p.53 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
sebboh wrote:
why does lower resolution seem superior to you?
why is that? i find the NEX-7 evf that will be on the rx1 (hopefully with improved optics) to be much better for manual focus (again due to higher res and a bigger screen) than the rebadged olympus one that leica is using.
edit: oops, i read that as the evf is better than the sony. sorry
agreed about sony's peaking but i've found that setting the color to white seems to make it less intrusive (at least through evf), but i've found that i don't really need peaking and can focus faster and more accurately on the evf without zooming or peaking than i can on an slr (rangefinder is still faster, but not always as useful).
i've not used the S so i can't speak for it. i've heard it is much better than the m9, but the S is not a liveview camera (heavier processing load), so we'll have to see. hopefully it won't be a problem. beyond processing speed a lot will depend on how the controls and interface are set up (perhaps you know more about this)....Show more →
You know what? Oddly enough, I also often turn off peaking and just crank sharpness all the way up. You're left with a shimmery, aliasing area where the peaking would be, and it is much less intrusive. It is kind of a low sensitivity peaking. I used to do this with the old Nex-5, but it works better in the EVF. I prefer peaking when using the LCD.
p.53 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Re Sony Firmware updates...in my experience, they are much, much slower to release updates then say Fuji BUT part of that is they get more MAJOR stuff right from the beginning. Many of the things fixed by Fuji firmware updates, for instance, are almost like Beta issues that should have never been released in a finished product to begin with. So, Sony may be slow to release minor tweaks but will likely not have released a product with major issues form the beginning.
That's a good characterization Tariq, it certainly feels like Fujifilm is in the habit of releasing cameras with beta firmware (alpha stage maybe even more appropriate in the case of some features!). All of their X series cameras have had serious software issues, some internal, and in the case of XTrans, an external issue with third party raw file conversion support lacking. Still.
I'd also agree that Sony's software feels better tested although the design in some instances may leave much to be desired - I'm thinking of the NEX UI primarily here. To be fair, I doubt NEX was designed from the outset as a enthusiasts camera so its firmware reflects a different target market, and provided there are enough customizable buttons, often one can configure the camera to remove the need for constant menu diving.
The RX1 doesn't have the NEX UI and you'd expect it will be tweaked appropriately to the needs of serious photographers while also keeping enough dilettante friendliness in the UI (perhaps switch able?!) to support the needs of accessory-buyers rather than photographers.
Giving credit where due, Sony has demonstrated in the past that it is willing to back-port new features to older cameras - they added Focus Peaking to prior versions of the NEX in a software update. I'd just feel better if they'd respond to photographer requests as Ricoh seems to do.
p.53 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
michaelwatkins wrote:
Giving credit where due, Sony has demonstrated in the past that it is willing to back-port new features to older cameras - they added Focus Peaking to prior versions of the NEX in a software update.
True, I was very impressed from the firmware updates on the Nex-3.
However, their NEX flagship (the 7) has a similarly messy menu. In addition, there are a couple of other issues many users would like to have corrected. Regrettably, this camera remains to not being adequately supported so far.
p.53 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
You know what? Oddly enough, I also often turn off peaking and just crank sharpness all the way up. You're left with a shimmery, aliasing area where the peaking would be, and it is much less intrusive. It is kind of a low sensitivity peaking. I used to do this with the old Nex-5, but it works better in the EVF. I prefer peaking when using the LCD.
Thanks for sharing! I'm gonn have to try this as well....
p.53 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I agree, and "F5.6 ISO6400 1/30sec" isn't particularly "low light" either. Not dismissing the ISO rating, but how a camera/sensor handles in actual lowlight is the real test.
After inspecting, very hard to gauge for me personally. It looks similar to around ISO3200 on my a900. But then I'm exposing well, and not using in camera NR, nor JPEGS, so...
p.53 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Corners look great in that one shot of the thread spools, though I'd love to see something at landscape distances with corner detail and shot in more light.
Would also love to see more pics at F2: that one flower pic has barely anything in focus (the OOF areas look nice though in general)
p.53 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
After some days of lurking around, I must now say this camera is tempting. If I ever will get a fixed lens camera, it would be something like this. The size is small enough that I can bring it to social events (My NEX 5N with a short M lens on adapter also fits that bill) Equivalently 2/3 stops faster than NEX + Zeiss 24 mm 1.8, and considerably shorter.
I agree with those who said the lack of a tilting screen is a minus.
Regarding judgment of the ISO 6400 sample from flickr: As I understand it, the issues with low light versus good light with regards to noise evaluation is not the light level per se. It is the color temperature and the incidence that there are many shadows in a poorly lit environment. This sample is a typical low light sample IMO. It even contains the problematic colors red and blue. My hesitation is the level of noise reduction. Apparantly it is quite heavily applied, but the sensor still looks to be right up there in the state of the art.
p.53 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
After looking at the EXIF data, assuming it is unmolested, the images were taken in August through early September, using different revisions of the firmware ranging from MODEL-NAME v0.01 through DSC-RX1 v1.00.
