If I understand correctly, the original Sony RX1 has the same sensor as the original A7 and A7II. The RX1RII has the same sensor as a different A7 series camera.
I've owned the original RX1 for many years and it is by far my most used camera. I have dialed in the image settings in-camera and have several Lightroom presets that I use with it that I love. Half the time I just use the jpegs straight out of camera as my built-in settings give me what I want most of the time.
In theory, should the A7 have the exact same image output as the RX1 given the same settings? I know there's a difference in lenses, obviously, but aside from that, the same?
How about the RX1RII vs whatever A7 shares its sensor?
Sensor technology and performance is the same between shared sensors. Maybe slightly different white balance and color, so you may need to create new presets.
As you pointed out, the biggest difference is the lens. There is no substitute for the 35/2 Sonnar. The 35/1.4 ZM and 35/1.7 CV come close but I still prefer the rendering of the RX1.
I'm thinking of using an A7 as my "50mm RX1", with either the GM 1.4 or the GM 1.2. Form factor is completely different, obviously, but I was hoping that image output would not be. Seems like that's (mostly) the case.
weezintrumpete wrote:
I'm thinking of using an A7 as my "50mm RX1", with either the GM 1.4 or the GM 1.2. Form factor is completely different, obviously, but I was hoping that image output would not be. Seems like that's (mostly) the case.
Bear in mind that the so-called 'shutter shock' of the first generation A7 & A7R tended to reduce sharpness at some shutter speeds. The RX1 series, owing to its leaf shutter, didn't have that to contend with that.
So...if at all possible, I'd recommend skipping the first generation and going to at least the series 2 cameras. Of course they don't have the lovely, compact body of the first gen, which may matter to you.
The differences may be subtle or not noticeable but there are differences. There are slight differences in the ISO ranges which likely means the cameras use difference A/D converters. The RX1 and RX1R had fewer AF points than the a7 cameras. That has to change how the raw data is processed because those missing image pixels have to be interpolated.
Dxomark shows differences in sensor testing on all the seemingly equivalent sensor models. So Sony must have made some alterations in the data pipeline.
Bottom line is you should use separate profiles for each camera.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Bear in mind that the so-called 'shutter shock' of the first generation A7 & A7R tended to reduce sharpness at some shutter speeds. The RX1 series, owing to its leaf shutter, didn't have that to contend with that.
So...if at all possible, I'd recommend skipping the first generation and going to at least the series 2 cameras. Of course they don't have the lovely, compact body of the first gen, which may matter to you.
Yep, I'm thinking the original A7 due to the shape and size. I know this is sacrilegious to say in a Sony forum, but I've never gotten along with the later A7 cameras in terms of size / shape / etc. The original is small enough that my hands fit much better and I prefer it, even though there are obviously some downsides...
---------------------------------------------
jeffbuzz wrote:
The differences may be subtle or not noticeable but there are differences. There are slight differences in the ISO ranges which likely means the cameras use difference A/D converters. The RX1 and RX1R had fewer AF points than the a7 cameras. That has to change how the raw data is processed because those missing image pixels have to be interpolated.
Dxomark shows differences in sensor testing on all the seemingly equivalent sensor models. So Sony must have made some alterations in the data pipeline.
Bottom line is you should use separate profiles for each camera.
Have you considered the A7C? It has a 24 MP sensor which is probably not the exact same one as the original RX1/A7, but it probably puts our similar image quality. Better, I would imagine. Plus it gets you closer to the RX1 form factor, and you get benefits of way better AF and a battery that lasts more than 75 shots.
I bought the A7C on a whim because I got a great deal, but it has continued to grow on me over the last year, and I've accepted that it's as close to my dream "RX1RIII" as I'll ever get from Sony. Paired with a small Sigma lens (45/2.8 currently, really want to try the 35/2) it's still a reasonably small package.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Bear in mind that the so-called 'shutter shock' of the first generation A7 & A7R tended to reduce sharpness at some shutter speeds. The RX1 series, owing to its leaf shutter, didn't have that to contend with that.
