Jim, Photography never need to be real! Yes, you did auto tone, but at the same time, you also take advantage of tons of color in /hue/saturation/lumi tweak have already being done to that image having the looks what it is having now.
The image SOOC might be good, even more real, but can not meet photographer/artist personal need. That what photography all about, it is for yourself, or themselves,
I agree your position on IQ, which is much more broad topic than sharpness, color accuracy, DR etc...My opinion is 99% IQ from content, 1% from gear/tech for the stuff I enjoy to look.
I really enjoy images like posted link above from Alex Majoli, but at the same time, I also very interested in technical IQ of gear, which is a different topic but what a hobby is all about.
You certainly can say that it is not part of 'photography', but to some, it is.
And here is gear forum, many people not only care about image content but also ultimate level of technical quality, hence for all this discuss so far debating between the two...
Perhaps inevitably we've came to a slightly different but non the less relevant part of the discussion. For what it's worth, as someone who does photography for a living, my opinion lies with Jim & zhangyue re: relevancy of technical image quality. Photography has always been an art to me, rather than a craft.
So, where does this leave me... should I just pick up my old compact camera and be done with it? Just continue using my hi-matic? Perhaps use my big-assed SLR instead? IQ isn't really important to me. What I can say I do like is having really rich files that need very little doing to them. One of the reasons I use my hi-matic / film, is I can choose the film/aesthetic I like, send it to the lab, and that's pretty much it ready to go. I have to think about what I'm doing in camera, but I don't have to be terribly careful with exposure as the negative has so much latitude. With my SLR I have to nail exposure, and I do, but in the nicest possible way I mostly can't be arsed with fiddling with files that are almost all for personal stuff. But then, I get the impression both these cameras are good here... Fuji has great JPEGs, and I think the RX1 just makes stuff look good, really easily, due to the sensor/lens combo.
(Yeah, that was pretty much just mindless rambling)
If the X100s had a regular Bayer array, like the X100, but still had all of the other improvements, I may not have even tried the RX1, although I like using the this camera for more than just street shooting, so having the extra subject separation and resolution can be nice. If I were just using the RX1 as a street camera, I may not need the extra IQ. I would maybe even consider the original X100 again, if that were the case, although the operational slowness of that camera may be too hard to ignore.
douglasf13 wrote:
If the X100s had a regular Bayer array, like the X100, but still had all of the other improvements, I may not have even tried the RX1...
I have yet to see someone post a photo where the x-trans sensor ruined what would have been an otherwise fantastic shot had the camera had a bayer sensor.
This is a fixed focal length camera with 16mp. I don't think anyone would call it a landscapers dream. However, should someone wish to do some landscaping with it it will certainly deliver if the subject matter is photogenic.
I know this is a gear forum, but some things just shouldn't matter as much as people make them out to.
DTOB wrote:
I have yet to see someone post a photo where the x-trans sensor ruined what would have been an otherwise fantastic shot had the camera had a bayer sensor.
This is a fixed focal length camera with 16mp. I don't think anyone would call it a landscapers dream. However, should someone wish to do some landscaping with it it will certainly deliver if the subject matter is photogenic.
I know this is a gear forum, but some things just shouldn't matter as much as people make them out to.
There are about a million threads about this, with tons of examples. It's up to you to decide whether it is a big deal, but it is a big deal for many of us. If you don't print at 13x19 or larger, it may not be an issue, although I've seen issues at smaller screen sizes from time to time.
I'm not trying to turn this into another anti-X-Trans thread, but the issue should be mentioned in this comparison.
DTOB wrote:
I have yet to see someone post a photo where the x-trans sensor ruined what would have been an otherwise fantastic shot had the camera had a bayer sensor.
This is a fixed focal length camera with 16mp. I don't think anyone would call it a landscapers dream. However, should someone wish to do some landscaping with it it will certainly deliver if the subject matter is photogenic.
I know this is a gear forum, but some things just shouldn't matter as much as people make them out to.
