zhangyue wrote:
Leica can't even match canon 6D's sound, Sad!
Lol! Easy now or they will kick you out of the Leica M thread. You just need to buy a Leica S system to get Leica lenses with leaf shutters.Although I think leaf shutters lower the max shutter speed which limits being able to shoot wide open outside in bright conditions without a ND filter. The max shutter speed of the RX1 has not bothered me, but I remember one or two complaints.
@Ricardovaste:
Also there were two cases in this forum of RX1's being returned because of decentered lens. I would immediately check your copy when you get one in order to be able to return it for a new copy if any problems.
Thanks again Wayne. That is a small concern I have - I guess I can test this simply by focusing at infinity with a wide aperture? Assuming the subjects are distant.
wayne seltzer wrote:
No, I just use center square and focus recompose. But I will now try it sometime soon thanks to what I have learned here.
Wayne, you can keep using center square focus and recompose with face detection. Just aim the center square onto the hovering face squares, engage AF, and it locks onto them.
Sony's amateur features are much maligned but satisfy a lot of users.
WRT image quality I can almost feel some people wanting the Fujis to be as good..but when Leicaphiles are seriously comparing Leica M lenses (the better ones) to the RX1, with unexpected results that is the bottom line.
The lens rings are well-differentiated, the macro ring is excellent; and the almost stiff wheel for EC signals it is built to last.
It is simply a well-considered and well thought out, almost 'back to basics' product with few real drawbacks. So for what you need for versatile high level IQ, it covers off all the main needs.
Yes, 1/2000s leaves you short wide open but rather than futz with an ND, f2.8-f3.2 starts looking good.
'the IQ of the RX1 is just unbelievable.' that is it.
In all fairness, there has been talk about how Fuji clarity is close to Leica/Summilux clarity. So... Yes, the RX1 has great IQ, but so does the Fuji. They're different. IQ can be measured by numbers - and at the same time it is different for different people based on personal preference.
mortyb wrote:
In all fairness, there has been talk about how Fuji clarity is close to Leica/Summilux clarity. So... Yes, the RX1 has great IQ, but so does the Fuji. They're different. IQ can be measured by numbers - and at the same time it is different for different people based on personal preference.
I honestly can't think of anything about my X100s' lens that can touch my RX1, in terms of image quality. The RX1 is better across the frame, better at distance, better up close, better wide open, and the clarity is fantastic. I guess distortion could be an argument, since the RX1 has more, but the X100s has a more complicated mustache distortion that also needs correction.
The two cameras are in a different league when it comes to IQ, in terms of both the lens and the sensor. I can't think of a single instance where I'd choose the X100s' IQ over the RX1.
Not to knock the Fuji Xtrans IQ, as I just bought an XE-1 last week, after previously owning an Xpro, but having also owned a M8.2 and M9, I don't really see much in common with with the Xtrans files to the clarity of the CCD Lecia sensor.
The Fuji sensors to me are rather flat, and with a film like look, especially at higher ISO. This isn't a bad thing per say, as it gives a really classical rendering, especially when paired with lens such as the 35mm f1.4 and the 23mm on the X100s, which while certainly not excessively soft wide open, do have a bit of a "dreaminess" which is quite classic/vintage in its overall rendering and drawing style. Suits some subjects very nicely.
What I don't find I'm getting from the Fuji's, regardless of lens choice, is that true pixel level clarity of the Leica's, or the Merril's (my "M" cameras of choice these days).
The RX1 is somewhat in the middle, being a Bayer CMOS sensor, but with lots of sheer resolution brute force paired with a really sharp lens with great tonal contrast.
Still though doesn't quite match the per pixel level detail when viewing at 100% like a M9 or DP2m, which have such clarity that it can feel more like your looking through a window than at a monitor.
I looked at both cameras at Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto CA. The sales person owned a RX1 and had a ton on his own photos taken with it on his ipad, they were incredible. We took the cameras outside and shot with both of them. They both put out beautiful files, if they didn't there would not be this question of "which one" should I buy. Yep, the RX1files are spectacular. They are both great cameras and it comes down to what works best for you. I am not a professional photographer and don't pretend to be. I still have my Nikon F which I bought in 1972, a F3, 8008, F5 and D200, I've been around the block a few times.
What it came down to for me really was how they felt in my hand. The x100s just felt natural in my hand, the RX1 I felt like I was always one step away from dropping it.
I bought the x100s, a UV filter an lens hood and do not use a lens cap, it's always ready to shoot. I also bought a Gariz Black Label half case, which has a raised ridge for additional grip. I also added a Match Tech thumbs up grip, which is great, and a Lance wrist strap.
