Sharif Abdou wrote:
My quick and slightly disorganized thoughts on the RX1r.3...
...
Summary (very early impressions):
-You will get this camera from my cold dead hands. I haven't felt this way about a camera since the NEX-7, which I purchased in April of 2012 and still own, though only for sentimental reasons.
-The contradiction: IMHO this is a $4k camera, not $5.1k. The bill of materials simply doesn't add to $5.1k....however, I can honestly say that I would buy this camera again at full price 10 times out of 10.
Conclusion (waaay too early):
-If you value what this is, AND you can live with the compromises (there are many), AND you can stomach the price (which is eye-watering), you will be delighted. That's my one-word review: Delightful.
-If you don't meet all 3 criteria, there are far more level-headed options in Sony land and elsewhere... ...Show more →
After a few weeks as an EDC, I agree with the one-word review: Delightful!
For a two-word review: Delightful compliment (to a larger system, for the majority of time I would never carry it)
The comparison to the Sony NEX-7 enjoyment is also spot on. Here are my EDCs over the years with the Sony NEX-5n from 2011. Paired with the larger Nikon D200 + Sony NEX-5n, I used the Sony 10x as often since it fit in my cargo pants leg pocket so for me it proved far more valuable, even though it cost less. Paired a GFX100 with Fuji x70 (until it died with no Fuji x70++ replacement), then GFX100sii with Leica DLux-7 and now Sony rx1r iii. The RX0ii is mainly for surfing but I carry it sometimes on a keychain. Not shown are every pocketable camera with extendable lenses with broken motors after accidentally turning on, even after multiple repairs they have all been tossed.
On AF, it has been mainly a joy so far: I changed "Priority Set in AF-C" from "Balanced Emphasis" to "AF", and was nervous about camera shake so shoot 5fps almost always with consistent results. I found Subject Detect "Auto" to prioritize people, perhaps rightly, over any animals in the same frame, so have since added Subject Detect to "Fn" quick menu and actively change the setting to "People" or "Animal" as needed, and also changed "Auto Recognition Target Select Set" to unselect "Insect","Car/Train" and "Airplane" to help limit the subject types, if this helps. I certainly hope the small, compact camera space is reviving as better options in the future would be ideal instead of choosing from a very limited number of compromised and perhaps overly-compromised EDC solutions.
For those interested in this little camera in Europe, pch.be, a reputable Belgium based store that I have shopped at regularly over the last few years is offering a 21% discount on many products to celebrate their 30th anniversary, including the RX1R III
One oddity to be aware of, especially if you shoot macro, is that focusing is always at f/2 and will close to your chosen aperture at capture, so it is somewhat difficult to visualize the final DOF result (I haven't found the DOF preview yet if it exists...). Macro is certainly a welcome feature, but so far it has been a bit tricky, especially with insects. Here's a fireweed shot at f/2, what you see as you focus no mater the final chosen aperture and DOF.
On AF optimization tips, I did not change the standard settings as I never felt the need for my other sony bodies so far (rv, a1 ii, …). Maybe, this helps here!! For the comparison with the Q3, when running towards the camera, the Leica mostly fails as well. Still it sometimes suprises me still, while the r1r iii let me down to my suprise even in slowly walking towards the camera scenarios.
Here's a simple way to use the RX1 series for street photography with wide depth of field...no focusing required:
1. Turn on your camera and switch to MF.
2. Set your shutter speed to around 1/250-1/500s depending on how you like to shoot.
3. Turn the macro ring to the position shown below...it marks exactly 2m distance to subject (I've measured it myself)
4. Set the aperture between f/8 and f/16 based on how much depth of field you want.
That's it. Even if the camera goes to sleep or powers off, it will hold the 2-meter focus setting instead of resetting near infinity as it normally does. Just be sure not to turn the manual focus ring.
If you want a focus distance other than 2m, measure your subject at the distance you want (using the macro ring) and mentally note the corresponding macro ring position. Keep in mind that the focus macro ring has a very short focus throw, so even a tiny twist changes the focus distance significantly.
My setting is to get as much DOF possible and therefore I use the above settings with aperture f/13 and 1/500s SS which gives me "sharp" images from about 1m until infinity. This will introduce some diffraction, so in Lightroom push the “Detail” slider closer to 100 to recover as much sharpness as possible.
iPhone 12 miniiPhone 12 mini back dual wide camera 4.2mm f/1.6 lens4mmf/1.61/30s800 ISO0.0 EV
It's worth noting that you can use the macro ring as your manual focus ring for other situations, like shooting wide open, instead of using the camera's regular MF ring. The macro ring acts as a mechanical helicoid rather than the camera's focus-by-wire electronic system, and it works with magnification and focus peaking as well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's worth noting that you can use the macro ring as your manual focus ring for other situations, like shooting wide open, instead of using the camera's regular MF ring. The macro ring acts as a mechanical helicoid rather than the camera's focus-by-wire electronic system, and it works with magnification and focus peaking as well.
sadly not a helicoid, but a peg in slot mechanism for the macro ring. still much better for manual focus than the focus by wire implementation.
davidmathar wrote:
For the comparison with the Q3, when running towards the camera, the Leica mostly fails as well. Still it sometimes suprises me still, while the r1r iii let me down to my suprise even in slowly walking towards the camera scenarios.
