick"... (as before)

carstenw wrote:
Yeah, I compared ISO 100 and 3200 above, and 3200 I use very rarely. I use 1600 somewhat often, but most of the time I am from 100-400.

I readily go to 800, which is still very clean on a 5Dc, and to 1600 if I need to (which is easily cleaned up in post), but that accounts for maybe 10% of shots.

Faster glass and/or bounce flash if 1600 isn't enough.

If I had clean 6400, I might use it once in a while but only if I was completely unprepared (without a flash) for some reason. I cannot think of a reason why I would be, as I have redundant gear.

25600

I still don't get it.