Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/73

1       2       3              73      
74
       75              190       191       end

sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 9669
Country: United States

cogitech wrote:
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.


i find that i need iso 3200-6400 pretty often indoors at night. this is mostly because i refuse to use a bounce flash (or any flash at all for that matter) for aesthetic and practical reasons.

i don't think that 25600 is that recent a development, my 2.5 year old low end camera goes up to 12800. it's just having usable iso 6400 and 12800 that are a recent development.



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4035
Country: Sweden

sebboh wrote:
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.


Yeah, I just wanted to point out that similar "defects" can be had even with lenses that don't feature aspherical elements. Personally, the "onion rings" don't bother me at all.


carstenw wrote:
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.


As usual, these tests are completely useless without knowing the aperture and shutter speed. The ISO rating is very diffuse and if you want a serious comparison, shutter speed and aperture are the only parameters needed and they should be the same for the contenders.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 14905
Country: Germany

Depending on the lenses, aperture is also not a perfect indicator (T-stops would be). Anyway, I made sure to compare the full range, and the mid-tones looked as if they were exposed identically, it was just the highlights which were held better on the D3x.



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4035
Country: Sweden

carstenw wrote:
Depending on the lenses, aperture is also not a perfect indicator (T-stops would be). Anyway, I made sure to compare the full range, and the mid-tones looked as if they were exposed identically, it was just the highlights which were held better on the D3x.


What I meant was that ISO is irrelevant for any noise measurement or comparison between cameras if you don't expose both sensors equally. So, in order to know what camera performs the best at a certain lighting condition, you have to use the same shutter speed and the same aperture (yes, T-stop would be better but not necessary). Then choose whatever ISO that suits the A/D converter best to "fill" the bit depth of the image file.



navyasw02
Registered: Mar 09, 2008
Total Posts: 251
Country: Japan

I added a few more pics I snapped while wandering for a bit after breakfast. Nothing great, but I wanted to post up some daytime shots. Today I left it in AF and tried to keep a low ISO. I said last night the AF was a little slow, but after trying in the day it is certainly comparable to the Olympus PEN line. It's not DSLR fast, but it's perfectly acceptable. Overall, I still am leaning towards keeping this camera in MF because it gives a much better sense of control.

To answer some questions - I havent figured out how to get the digital zoom to work yet, still trying to figure that one out. I havent played with DMF too much either, but it seems like a nice hybrid between AF and MF.

Retail price is 248,000 yen here in Japan so I think it came to about $3050. I looked for the EVF and the shop doesn't have it, it will be a 2-3 week special order. I can probably order it from the states and it'll be cheaper and get here around the same time frame.

I really dont understand the gripes about price for this camera. It's not a compact, micro 4/3, point and shoot, or even a Canon G series. It really is a professional grade street camera and looks, feels, and operates like a serious piece of gear. Maybe people dont want to pay that much for it because it doesn't say Canon or Nikon on the front. This camera is for people who know what they're doing, not parents who want to take pictures of their kids' soccer games. This camera is for the FF shooter who wants to have that level of image quality in a portable package to carry every day or use for travel. I dont feel hindered at all by a fixed lens, in fact I rarely shoot outside 35mm anyway. This is the camera I've been waiting for and I'm not disappointed.

Edit: The Zoom only works with JPEG.



Emacs
Registered: Aug 19, 2012
Total Posts: 183
Country: N/A

navyasw02 wrote:
I really dont understand the gripes about price for this camera. It's not a compact, micro 4/3, point and shoot, or even a Canon G series. It really is a professional grade street camera and looks, feels, and operates like a serious piece of gear. Maybe people dont want to pay that much for it because it doesn't say Canon or Nikon on the front. This camera is for people who know what they're doing, not parents who want to take pictures of their kids' soccer games. This camera is for the FF shooter who wants to have that level of image quality in a portable package to carry every day or use for travel. I dont feel hindered at all by a fixed lens, in fact I rarely shoot outside 35mm anyway. This is the camera I've been waiting for and I'm not

The problem is the lens is kinda subpar (for mirrorless/rf): sharp only at center, distortion level is very pronounced: this is what samyang could easily do for $300-400. The body on the other hand is much simpler to assemble than DSLR plus it's parts are cheaper than DSLR.
Plus no tilt LCD option, no touch screen which makes using AF very inconvenient (your example proves this).
And it has RIDICULOUS price tag in Europe: 3000 euro. For what? It doesn't worth even its US price.



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4194
Country: Norway

Thank you guys for images and links!

The lens does exactly what I expected and hoped for. It is good for wide open use in low light, or for street / event photography. That is exactly what I would use this camera for.

When the Imaging Resource images reveal sub-par edge sharpness stopped down, and distortion, that might be disappointing for those hoping for a serious landscape or architecture camera. It should be noted however that the usual focal length on IR is 70 mm. Flatness of field and perspective differences might be just as much at play.



rattymouse
Registered: Feb 04, 2006
Total Posts: 3607
Country: China

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.

Edit: I hope you don't mind me posting it here?



