p.93 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Cyan to purple. With some stuff in the right corners. This is my last sample, I've boxed the camera again and will return it. Maybe I get another one in a while. But I'm not confident with this very copy at all.
p.93 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
artur5 wrote:
The corner/edges color cast is kind of unavoidable with the Leica M9 and short wide angle lenses due to the acute angles of incidence.
This is a different scenario: 35mm. is a very moderate wide angle focal. Besides, the RX1 sensor, microlenses, firmware etc, should be optimized specifically only for that Sonnar 35/2 lens design which is, apparently, quite telecentric.
So, I find difficult to understand how Sony didn't got things right BEFORE releasing the camera for sale and instead they let the early buyers to find out at their expenses, if not in money, in lost time and inconveniences. Much more so in a $4000 product. ...Show more →
This. This lens/sensor/in-camera processing should be perfectly tweaked to give perfect results. Plain and simple.
p.93 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
artur5 wrote:
The corner/edges color cast is kind of unavoidable with the Leica M9 and short wide angle lenses due to the acute angles of incidence.
This is a different scenario: 35mm. is a very moderate wide angle focal. Besides, the RX1 sensor, microlenses, firmware etc, should be optimized specifically only for that Sonnar 35/2 lens design which is, apparently, quite telecentric.
So, I find difficult to understand how Sony didn't got things right BEFORE releasing the camera for sale and instead they let the early buyers to find out at their expenses, if not in money, in lost time and inconveniences. Much more so in a $4000 product. ...Show more →
It's not an entirely different scenario. This is a super compact, FF camera with a moderate wide lens crammed into it, with the rear element millimeters away from the sensor. It's an extremely ambitious design. Of course Sony has optimized the entire system as well as possible for the camera's price point, but IMO it's unrealistic to expect there not to be any side effect or performance issues with so many factors stacked up against an easy solution.
Take a look at some of Sony's NEX cameras and how poorly the edges smeared with their own 16mm pancake lens, compared to results with later camera models... I wouldn't put it past any camera manufacturer to release product that isn't perfect. But then, is perfect a realistic expectation?
Maybe Sony should have released this camera in the summer when the chances for somewhat underexposed snow scenes wouldn't have been possible.
Martin - curious how you make out testing against the store's other copy. Lens decentering would be a big concern of mine for this camera due to the complexity of the optics and also the issue some RX100 users apparently have had.
p.93 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe Sony should have released this camera in the summer when the chances for somewhat underexposed snow scenes wouldn't have been possible.
I realize you're trying to be funny, but what's your point? What difference does a slight underexposure make? This was a rather dark midday with heavy slow clouds. As I've said, those shots have +1.3 EC. They look very much like how it actually looked. So what's your point?
rscheffler wrote:
Perhaps a side by side test against another RX1 to determine whether or not your copy is worse? Of course the problem may be finding another RX1...
Just by looking at for instance Helena's shots, I'd say there's little doubt my copy is worse. Still, it doesn't matter, because if all RX1 were like mine, I would not be willing to pay this price for these results. Simple as that.
Do you have an explanation to what is going on in the extreme right hand side corners?
p.93 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
When the camera was announced and people started complaining about the price (European people like myself the most) many were saying "oh but you'll get a lens and sensor that will be perfectly matched!". Seems that argument is just not valid now the camera has been released.
Ron, the RX100 indeed has the same quality control issue. Quite a lot of people reported having a decentered lens. Hopefully Makten is just REALLY unlucky, because I still haven't lost my interest in this camera.
p.93 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
mortyb, that's much worse than mine for sure (some of the photos I posted look bad too, but it's because the polarizer worsened the effect). I feel for you and think you do right by sending it back. Maybe I'll post some examples from mine tomorrow, photos where I didn't use a polarizer.
p.93 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
mortyb wrote:
My point is that other RX1 seem to fare better.
Do we really know that? I don't think so. It wouldn't surprise me at all if my copy does the same, but that I haven't shot any scenes where it can be seen.
For instance; in your last example here above, I would never have noticed the color cast if I didn't know about it.
p.93 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I think you guys are being optimistic on the return policies. The box the camera comes in is sealed with a Sony sticker. Once this is broken you can't return the camera, because it's then unsellable. Would you buy an unsealed camera? It usually says on the receipt that returns are valid for unopened goods only.
If the camera is faulty, you can turn it in for repair of course, but you'll be without it for weeks.
That's my exprrience with other electronics such as mobile phones anyway. Otherwise I'd just buy every new camera and lens, shoot for a week and then return it.
p.93 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
briantho wrote:
I think you guys are being optimistic on the return policies. The box the camera comes in is sealed with a Sony sticker. Once this is broken you can't return the camera, because it's then unsellable. Would you buy an unsealed camera? It usually says on the receipt that returns are valid for unopened goods only.
