p.285 #1 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Im lucky to have both the RX1rII and the ZM 35mm 1.4 on a A7rII and my thoughts are in line with yours. I just adore my wee RX. One area I do like the ZM for is B&W where I like the extra contrast. Also 1.4 for certain scenes which Ill enjoy even more hopefully when my PCX arrives. But overall I give it to the RX for its smoothness yet sharpness...Lucky to have choices.....
sebboh wrote:
the zm is significanlty more contrasty at least, which i don't like. i'm curious to try it with the pcx filter to see if i like it better, but without it i find the zm unusable at apertures wider than f/5.6 except close up. it reminds me a lot of the contax g45. both the zm and the g45 have tons of contrast and pop (zeissyness if you will), but they always look harsh. the rx1 has plenty of contrast and pop but still can look smooth and gentle. i've never taken a picture with the rx1 and thought "i wish it was sharper" unless it was due to user error. i've taken a bunch with the zm where i've said "i wish it was smoother" (i've said that maybe 3 times in tens of thousands of shots with the rx1).
i wouldn't say it's no contest for landscapes either, without the pcx filter the rx1 wins till f/5.6, after that it's a wash. with the pcx filter fred's comparison on 42mp sensors seemed to indicate that the difference was pretty minimal, the zm definitely has a bit more microcontrast....Show more →
p.285 #2 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
robgo2 wrote:
As they say, it's good to have good choices.
I love the Zeiss pop from the ZM 35. If the contrast is too strong, it's no big deal to reduce it in post. I wonder if some of the differences that you and I see from this lens have to do with raw processing. I use Photo Ninja as my raw converter, and you probably use something else. The two programs may render quite differently. I like to test various raw converters, and I see this all the time.
Rob
i do use LR so there might be differences, but i think the real issue is that what you like about the zm is what i don't like about it. reducing contrast in post does not achieve the same thing because the problem is too much fine detail contrast more than too much global contrast. reducing clarity in LR helps a little but makes other things look worse. i'd always rather have a lens that i like the look of without doing pp versus one that i have to tweak a lot.
here's two not at all equivalent pictures due to different light, but it's all i've got. the zm has more pop but also a harder look and harsher transition to out of focus (it also has much better light). the rx1 has smoother transitions and a smoother overall look despite the more distracting background.
rx1:
zm:
this is the best case for the zm, in direct sunlight or if i stepped back a foot everything in the background would look super harsh.
p.285 #3 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
sebboh wrote:
i do use LR so there might be differences, but i think the real issue is that what you like about the zm is what i don't like about it. reducing contrast in post does not achieve the same thing because the problem is too much fine detail contrast more than too much global contrast. reducing clarity in LR helps a little but makes other things look worse. i'd always rather have a lens that i like the look of without doing pp versus one that i have to tweak a lot.
here's two not at all equivalent pictures due to different light, but it's all i've got. the zm has more pop but also a harder look and harsher transition to out of focus (it also has much better light). the rx1 has smoother transitions and a smoother overall look despite the more distracting background.
this is the best case for the zm, in direct sunlight or if i stepped back a foot everything in the background would look super harsh....Show more →
I only mentioned reducing contrast, because you had said that the ZM was too contrasty for you. You are correct about the ZM revealing more fine detail, which is one reason why it is a superior lens for landscapes. I have always admired the photos that you have posted on the FM Forums. They show that your aesthetic sense leans towards wide open dreaminess, in which case loads of fine detail is not desirable. Hence, your preference for the RX1.
Of the two photos that you have posted, I agree that the RX1's is much more pleasing, but they are very different images. The one from the RX1 is taken much closer to the subject, which creates blurring that begins right at the child's feet, while the one from the ZM is from a greater distance, and blurring begins much farther back. I also wonder about the aperture settings on both. I have two images taken with the ZM 35 that I have posted elsewhere. I think that they show gentle transitions and a rather pleasing glowy bokeh, although the background in each is not very challenging.
p.285 #5 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
robgo2 wrote:
I only mentioned reducing contrast, because you had said that the ZM was too contrasty for you. You are correct about the ZM revealing more fine detail, which is one reason why it is a superior lens for landscapes. I have always admired the photos that you have posted on the FM Forums. They show that your aesthetic sense leans towards wide open dreaminess, in which case loads of fine detail is not desirable. Hence, your preference for the RX1.
