FMTopFan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.160 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread) | |
millsart wrote:
On my GR for example, I used snap focus quite a bit, not because I wanted to, but because I felt I had to to get around the AF issues I had with the camera. Its a nice option to have for those that enjoy that sort of thing, but I for one don't really see it as a marketing feature. I almost view the lack of such things, or putting them in a sort of out of the way manner almost more of testament to how good the AF system must be.
Perhaps like us, the Ricoh engineers realize their AF is not good enough, so they created this "snap focus" mode for low light shooting conditions (it's really miserable when compared to my EM5). But Ricoh's marketing department decided to turn it into a "selling point"? lol.
philip_pj wrote:
The 'greats' never divulge how many they shot to get the few gems...NG used to send them out with thousands of rolls, Galen Rowell could not believe it at first, that anyone could shoot that much film.
It's funny you mentioned Galen Rowell, I was just thinking if this is the camera he would buy if he's still alive today. He had always emphasized compactness and quality. RX1 would probably be his dream camera, somehow I just don't see him shooting Leica though.
philip_pj wrote:
Having said as much of that, using an RX1 purely for street is a waste. It was designed as a great allrounder. That is why I like it so much.
I did read something about RX1 not great for infinity focus or landscape type images. I wonder if RX1R took care of this issue?
sebboh wrote:
if you can't catch the moment the greatest image quality in the world won't do you much good. presetting the focus works well if you have lots of spare batteries and are keeping the camera where the focus ring won't brush anything. if either of those aren't true it's a serious pain.
The same reason that I don't set my EM5 to MF, because the fly by wire focus ring is so easily touched, and brushed! Super annoying. There goes the compromise of using MF on RX1. I am now hoping DMF may be able to get me there faster than MF?
sebboh wrote:
it really depends on how you use the camera. it's by far the most annoying issue the camera has for me. i don't like have my camera visible when i'm not actively shooting, but i am used to being able to have it prefocused in my pocket and simply pull it out point and shoot without having to look at the screen. this isn't really possible with rx1. does it really cost me that many shots? probably not, but it does regularly annoy me.
Good point, sebboh. This is exactly how I use my GR right now, keeping it out of sight, taking it out of my pocket for a quick snap, dropping back into my bag, all within seconds, because I already pre-visualize what the 28mm will cover. I am getting to the point I don't even have to look at the screen but I know what would be captured. Sounds like I just can't do this with RX1, especially with its thinner DOF.
sebboh wrote:
i've never shot a camera that could come close to autofocusing accurately and quickly enough to compare to prefocused shooting. sure AF with some cameras (certainly not the rx1) can be fast enough if i can count on the subject being under my focus point, but if i don't know ahead of time where the subject will fall prefocusing will give me a better picture 80% of the time even over the AF on a D3 (never shot a nikon 1).
Another benefit of zone focusing or snap is that when I first take my camera out, I could quickly snap a couple of shots as "insurance" in case the subjects move before I could properly focus. In many cases, GR's snap focusing is so good that the first two ended up being the same keepers as the ones where I properly give it time to compose and use AF.
Emacs wrote:
Personally, I find the lack of distance marks on RX1's lens barrel disgusting: it is large enough to accommodate even DOF scale. It shrinks many typical street shooting scenarios, where the AF is hopelessly impotent and adjusting focus distance via the back LCD/EVF is too slow.
Perhaps the camera manufacturers think it's "cool" or very "2013" to have fly by wire lenses? Fujifilm doesn't think so, but the bulkiness of their lenses turns me off too 
Sony/Zeiss could take a lesson from Olympus here, their 12mm and 17mm have both fly-by-wire and snap focus which makes it a pleasure to use, the best of both worlds. I could manually engage the "clutch" to have either the loose fly-by-wire feel or the real lens ring sensation. Truly genius. Maybe now that Sony and Olympus are in bed together, this kind of lens technology will appear in Sony's RX1M4 in 2017? lol
|
. However, after asking for real-world advice and discussing options with users on here, I don't consider it to be an issue. After handling one, I can say with confidence it shouldn't slow down any relatively experienced photographer. Compared to my rangefinder camera, there is no difference in speed or efficiency with zone focusing. You can hit two or three markers that you need on the RX1 distance scale for zone focusing and you can do so very quickly, easily. The only difference between MF RF camera and the RX1 - I can of course manual focus in the VF,or manual focus to a rough area, and then stop down. But of course the RX1 has AF, so it's not all one way. If you're zone focusing, you're basically always taking it away from your eye IMO, to look at the lens or in this case the screen.