+1
Btw, there are some really impressive landscape-shots taken with the X100/X100s over at the X100-picture-thread.
Btw, there are some really impressive landscape-shots taken with the X100/X100s over at the X100-picture-thread.
It's all about output size and how critical you are. Every camera from the last several years can take great landscape shots at web size. I'm not going by looking at other people's small jpgs. I'm going by my experience with the camera. It has a unique cfa which has good and bad points.
I look at the RX1 as somewhat of a digital equivalent to the Fuji GF670 (there are plenty of fine art and landscape shooters that use that camera,) since it is a small, fixed lens resolution machine with outrageous IQ, and I look at the the X100s as more of a 35mm film rangefinder, so it depends how much resolution you want or need.
It's good to hear the take of people on this topic, it does not get discussed so much as it should, it lies at the heart of the matter.
If technical quality (which has to be defined personally I believe because it consists of many factors) is not so important because most modern cameras are very good these days and little separates them, why do people obsess over each new model or lens?
My take is: it IS important, crucially important in fact, and photographers subliminally have absorbed this key message. Otherwise everyone would use a high end compact or phone. And it is moving so fast, the pace of improvement is now quicker than before. Very few of us would take a great image, a real favourite, with a high end camera and ask: 'I wonder how good it would look shot with a phone?' It's like an F1 driver wondering what the racetrack would feel like in a VW Golf.
A lot of how you want to portray your subject matter either benefits from better 'technical image quality' or actually needs it. You shoot high DR scenes and want to show good shadow detail and delicate highlights? Out of luck with a low DR sensor I am afraid, for shadows or highlight delicacy you choose one and lose the other for many shots. Same applies for high ISO, colour and so on.
Not until the a99/RX1 could I get what I wanted to my satisfaction...the keeper rate rocketed so my rejects are now subject matter or composition related mistakes...my fault. A much better situation! Most aircraft crashes (like the A330 Air France crash off Rio) are now due to human error for the same reason - aircraft and aviation systems are now very refined - technical quality again.
'My opinion is 99% IQ from content, 1% from gear/tech'
I know what you are saying here, zhangyue, and I think almost all agree that inherent image quality trumps mere technical expertise and presentation. Here is a different take on it: think of the image content and all its aspects such as lighting, composition, and content itself as *outside the technical sphere*...then consider the same image shot with a range of technologies or cameras and lenses.
Now some images are so strong they look good out of a phone camera, but not all images do so. As you have better tech MORE such images appear in the top echelon, these are the ones that would not make it until the technical ability (however defined remember) had arrived in your hands. [This is not to say that you can shoot a wall and make a masterpiece of course though sometimes with the RX1 I do wonder.]
So yes, as ricardo says, the RX1 makes (more) stuff look good. Due to superior 'technical quality'. But if it does not suit your style...there are plenty of other choices almost as good..but not quite, for now at least, in a small camera.
philip_pj wrote:
If technical quality (which has to be defined personally I believe because it consists of many factors) is not so important because most modern cameras are very good these days and little separates them, why do people obsess over each new model or lens?
My take is: it IS important, crucially important in fact, and photographers subliminally have absorbed this key message. Otherwise everyone would use a high end compact or phone. And it is moving so fast, the pace of improvement is now quicker than before. Very few of us would take a great image, a real favourite, with a high end camera and ask: 'I wonder how good it would look shot with a phone?' It's like an F1 driver wondering what the racetrack would feel like in a VW Golf. ...Show more →
actually, the fact that people obsess over it so much is a sign the difference is quite small these days. it turns out that the smaller the differences are the more people obsess over them.
the camera phone is a poor example because it really is far away in both usability and iq. a better example would be a 5 year old dslr. both these cameras are better iq wise in many measurable ways than a 5 year old pro dslr, but none of those ways will make or break a photo. usability differences seem much more likely too though.
I'm sure the RX1 is a remarkable camera with stellar output and the one to get for many photographers, I for my part just want a rangefinder-like camera with a built-in finder (I like Fuji's hybrid-finder). I would drool over a RX1 with built-in finder, Sony's current offering leaves me cold.
