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


Warning, lack of science here ->

Not picking on Fujifilm here, just thought I'd have a comparative look at the X100 since I owned one. Using the same test target scene from Imaging-Resource, in the RX1 raw file(s) I renamed the model string using exiftool to allow Lightroom to edit the RX1 arw raw files.

Comparing rescaled RX1 output sized to match the X100, there is no comparison, the RX1 is sharper and holds on to fine details in the centre and at the edges. No real surprise there. Hmmnn, I wonder how it holds up to NEX-7? Probably wipes that one too at elevated sensitivity but at base ISO?

I'm only comparing at ISO3200 at present because my interest is in detail capture at higher sensitivity levels. Looks pretty good to me.

There is some uncertainty in my mind as to what is a lack of sharpness, and what is field curvature. Much more testing is needed to decide.

carstenw wrote:
There is some uncertainty in my mind as to what is a lack of sharpness, and what is field curvature. Much more testing is needed to decide.

yup, preferably at greater distances.

As I go along I'll keep updating my gallery. All pics will be straight from camera jpeg no editing except for some crops. Then you all can decide for yourselves if you like the camera

such a BS. Nex7 looks like $hit
alundeb wrote:
Well the NEX 7 with whatever lens is better towards the edge (look at the print on the Lager Beer bottle)

If this one is an f/2.0 photo, then I wonder what lens could be better than the 35mm Sonnar.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/90140687@N04/8192352026/sizes/h/in/set-72157632021173047/

Sony RX1 vs Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2 Distagon:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50305963

Performance across the frame looks good on this planar subject:

http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/shunsuke_onji/8188625748/

navyasw02 wrote:
As I go along I'll keep updating my gallery. All pics will be straight from camera jpeg no editing except for some crops. Then you all can decide for yourselves if you like the camera

thanks! it does look quite impressive to me, though it does seem they may have sacrificed stopped down performance to a small degree for improved wide open performance.


vovkinson wrote:
such a BS. Nex7 looks like $hit
alundeb wrote:
Well the NEX 7 with whatever lens is better towards the edge (look at the print on the Lager Beer bottle)



could you elaborate a bit. in those two samples the NEX-7 does look sharper in the corners to me, though the rx1 seems to have either narrower dof or field curvature going on (or both).

tulaev wrote:
Sony RX1 vs Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2 Distagon:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50305963


... and that's an $1,100 lens on a $7,000 body ...

michaelwatkins wrote:
tulaev wrote:
Sony RX1 vs Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2 Distagon:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50305963


... and that's an $1,100 lens on a $7,000 body ...


I wouldn't draw too many conclusions off that D3x post (I've never seen one fringe that badly), but of course the RX1 is going to be good. People disparaging the camera are so far almost universally doing it on an emotional basis, calling things terrble before having seen them, or saying things that fly in the face of evidence right before them (emacs being a prime example).

My only wish is that Sony make a 24mm f/2 version. Even without that I'm sorely tempted!

ausemmao wrote:
michaelwatkins wrote:
tulaev wrote:
Sony RX1 vs Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2 Distagon:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50305963


... and that's an $1,100 lens on a $7,000 body ...


I wouldn't draw too many conclusions off that D3x post (I've never seen one fringe that badly), but of course the RX1 is going to be good. People disparaging the camera are so far almost universally doing it on an emotional basis, calling things terrble before having seen them, or saying things that fly in the face of evidence right before them (emacs being a prime example).

My only wish is that Sony make a 24mm f/2 version. Even without that I'm sorely tempted!

And keep in mind that we only have JPG images out of the RX1. The crops in the test are clearly limited by typcal JPG smoothing + oversharpening, causing a "rounded" detail look with no really fine detail but still sharpening halos.

Some posts ago someone called the BS name on my verdict on the NEX 7 comparison. I guess what that person was referring to, is the same JPG smoothing effect in the NEX 7 images. If you download the raw file from IR and process it in a proper raw converter, it will surpass the detail quality (but not the (micro-)contrast) of the JPG from the RX1.

What we see towards the edge with the RX1 at IR however, is not JPG softness. It is a different nature, more nervous character. It has to come from the lens or combination lens / sensor.

alundeb wrote:
And keep in mind that we only have JPG images out of the RX1.

No. It's from RAW, converted by Sony IDC. I added other crops with sharpness -70 in IDC:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50308185

tulaev wrote:
alundeb wrote:
And keep in mind that we only have JPG images out of the RX1.

No. It's from RAW, converted by Sony IDC. I added other crops with sharpness -70 in IDC:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50308185


Thank you! That one is different from the ones in the previous link, just as expected ( I didn't read the the whole discussion over at DPR)

Distagon 35/2 isn't the best glass for benchmarking, and this seems to refer to all CZ glass, both of recent and older designs.

tulaev wrote:
Sony RX1 vs Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2 Distagon:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50305963


The purple fringing in the Distagon shot (middle crop) makes me think it's misfocused. Can't remember that it ever did that for me.

Emacs wrote:
Distagon 35/2 isn't the best glass for benchmarking, and this seems to refer to all CZ glass, both of recent and older designs.


And dxomark.com is the worst test site ever for lens tests. Nobody here respects it, not even Photozone and TDP fans

Ended up buying the EVF today, it's definitely a nice add on for anyone interested. I probably wont use it all the time, but it is very, very nice.

Posted some more photos, not very creative but I was mainly seeing how the EVF handled, different focus arrangements, and most importantly different stops other than shooting wide open. This thing is pretty sharp for all you naysayers and pixel peepers.

After this weekend, I'm beginning to like the responsiveness of the daytime AF. I havent shot again at night though.

Emacs wrote:
Distagon 35/2 isn't the best glass for benchmarking
This is comparable lens, and for it there are comparable photos.

navyasw02 wrote:
Ended up buying the EVF today, it's definitely a nice add on for anyone interested. I probably wont use it all the time, but it is very, very nice.

Posted some more photos, not very creative but I was mainly seeing how the EVF handled, different focus arrangements, and most importantly different stops other than shooting wide open. This thing is pretty sharp for all you naysayers and pixel peepers.

After this weekend, I'm beginning to like the responsiveness of the daytime AF. I havent shot again at night though.

Small question: with regards to focus points, does it work similarly to, say, a Nex 5, where you move the focus point with the 4-way controller at the back? And can you choose focus points at the extreme edges? That's always been one of the things that bugged my about my D700 (and other Nikon FX camera's), was that the focus points were rather concentrated in the middle. I'm hoping the RX1 won't be similarly limited.