Of the two photos that you have posted, I agree that the RX1's is much more pleasing, but they are very different images. The one from the RX1 is taken much closer to the subject, which creates blurring that begins right at the child's feet, while the one from the ZM is from a greater distance, and blurring begins much farther back. I also wonder about the aperture settings on both. I have two images taken with the ZM 35 that I have posted elsewhere. I think that they show gentle transitions and a rather pleasing glowy bokeh, although the background in each is not very challenging.
you have my images confused, the zm is the nearer shot at f/1.4 (that i assumed you'd like better) the rx1 is the more distant shot at f/2. if i took a shot with the zm (without a pcx filter) at the distance of the rx1 shot the corners would be in focus.
p.285 #6 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
sebboh wrote:
you have my images confused, the zm is the nearer shot at f/1.4 (that i assumed you'd like better) the rx1 is the more distant shot at f/2. if i took a shot with the zm (without a pcx filter) at the distance of the rx1 shot the corners would be in focus.
Thanks for the clarification. And you're right, I do like the ZM shot more.
p.285 #7 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Thanks Derek.
Do you find it more useful to have exposure lock on the AEL? Which one do you use for focusing?
I've never used exposure lock, when I neee to maintain exposure across several images I just go into M mode.
sebboh wrote:
afraid not, i use one of the other soft buttons so AEL can be used for exposure lock, but there's nothing to be done about eye-AF as far as i know (i only have the rx1 classic).
p.285 #8 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
nampramos wrote:
Thanks Derek.
Do you find it more useful to have exposure lock on the AEL? Which one do you use for focusing?
I've never used exposure lock, when I neee to maintain exposure across several images I just go into M mode.
i use the top soft button for AF. i don't ever combine AF and fast shooting and i think i use the exposure lock more than the AF, so maybe i'm not the best for advice on this...
p.285 #10 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
The zm and rx1 aren’t as close rendering wise as the specs would indicate. I have owned both, and currently own the zm. The ZM produces more 3d—because of slightly greater sharpness, abrupt and comparatively rougher focus transition and the extra stop and lack of SA, even WO. The ZM tonally draws with tremendous micro contrast and clarity, aside from extreme sharpness. In tonality it reminds me of the loxia 21 or mivus 85. To me it’s like an updated cy 35 1.4. Bokeh goes from decent to meh, but never horrible.
The RX1 goes for smoothness, is slightly wider, does have excellent micro contrast and sharpness, but also has a little SA when WO which helps smooth things out. I like the tone curve-contrast on the Rx1, feels a little moodier to me. And colors appear a bit blockier and more saturated to me on the RX1 for lack of a better descriptions, but I also prefer this.
I would like to see some test of them both at f2—I bet the RX1 is still quite a bit smoother. If you want pop, micro contrast and sharpness go ZM. If you want smoothness, richness of color and superb tone-curve type contrast, go for the rx1.
I prefer the Rx1 sooner, but I like them both quit a bit.
p.285 #11 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
I might do a comparison if I have the time with both of them. Not sure how fair it is though since they are quite different lenses. I would say the ZM is the "perfect" lens, if that even exists. I really like it but the size is a big minus for me, even though it isn't big when you take into consideration how damn good it is and that it is an f/1.4 after all.
In the end though I rather have a "less perfect" lens in a smaller and lighter package and right now that's the RX1RII and nothing comes close to hit when you put size and weight at the top of the equation.
p.285 #12 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Nice summary Derek and Nehemiah. I think we have gone over this several times throughout the life time of RX1 and ZM
I agree both of you. I had ZM35, with M9, so I can't tell if it is sharper than RX1 or not, but based on my experience I doubt any lens can be sharper than RX1, at least with 24M sensor.
RX1 actually is not a low contrast lens IMHOl. (but somehow, the bokeh is just so smooth) I have seen many Leica Glass (notably S) can be treat as sharp but low contrast glass and one of my recent favorite Lens contax645 120 is also a sharp but low contrast lens. OTUS 55 is actually also low contrast glass I would say. I feel RX1 sonnar 35 is best 35mm lens I ever seen from any manufacture, bar none. If it is a lens with real focusing ring and same size. I'd pay OTUS price for it. It worth it.
I found recent Zeiss: loxia, batis all show great sharpness and POP at the same time high contrast. (which can really hurt bokeh rendering) Great for landscape, cityscape but lack in rendering. The difference is not huge, not show up on all images, may not even matter for images if your priority is different than looking for "rendering" but the difference is there enough for me to decide get it or not, or use it only for certain thing if I could. ZM 35 is another example of this that I decide to part with after evaluate my priority, but if its size/weight go 1/3 less, I will get it instantly for my M.
but the difference is there enough for me to decide get it or not, or use it only for certain thing if I could. ZM 35 is another example of this that I decide to part with after evaluate my priority, but if its size/weight go 1/3 less, I will get it instantly for my M. 
Derek