So...if at all possible, I'd recommend skipping the first generation and going to at least the series 2 cameras. Of course they don't have the lovely, compact body of the first gen, which may matter to you.
I never had a shutter shock problem with the a7. It had an EFCS to get around the problem areas. It was the a7r's full-shutter only that caused problems at certain speeds.
weezintrumpete wrote:
I'm thinking of using an A7 as my "50mm RX1", with either the GM 1.4 or the GM 1.2. Form factor is completely different, obviously, but I was hoping that image output would not be. Seems like that's (mostly) the case.
As far as noise and dynamic range go, yes, it'll be roughly the same.
It'll be interesting to see what you think of the GMs in comparison to the RX1. If you're not set on them, you should consider the Zeiss-branded 50/1.4 Sony produced. It's not as objectively high a performer as the GMs, but it has a draw you might find complimentary to the RX1. And it'll save you quite a bit.
freaklikeme wrote:
I never had a shutter shock problem with the a7. It had an EFCS to get around the problem areas. It was the a7r's full-shutter only that caused problems at certain speeds.
VetraLens wrote:
Have you considered the A7C? It has a 24 MP sensor which is probably not the exact same one as the original RX1/A7, but it probably puts our similar image quality. Better, I would imagine. Plus it gets you closer to the RX1 form factor, and you get benefits of way better AF and a battery that lasts more than 75 shots.
I bought the A7C on a whim because I got a great deal, but it has continued to grow on me over the last year, and I've accepted that it's as close to my dream "RX1RIII" as I'll ever get from Sony. Paired with a small Sigma lens (45/2.8 currently, really want to try the 35/2) it's still a reasonably small package....Show more →
I haven't actually. It has never really appealed to me, but I do get the appeal. I think I'm fine with the original A7. Still, maybe I'll take a look.
---------------------------------------------
freaklikeme wrote:
I never had a shutter shock problem with the a7. It had an EFCS to get around the problem areas. It was the a7r's full-shutter only that caused problems at certain speeds.
Unfortunately, I thought I had heard that using EFCS leads to weird or "less" bokeh when shooting at wide apertures. Because of that, I've been shooting without it.
---------------------------------------------
freaklikeme wrote:
As far as noise and dynamic range go, yes, it'll be roughly the same.
It'll be interesting to see what you think of the GMs in comparison to the RX1. If you're not set on them, you should consider the Zeiss-branded 50/1.4 Sony produced. It's not as objectively high a performer as the GMs, but it has a draw you might find complimentary to the RX1. And it'll save you quite a bit.
The Zeiss is an interesting option, but it's so big. Are they that much cheaper than the GMs? If so, I might take a look at that. In some ways, the images I've seen from the GMs are too "perfect" - as weird as that sounds. The RX1 lens seems to have a bit of character, which I like.
I have a 35 GM but kept my Sigma 35i to see what improvements are made in the A7Cii. I was also an enthusiastic RX1 and size/spec-wise this combo is comparable. The lens is really wonderful.
Only at higher shutter speeds (1/1000 or faster, if I remember correctly).
---------------------------------------------
The Zeiss is an interesting option, but it's so big. Are they that much cheaper than the GMs? If so, I might take a look at that. In some ways, the images I've seen from the GMs are too "perfect" - as weird as that sounds. The RX1 lens seems to have a bit of character, which I like.
New, they're $300 cheaper than the 50/1.4 GM, and used can probably save you an additional $3-400. Yep, it's a big chunk of glass and the AF's a little on slow side in comparison, but, if I were trying to find a fifty to pair with the RX1, that's what I'd look at first.
Actually I find that the image processor has as much or more to do with output than any other component. It is likely that there are significant differences in processor between these cameras. When you choose or edit an image Style what you are doing is changing variables in the default processor. You will want to check output side by side before deciding.
