p.98 #1 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Martin, this is something I've wondered about in a couple of days with mine. As well as you (I think) comment about how the lens loses is special after mid distances.
p.98 #2 · 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.
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? ...Show more →
This would bother me much more than the edge colour shift issue, which can be corrected, if needed, in post. But unsharp images can't...
I'm not sure testing at infinity is relevant for you since most of the images I've seen you post tend to be of subjects somewhere up to around 5-10m away. If you can set up in a relatively large room, align the camera so that clearly the walls, floor, ceiling are all square, then stick B&W laser print-outs on the wall in various places for sharpness reference. I suggest B&W laser print outs (of text or patterns) because there won't be any question about registration errors, which could be possible with magazine print repro, and B&W newsprint tends to be much lower contrast than laser prints.
I would be quite curious to see some of your real world samples that brought your attention to the issue... Does it go away a stop or two down?
p.98 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Makten wrote:
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.
To me it doesn't look like only a slight defocus in the left part, but like some elements are out of alignment. If you pull the focus a little bit, does a slight defocus look the same in the right part?
p.98 #8 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Makten wrote:
I just got a mail from the store and they are giving me a new camera!
Congratulations, I hope you're happy with your replacement camera. Don't look too hard, huh?
p.98 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
mohamed alfari wrote:
Are you guys getting any of the accessories with it, like the leather bag or the hood. they seem so expensive.
I think I want some sort of case since all of my bags are way too large, but I haven't looked at the Sony one yet. For hood I use one from an Olympus OM 28/3.5 which looks nice.
p.98 #13 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
That's great to hear Makten! Hope the new one will be great.
This morning I did a quick comparison between RX1 and 5D + 35L for both close-ups and long distances and I'm shocked at how much better the Sony is even at low ISO! Sharper across the frame at both f/2 and 5.6 and better bokeh. Metering is also much better, it has more DR and for some reason it needs at least one step less ISO to get the same exposure! The only thing 5D did better is having more consistent daylight AWB and better AF when the subject has low contrast.
Hmm... When will I ever want to use the 5D again after have seen this..!
p.98 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Makten wrote:
I just got a mail from the store and they are giving me a new camera!
That's great Martin, here's hoping your new copy is perfect.
Largely due to your issue and some other reports of DOA cameras here and there I decided to cancel my order I had placed with a retailer quite remote to me, a place I often buy from because they carry interesting stuff I can't always get locally. Instead I'm going to wait a bit longer until they are in stock here locally so I can walk in and check it out before paying up and walking out the door with it.
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. ...Show more →
I think Europeans choose not to notice that. Otherwise it would be a revolution...
Or maybe they simply don't know that. They notice the difference in camera prices,
but they never purchase a car in the US...
I highly recommend to read the letter exchange between Depardieu and the French prime minister.
Highly entertaining. Lats two days or so - google the news...
p.98 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Bijltje wrote:
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.
snowboarder wrote:
I think Europeans choose not to notice that. Otherwise it would be a revolution...
I am really sorry to continue the OT discussion. Just want to mention that the health care fee I pay through my salary (and high camera VAT) also covers health care for other poeple in my country who cannot afford an insurance. I cannot choose not to pay for other people's health care, I indeed am aware of it, and I am fine with that. No wish for a revolution.
p.98 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Same here, I have no wish for a system in which people can opt out of paying for the general good. There are some Europeans who want more of their money, who are not willing to help carry the burden of the many others who cannot carry their own weight. They often move to the States (this is not to say that all Americans are like this, just the Europeans who move there, and people like snowboarder).
p.98 #20 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
carstenw wrote:
Same here, I have no wish for a system in which people can opt out of paying for the general good. There are some Europeans who want more of their money, who are not willing to help carry the burden of the many others who cannot carry their own weight. They often move to the States (this is not to say that all Americans are like this, just the Europeans who move there, and people like snowboarder).
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.
