millsart wrote:
Is there any lens correction profiles for the camera ? Hows the distortion if left uncorrected ?
There are no user selectable profiles, like all other cameras with severe optical distortion and built in corrections the distortion correction is done without user intervention in LR/ACR.
millsart wrote: Is there any lens correction profiles for the camera ? Hows the distortion if left uncorrected ?
I think you can see the uncorrected version with Picassa, and I have seen that in Oloneo, they look like from a fisheye lens
I didn't heavily process, normally I would make a mask to hold the whites in the waterfall down, in this case I just made a quickie adjustment of bringing down highlights to see what was in those whites, and was impressed. Now that I know, I can certainly get working on those RAW files in post to see what else I can discover.
I hope I could use standard 52mm filter instead of a dedicated CPL since the minimum focusing distance of RX100 is not close enough, I do wish I could attach the 250D diopter for some closeup, and CPL, ND ....
Just tried the ACR RC, so far, RX100 raw files seems much better than those 12MP M43 files (esp those from Olympus) at low ISO.
ytwong wrote:
I hope I could use standard 52mm filter instead of a dedicated CPL since the minimum focusing distance of RX100 is not close enough, I do wish I could attach the 250D diopter for some closeup, and CPL, ND ....
Just tried the ACR RC, so far, RX100 raw files seems much better than those 12MP M43 files (esp those from Olympus) at low ISO.
Jens Faerber has a adapter that allows you to use 43mm and 52mm filters on the RX100.
"The RX100 is probably the most capable compact camera on the market today, combining the image quality benefits of a mid-sized sensor with the proportions of a conventional compact. Extensive, though not flawless, manual controls make the RX100 a great second camera for DSLR shooters. "
I'm starting to believe there are some serious quality control issues with this camera. Particulary the lens.
There seem to be quite a lot of people that are complaining about the lens being decentered/misaligned. On DPreview there's talk about it and Bobu also mentioned it in his Croatia thread over here.
Some people even got multiple copies of the camera with the exact same problems.
Mine also seems to be affected by this. At full zoom the upper right corner is softer than the left corner. At around 14-15mm... the bottom left corner is softer. The problem seems to be the worst when focused at a distant subject.
At it's widest setting of 10mm there's not a problem. Sharp all over the frame.
I'm really disappointed by it, because I really like so much about this camera.
1- its trying to pack 20 megs of resolution into a mass produced compact camera with a very ambitious zoom lens and modest price point.
2- its such a good camera that its being adopted by the enthusiast market who's not only more akin to want to pixel peep but also who's no doubt comparing it to very high end glass which they are accustomed to.
Basically every compact I've had has suffered some IQ issues if you looked hard enough for it, only thing is, most people using P&S don't. In addition, when your dealing with 8-10 megs its pushes the lens a lot less than 20 megs of resolution, as does trying to design a lens that can cover a much larger sensor.
I'm sure Sony could of made the camera 28-80mm f2.0-5.6, in addition to selling it for $799 and not only had an optically better product, but one also produced with better QC but then who'd buy it ?
Jochenb wrote:
I'm starting to believe there are some serious quality control issues with this camera. Particulary the lens.
There seem to be quite a lot of people that are complaining about the lens being decentered/misaligned. On DPreview there's talk about it and Bobu also mentioned it in his Croatia thread over here.
Some people even got multiple copies of the camera with the exact same problems.
Mine also seems to be affected by this. At full zoom the upper right corner is softer than the left corner. At around 14-15mm... the bottom left corner is softer. The problem seems to be the worst when focused at a distant subject.
At it's widest setting of 10mm there's not a problem. Sharp all over the frame.
I'm really disappointed by it, because I really like so much about this camera. ...Show more →
Lenses that performed superbly on the D700 are turning out crap on the D800E. Only a small handful of Nikon's pro lenses are producing excellent results.
Of course, if you downsamples to 12mpx from 36mpx, it becomes a lot less obvious.
kwalsh wrote:
There are no user selectable profiles, like all other cameras with severe optical distortion and built in corrections the distortion correction is done without user intervention in LR/ACR.
Ken
You mean we don't need to select the Enable Profile option? I see no difference by selecting the option.
1- its trying to pack 20 megs of resolution into a mass produced compact camera with a very ambitious zoom lens and modest price point.
Yes I also mentioned this in Bobu's thread. The lens assembly needs tighter tolerances for a 20MP sensor. It highlights the slightest flaws.
2- its such a good camera that its being adopted by the enthusiast market who's not only more akin to want to pixel peep but also who's no doubt comparing it to very high end glass which they are accustomed to.
I don't compare it to my FF camera with zeiss glass, but to other compact camera's I've owned. I'm OK with slight softness, but it's harder to accept when you see that other corners/edges are perfectly fine while one is not.
Basically every compact I've had has suffered some IQ issues if you looked hard enough for it, only thing is, most people using P&S don't. In addition, when your dealing with 8-10 megs its pushes the lens a lot less than 20 megs of resolution, as does trying to design a lens that can cover a much larger sensor.
Sure, but I would say Sony made a wrong decision by going for a 20MP sensor then. The lens design/assembly should've been on par with the sensor.
I'm sure Sony could of made the camera 28-80mm f2.0-5.6, in addition to selling it for $799 and not only had an optically better product, but one also produced with better QC but then who'd buy it ?
I would.
I just noticed that Lloyd Chambers also mentioned it on his blog.
Some quotes:
Lloyd Chambers:
- Yet the RX100 delivers frustratingly poor results in many (too many) situations; this is not a sensor issue but a lens performance issue— it a very, very poor performer at many if not most zoom settings and distances. As in maybe 1/3 or 1/2 the rated resolution (e.g., 8-12 megapixels from a 20MP sensor).
- Build quality: at the long end, some frames show asymmetric blur on one side (a report from a reader confirms the same issue with multiple samples).
I'm torn about it. I really think the camera has potential. Small, fast AF, tiltable flash, nice colors, good ISO performance,...
We'll see.
Pondria wrote:
You mean we don't need to select the Enable Profile option? I see no difference by selecting the option.
That's correct, no need to enable profile. All of these fixed lens compacts designed from the start with lots of distortion correction in mind that offer RAW (LX3, LX5, LX7, S90, S100, FZ150, FZ200, XZ1, many others) do not have profiles in LR/ACR and instead distortion correction is considered the only "valid" way to convert a file. Usually the correction instructions are actually embedded in the RAW file itself rather than Adobe having measured them. LR/ACR just needs to read the coefficients from the RAW file and apply them (this at least is how Panasonic and Olympus do it for sure). Same is true for all m43 lenses.
The LX3 started this trend and essentially Panasonic wouldn't let anyone claim RAW support unless they transparently did distortion correction without any control from the user. Every other maker has done the same since. It is only for already well corrected lenses that do not pass their own distortion metadata (think Canon and Nikon DSLR lenses) that profiles are used.