This is the end of story, I have my camera with me everywhere I go. Oddly as my hand become moist from carrying it cup-ed in my hand the case seems to get a bit tacky and more secure. I love the Hybrid view finder and hardly ever use the lcd. The camera is so enjoyable to use, I think more about my shots and it has brought back the creativity I had left behind years ago.
I am very happy with my purchase of the x100s, might a RX1 or it's next version be in my future, likely so. Am I likely to keep the x100s, without a doubt...
I should have metioned that it was some photos by bigkidneys (I believe) with the 18/2, 35/1.4 and 60/2.4 that had such incredibly nice clarity and rendering - someone mentioned Summilux clarity (not me). I certainly understand why, I think the files have a pretty remarkable look/clarity being that they are from a crop camera.
Anyways, we're all different, and use what works best and gives us the most enjoyable results. I'd like to try the RX1 again at some point in time, but personally I find the praise going on a little over the top.
I understand what you mean Morten. I also noticed the great clarity in many of my X-E1 shots. It's one of the reasons why I personally like the x-trans sensor.
mortyb wrote:
Anyways, we're all different, and use what works best and gives us the most enjoyable results. I'd like to try the RX1 again at some point in time, but personally I find the praise going on a little over the top.
After shooting the M9+35/ASPH quite a bit over the last year (and also the older 35 Summicron IV,) with a pretty decent amount of both X100 and X100s shooting mixed in, I really don't think the praise of the RX1 is over the top at all. I'm not sure if my sharpness settings in LR different from millsart's or something, but I'd have a hard time distinguishing between the detail from my M9 and the RX1 at low ISO (although the M9's artifacts are more noticeable,) and, of course, the RX1 is much better at mid to high ISO. The RX1 is also seems better across the field than my 35/2 ASPH was.
In my opinion, in terms of output, RX1 > M9+35/2 ASPH > X100 > X100s. I briefly owned the NEX-7 + Zeiss 24/1.8, too, but I didn't use it long enough to really say where it would fall in that list, and I had a new baby at the time, so my judgement was suspect due to lack of sleep.
I don't know, maybe I just have a good copy of the RX1 or something. Of course, if we're just talking about viewing on the iPad or something, none of it really matters all that much.
Edit: When I say a little over the top, it's because I really don't see all the good words translated into photographic results. I don't doubt for a second it has remarkable shadow and highlight recovery, or that detail is incredible. But what about color? What about tonality? There are more to IQ than metrics, and personally I like what I've seen from the Fujis more than from the RX1 all in all.
But there's no point to be made here really other than "IQ" is both technical and a more subjective thing, and personally I don't see what many of you see in the RX1.
The thing about X-trans seems to be that, while you get excellence luminance detail, since there is no AA filter, you also get chroma smoothing as a result of the cfa layout, which can lead to unusual results. It often works, but, when it doesn't, it drives me nuts.
mortyb wrote:
Yes, I've encountered the water-color thing now and then, no doubt it can happen, but it's a tradeoff, I'm normally not bothered by it.
Yeah, the watercolor thing is occasionally an issue, but I'm not even specifically referring to that. According to theSuede, X-trans will always have less chroma resolution than Bayer, and I think there's a smoothness there that is attributed to the "look" of the files.
Either way, while I think debating the differences between aps-c Bayer and X-trans sensors is interesting, there isn't much debate from me when comparing X-trans to 24mp FF Exmor, at least as output size increases.
mortyb wrote:
But what about color? What about tonality? There are more to IQ than metrics, and personally I like what I've seen from the Fujis more than from the RX1 all in all.
But there's no point to be made here really other than "IQ" is both technical and a more subjective thing, and personally I don't see what many of you see in the RX1.
Tonality and colors are extremely import factors for me. Much more than sharpness/technical perfection. The RX1 is great at both. While Fuji is also very nice at those things, I like the RX1 even better.
Doesn't it have anything to do with your dislike for Zeiss rendering? I've read that you grew tired of the Zeiss look.
Jochenb wrote:
Tonality and colors are extremely import factors for me. Much more than sharpness/technical perfection. The RX1 is great at both. While Fuji is also very nice at those things, I like the RX1 even better.
Doesn't it have anything to do with your dislike for Zeiss rendering? I've read that you grew tired of the Zeiss look.
Your opinion is one I value highly, so I trust you about the RX1 colors and tonality. It's true that I've grown a little bit tired of the "in your face" Zeiss look in general (I understand the Sonnar is more gentle), and it probably has something to do with my take at this. But I gotta say, I don't see the magic in most of the RX1 shots. Sure, it's the FF 35/2 Zeiss look, but colors and tonality - the look - I can't say I've seen it. I'm 100 % sure I'll get the RX1 again, so I'll find out myself soon enough.
