SlowDriver wrote:
Not an issue according to the PetaPixel review on YouTube. Autofocus is awesome according to them.
They even explicitly mention that the slow performance with the previous model seems to have been algorithm-related rather than an issue with the focusing motor itself.
It's honestly a little hard to believe, but I'm open to it, especially since I haven't tried it myself. If you've used the RX1R II, you know how noticeably slow and audible the AF motor is compared to newer G or GM lenses. It's definitely not subtle. Maybe smarter software and a faster processor can help make it feel more responsive. But is it really in the same league as something like the A7CR paired with the 40mm f/2.5 and its dual linear motors? Calling it "awesome" might be a bit generous when comparing it to Sony’s modern bodies and lenses. That said, I can believe it's a step up from the RX1R II.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's honestly a little hard to believe, but I'm open to it, especially since I haven't tried it myself. If you've used the RX1R II, you know how noticeably slow and audible the AF motor is compared to newer G or GM lenses. It's definitely not subtle. Maybe smarter software and a faster processor can help make it feel more responsive. But is it really in the same league as something like the A7CR paired with the 40mm f/2.5 and its dual linear motors? Calling it "awesome" might be a bit generous when comparing it to Sony’s modern bodies and lenses. That said, I can believe it's a step up from the RX1R II....Show more →
I think the DPR context is the AF is great for general use. The issues I've heard are around eye-AF specifically, especially in challenging light where other Sony cameras don't skip a beat.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I was going through some of my older images (more than 3k in total) taken with the RX1R and RX1R II and started wondering if Sony could improve the lens a bit. Maybe what makes people call it magical is how high resolution and full of micro-contrast it is at the center and mid-frame, with a gentle falloff toward the corners. That, combined with its smooth focus transitions, lack of outlining, and an almost "gaussian" quality rendering, helps subjects pop with clarity while keeping the background undistracting.
Still, I think there's room for improvement. The aspherical elements cause onion rings in specular highlights, and fringing is quite visible in some shots and flare is evident (and ugly) when shooting against the light. That could definitely be addressed with newer optics while still keeping the "magic".
Also, the lens uses older motors. Replacing those with modern linear motors would go a long way in improving autofocus performance. My concern is that even if Sony gives the camera a new processor and updated AF algorithms, the outdated motors could still limit its focusing speed and reliability, especially compared to something like the FE 40mm f/2.5.
Overall, I think Sony did a great job modernizing the body. It now fits better with the rest of the lineup, the built-in EVF is a welcome upgrade from the pop-up one, and the new battery (which is not great but vastly better than the previous) is much more practical. But it feels like they missed a big opportunity by not improving the lens and its mechanics, even though it's a design many people love. Even Ricoh redesigned their well-regarded 18mm f/2.8 lens for the upcoming GR IV, despite already having outstanding performance on APS-C.
One final thought...after looking at the images of the new camera and comparing it to the RX1R II, I think Sony could’ve kept the tilt LCD and focus mode dial. It might not have looked as sleek or modern, but for many users, that feature is indispensable....Show more →
I only had use of the original RX1 for a few weeks courtesy of the friend from Sony. At the time I didn't particularly have an issue with AF performance even though many others complained about it.
I was simply enamored with the lens, however I didn't stress test it technically. Based on what you've mentioned, I feel slightly more disappointed that Sony didn't bother to address some of those details after 10 years, considering the premium price point. At the least Sony has touted their recent aspherical grinding/shaping capabilities and could have addressed the onion rings issue. It just feels like Sony left a bunch of things unaddressed that enthusiasts would have appreciated.
---------------------------------------------
sebboh wrote:
i refused to upgrade my OG a7 for a decade because all the new bodies were too big. i finally got a a7cii last year – wish it was thinner or at least had the sensor recessed deeper into the body. i was attracted to the leica q due to the better vf and better manual focus implementation, but it is just too big for a fixed lens camera (i'd rather use the a7cii with a small lens).
We have opposite body tastes. I very strongly didn't like anything Sony until the a9 design (and performance). The best feeling body I've used has been the Canon R1, which isn't small (understatement). But I don't have overly large hands. Probably average for a ~6-foot male.
