p.46 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
sebboh wrote:
it looks almost exactly like what i see when i shoot with a filter on my contax g 45.
That's interesting. Never seen that before. Usually in the rare cases of ghosting in night shots, the reflections are mirrored to the opposite side of the frame.
p.46 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
That's interesting. Never seen that before. Usually in the rare cases of ghosting in night shots, the reflections are mirrored to the opposite side of the frame.
that is true, i seem to have an unconcious knack for taking shots that put the light source in the part of the image that makes them close to their reflection.
p.46 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
sebboh wrote:
woah! that looks just like filter flare. wonder if it's a reflection between the extremely close rear element and the sensor?
Nope, I never use a filter. You're spot on in that it is reflections from the close element in the rear. Even acknowledged by Fujifilm in the interview below (KB is Kaycee Baker, Fujifilm North American director of marketing).
DE: I'm interested in the lenses too. In the X100, we felt that the lens was good and that it produced very sharp images but it had a ton of flare on it. It looked like the coatings really weren't up to snuff somehow. If there was a light source anywhere in the frame, you'd get a lot of flare off it. I'm wondering if you've done anything with coating technology on the X1 lenses?
KB: Yes, it's EBC coating on the lenses, so that's there. They've got ED glass, and there are aspherical elements in there. As far as that coating, as I said, it's EBC -- well, Super EBC, so it's as good as Fujinon is going to get. As far as the flare is concerned, that was also part of back focus situation.
DE: Right, it was real close.
KB: Right.
DE: So it was too close? Is that the explanation; that it was too close to the sensor? The thing that we saw was this repeating reflection that came off the lens and got bigger and bigger by stages. It seemed like it was reflecting back and forth between the lens and the sensor.
KB: Right. And there's other things that go along with that. For instance, we've changed the aperture blades. So for instance, for the X100, as you know, is a leaf shutter. And with a leaf shutter, there's no focal plane. For these lenses, they've changed the actual aperture blades, so they're molded. Normal aperture blades have squared-off edges. These have actually been sliced so that there's no reflection that comes off of them; it's completely different.
DE: Oh, so there's not a vertical stamped edge on the aperture blades that light could reflect off of; it's actually more of a knife edge?
p.46 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
That's interesting. Never seen that before. Usually in the rare cases of ghosting in night shots, the reflections are mirrored to the opposite side of the frame.
Yeah, the Fujifilm X100's flare is really unique and not in a good way. When this flare happens, it tends to really ruin images. It happens a lot at night with all the point sources of light.
p.46 #7 · 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.
p.46 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Have you already counted "it is a better value than the Leica X2, another fixed lens fixed focal length camera (APS-C sensor) that doesn't have an integrated viewfinder"?
If not, there's #7, applicable only to would-be Leica X2 buyers however.
What about "I gotta be first in my block|province|state|country to have one"? There's #8 if not.
p.46 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Carrying on from a prior post, Rob Skeoch delivers another series of images shot at each ISO setting, this time in reduced lighting conditions. Using the Sony A99 as a proxy for the RX1:
p.46 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
sebboh wrote:
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...
uhoh.....well that's 600 anyway If you are weakening, I'd bet this camera will sell. Which means there will be buyers remorse from a few...but is it worth say 3-400 in savings for warranty hassles? For glass it would be, but this is a complicated piece of kit where a lot could go wrong. More so than an M9, which far simpler--and with used prices on that soon to be below 5k--perhaps 4k--well it looks more attractive.
But it's big--relatively so you will not have it with you like this one.
A new 35/2 leica is 3195--perhaps that was the price Sony really wanted to beat
I would LOVE to have one also, but not to the point where I will go pre-oreder crazy. The Nex-7 has cured me of that (had it pre-ordered twice--and have no regrets at not having bought aside fromt the time wasted going back and forth)
One thing is becoming clear: this is the sexiest camera ever built--which is always a motivation for debate and campaigns against bolemia.
p.46 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
These comparisons - mirrorless vs DSLR - remind me of the NEX 5N/7 comparisons against the A77 last fall.
This could be dangerous if history repeats itself... massive flooding will therefore soon wipe out Sony's plants, wherever these cameras are now being made.
More seriously... the RX1 goes one better - it has the fixed lens advantage. When we finally see some decent images made with the RX1 it'll be interesting to see what sort of character and rendering the Sonnar 35/2 delivers in this implementation. I'm optimistic.
I'm also worried that I'll like it so much I want one and will rationalize wanting one in part because I want to add some auto focus capability to my compact kit. This concern worries me even more because I'd certainly want to pair with the RX1/35 a RX2 with a fixed Zeiss 85/1.4 or a 100/2 or some such mythical camera that one day visits us.
Scary.
Charlie, you have too much resolve. I've already put a pre-order in. Hey, cancellation is easy, what can I say, but at least I want to be in line while I think about this some more. At least Sony's image publishing embargo *will* be lifted before these babies ship in December or whenever they finally cross the ocean. We'll get a good measure of the beast well before credit cards are dinged.
wonder if it's a reflection between the extremely close rear element and the sensor?
I will wait for the pictures thread of this one. 
If you are weakening, I'd bet this camera will sell. Which means there will be buyers remorse from a few...but is it worth say 3-400 in savings for warranty hassles? For glass it would be, but this is a complicated piece of kit where a lot could go wrong. More so than an M9, which far simpler--and with used prices on that soon to be below 5k--perhaps 4k--well it looks more attractive.