I'm glad that the photographic community can freely choose between the RX1 and it's potential rivals from Fuji, Leica and others ;-)
As I've probably mentioned too much in this thread already, I would suggest that anyone who's only turned off of the RX1 because of the viewfinder situation should try the camera. The tilt EVF is great, if you want an EVF, and the OVF is surprisingly effective. So much so that I really don't miss much at all about the Fuji's OVF. My last three cameras were the X100, M9 and X100s, so I've had a lot of recent experience with OVFs, and using an OVF on the RX1 is really fun.
I agree with sebboh that even 5 year old DSLRs are still infinitely usable. My problem with the X100s is more specific to X-trans. My X100, NEX-5, etc., all provide acceptable IQ for just about any use, to my eyes. The RX1 is over the top good, in terms of IQ, but that certainly isn't always necessary.
georgms wrote:
I'm sure the RX1 is a remarkable camera with stellar output and the one to get for many photographers, I for my part just want a rangefinder-like camera with a built-in finder (I like Fuji's hybrid-finder). I would drool over a RX1 with built-in finder, Sony's current offering leaves me cold.
I'm glad that the photographic community can freely choose between the RX1 and it's potential rivals from Fuji, Leica and others ;-)
I'm in your camp. While I love the image quality of the RX1, for the price that camera costs, no built in viewfinder is a tough pill to swallow. I have played with the RX1 both in Japan and here in China in the stores and shooting with the LCD is a substantially lesser experience compared to my main shooter (Fujifilm X100). Adding in the cost of the optional viewfinders just takes the RX1 to an even higher level and still the viewfinders are add ons, not built in. So I can't find a way to make it work for me.
I have not shot my X100 much (now shooting film primarily) but I just finished a 2 week trip to Europe, with 6 days in Paris, and I truly enjoyed using the X100 and it is all due to that amazing viewfinder. I bought the X100 the very day I could find one here in China and have always liked this camera.
douglasf13 wrote:
My problem with the X100s is more specific to X-trans. My X100, NEX-5, etc., all provide acceptable IQ for just about any use, to my eyes.
Care to show off some of your work that would not be possible with x-trans? I know you said earlier that there are millions of threads with tons of examples, but it didn't really address my point. I would like to see an otherwise excellent photo ruined by x-trans.
All I can see from the people who complain about x-trans are photos taken of mundane subjects processed with little to no care, simply to show off the "artifacts". So I am curious to see what it is exactly in your own photos that makes the x-trans an absolute no-go.
Also, I've got an x100 and a x100s right here. I haven't had any real complaints from the new sensor, but I haven't been keeping up too much with the forum buzz. Can you give me a few scenarios I might go out and shoot, side by side, so that I might see what all the fuss is about?
rattymouse wrote:
I'm in your camp. While I love the image quality of the RX1, for the price that camera costs, no built in viewfinder is a tough pill to swallow. I have played with the RX1 both in Japan and here in China in the stores and shooting with the LCD is a substantially lesser experience compared to my main shooter (Fujifilm X100). Adding in the cost of the optional viewfinders just takes the RX1 to an even higher level and still the viewfinders are add ons, not built in. So I can't find a way to make it work for me.
I have not shot my X100 much (now shooting film primarily) but I just finished a 2 week trip to Europe, with 6 days in Paris, and I truly enjoyed using the X100 and it is all due to that amazing viewfinder. I bought the X100 the very day I could find one here in China and have always liked this camera.
i did finally play with an rx-1 myself and i agree that shooting with just the lcd is a significant step down from having a viewfinder. i tried it with the evf though and i liked it much more than the x100s' evf. obviously the x100s has the advantage of an optical finder with info overlay, but i'm not much of a fan of non ttl optical finders so no big loss for me. now i've ordered the rx-1.
both cameras produce images i really like with different looks to the lenses, but i like the look of the zeiss more (rare for me, i generally like fuji lenses more than zeiss) and i liked the manual focus experience of the rx-1 one better.