If the camera is faulty, you can turn it in for repair of course, but you'll be without it for weeks.
That's my exprrience with other electronics such as mobile phones anyway. Otherwise I'd just buy every new camera and lens, shoot for a week and then return it....Show more →
I think you don't know how this works in practical terms in Norway.
p.93 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
briantho wrote:
I think you guys are being optimistic on the return policies. The box the camera comes in is sealed with a Sony sticker. Once this is broken you can't return the camera, because it's then unsellable. Would you buy an unsealed camera? It usually says on the receipt that returns are valid for unopened goods only.
If the camera is faulty, you can turn it in for repair of course, but you'll be without it for weeks.
That's my exprrience with other electronics such as mobile phones anyway. Otherwise I'd just buy every new camera and lens, shoot for a week and then return it....Show more →
den inte stämmer överens med vad du har avtalat om med säljaren. Detta kan exempelvis handla om varans art, mängd eller kvalitet.
bruksanvisning saknas.
Om du inte har kommit överens med säljaren om annat är varan också felaktig om:
den inte kan användas till det den ska användas till. Till exempel ett regnplagg som inte står emot regn.
den inte har de egenskaper som säljaren hänvisade till då du köpte varan.
den inte är förpackad på det sätt som behövs för att bevara eller skydda den.
Varan är dessutom felaktig om:
säljaren inte har upplyst dig om detaljer om varan som du borde ha blivit upplyst om. den avviker i något annat avseende från vad du borde ha kunnat förutsätta.
säljaren har installerat varan och installationen är felaktig.
den är i sämre skick än du hade kunnat förutsätta med hänsyn till varans pris, även om den har sålts i "befintligt skick".”
Sorry for the swedish, but the marked line says that the product is faulty (and you then have the right to return it within 6 months) if its properties departs from what you could reasonably have expected.
p.93 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Let's forget the color cast for a short while. What about the strange color stuff in the extreme right corners? I think I saw something similar in Helena's bench shot, but I'm not sure. What can that be?
p.93 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
mortyb wrote:
I realize you're trying to be funny, but what's your point? What difference does a slight underexposure make? This was a rather dark midday with heavy slow clouds. As I've said, those shots have +1.3 EC. They look very much like how it actually looked. So what's your point?
Just by looking at for instance Helena's shots, I'd say there's little doubt my copy is worse. Still, it doesn't matter, because if all RX1 were like mine, I would not be willing to pay this price for these results. Simple as that.
Do you have an explanation to what is going on in the extreme right hand side corners? ...Show more →
Your guess is as good as mine! All that comes to mind at the moment is it's possible Sony uses a generic correction profile for each camera and it doesn't suit your copy as well as Helena's or Martin's.
The funny little magenta/purple band near the very corner reminds me of when I was trying to set up a good Cornerfix profile for the M9 with Voigtlander 15/4.5 (which results in extremely strong edge colour shifts), but was instead getting weird, uneven correction.
My point about the snow and underexposure is you're going to get a lot more noticeable colour shifts in a snow scene if the luminance values are in the mid tone range, rather than highlights. Unfortunately, if that's the way you want the luminance values to be represented, then the colour shift issue will be more noticeable. And I agree with Martin that had I not been aware of the issue, I wouldn't have noticed it in the image at the top of this page.
That said, you're obviously unhappy with the results and returning it while you still can is likely the best option.
p.93 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
This camera does rock. But these IQ "features" at this price point I'm not okay with. That's just my take. At least when there seems to be some copy variation. I'm not looking for faults, but I'm wired in a way that when I realize that something I've bought might have issues, especially at $4000, I don't want to waste more time and energy on it - I will return it and that's it.
p.93 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Morty, why not bring a laptop to the store and test the other copy they have? I don't see a downside. If it is perfect, buy it. Otherwise, walk out with another data point.
p.93 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
In Lloyd Chambers' review, the pumpkin series, I can see the color cast (yellow cast in center) clearly, when i know what to look for. He hasn't noticed it (yet).
p.93 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
carstenw wrote:
Morty, why not bring a laptop to the store and test the other copy they have? I don't see a downside. If it is perfect, buy it. Otherwise, walk out with another data point.
No downside for me, but I don't think the store would let me. They'd have to strip another box, and may end up with two unsellable cameras (as new) instead of the one returned. Of course if I get another and return it as well, they're in the same situation. Note that this is an online store, but where you can pick up your order at a physical warehouse.
I honestly don't know what happens to returned items. Maybe they go back to Sony for examination etc.
p.93 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I presume they go back to Sony who examines them, potentially fixes something, and reseals them (if they are still as new, as they presumably are) and sells them as new.
