p.45 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
FlyPenFly wrote:
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.
I think there is room in-between those extremes. I really did not see aberration issues with the X100 F2 lens for example.
p.45 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
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.
Well, I do believe the 24/2 and 25/2 to be very similar in performance, even if they have different optical formulas.
As for the ZA performance, yes I did find it excellent at medium and close distances, as for infinity, it is still excellent at the most part of the frame. At f/8 only a very small area in the corners remains problematic, which is fine by most users, except those who require the corners to be sharp.
p.45 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
It seems like Fuji settled on the mustache distortion as the X100's compromise, although it is easily correctable with the LR lens profile.
I never noticed it in normal shooting. I wonder if it is dependent on distance?
p.45 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I've been auto correcting the whole time I've been using it, so I haven't really tested it much. If I had to guess, I'd imagine that unusual, wavy aspherical element in the lens has something to do with it, but I'm not sure.
p.45 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
I've been auto correcting the whole time I've been using it, so I haven't really tested it much. If I had to guess, I'd imagine that unusual, wavy aspherical element in the lens has something to do with it, but I'm not sure.
It's odd because I do shoot subject matter with horizontal lines such as horizons, beach/surf lines and so on and never noticed it with the X100. I'm sure it must be there when measured (though I would think it can't be as extreme as what the Zeiss/ Contax 21 has or I would have noticed it).
p.45 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Yeah, it's definitely not as obvious as the Zeiss. I've noticed it in shots from others, but, like I said, mine are always auto corrected, so I've not noticed it myself.
p.45 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
EOS20 wrote:
A closer look at the RX1 Lens:
Looks like the whole rear lens assembly is fixed, which should be a good thing with respect to possible dust on the sensor. Maybe the lens actually is snug onto the sensor itself, because you can see the top and bottom are cut off.
p.45 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I'm still annoyed they didn't include an integrated EVF (or at least a flip LCD) and I think this is big a mistake by Sony. At this price - albeit the only compact FF camera and with a great lens - people will be, and should be, picky. It's a lot of money and people will weigh pro's and con's, not having a viewfinder is a huge drawback and the camera is a bit restricted as it is already. Remember that in contrast to Leica, this camera will be sold 100 % to photo enthusiast as it won't provide any status at all. For any sane person, it's pretty weird way to spend $2800 ...
I think it safe to say that there are quite few of us, let alone in this thread, that will consider buying it but in the end won't and the viewfinder will be the number one reason to pass it at this price point. If it was priced sub 2k, I think it would have been much easier to overlook the limitations.
I might hold off any camera purchase until the spring, and depending on my economy, if this thing drops in price and if not there are any other interesting offerings on the way I might be very tempted. But the first owner will mostly look at a pretty steep depreciation in value, and that always hurts. OTOH I'm pretty sure that this will be a classic camera that people will want even in five, or even more years to come.
i need to spend more time with my pen f 42/1.2 to decide if i'm willing to give it up to help finance this. i also need to test out this thing in use of course...
p.45 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
It seems like Fuji settled on the mustache distortion as the X100's compromise, although it is easily correctable with the LR lens profile.
No. Fuji's compromise with the X100 is the wicked flare/choma (i dont know what you call it) that occurs after dark with bright lights. It is VERY unique to the X100, I have never seen any camera with this strange flare at all. It is a very ugly phenomena and can on occasion ruin images.
p.45 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
rattymouse wrote:
No. Fuji's compromise with the X100 is the wicked flare/choma (i dont know what you call it) that occurs after dark with bright lights. It is VERY unique to the X100, I have never seen any camera with this strange flare at all. It is a very ugly phenomena and can on occasion ruin images.
See the lights above the bill board.
woah! that looks just like filter flare. wonder if it's a reflection between the extremely close rear element and the sensor?
wonder if it's a reflection between the extremely close rear element and the sensor?