p.15 #3 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Charles, I was looking at your M9 low light xmas eve candlelight shots and I think the RX1's sensor outperforms the M9 having less noise and better DR and colors. The MM has better noise performance than M9 but seems to still have less DR. What do you think?
p.15 #4 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
wayne seltzer wrote:
Charles, I was looking at your M9 low light xmas eve candlelight shots and I think the RX1's sensor outperforms the M9 having less noise and better DR and colors. The MM has better noise performance than M9 but seems to still have less DR. What do you think?
Wayne,
The one to wait and look for is the Leica M when it is released. It is and will have much better high ISO performance than the M9 which is not known for having great performance at high ISOs.
p.15 #5 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Wayne, thank you Yes the RX 1 has better DR, colour and noise than the M9 at higher ISO's. The question of colour is a lot more subjective, as I love the muted colours with the 50 Nocti f/1.0. Of course it is easy to modify the colour to personal preference in PP'ing. The M9 files are very malleable.
I suppose the comparison, is not really what happens while shooting in low light. The RX-1 will reach for 6400 ISO for night time shots at 1/80s and reduce with lower lighting. Of course, I can reduce the upper ISO limit. I still find with M9/50 Nocti f/1.0, I can get away with f/1.0 at 640 to 1250 ISO usually, and hand hold shutter speeds to 1/15s. I am not finding I can use as low shutters speeds consistently with RX 1 yet More practice needed here! So a direct comparison to ISO's for low light really depends on the cam setup
With M-M, the noise performance is amazing, and seeing the original DNG files is amazing when it comes to PP'ing. The M-M is in another league. The DR is excellent, and really depends on the look that is to be presented. There is still so much learn yet about the M-M, getting the most from the files
The RX-1 is an extraordinary FF cam with a great lens. I'm amazed how good it is for low light shots. Is it better than the M9 with 50 Nocti f/1.0, depends on the look that you wish to present of course. Still a lot to learn and practice with the RX1!
p.15 #8 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Charles, I am interested in seeing direct low light comparisons with same shutter, aperture, and iso to see the noise and DR differences between MM and RX1.
Otherwise, I guess I will have to wait for DXO mark results for MM and M240. I can see M9 high iso performance is not as good as the RX1. And more often than not I want more DOF than a Nocti wide open.
The MM dinner table shot on page 610 of Leica thread seems to have a lot of noise on the far right side wall and near the room divider. What iso and apetture was this shot at?
charles.K wrote:
Wayne, thank you Yes the RX 1 has better DR, colour and noise than the M9 at higher ISO's. The question of colour is a lot more subjective, as I love the muted colours with the 50 Nocti f/1.0. Of course it is easy to modify the colour to personal preference in PP'ing. The M9 files are very malleable.
I suppose the comparison, is not really what happens while shooting in low light. The RX-1 will reach for 6400 ISO for night time shots at 1/80s and reduce with lower lighting. Of course, I can reduce the upper ISO limit. I still find with M9/50 Nocti f/1.0, I can get away with f/1.0 at 640 to 1250 ISO usually, and hand hold shutter speeds to 1/15s. I am not finding I can use as low shutters speeds consistently with RX 1 yet More practice needed here! So a direct comparison to ISO's for low light really depends on the cam setup
With M-M, the noise performance is amazing, and seeing the original DNG files is amazing when it comes to PP'ing. The M-M is in another league. The DR is excellent, and really depends on the look that is to be presented. There is still so much learn yet about the M-M, getting the most from the files
The RX-1 is an extraordinary FF cam with a great lens. I'm amazed how good it is for low light shots. Is it better than the M9 with 50 Nocti f/1.0, depends on the look that you wish to present of course. Still a lot to learn and practice with the RX1!...Show more →
p.15 #10 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
I played around with the RX1 and the A99 in the Sony store in Berlin today, and got some feeling for how it works. I found the build quality good, but not 3100 Euro-good (price in that store). More like 1000 Euro-good (as opposed to 500 Euro). The flash especially felt very fragile.
The shape was nice, but I couldn't really get a good grip on it somehow, too small. And I am 5'10"/180cm and don't have especially large hands. The operation was good, once we (jotdeh was visiting, we went together) figured out how to use the manual focus region functionality.