sebboh wrote:
i did finally play with an rx-1 myself and i agree that shooting with just the lcd is a significant step down from having a viewfinder. i tried it with the evf though and i liked it much more than the x100s' evf. obviously the x100s has the advantage of an optical finder with info overlay, but i'm not much of a fan of non ttl optical finders so no big loss for me. now i've ordered the rx-1.
both cameras produce images i really like with different looks to the lenses, but i like the look of the zeiss more (rare for me, i generally like fuji lenses more than zeiss) and i liked the manual focus experience of the rx-1 one better....Show more →
Congrats on your new RX1. I guess I better avoid trying this camera with the EVF attached. I dont need a $3400 camera right now!
DTOB wrote:
Care to show off some of your work that would not be possible with x-trans? I know you said earlier that there are millions of threads with tons of examples, but it didn't really address my point. I would like to see an otherwise excellent photo ruined by x-trans.
All I can see from the people who complain about x-trans are photos taken of mundane subjects processed with little to no care, simply to show off the "artifacts". So I am curious to see what it is exactly in your own photos that makes the x-trans an absolute no-go.
Also, I've got an x100 and a x100s right here. I haven't had any real complaints from the new sensor, but I haven't been keeping up too much with the forum buzz. Can you give me a few scenarios I might go out and shoot, side by side, so that I might see what all the fuss is about?...Show more →
This thread really doesn't need to turn into yet another X-trans examples thread. That wasn't my intention. I say keep shooting happily. If you print large and don't notice anything, then you're in good shape. There are plenty of pros who are happy with X-trans.
Actually Douglas you reminded me how much I loved my Hexar AF, because it had a "dumb" VF with next to no info in it. My best photos were taken with that camera and, in retrospect, I suspect that the lack of distractions might've had sth to do with it... all I could do was focus my mind on composition and timing, which at the end of the day are the 2 things my photography mostly hinges on. I think I'll try the same with my x100: deactivate all overlays
But I still want the parallax correction and I much prefer the built-in VF form factor.
douglasf13 wrote:
This thread really doesn't need to turn into yet another X-trans examples thread. That wasn't my intention. I say keep shooting happily. If you print large and don't notice anything, then you're in good shape. There are plenty of pros who are happy with X-trans.
Actually was just going to pop in and say I didn't mean to come off as confrontational as I may have.
Don't want to start a war. I am genuinely interested as I am still very new to the camera, you seem to have more experience with it. Maybe shoot me a PM if you can spare a moment?
ricardovaste wrote:
So, where does this leave me... should I just pick up my old compact camera and be done with it? Just continue using my hi-matic? Perhaps use my big-assed SLR instead? IQ isn't really important to me. What I can say I do like is having really rich files that need very little doing to them.
(Yeah, that was pretty much just mindless rambling)
Let me decide for you... go with the RX1
Seriously, the RX1 files will pair really well with your Sony DSLR work setup, plus you could also use the RX1 as a supplementary/ B cam for your gigs. RX1 can be your 35mm lens, macro is pretty useable plus ISO6400 is a breeze.
Otherwise, if you don't need full frame or wide open subject separation, can I also suggest you look at the Ricoh GR? Not sure if you own a Ricoh GR or previous digital GRDs but if you love street shooting, you'll love the GR and snap focus. Files are pretty sharp as well, definitely better than the Fuji X100s in my opinion. That being said, I still like the X100s for its OVF and manual controls. You could actually have both a X100s and a GR for the price of a RX1. Can't win!
Spyro P. wrote:
Actually Douglas you reminded me how much I loved my Hexar AF, because it had a "dumb" VF with next to no info in it. My best photos were taken with that camera and, in retrospect, I suspect that the lack of distractions might've had sth to do with it...
Your best photos were taken with a Hexar AF because it has a superb 35mm Konica lens! Just kidding ... but I love that lens on the Hexar AF, beautiful rendering, sharp, classical and yet a touch modern. Someone should just invent a full frame 35mm digital back for all these classic cameras, that would be fun!