It's likely IBIS that prevents the a7CII from being as thin as possible. With the RX1 I just feel that the lens, which isn't tiny, is a bit mismatched with the very small body size. Something like the RX1 with the Canon 28/2.8 pancake would be interesting. But that lens isn't 'magical' like the Sonnar. Rather, it's practical.
sebboh wrote:
i refused to upgrade my OG a7 for a decade because all the new bodies were too big. i finally got a a7cii last year – wish it was thinner or at least had the sensor recessed deeper into the body. i was attracted to the leica q due to the better vf and better manual focus implementation, but it is just too big for a fixed lens camera (i'd rather use the a7cii with a small lens).
Hi Sebboh,
Appreciate your discipline to keep your gear size down. Do you enjoy using a7c II with manual lenses? I may get rid of my a7 II next years as I find it a bit too big. I bought a nex6 2 years ago as I missed those compact mirrorless camera.
Appreciate your discipline to keep your gear size down. Do you enjoy using a7c II with manual lenses? I may get rid of my a7 II next years as I find it a bit too big. I bought a nex6 2 years ago as I missed those compact mirrorless camera.
yes, i'm pretty happy with it UI wise, it is a solid improvement over a7 (and a7ii). finally being able to magnify with a single button press is great. the evf is a slight improvement over the a7 (not sure about the a7ii) and i don't have any real difficulty focusing narrow dof shots without using magnification. IBIS for manual focus lenses is great, but doesn't work as well as it does with chipped lenses. my biggest problem is that I keep forgetting to turn silent shutter off after using it which can cause wonky images at certain shutter speeds. size wise it is an improvement over the a7 if even though it is thicker, the lack of a hump makes it much easier to stick in a coat pocket. it's no nex-6 though, i recently got an a6000 for my son and it is so much thinner – when I put my g28 on it, is really is the same size as the rx1, but with a better grip.
rscheffler wrote:
We have opposite body tastes. I very strongly didn't like anything Sony until the a9 design (and performance). The best feeling body I've used has been the Canon R1, which isn't small (understatement). But I don't have overly large hands. Probably average for a ~6-foot male.
It's likely IBIS that prevents the a7CII from being as thin as possible. With the RX1 I just feel that the lens, which isn't tiny, is a bit mismatched with the very small body size. Something like the RX1 with the Canon 28/2.8 pancake would be interesting. But that lens isn't 'magical' like the Sonnar. Rather, it's practical....Show more →
, yeah i hate cameras like the R1 even if i'm shooting big telephotos. i shot a nikon D1x for a while and it drove me crazy, too bulk to take anywhere without looking like a nut and the grip was still too small for my long fingers!
i certainly agree it would be a better fit if the rx1 had smaller lens (without losing anything optically), but the lens is the best 35mm ever (imo) and setup as a whole is basically the same as an OM-1 with 50/1.8 minus the VF hump or a leica III with a 50 cron, so it's not that disproportionate.
[i recently got an a6000 for my son and it is so much thinner – when I put my g28 on it, is really is the same size as the rx1, but with a better grip.
You know many people, me included, still wonder whether you will ever publish the article on Sony nex camera + g28 better than RX1. Perhaps now your son is going to write it instead?
You know many people, me included, still wonder whether you will ever publish the article on Sony nex camera + g28 better than RX1. Perhaps now your son is going to write it instead?
i'll ask him.
i got busy and it seemed like low interest article given how old both cameras were.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's honestly a little hard to believe, but I'm open to it, especially since I haven't tried it myself. If you've used the RX1R II, you know how noticeably slow and audible the AF motor is compared to newer G or GM lenses. It's definitely not subtle. Maybe smarter software and a faster processor can help make it feel more responsive. But is it really in the same league as something like the A7CR paired with the 40mm f/2.5 and its dual linear motors? Calling it "awesome" might be a bit generous when comparing it to Sony’s modern bodies and lenses. That said, I can believe it's a step up from the RX1R II....Show more →
I agree. Also, if it was algorithm-related, Sony would have had 10 years to address through firmware updates and they didn't...
SlowDriver wrote:
I agree. Also, if it was algorithm-related, Sony would have had 10 years to address through firmware updates and they didn't...
not just algorithm, but also sensor and chip related, so not fixable via firmware. i'm still not convinced they aren't just using old stock lenses though.
SlowDriver wrote:
I agree. Also, if it was algorithm-related, Sony would have had 10 years to address through firmware updates and they didn't...
---------------------------------------------
sebboh wrote:
not just algorithm, but also sensor and chip related, so not fixable via firmware. i'm still not convinced they aren't just using old stock lenses though.