The lens had a really nice look to it, but somehow very close to the 35/1.4 ZF.2 @ f/2.0 (which I had there for comparison). The white balance was a bit warm, compared to the slightly cool (or maybe slightly greenish; maybe I do have this issue a little bit after all) D800+ZF.2 35/1.4, but other than that, the boke in the store was very similar. Maybe a bit less CA.
Overall, I would be very interested in this camera at around 2000 Euro including the EVF, but at 3100+600? I find it totally uninteresting, just way too expensive, and I have to say that I really hope that no one buys these incredibly massively overpriced accessories from Sony, so that whatever they are experimenting with will fail. Just ludicrous. The optical viewfinder cost 600 Euro here in Germany, ferchrissake!
p.15 #12 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
I don't expect it to ever happen, new price, but maybe one day used? Sony is pretty consistent in pricing their high-end things just a little to high for comfort (or a lot too high).
p.15 #13 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Agree about the pricing vs. feel of quality. I'd be a lot more relaxed about the "features" of the RX1 if price was significantly lower. Wonder how price will move the next 6 months or so. Maybe I'll have a friend in the US buy me one.
p.15 #14 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Considering that I can now buy the D800 for about 2200 Euro new, the price of the RX1 is just insane, even considering that it includes a very good lens.
p.15 #17 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
The price might be better anywhere else in Germany, other than the Sony store... It could be that they price at the MSRP and no one else does. Still, waaaaaaayyy too expensive for what it is, IMO. To me. Someone else might have found their dream camera in this.
p.15 #18 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
The price might be crazy, but it's still cheap since there are NO alternatives. An M9 with 35/2 costs at least twice as much. So please stop the whining. And comparing US prices with european ditto is pointless, since we live in different political systems and the dollar is really low right now. That's an american problem, mind you.
p.15 #19 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Makten wrote:
The price might be crazy, but it's still cheap since there are NO alternatives. An M9 with 35/2 costs at least twice as much.
Okay, but the Leica has myth and build quality just oozing out of it, is quite exclusive, and uses top-notch materials. Sony has none of these. It is as if Sony wants to play in the Leica arena without paying the price of entry. I predict a massive flop, which would be really quite sad, since it is a neat camera which is just priced too high for no real reason. Mind you, I didn't feel quite as strongly about the price until I picked one up and used it a bit. On paper it can almost make sense, but given what it is in the real world, not at all, IMO.
Nice shots, the lens really does render nicely. The only thing I don't like about its IQ is the highlight rendering, which looks quite digital to me.
p.15 #20 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
carstenw wrote:
Okay, but the Leica has myth and build quality just oozing out of it, is quite exclusive, and uses top-notch materials. Sony has none of these. It is as if Sony wants to play in the Leica arena without paying the price of entry.
I'll have to disagree with that. The sony is built just as good as it can while still being light. Sure, the flash isn't great but I'm not gonna use it anyway. Most of the exclusiveness of Leicas is built into our minds and I doubt that they are that much more rigid for real.
I predict a massive flop, which would be really quite sad, since it is a neat camera which is just priced too high for no real reason. Mind you, I didn't feel quite as strongly about the price until I picked one up and used it a bit. On paper it can almost make sense, but given what it is in the real world, not at all, IMO.
There are plenty of reasons for the price. First of all; of course it's gonna be expensive because of the engineering and design efforts. Secondly, why would they charge a lower price if there is no competition? Leica does exactly the same and I don't blame them.
Flop? No way, they are sold out everywhere over here at least.
Nice shots, the lens really does render nicely. The only thing I don't like about its IQ is the highlight rendering, which looks quite digital to me.
I haven't owned the C/Y Zeiss 35/1.4, but the rendering of that lens is the closest I have seen to the Sonnar. And I think you are seing things in the highlights that you connect with the early JPG:s, right? I can't say that the RX1 sensor behaves in any special way and I have blown the highlights on purpose because of the very large DR of the scenes in low light. I actually have the compensation wheel set at +1 stop as default and it workes fine.
More practice needed here! So a direct comparison to ISO's for low light really depends on the cam setup
?
