p.22 #1 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
chez wrote:
Do you have some comparison images to post?
Here are some.
Taken at different times with different lenses in different countries and under different light, so this is hardly a good, measurable test.
But you can see what I see when I open these images in LR, and the differences are there.
All RAW unprocessed files, nothing applied.
Not easy to tell from my images, but I found the A7CR files to be of lower contrast, higher noise, less saturation, unable to retain highlights. I don't see the same issues using the A7RV.
The only authority I have is that I've owned three A7CR bodies, they all looked like this.
And I don't mean to distract from the RX1 discussion.
p.22 #2 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Jeff Kott wrote:
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.
Yes, default renderings is what I should have said.
But all my files are imported to LR with the same default: every parameter is set to zero.
And I'm not comparing processing engines, rather the way files look from two different cameras using the same processing engine.
p.22 #3 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Did LR issue an update for compatibility with ACR RAW files when come out ? I know some software will not recognize new RAW format even if the sensor is the same as a previous camera.
Did you try changing the EXIF data to make LR think the image comes from the other camera ?
p.22 #4 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
ATPphoto wrote:
But all my files are imported to LR with the same default: every parameter is set to zero.
And I'm not comparing processing engines, rather the way files look from two different cameras using the same processing engine.
I’m certain that you’re seeing differences in the color and contrast in the images as you’ve said, just not sure it’s a difference in the sensors between the A7CR and A7RV since we’re told it’s the same sensor and in camera processing. So, the question is what’s causing the differences. Someone else suggested it could be a difference in the lenses used. As far as the RAW converter, since you’re using the same converter for images from both cameras with all parameters set the same, it could also be the way the ACR/Lightroom team profiled the different cameras. That’s why LiveShots suggested in the post above that you change the EXIF data so Lightroom treats the images from the different cameras as though they came from the same camera.
Anyway, sorry we’re off topic. I just love my A7CR and think the images I get from it are fantastic and that’s what I’m reacting to.
p.22 #6 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Very sad that Sony postponed announcement of this new RX1 so much Had RX1rIII come 5 years ago along with A7rIV the market of premium compacts would look very different, especially from the point of view Leica Q series. This is kind of tragedy considering that Sony is a tech leader and capable of making a better than Leica (and Fujifilm).
Now the space of premium compacts is much more crowded than it was a few years ago. Personally I was waiting for RX1rIII but decided to go with GRX100 RF - despite being kind of quirky camera the RF is unique, fun and produces great results. We have also A7cr which is almost the same size as RX1rIII, but has Z-battery, IBIS and is ILC.
I also want to challenge the Sony mindset that smallness and premium go well together. I tried A7cr and I feel it is much worse shooting experience than A7rV - mostly because of small size. EVF is crucial to shooting experience and A7cr underperforms here compared to other Sony cameras, Leica Q3, GFX100 RF, and just about any reasonably good camera Fuji X100 series included. IBIS is another shortcoming, but maybe not quite so bad.
In hindsight it is easy to say what Sony should have done with RX1rIII. Sony should have moved much more quickly, and be more bold in improving the original RX1 concept. Better EVF, IBIS and Z-battery despite making the camera slightly larger? Maybe they should have also designed a new lens for RX1rIII, and leave the old Zeiss 35mm behind? We will never know all the details of RX1rIII story. Maybe bad market analysis and trying to keep development as low as possible?
Anyway nice to see that Sony has noted the rise of premium compacts. Maybe we will see a much more thoroughly designed RX1rIV in a few years. Personally I also hope that Sony would make a cropped sensor compact camera to challenge Fuji X100 and Ricoh GR. Compacts are fun
p.22 #7 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
InFocus2014 wrote:
I've spent a lot of time with the RX1R and RX1RII. The main reason I do not shoot those cameras, anymore, is that I have been spoiled by IBIS and the ability to shoot in low-light and in the night - conditions I often experience when traveling. The second reason is the horrible battery life, which, seemingly, has been solved by the Version III.
I'm not totally crazy about the A7CR that I now use for travel, but it has great IBIS, and gets the job done; and, nowadays, there are a lot of choices for small/light relatively fast lenses.