I'm confident AF (especially tracking) will feel more accurate with the help of AI, as we've seen in Sony’s latest cameras. Still, I think Sony missed a good opportunity to update the lens with newer motor technology to further reduce noise and improve speed, similar to what they did with the 24mm, 40mm, and 50mm f/2.5 G lenses. That said, upgrading the motor would've raised production and development costs, and to be fair, most people aren't complaining about the current lens. The main criticism is the price...and a motor (barrel) upgrade would've only pushed it higher.
Processor and firmware improvements definitely make a difference. Autofocus on the RX1R II is noticeably better than on the original RX1, even though the lens motor itself is the same.
This guy compared both II and III and also think the lens's 12-year-old motor tech might hold it back from fully taking advantage of the impressive and known Sony AF features.
I just found out something I hadn't realized before. The new RX1R III is 18.4mm thicker than the original RX1R (which is quite significantly), and it's also 3mm taller. It's still the smallest and lightest full-frame camera in its class, but it has definitely been gaining size over the years, kind of like what happened with the A7 series since the original A7R. Just sharing the facts, not a complaint.
To put it in perspective, the Leica M10 is only 4mm thicker than the M240, and when it came out, that small change was considered revolutionary!
I had both the original and II and my best remembrance was the 35mm lens. Back then coming from Leica an AF camera was a true benefit whether slow or fast.
Today things are very different with the latest Q3 (28 & 43) and now the Fuji 100RF (28mm equivalent). Good point about the 35 lens being 12 years old. That shows what a good lens it was that long ago.
I found this article featuring an interview with the RX1 series developers. It's really interesting and sheds light on many details about the camera and lens, including the fact that the lens uses a floating focus group and has a very powerful motor design.
It also hints at why the lens is made in Japan...because achieving its high image quality requires close cooperation between the technology team and the factory, with extremely tight tolerances being crucial.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I found this article featuring an interview with the RX1 series developers. It's really interesting and sheds light on many details about the camera and lens, including the fact that the lens uses a floating focus group and has a very powerful motor design.
It also hints at why the lens is made in Japan...because achieving its high image quality requires close cooperation between the technology team and the factory, with extremely tight tolerances being crucial.
I read somewhere (earlier in this thread?) that not an insignificant amount of the cost to make these comes from individual calibration of each lens unit to the sensor. While that's really cool, it does concern me regarding future repairs.
Funny thing is that the lens rendering of this camera is the only thing I find interesting enough to warrant considering a purchase. If I wanted perfect optics, there's plenty of options out there for that.
Cleaning the sensor dust on the RX1 series is not too difficult if you keep one crucial thing in mind.
"Remove the 3 screws from the sensor unit, but be aware that there are calibrated metal shims under each screw. Do not move or mix them up or your sensor will be misaligned".
Sony uses special alignment software (Shim Selection Tool.exe) to match each camera's sensor position precisely to its lens. Because of manufacturing tolerances, the lens and sensor must be aligned with extreme accuracy. The software calculates the exact shim thickness needed under each screw. This means that swapping lenses from eBay will not give you the same optical performance unless you have access to this Sony internal software.
When you remove the sensor for cleaning, it is absolutely critical to put those shims back exactly where they were. They were precisely calculated for your camera's unique lens to sensor alignment.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here's a great Sony video that shows the complete RX1 assembly in just five minutes. It's the video in the top left corner.<br><br>
&t=247sfin
I remember that video from 12 years ago. Quite remarkable at the time - Sony innovation at it's best and hand assembled.
What now strikes me watching it so much later is how well the music has held up.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I remember that video from 12 years ago. Quite remarkable at the time - Sony innovation at it's best and hand assembled.
What now strikes me watching it so much later is how well the music has held up.
Agree!
Right at the 3-minute mark, you can see the technician adding the crucial "shim" to perfectly align the lens and sensor perfectly. It looks like it takes some careful work, and that's exactly what I was talking about.
With interchangeable lenses (both AF and manual focus), I often add metal shims under the screws to get perfect alignment (based on my own estimates testing lenses at infinity). But with the RX1 series, Sony takes this a step for the consumer. They actually developed custom in-house software to help with this precise alignment process.
, yeah i hate cameras like the R1 even if i'm shooting big telephotos. i shot a nikon D1x for a while and it drove me crazy, too bulk to take anywhere without looking like a nut and the grip was still too small for my long fingers!
