p.97 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
davewolfs wrote:
It's kinda funny listening to people whine about cost of camera in Europe.
I purchased my vehicle in Germany for around 75k USD and had it shipped to the United States. The exact same car built in the exact same factory costs 110k euro.
Its not the manufactures. It's all the taxes that go along with it.
The camera costs 3100 euro (4080 dollar) including taxes in the Netherlands. Minus 19 to 21% (VAT just got raised) is about 2600 euro, is about 3400 dollar. Without taxes. BH sells the RX1 for 2800.
So thats 600 dollar difference with has nothing to do with taxes. After the taxes the difference even get bigger.
On the cars. A audi A6 3.0 quattro costs in the VS about 50.000 dollar. In the Netherlands the same car costs 98.000 dollar.
Housing I almost don't wanna start about. My 60m2 house costs 450.000 euro. 590.000 dollar. And that inclused a 10m2 garden without light.
On the free health care. A friend of mine who lived for more than a year in Boston paid about 5000 dollar a year for insurance. I pay 120 euro a month for a basic insurance (excluding dental for example), and trough my salary another 200. So at the end thats 3840 euro what is about 5000 dollar. Exactly the same. Only difference is I have to pay it and can't choose not to.
Not that I only want to complain about that, since I really like it here. But sony at least could give us Europeans a discount since all the rests of the costs are also high.
p.97 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Bijltje wrote:
The camera costs 3100 euro (4080 dollar) including taxes in the Netherlands. Minus 19 to 21% (VAT just got raised) is about 2600 euro, is about 3400 dollar. Without taxes. BH sells the RX1 for 2800.
So thats 600 dollar difference with has nothing to do with taxes. After the taxes the difference even get bigger.
On the cars. A audi A6 3.0 quattro costs in the VS about 50.000 dollar. In the Netherlands the same car costs 98.000 dollar.
Housing I almost don't wanna start about. My 60m2 house costs 450.000 euro. 590.000 dollar. And that inclused a 10m2 garden without light.
On the free health care. A friend of mine who lived for more than a year in Boston paid about 5000 dollar a year for insurance. I pay 120 euro a month for a basic insurance (excluding dental for example), and trough my salary another 200. So at the end thats 3840 euro what is about 5000 dollar. Exactly the same. Only difference is I have to pay it and can't choose not to.
Not that I only want to complain about that, since I really like it here. But sony at least could give us Europeans a discount since all the rests of the costs are also high....Show more →
Your cost of living is VERY high and it seems every company wants to pile onto that and make it higher.
p.97 #3 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
mortyb wrote:
No doubt there are differences in sharpness across the frame. If it was my camera, I would really be in doubt what to do. I don't think it's acceptable, esp. if you see it in normal shots. This camera is really expensive, and you would expect much better quality control. Are you able to just return it for a refund, no questions asked? If so, I'd go that route, and wait for another one.
I bought it in a store, so there will be questions asked. So, the problem will be to convince the salesman that this in fact counts as "faulty". A term which there is no juridical definition of, regarding optical quality, I suppose. That's why I emailed Zeiss to get their point on the issue, since they should have some sort of requirements on the QC that Sony does on this Zeiss designed lens.
carstenw wrote:
Ah, I see it now, but... it is so easy to make a very slight error in such a test that I am not sure it is convincing. You could have been slightly non-square, and focused in such a way that only the most distant left side was unsharp. In theory. What about measuring out an exact distance and ensuring perpendicularity via trigonometry and repeating, maybe on a more distant wall or something?
In theory, yes. I'll have to find a better target where you can see that it is really straight on (you only need horizontal and vertical lines for that). I don't have anything good at home though. Books are too small and magazines or newspapers don't have the same figures and letters allover the pages.
Edit: But Carsten, would you agree that this in fact is unacceptable performance if the test is done properly?
p.97 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Makten wrote:
I bought it in a store, so there will be questions asked. So, the problem will be to convince the salesman that this in fact counts as "faulty". A term which there is no juridical definition of, regarding optical quality, I suppose. That's why I emailed Zeiss to get their point on the issue, since they should have some sort of requirements on the QC that Sony does on this Zeiss designed lens.
Hmm. That's a tricky situation. Hopefully they show some great goodwill and service, and help you out. Either refund or a new one.
p.97 #5 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Martin, I would never have noticed this issue if I had the camera. It's so minor that it doesn't matter in my eyes, but I know you're extremly picky, and at $4000, in fact I think you have a right to be. What's that? Half a millimeter focusing error on the left side over the full frame? Did you try to just smack the lens a little on one side.