Sony, you just saved me $5,000 by omitting stabilization; otherwise, I might have been compelled to pre-order. Thanks!!
Also, I shot the Leica Q3 for awhile, and the lens OS worked nearly as good as IBIS. Of course, I do not know if Sony still has a design relationship with Zeiss to be able to modify the 35mm f2 lens design to accommodate such, if even possible.
Finally, I wonder how that old Sony/Zeiss 35mm f2 holds-up to 61mp and the cropping typically used for fixed FL cameras(?).
EDIT: No tilt screen? That seals the no-deal. ...Show more →
I am in the same camp as Jeff (@InFocus2014) and others: no IBIS is a crisis! 😀
It is easy to get the taste of life without IBIS - grab your camera and turn IBIS off, then spend a few days shooting hand-held (actually, I don't expect anyone in their right mind to do this)
RX1RIII is a toy, or a collector's item. It speaks to the "inner child" of many photographers. I can imagine that those who consider buying this toy may already have Q3 and GFX100 RF, and similar.
p.22 #8 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Actually GFX100RF body is less dependent of IBIS than RX1RIII. The larger size, more grip area, more weight, less lens bump alone make it far better for handheld. The other factor on neck strap pushing the camera gently towards down at waist level stabilise pretty well, that you can't do with RX1RIII because the fixed screen.
p.22 #9 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
tuomkok wrote:
Anyway nice to see that Sony has noted the rise of premium compacts. Maybe we will see a much more thoroughly designed RX1rIV in a few years. Personally I also hope that Sony would make a cropped sensor compact camera to challenge Fuji X100 and Ricoh GR. Compacts are fun
p.22 #10 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
I think in the Sony-marketing-headquarter they may have had the some discussion going on: The A7cR is doing the job, nobody wants an RX1rIII for more money with a fixed lens - we would need so many development-resources for so few sold items! (they have may sayed)
So, first of all, it is a bold decision to develope and produce an even smaller Fullframe camera so many people did screaming for - respect Sony!
Second: you pay for the size! The same in bycyle-racing: a racing bike to reduce from 9-8kg is no problem, but it is more difficult to reduce from 7 to 6kg and will be much more expensive!
The higher resolution EVFs are also physically bigger, need more space - it is not just resolution.
The size and experience of such a small FF-camera is in sum more than the known parts (dont forget the developement of the case, the electronics, this super small construction needed development resources!)
Yes the RXrIII is super expensive and the parts are maybee not to exciting, but the whole thing is an engineering-marvel without doubt!
I feel a bit sad about the mostly negative complaining about this camera. I cant afford it myself, but I appriciate the effort of the Sony engineers and like the boldness to bring such a small and expensive cam back to the market.
p.22 #11 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
ATPphoto wrote:
Here are some.
Taken at different times with different lenses in different countries and under different light, so this is hardly a good, measurable test.
But you can see what I see when I open these images in LR, and the differences are there.
All RAW unprocessed files, nothing applied.
Not easy to tell from my images, but I found the A7CR files to be of lower contrast, higher noise, less saturation, unable to retain highlights. I don't see the same issues using the A7RV.
The only authority I have is that I've owned three A7CR bodies, they all looked like this.
And I don't mean to distract from the RX1 discussion....Show more →
These images are totally different in lighting and depth of field. They show nothing about supposed differences beteen the two cameras. No one else has ever made the claim you are making.
You are arguing something that makes no apparent techncal sense on the basis of no evidence. If you really want to argue this, you should take the same image from the same tripod with the same lens and have the two different cameras set identically. Include all EXIF information. Then start a thread on the topic.
p.22 #12 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
One thing that seems apparent when looking at the new RX1R III is that Sony has chosen to prioritize maintaining the original's small size above all else. And whether or not you like this new camera will probably turn on how you feel about that choice.
From my perspective, even though the RX1 line is small, it's not pocketable. And given that, I'd rather have a slightly larger, more fully featured camera--a la the Leica Q3. Also, speaking as a past RX1R owner, that very small body never felt really comfortable in the hand--like holding a toy. Obviously others will have different views.
p.22 #13 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Personally, I see this new RX1R III in the nowhere between the Ricoh GR III (really pocketable) and the Sony A7cR (compact and fully featured).
