I can't agree with you there, as its almost suggesting photography is just an exercise in technical proficiency. Sure, it is for some, but for many, absolutely not.
I used a dof calculator and it seems zone focusing may be easier than I thought with the rx1. F16 @ 3meters or 2 meters would probably do everything i want. So I think the only issue is updating the firmware to not reset focus distance - I'm hoping that would sort out the terrible battery life as well, as you could easily just turn on/off
philip_pj wrote:
Mostly cultural photography in Tibet now, Spyro.
My point is that small, often inconsequential things, can easily dissuade people from the main game of image quality, as defined by their own desired look and level of technical quality.
So many people seem to wander from system to system searching earnestly for high usability suited to their own requirements. I would find that a misplacement of effort, that's all. Good if you see an improvement in what you are trying to do, but otherwise you might cut off your nose to spite your face.
And there are so many different ways of going about it, and as Leica M is the traditional tool of choice for street shooters of a certain 'pro' style, Leica is surely good enough for them to stay with it? Or do they see deficiencies in the latest M models?
Sony definitely had a different audience in mind however, do you agree with this? I think they were after a more eclectic target demographic, from connoiseurs to gear enthusisasts (us of course) to people who like bling, to serious shooters wanting a small killer camera for a versatile range of uses.There is not much it cannot do well, for a given FL. ...Show more →
I think it's the other way round and that the RX1 is proof positive
If it is only the IQ of the RX1 that one is after, an A99 or D600 provides most if not all of it, depending on how you rate the respective 35mm lenses - the sensor's the same. The D800 will get you all the way there plus some extra resolution, and all three do it for less money. Buying the RX1 means there's something other than pure IQ gained in going to it rather than one of the aforementioned DSLRs.
I have 5DMKIII with set of Zeiss primes and X100S for travel/street/low light and I am pretty happy. I tested Sony RX1 vs 5DMKII with Zeiss 35/2 and didn't saw much of the difference. Lack of finder and not ergonomic form was deciding points for me. And X100S while not there with IQ, but also not too far away behind.
Here are two shots with RX1 and X100S from my balcony
Of course, if we're talking web jpegs, just about any modern camera will be fine. Outside of the shallower depth of field, it's all about print/output size. Granted, there's no real major ergonomic advantage with my X100s, so the RX1 is an easier decision for me.
philip_pj wrote:
Mostly cultural photography in Tibet now, Spyro.
My point is that small, often inconsequential things, can easily dissuade people from the main game of image quality, as defined by their own desired look and level of technical quality.
So many people seem to wander from system to system searching earnestly for high usability suited to their own requirements. I would find that a misplacement of effort, that's all. Good if you see an improvement in what you are trying to do, but otherwise you might cut off your nose to spite your face.
And there are so many different ways of going about it, and as Leica M is the traditional tool of choice for street shooters of a certain 'pro' style, Leica is surely good enough for them to stay with it? Or do they see deficiencies in the latest M models?
Sony definitely had a different audience in mind however, do you agree with this? I think they were after a more eclectic target demographic, from connoiseurs to gear enthusisasts (us of course) to people who like bling, to serious shooters wanting a small killer camera for a versatile range of uses.There is not much it cannot do well, for a given FL. ...Show more →
I'm not too sure what audience sony had in mind to be honest, I thought I knew but in the end the camera seems to attract a diverse crowd... Re Leica, yes it's very nice and it will definitely get the job done for street photography, the catch being of course that there is exactly zero money in street photography and as a general rule people who practice it simply cant afford or justify leica. That includes many magnum photographers (who, by the way, rarely ever call themselves street photographers) and as a result there will always be a huge interest in cheaper alternatives.
As for getting too bogged down on details and missing the main game I fully agree with you, there is always that risk and I'm guilty of doing it myself. I also agree that the main game is image quality, but what is the definition of image quality? For a magnum photographer it rarely has anything to do with pixel level detail, see for example how much award winning work Alex Majoli did with a 2003-era digital p&s http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page8c1c.html?cid=7-6468-7844
5mp camera with a 512mb card
PS Marty I love that 2nd last photo
(I was gonna say "very film like" but that comment tends to attract a bit of abuse around here )
philip_pj wrote:
And there are so many different ways of going about it, and as Leica M is the traditional tool of choice for street shooters of a certain 'pro' style, Leica is surely good enough for them to stay with it? Or do they see deficiencies in the latest M models?
As Spyro said, price is an issue with the Leicas for many. An RX1 + EVF cost approx $3200 new in the US. A new Leica M with a 35 Summicron ASPH is $10,000, and if used as a working tool away from home, you probably want a backup camera and lens. Otherwise a good used Leica M9 and a Zeiss ZM 35/2 is an alternative at approx $ 4,500 and at that price point, I think a few photographers would want to consider options such as the RX1 as a lightweight alternative.
One thing is for certain: If I do eventually find myself with an RX1, you can be sure I'll churn out some of the most atrocious files from it that anyone has seen from this camera to date
douglasf13 wrote:
Of course, if we're talking web jpegs, just about any modern camera will be fine. Outside of the shallower depth of field, it's all about print/output size. Granted, there's no real major ergonomic advantage with my X100s, so the RX1 is an easier decision for me.