I don't think your pic is going to be any good as proof. I hope you get to exchange the camera, but I doubt you will. Perhaps dropping it on the floor and really cause some damage before you go to the store is a better option.
p.97 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
briantho wrote:
Martin, I would never have noticed this issue if I had the camera. It's so minor that it doesn't matter in my eyes, but I know you're extremly picky, and at $4000, in fact I think you have a right to be. What's that? Half a millimeter focusing error on the left side over the full frame? Did you try to just smack the lens a little on one side.
I don't think your pic is going to be any good as proof. I hope you get to exchange the camera, but I doubt you will. Perhaps dropping it on the floor and really cause some damage before you go to the store is a better option. ...Show more →
Well, if I have to live with this I could as well just have kept shooting with a smaller format camera. There is a reason for 24 million pixels and a large sensor, right?
p.97 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Makten wrote:
In theory, yes. I'll have to find a better target where you can see that it is really straight on (you only need horizontal and vertical lines for that). I don't have anything good at home though. Books are too small and magazines or newspapers don't have the same figures and letters allover the pages.
Edit: But Carsten, would you agree that this in fact is unacceptable performance if the test is done properly?
if i were the person you are trying to return this to i would not accept this test as there is no way to verify that the lens is properly aligned with the target. regarding whether or not this is acceptable performance, that is a subjective question. i bet zeiss itself (or sony as directed by zeiss) only has specs for acceptable amounts of decentering at infinity where you say you can't notice a difference. if you think it is relavent to your shooting though, i would return it.
p.97 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
sebboh wrote:
if i were the person you are trying to return this to i would not accept this test as there is no way to verify that the lens is properly aligned with the target. regarding whether or not this is acceptable performance, that is a subjective question. i bet zeiss itself (or sony as directed by zeiss) only has specs for acceptable amounts of decentering at infinity where you say you can't notice a difference. if you think it is relavent to your shooting though, i would return it.
Most companies (and I would have to lump Sony in this group) do not take the kind or care in the assembly and the alignment of their optics in their lenses that Leica does. This is part of the reason for the cost and the performance of many of Leica's lenses. I would not expect that much care and consistency for a more mass produced camera and manufacturer such as this new Sony.
p.97 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
The best way to prove a lens is decentered is to shoot stopped down at inifinity. One edge will clearly be less sharp. That's how I returned a faulty 21mm distagon.
p.97 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Makten wrote:
Edit: But Carsten, would you agree that this in fact is unacceptable performance if the test is done properly?
I would be miffed, sure. I don't know if it will be enough for a store though, even a fair store. I don't know what standards they should be held to, when they don't explicitly promise anything.
p.97 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Marten, how can you make sure your sensor, camera is parallel with your target. Like others said, we might talk about mm error here.
To test decenter, it has to do with infinity shot to use distance magnify the error unless you have proper tool like MTF tester or so to do this kind of test.
So, If I am the sells man, I won't accept return as well at least not based on this test.
p.97 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
zhangyue wrote:
Marten, how can you make sure your sensor, camera is parallel with your target. Like others said, we might talk about mm error here.
Because the lines present in the image of the paper are vertical and horizontal. As I've also said earlier, this was only a test to confirm what I've seen in my real images. The left part of the frame has been less sharp than the right one, but never the other way around.
To test decenter, it has to do with infinity shot to use distance magnify the error unless you have proper tool like MTF tester or so to do this kind of test.
I'm not sure the lens is decentered. It could as well be the lens not being in parallel with the sensor, which would explain why it looks better at larger distances and why focus seems to be a tad farther away in the left part of the images.
So, If I am the sells man, I won't accept return as well at least not based on this test.
I hear you, and I have to fix a better test chart where it is totally clear that the camera sensor was parallel with the subject.
p.97 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
rattymouse wrote:
Your cost of living is VERY high and it seems every company wants to pile onto that and make it higher.
Well there are big advantages like a social system for when u lose your job ect or when ur not able to work.
And off course leica has some lower prices here. So its not really bad.
@ Makten, I once had a zeiss ZM 50mm that I found faulty at infinity. So I went to the shop were I bought it and we tested it there together with the owner.
It took many shots and at the end I myself couldn't see the fault on those test shots as couldn't the owner of the shop.
Nevertheless he offered me to trade it in and with some extra cash I bought a 50 summarit.
So go to the shop, tell what u think isn't correct and maybe go test it together with the seller. I'm absolute sure they won't make a problem of it and trade it for u.
A 4000 dollar camera should be perfect.
So, the problem will be to convince the salesman that this in fact counts as "faulty". A term which there is no juridical definition of, regarding optical quality, I suppose. That's why I emailed Zeiss to get their point on the issue, since they should have some sort of requirements on the QC that Sony does on this Zeiss designed lens.