I'm a bit puzzled by Sony's intention, but then again, at that price I'm out of the game anyway.
p.22 #14 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
So what lens would you use on a Sony A7CR if you think the lens on the RX1R II/III is great? It seems that it would have to be an AF lens but are there any MF lens that people think would match better?
I personally not interested in swapping out my A7CR for the new Sony ultra compact but I know some have waited along time for this new camera.
p.22 #15 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Maximilian wrote:
Personally, I see this new RX1R III in the nowhere between the Ricoh GR III (really pocketable) and the Sony A7cR (compact and fully featured).
I'm a bit puzzled by Sony's intention, but then again, at that price I'm out of the game anyway.
The original RX1 was seen as a marvel of miniaturization--and indeed it was, for the time. And I think Sony wants to hang onto that legacy. Problem is, this new RX1R III is no marvel, just a repackaging of existing parts. If Sony had done the R&D to be able to put IBIS, an articulating screen and high-resolution EVF into this new camera, that would have been a marvel, rivaling Sony's achievement with the original RX1.
Sigma i-series 35/2 is probably the closest thing, but there’s nothing to pair it with that gets close to the RX1 really
No matter what camera you pair it with it’ll still end up significantly larger and that doesn’t really match up with what you get from the lens in the RX1 it’s just the closest, generally speaking, in my opinion
p.22 #17 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Processing and moving data around in such a small package probably required engineering effort. This is a higher resolution sensor than the previous versions. The more data you move, at high speed, the more heat is generated (no one can prove that here in this specific case, but it's just a general behavior seen in most applications). I do think there were other engineering problems created by this, that had to be solved. (Heat management).
If that's true, then the argument from some will be they should not have used the higher resolution sensor.
Obviously the camera is a bit larger, heat management might be part of the reason for that.
Many, many people love the lens...so they didn't want to change it.
This isn't the camera to feature a brand new sensor.
We know the lens is extremely close to the sensor and probably precludes IBIS.
Adding OSS would have most likely required a lens redesign...see the first item in this list.
I do think Sony had to put thought and effort into this design, and I'm pretty sure it would have been picked apart no matter what choices they made.
Those who think this is not for you, don't buy it. Those that do, buy it. This is the best way to get Sony's attention. The Zeiss ZX1 was a dud, I think Zeiss figured that out by the volume of sales. Whether they spendtthe time to assess the reasons, I don't know. But I would assume Sony is committed enough that they would.
p.22 #18 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
swldstn wrote:
So what lens would you use on a Sony A7CR if you think the lens on the RX1R II/III is great? It seems that it would have to be an AF lens but are there any MF lens that people think would match better?
I personally not interested in swapping out my A7CR for the new Sony ultra compact but I know some have waited along time for this new camera.
I like my combination A7cR + Sony 2,5/40mm
It's not the same as the RX1R II or III, but it's close enough for me not to even consider buying the RX1R III.
p.22 #19 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Maximilian wrote:
I like my combination A7cR + Sony 2,5/40mm
It's not the same as the RX1R II or III, but it's close enough for me not to even consider buying the RX1R III.
Well for small and compact the FE 40,2.5 G is also what I use but bought the FE 24-50/2.8 G as well when I wanted more flexibility and don’t want to switch lenses. Also ow the Zeiss Batis 40/2 CF and a Sigma 35/2 DG DN I- series but a bit heavier and the Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 which is manual focus.
p.22 #20 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
bhollis wrote:
The original RX1 was seen as a marvel of miniaturization--and indeed it was, for the time. And I think Sony wants to hang onto that legacy. Problem is, this new RX1R III is no marvel, just a repackaging of existing parts. If Sony had done the R&D to be able to put IBIS, an articulating screen and high-resolution EVF into this new camera, that would have been a marvel, rivaling Sony's achievement with the original RX1.
Sony did put in the fw50 battery compared to the nbx batteries, and while the fw50 is fairly small compared to z batter, it's much larger than the nbx battery.
Had RX1rIII come 5 years ago along with A7rIV the market of premium compacts would look very different, especially from the point of view Leica Q series. This is kind of tragedy considering that Sony is a tech leader and capable of making a better than Leica (and Fujifilm).