True, but I feel you can see the more subtle transitions in tones and colour, and the better DR of the Sony in web format - do you not find this? I obviously love print so no question on suitability there.
Something I was thinking about last night - Can anyone testify to the sensitivity of the focusing ring? I know the faster you turn it, the great distance it will jump, and the slower you turn it, the more gradual it will climb through the focus.
So is there an indefinite scale that very gradually increases as you increase speed, or are there say 2-3-4 different 'speeds' which you can move the ring at, which will be trigger depending upon how you handle the ring?
My thinking was that, if there was a "normal, predictable action" in there somewhere (perhaps very slow), one could stick on a sort of scale over the 'macro' ring. With it resetting to infinity, you could then do a quick zone focus just using your thumb as a marker on the ring.
The manual focus ring of both cameras isn't predictable, unfortunately. If you're someone who does a lot of on the fly zone focus adjustments, you'll want another camera. I usually just zone focus at one or two distances, so they both work ok for me, although I wonder if it isn't better to just quickly AF in the general area of focus and let the depth of field take care of the rest.
Shame. FWIW I'm not someone who makes adjustments all over the place, usually just a couple like you mention, it would just be good if this could be done without using the screen / without draining the battery. I used a DOF calculator and it seems 2m and 3m @ f16 would suffice for that type of shooting.
Zone focussing works pretty well for me on the x100s. I can bring it from 1m to 5m in about 1/8th of a turn. However, it isn't exact if you are making rapid successive changes. If you start at 1m, and quickly bounce back and forth from 1m to 5m, you'll find that your starting position will slowly shift to 1.5-2m. Nice that you can keep an eye on it in the VF though.
One small complaint for me is that at starting at f5.6, the aperture ring starts to get in the way of the focussing ring. It gets worse at f8-16. Slightly debillitating, but nothing I can't work around.
"My point is that small, often inconsequential things, can easily dissuade people from the main game of image quality, as defined by their own desired look and level of technical quality."
Image quality is NOT the main game. Any modern camera provides good image quality. The "main game" is the subject and composition and light of your images.
Arguing about real or perceived differences in IQ is pointless. If either of these cameras is NOT working for you, you have a problem.
Really, the main reason to choose the RX1 over the x100s is because you want the benefits the full-frame perspective provides.
Jim Tardio wrote: "My point is that small, often inconsequential things, can easily dissuade people from the main game of image quality, as defined by their own desired look and level of technical quality."
Image quality is NOT the main game. Any modern camera provides good image quality. The "main game" is the subject and composition and light of your images.
Arguing about real or perceived differences in IQ is pointless. If either of these cameras is NOT working for you, you have a problem.
Really, the main reason to choose the RX1 over the x100s is because you want the benefits the full-frame perspective provides. ...Show more →
What do we mean by "full-frame perspectives"? They're both 35mm, so they give the same framing.
Also, if IQ was so high, then surely this question (OP) is only about operational elements? It doesn't seem so from user experiences - people seem to suggest that the IQ is significantly above with the RX1. As far as I can see, the X100S has a better user experience, but some sensor issues, a good lens. Whereas the RX1 has a mixed handling experience, and an excellent lens / sensor.
Jim Tardio wrote:
Image quality is NOT the main game. Any modern camera provides good image quality. The "main game" is the subject and composition and light of your images.
Agree. 80 % this. 20 % technical differences in IQ.
Need it or not, I think IQ is a real part of the "game" for some shooters. It is rather analogous to the question of why does someone feel the need to buy a sports car with a powerful high horsepower engine when even the most entry level economy car has the ability to meet and exceed any posted speed limit, and realistically both cars are going to be spending time stuck in traffic crawling along at 5 mph anyways.
If the typical output is just a 1000 pixel wide image to share in the respective image threads on this forum of our camera model of choice, it shouldn't matter what we are shooting with as even a smartphone camera could meet our IQ needs.
But IQ does matter to some. Some like to strive for that extra bit of detail or cleaner files and maybe its just as silly as a guy in a Corvette flooring the gas pedal at a green light to get the car up to the speed limit in 4 seconds, even though we all know that down the road is just another red light, but such is human nature. Such is "boys and their toys" if you will.
Some people like IQ "just because". Some people who do no large printing go out and buy things like a D800e, and then take pictures of random objects just so they can then view the files at 100% and go "hey, look at what I can do".
This isn't true of each and every photographer, but I think we've all had our moments, especially many forum members.
IQ, even though it logically should be a total non issue still always is going to be an issue to most photographers.
Diploneis...I took the liberty of tweaking your fine environmental portrait. All I did was hit the "auto-tone" button in PS and add a bit of smart-sharpen. I wanted to see it with a bit more punch...hope you don't mind.
I notice a lot of folks posting images with what I call the "washed out" look. Is that the new trend? This is especially true for x100 & x100s images. I think folks see these and reason that that's how the images are from these Fujis.
millsart wrote:
Need it or not, I think IQ is a real part of the "game" for some shooters. (...)
If the typical output is just a 1000 pixel wide image to share in the respective image threads on this forum of our camera model of choice, it shouldn't matter what we are shooting with as even a smartphone camera could meet our IQ needs.
(...)
I don't want to limit IQ to resolution. I had a long hard look at the X100s before buying the RX1. Also in web sized images I clearly prefer what I get from the RX1.