Sony probably intended this image to be a statement on the 35/2 in terms of chromatic aberration:
p.53 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
michaelwatkins wrote:
After looking at the EXIF data, assuming it is unmolested, the images were taken in August through early September, using different revisions of the firmware ranging from MODEL-NAME v0.01 through DSC-RX1 v1.00.
Sony probably intended this image to be a statement on the 35/2 in terms of chromatic aberration:
These are almost certainly JPGs straight out of the camera; I wonder how much processing they are doing for lens correction.
Yeah, they'll certainly have free reign to do as much processing as they want under the hood, straight to the raw file, without anyone the wiser. Some don't realize it, but, like with the M9, the NEX-7's vignetting correction actually writes to the raw file.
p.53 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Ordinarily on a fixed lens - full frame no less - camera you'd expect that Sony is at the very least doing some vignetting and colour cast correction, although maybe that SuperHUGE (tm) rear element on the lens helps in both cases. At the same time some photographers might at times appreciate whatever natural light fall off exists so would prefer any correction be optional.
The purple fringing in the test shot isn't horrible. If the scene were shot with a ZM35/2 Biogon formulation certainly I'd expect there to be more evident / more objectionable CA in the scene I linked above, at least until it was stopped down significantly I'd guess. In practice I never find that CA is terribly objectionable from that lens. Never seen a 35mm Sonnar.
p.53 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Got your point, completely understood and agreed. Looking forward to raw files and full frame comparisons - maybe a M9 / ZM35 - RX1 shoot out would be fun and informative. Through a comparison like that we ought to be able to tell if software elves are doing a lot of the heavy lifting at least. And photos of door screens, must have those.
Actually what I really want to know is how well AF works on this beast.
p.53 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Apparently the RX1 and some other new Sony products will be in the hands of photographers (Rock Huffwell may even get a copy) for an event held during the week of October 8, so not too much longer and we should see what it can do in the real world.
p.53 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
They do CA, distortion and vignetting jpeg fixing in the (Sony designed) 16-50mm kit lens for the A77, but it is a zoom. CZ might be troubled at the suggestion of messing with RX1 RAWs - why go to all the trouble of a fancy new design just to have some propellor head second guess the lens output?
The early images continue to impress, and if that is as bad as CA gets (michael's link above) they have many other things to worry more about. The lens does look to be special.
More staring is available from samples at the rumours site today.
p.53 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Propeller head... good one.
I want to see more of course but so far I like the nature of the lens revealed in what they've published. Out of focus areas are pleasing enough.
Two weeks and we'll see lots more. And we should get some hands on review of what the camera is like to work with which is just as important as IQ to me. Crossing fingers the menu system and control layout is better than merely usable.
p.53 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
'I'm very curious to see how an a99 with a converted ZF 35/2 will stack up against the RX1. I'm really hoping one of our deep-geek gearheads will make that happen.'
Me too. I predict a knockout victory rather than a TKO - to the RX1. Why? That is a very nice ZF, but is one of the least impressive technically, and that combo will lack sensor/lens (and maybe electronics) tuning, is a generation down on lens design, suffers the SLT impost, and has the inherent slop at the mount shared by all ILCs.
Of course, it always will weigh 1400 grams against 482 grams, costs a thousand bucks more (but less with VF), lacks AF therefore spontaneity, needs a chip for IBIS, needs a much heavier tripod, has stopdown metering, needs a new mount (extra hundred and some work), needs a larger bag, is much larger overall in every direction, has a noiser/more vibration-prone focal plane shutter, and I doubt bokeh will be comparable, not to mention CA or sensor dust issues. It won't look very cute either, though I concede this is personal preference.
p.53 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
philip_pj wrote:
'I'm very curious to see how an a99 with a converted ZF 35/2 will stack up against the RX1. I'm really hoping one of our deep-geek gearheads will make that happen.'
Me too. I predict a knockout victory rather than a TKO - to the RX1.
I agree with all that Philip writes, but would like to add this. If RX1 doesn't best the iQ of a Alpha 99 plus ZF 35 f:2.0, then it won't sell that well. Because, let's face it, the absence of lens interchangeability is a major impediment. Yes, there are contrevailang bebfits (no dust issue etc...), but they are small. So, if all the company as to offer is small size, it will be very much of a niche product IMHO. Whereas I expect the IQ to be class-leading, becase of the IQ benefits of lens/sensor integration, as well as the qualityof the components. Early pics are very promising IMHO (am I the only one to think that?), and, if I am right, the camera could be both a trend-setter and a classic.
Propeller head... good one.