DSC00025 by ASW02, on Flickr


That is an AMAZING photo.



navyasw02
Registered: Mar 09, 2008
Total Posts: 251
Country: Japan

Emacs wrote:
navyasw02 wrote:
I really dont understand the gripes about price for this camera. It's not a compact, micro 4/3, point and shoot, or even a Canon G series. It really is a professional grade street camera and looks, feels, and operates like a serious piece of gear. Maybe people dont want to pay that much for it because it doesn't say Canon or Nikon on the front. This camera is for people who know what they're doing, not parents who want to take pictures of their kids' soccer games. This camera is for the FF shooter who wants to have that level of image quality in a portable package to carry every day or use for travel. I dont feel hindered at all by a fixed lens, in fact I rarely shoot outside 35mm anyway. This is the camera I've been waiting for and I'm not

The problem is the lens is kinda subpar (for mirrorless/rf): sharp only at center, distortion level is very pronounced: this is what samyang could easily do for $300-400. The body on the other hand is much simpler to assemble than DSLR plus it's parts are cheaper than DSLR.
Plus no tilt LCD option, no touch screen which makes using AF very inconvenient (your example proves this).
And it has RIDICULOUS price tag in Europe: 3000 euro. For what? It doesn't worth even its US price.


How can you say the lens is sub par when you've never used it?



Exdsc
Registered: Sep 25, 2012
Total Posts: 200
Country: Canada

I welcome any new camera design that breaks ground.I don't care about the price because I don't have to buy every new camera in order to maintain my circle of friends etc.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 9669
Country: United States

Emacs wrote:
The problem is the lens is kinda subpar (for mirrorless/rf): sharp only at center, distortion level is very pronounced: this is what samyang could easily do for $300-400. The body on the other hand is much simpler to assemble than DSLR plus it's parts are cheaper than DSLR.
Plus no tilt LCD option, no touch screen which makes using AF very inconvenient (your example proves this).
And it has RIDICULOUS price tag in Europe: 3000 euro. For what? It doesn't worth even its US price.


hmm, it looks extremely good even in the extreme corners at f/2 to me. i'm not aware of any other lens rf/mirrorless lens that is as good at f/2 in the corners and costs less than $2k. it's true it doesn't seem to improve much stopped down, not sure what conclusions i'd draw from that, hopefully it's field curvature, maybe it's just the design though. i do very much like the look i'm seeing in the sample photos though.



Emacs
Registered: Aug 19, 2012
Total Posts: 183
Country: N/A

sebboh wrote:i do very much like the look i'm seeing in the sample photos though.
Me too, but still this one doesn't look any better than Fuji 23/2 at edges (downsampled to 12Mp: higher clairity, but the same smeared look, the lens of Leica X2 looks much better in this department. And the distortion is too high compared to leica.
No swivel/tilt LCD is a big minus as well as lack of touchscreen. Strange camera with excellent IQ. In the center.
It would be nice camera for $2000, but not for $2700 and especially for 3000. It just doesn't worth it. It's very sony: half baked product with poor usability.



aleksanderpolo
Registered: Jan 18, 2010
Total Posts: 880
Country: United States

The 24MP D600 cost more than $2000, body alone, come on people.



Emacs
Registered: Aug 19, 2012
Total Posts: 183
Country: N/A

aleksanderpolo wrote:
The 24MP D600 cost more than $2000, body alone, come on people.

It's much more complicated product than mirrorless body: full of mechanical parts and parts that needs to be aligned with precision. And the lens isn't the top notch one, you see.



davewolfs
Registered: Jun 15, 2006
Total Posts: 1131
Country: United States

Agreed. Give me a Fuji XE1 and a 23mm 1.4 for half the price and I'm just as happy (I think).



aleksanderpolo
Registered: Jan 18, 2010
Total Posts: 880
Country: United States

I was looking at the samples from IR and have no idea what you guys are talking about, just look at the center of the fabric:

RX1
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/FULLRES/RX1hSLI000050NR2D.HTM

XE1
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-e1/FULLRES/XE1hSLI00100NR3D.HTM



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4194
Country: Norway

Wow that Fuji sample was awful. The Canon S110 beats it right down.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 9669
Country: United States

Emacs wrote:
aleksanderpolo wrote:
The 24MP D600 cost more than $2000, body alone, come on people.

It's much more complicated product than mirrorless body: full of mechanical parts and parts that needs to be aligned with precision. And the lens isn't the top notch one, you see.


i have to definitely disagree about the lens not being top notch, what do you think will beat it?

upsampling the x100 to 24mp or downsampling the rx1 to 12mp definitely does NOT make the two look at all comparable.

it certainly isn't perfect, but i'm not prepared to say it gets beat by anything in mirrorless or much in SLRs.



aleksanderpolo
Registered: Jan 18, 2010
Total Posts: 880
Country: United States

Some more samples from IR for comparison:

X100:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/X100/FULLRES/X100hSLI00100_NR3D.HTM

XP1:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-pro1/FULLRES/XPRO1hSLI00100NR3D.HTM

NEX7:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX7/FULLRES/NEX7hSLI00100NR2D.HTM

D600:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d600/FULLRES/D600hSLI00050NR2D.HTM

M9:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/M9/FULLRES/M9hSLI0080.HTM

D800:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d800/FULLRES/D800hSLI00050_RF.HTM

The only other camera that I see with comparable or higher resolution on the fabric is M9 or D800, both having a higher body only price than the RX1. So yeah, I too would like to see samples from other camera/lens combination with similar performance, similar size, and lower price tag.



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4194
Country: Norway

Well the NEX 7 with whatever lens is better towards the edge (look at the print on the Lager Beer bottle)



1       2       3              73      
74
       75              190       191       end