Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/72

1       2       3              72      
73
       74              192       193       end

carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15691
Country: Germany

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



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10577
Country: United States

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.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15691
Country: Germany

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



Vern Dewit
Registered: Sep 27, 2006
Total Posts: 2434
Country: Canada

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...)



rscheffler
Registered: Aug 23, 2005
Total Posts: 4928
Country: Canada

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



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10577
Country: United States

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.



Vern Dewit
Registered: Sep 27, 2006
Total Posts: 2434
Country: Canada

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.



michaelwatkins
Registered: Oct 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1699
Country: Canada

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



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15691
Country: Germany

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.



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4044
Country: Sweden

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.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10577
Country: United States

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.



Jgreene11
Registered: Apr 24, 2011
Total Posts: 185
Country: United States

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.



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

'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:






I often wonder what lens they use for such comparisons which necessarliy involve more than just noise patterns - for ILCs anyway.


carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15691
Country: Germany

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.



cogitech
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Total Posts: 11365
Country: Canada

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.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10577
Country: United States

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...



cogitech
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Total Posts: 11365
Country: Canada

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...



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15691
Country: Germany

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.



Bob YILDIRAN
Registered: Oct 14, 2007
Total Posts: 71
Country: N/A

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



cogitech
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Total Posts: 11365
Country: Canada

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.



1       2       3              72      
73
       74              192       193       end