p.44 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
hiepphotog wrote:
+2
It's always puzzling when Sony includes some useful features in the lower end model, yet decides to omit them on the higher end model for the reason of being more "pro".
Sony went for size above all else, and I think that's the main reason it was left out.
p.44 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, the tilt evf on my 5N had more of the "spirit" of a 45 degree prism to me, rather than a waist level finder, because I usually didn't tilt it up all the way. Granted, when you do tilt it up all the way, I guess it is a little like using a waist level finder with a magnifier.
Either way, no tilt screen was a mistake, IMO.
Yes, it's a good point. When I used my WLF on the blad, of course I often used the magnifier, at least initially for focus. The beauty of AF with a WLF is that often is not necessary., depending on what you are shooting.
I have to also think that if the Alpha division would have released this instead of the Cyber-shot division, the RX1 would have had the articulated LCD...if all that stuff about the Sony divisions is true.
It's just too bad those lens graphs are not actual real world measurements but highly fictional/ unreliable calculated ones. Still, it looks like it will be a good lens.
p.44 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
FlyPenFly wrote:
I can't think of a Zeiss lens released in the last decade for APS-C or larger that has been disappointing. I highly doubt this will be the first.
I guess it depends upon the use and your criteria. I was disappointed in the Sony Zeiss ZA 24/2 FF. It did not live up to my expectations for what I bought it for (landscape). I found the Zeiss ZF 25 2.8 to be a better lens for that use. I was also not impressed at all from what I saw from the ZA 24 1.8 APS. The degree of aberrations that lens has is unacceptable at it's price imo. Sure, you can put a band-aid on them in PP but it's not the same as having a lens without such aberrations - you are giving up a little quality in the end. It too did not offer across the frame performance at infinity from any example I saw. I know others are/were happy with both lenses so that's just reflects my expectations/ requirements. I expected better.
p.44 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Well depends on each person expectation. I know I wouldn't get neither the 50/1.4 nor the 85/1.4 from the current Zeiss ZF/ZE line.
This MTF is measured at 10 and 30 lp/mm. The fact that it's computed, I would subtract both values by 20 to get a more realistic estimate compared to other Zeiss.
p.44 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I guess it depends upon the use and your criteria. I was disappointed in the Sony Zeiss ZA 24/2 FF. It did not live up to my expectations for what I bought it for (landscape). I found the Zeiss ZF 25 2.8 to be a better lens for that use. I was also not impressed at all from what I saw from the ZA 24 1.8 APS. The degree of aberrations that lens has is unacceptable at it's price imo. Sure, you can put a band-aid on them in PP but it's not the same as having a lens without such aberrations - you are giving up a little quality in the end. It too did not offer across the frame performance at infinity from any example I saw. I know others are/were happy with both lenses so that's just reflects my expectations/ requirements. I expected better....Show more →
Can't say much about the 24/2 but it seems to be universally well reviewed at least from what I saw. It's kind of an unimpressive spec though for how big it is and how much it costs. Very overshadowed by the Nikon 24/1.4.
I guess my experience with the ZA 24/1.8 is that I've never used a lens that didn't have CA at F2 or faster. The CA goes away on my copy at F2.8-3.5 except at the borders and even then, it's a slight amount on just high contrast edges. It's resolution though is superb and as far as a landscape lens, I have nothing I can complain about it.
It may not be quite as good as my 35-70 C/Y Zeiss was at F8 but very few lenses are.
p.44 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Well, the 24/2 is pretty much more impressive than the 24/1.8 at all aperture when you consider corner to corner sharpness. It has more punch as well. The size and cost are actually very reasonable compared to the like of Nikon 24/1.4 (it can focus faster than the Nikon as well). But I have to admit, I do like the Nikon more.
p.44 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Being familiar with Sony MTF and what they really translate to in real life, I would say the RX1/Sonnar combination looks fantastic. I expect a very high performance in actual photos.
p.44 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
Being familiar with Sony MTF and what they really translate to in real life, I would say the RX1/Sonnar combination looks fantastic. I expect a very high performance in actual photos.
p.44 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
Being familiar with Sony MTF and what they really translate to in real life, I would say the RX1/Sonnar combination looks fantastic. I expect a very high performance in actual photos.
Thanks Ed for this comment. That might be my first AF camera in a long time
I also assume they could really incorporate some nice software improvements, look at what new PS can do...
Sony could easily remove CA and distortions in camera...
p.44 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
hiepphotog wrote:
Well, the 24/2 is pretty much more impressive than the 24/1.8 at all aperture when you consider corner to corner sharpness. It has more punch as well. The size and cost are actually very reasonable compared to the like of Nikon 24/1.4 (it can focus faster than the Nikon as well). But I have to admit, I do like the Nikon more.
Not for how big it is and costs. I would say the 24/2 appears to be better at infinity but it's big and heavy. In terms of punch, if a lens had more saturation or contrast than the ZA 24/1.8, it would be too much. I think the global contrast is already a smidge too high.
p.44 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
snowboarder wrote:
Thanks Ed for this comment. That might be my first AF camera in a long time
I also assume they could really incorporate some nice software improvements, look at what new PS can do...
Sony could easily remove CA and distortions in camera...
They don't appear to for the RX100 raws.
I actually think that's better. I would rather do it in post myself and scale it to conditions than have a universal profile that might not be optimal.
p.44 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
FlyPenFly wrote:
Not for how big it is and costs. I would say the 24/2 appears to be better at infinity but it's big and heavy. In terms of punch, if a lens had more saturation or contrast than the ZA 24/1.8, it would be too much. I think the global contrast is already a smidge too high.
Well, my two copies of the ZA 24/2 were not impressive at the borders/ corners at infinity on the A900. That's why I returned them.
p.44 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I think the micro contrast is better as well. And that's why it depends on each person expectation. I would gladly trade size and cost for quality (well if I can have both then it's even better).
p.44 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
FlyPenFly wrote:
They don't appear to for the RX100 raws.
I actually think that's better. I would rather do it in post myself and scale it to conditions than have a universal profile that might not be optimal.
The BEST situation is that they get it right with design/ optics in the first place. You still give up fine detail/ quality if the lens has to be corrected for an aberration deficiency.
p.44 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
FlyPenFly wrote:
That's pretty inexcusable for a big heavy un-aggressive prime.
I think the lens must have been optimized for closer performance. I believe that is what Edward found. Seems like that might also have been the case with the 24 1.8 from what I saw from examples (though I never owned that lens). Also the case with the Zeiss ZF 25/2 which does not look like a great infinity/ landscape lens.
p.44 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Yup but Id rather have size, cost, and weight over zero aberrations. After all, I'm not in the market for the latest $8000 Leica perfection or a Coastal Optics.
You still give up fine detail/ quality if the lens has to be corrected for an aberration deficiency.