p.21 #6 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
sebboh wrote:
1/5s is often fine for these and sometimes the selective motion blur creates a nice effect imo.
Yes, if you are purposely trying to show motion…then yep. If you want to capture clear sharp images of people going about doing whatever they do…then you’ll get many blurry subjects as they move during your 1/5 second. At least that’s my experience shooting travel documentary images for the last 15 years.
I always bump up iso to ensure shutter is adequate to deliver sharp images. With today’s noise reduction software, you can push the iso quite a bit without much overall impact on images.
p.21 #8 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Yep. As much as I adore my RX1s and their small size, I’d take an X100 with the RX1 sensor and lens in an instant.
I had the original X100 and then the X100s and then upgraded to the RX1. After having the original RX1, I could never go back to the X100 line due to the superb image quality of the RX1 (amazing lens and great sensor). If they RX1 sensor / lens was put into an X100-like body, it would be a massive hit, assuming the price wasn't $5k (apparently)
Dave Sanders wrote:
Yessir... And the X100VI has indeed been an instant and ongoing best seller.
I had the OG RX1 as well as the X100s. I preferred the IQ from the Sony, but much preferred everything else on the X100.
p.21 #10 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
The truths about this camera are these:
1. Some people will buy the camera and be very happy with it. I'll likely be one of those people, eventually. A lot of people won't buy it, and Sony knows that.
2. If the camera was priced at $3500, we wouldn't have a 21 page discussion thread about it and more people would like it and consider buying it, with the same specs.
3. If the camera doesn't sell well, Sony will either cancel it or drop the price. Let's hope for the latter.
4. Sony made some decisions about compromises that have riled up people in this thread. Some people will accept them, some won't. There are likely very reasonable reasons for the chosen compromises, Sony isn't dumb. After 21 pages, we now likely know why the IBIS wasn't added (size and cost), the flippy screen was removed (size), and the EVF isn't larger and higher res (size). If it wasn't clear, Sony was intent on making the smallest camera possible, basically.
p.21 #11 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Dave Sanders wrote:
I dunno, Jared is Jared. This doesn't seem performative - it seems like his honest opinion.
But, you know, it’s just a camera. If you don’t like the specs or price, just tell people why. The outrage at Sony (in the video and in some posts here) is ridiculous. People need to grow up!
p.21 #12 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Dave Sanders wrote:
Yessir... And the X100VI has indeed been an instant and ongoing best seller.
I had the OG RX1 as well as the X100s. I preferred the IQ from the Sony, but much preferred everything else on the X100.
What do you mean by best seller. I’ve never seen an X100 camera on any best selling lists. A best seller for Fuji might not mean the same as a best seller for Canon or Sony.
p.21 #13 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Jeff Kott wrote:
But, you know, it’s just a camera. If you don’t like the specs or price, just tell people why. The outrage at Sony (in the video and in some posts here) is ridiculous. People need to grow up!
That’s just today’s world. Just look at all the garbage on cable tv these days. The more ridiculous people act on tv…the more people watch.
p.21 #16 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
swldstn wrote:
Is it Bokah or colors your worried about. I have several Sony bodies and a Canon and now a Fuji and for color consistency I have adopted the use of Cobalt Imaging’s software that allows me to use a consistent set of colors out of all my different cameras. Haven’t tried the Fuji yet but Sony, Canon, and Nikon have responded favorably. The big negative is you have to buy the base converter for each type of camera and potentially for even different sensors. You can look there if you want to try it out.
What is it? I'm not exactly certain. It's the feeling that the colors look very digital on the A7CR and more organic on the A7RV.
I try not to mess around with profiles and presets. I did have Cobalt for the GFX, but didn't really like it.
p.21 #17 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
So, in the future, anyone who read my post would call KEH.
They could also do as I did, find the relevant FM thread, and check if the user is an active member.
I did this only a few weeks ago. Really, due to discussion on the GFX100RF.
5 minutes research. An owner or potential Sony buyer would be wise to spend longer than that.
I mentioned the dust issue in the Fuji thread but received no intelligent response.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I have owned quite a few RX1 types. They mechanically quality is poor I think generally from a long-term usage perspective. The MF and AF tend to die. The camera is prone to the dreaded "error 61" which makes the camera inoperable. Plus, that's aside from dust...
The pictures Sebboh posted of the disassembled RX1 are from when we tried to get rid of an "error 61" after that RX1 took a fall of no more than 3 feet (from my waist--a big old dog jumped on me while doing some street photography).
Going back to 2008, Sony's repair pricing and system is extremely stupid. I once dinged a 24-70/2.8 ZA. Made the lens very tight to change FL from 24 - 50mm or so. Sony's policy was charging $400 some bucks as a minimum repair price, no matter what was needed. And it was going to take over a month.
I took it to a local shop and they looked at it free of charge and fixed it for about $50 in a couple days.
Fast forward to 2017-ish. That RX1 we took apart was the same-situation. Called Sony they wouldn't even look at it for under $500-ish bucks and it was going to take a while. I didn't want to spend $500 (minimum) on my used camera that wasn't even valued at over a grand...I could just buy another used RX1 for $800-900 at that time. Now it's 2025, and my RX1 is still sitting disassembled. Before we took it apart for lack of better options, and because an MF Sonnar would be wicked and Sebboh is bright enough to pull it off, I also called a very well reputed local repair store I've used for over a decade with a variety of lenses and repairs. They told me with an RX1, they just have to send it to Sony.
There's quite a few horror stories and general idiocy regarding Sony repair service, their pricing and how they sub it out to Precision Camera which tends to be uber spendy, not quick and communicate poorly. I hope things have changed in the last several years, but I doubt they have.
I also hope (but doubt) the mechanical quality and durability, much less the repair process, has improved on this new version even with this pricing. Then again, Leica seems to have a fabled history of repair messes and lonnnng wait times....Show more →
p.21 #18 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Jeff Kott wrote:
Well, our experiences totally diverge here. I am a long time C1 and ACR user who switched to DXO when Phase One mucked with its purchase/license model. I see a huge difference - enough that I have gone back and re-edited photos originally processed in C1 with DXO. I find the A7CR color rendering in DXO to be great. We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether there are differences in the output from different RAW processors and also on the whether the A7CR is capable of producing images with pleasing/accurate colors.
That's fine, I'm going mostly by what the unprocessed RAW files look like, so which processor is used is a secondary concern.
And it's just my opinion anyway.
I'm not much for running lots of test and measuring things precisely, more of an "instinctual" photographer.
p.21 #19 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
chiron wrote:
The A7RV and the A7CR do have the same sensor. Do you usually use different lenses on each body? Or use them in different situations? That might account for your color differences.
Could be. I used some lenses with the A7CR that I no longer own, but some that I still own and use with A7RV.
I'm surprised they're the same sensor, but thanks for confirming that.
I found my A&CR images to look a bit rough, harsh, and quite "digital", with difficulty in controlling highlights sometimes.
Using the same camera settings on A7RV gives smooth-looking images that look more natural.
Again, just my un-scientific opinion.
p.21 #20 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
ATPphoto wrote:
That's fine, I'm going mostly by what the unprocessed RAW files look like, so which processor is used is a secondary concern.
And it's just my opinion anyway.
I'm not much for running lots of test and measuring things precisely, more of an "instinctual" photographer.
You can’t view a RAW file until it has been processed so when you look at a RAW image you are always looking at a processed RAW file.
I guess you mean that you are looking at the default rendering in the RAW processor. IMHO, not a way to determine the quality of the sensor. And for sure, the default renderings of ACR (same as Lightroom), C1 and DXO are very different.