I faced the same issue when I’ve tested the mark III. On the display the tracking seems to work perfect. But the pictures weren’t sharp. Need to admit that I tested it in close distance (3-5 meters). Even my X100VI delivered more in focus pictures.
Woody84 wrote:
I faced the same issue when I’ve tested the mark III. On the display the tracking seems to work perfect. But the pictures weren’t sharp. Need to admit that I tested it in close distance (3-5 meters). Even my X100VI delivered more in focus pictures.
Did you try to optimize the af settings in the menu?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Did you try to optimize the af settings in the menu?
Yes, I did. As I mentioned, AF tracking on the display looks very promising but the success rate was rather low (e.g. someone is walking slowly towards the camera). Again, my tests have been conducted at close distance. If your subject is further away I assume the success rate would be good. Long story short, TO ME it is not worth the money.
Exactly my experience. Did you use backbutton Focus?
Woody84 wrote:
Yes, I did. As I mentioned, AF tracking on the display looks very promising but the success rate was rather low (e.g. someone is walking slowly towards the camera). Again, my tests have been conducted at close distance. If your subject is further away I assume the success rate would be good. Long story short, TO ME it is not worth the money.
Woody84 wrote:
Yes, I did. As I mentioned, AF tracking on the display looks very promising but the success rate was rather low (e.g. someone is walking slowly towards the camera). Again, my tests have been conducted at close distance. If your subject is further away I assume the success rate would be good. Long story short, TO ME it is not worth the money.
It's really down to the motor. The RX1R III seems to have an excellent AF system with AI and PDAF tracking, but the lens is still running on motor tech from over a decade ago, so it's worth keeping our expectations in check.. That older design simply isn't as quick or responsive as what you'll find in newer lenses. Honestly, it's no surprise since Sony used the exact same lens that's on my 13-year-old RX1R.
When a subject moves toward the camera, the AF system knows exactly where focus should be, but the motor has to physically move the lens elements fast enough to keep up. In this case, the algorithms are capable, but the hardware is the limiting factor.
Sony really should have upgraded the focus motors. You're driving a Maserati but the parking brake is on My hit rate so far is definitely a step down from the A7c.2, but I've found it to be totally workable. Maybe I came at it with very realistic (read: low) expectations.
The new AF System in combination with the Zeiss lens was to me the Most Important factor. But if the motor is not fast enough, it is useless to me respectively not worth the money. So, I would prefer the mark II over the mark IIi considering the price.
quote]davidmathar wrote:
Exactly my experience. Did you use backbutton Focus?
Yes. If I remember correctly it was pre-configured. Not sure anymore if I used it without as I am used to BBF with my A9.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's really down to the motor. The RX1R III seems to have an excellent AF system with AI and PDAF tracking, but the lens is still running on motor tech from over a decade ago, so it's worth keeping our expectations in check.. That older design simply isn't as quick or responsive as what you'll find in newer lenses. Honestly, it's no surprise since Sony used the exact same lens that's on my 13-year-old RX1R.
When a subject moves toward the camera, the AF system knows exactly where focus should be, but the motor has to physically move the lens elements fast enough to keep up. In this case, the algorithms are capable, but the hardware is the limiting factor....Show more →
The new AF System in combination with the Zeiss lens was to me the Most Important factor. But if the motor is not fast enough, it is useless to me respectively not worth the money. So, I would prefer the mark II over the mark IIi considering the price.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's really down to the motor. The RX1R III seems to have an excellent AF system with AI and PDAF tracking, but the lens is still running on motor tech from over a decade ago, so it's worth keeping our expectations in check.. That older design simply isn't as quick or responsive as what you'll find in newer lenses. Honestly, it's no surprise since Sony used the exact same lens that's on my 13-year-old RX1R.
When a subject moves toward the camera, the AF system knows exactly where focus should be, but the motor has to physically move the lens elements fast enough to keep up. In this case, the algorithms are capable, but the hardware is the limiting factor....Show more →
I wonder if part of the issue could also be power conservation. Maybe Sony could add an AF boost mode in a future firmware update.
Also wonder how much not having IBIS affects AF performance. Seems logical that hit rates would be better without the image shaking around.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's really down to the motor. The RX1R III seems to have an excellent AF system with AI and PDAF tracking, but the lens is still running on motor tech from over a decade ago, so it's worth keeping our expectations in check.. That older design simply isn't as quick or responsive as what you'll find in newer lenses. Honestly, it's no surprise since Sony used the exact same lens that's on my 13-year-old RX1R.
When a subject moves toward the camera, the AF system knows exactly where focus should be, but the motor has to physically move the lens elements fast enough to keep up. In this case, the algorithms are capable, but the hardware is the limiting factor....Show more →
When I shot my running around kids only A7RV and 50 1.2GM were capable of 100% succes rate. 35GM hadn't has miss but I always saw 50GM's results sharper at fast movements, I suspect several mm better accuracy because of 4 linear motors. So the AI AF works perfectly, the limiting factor the AF motor how fast can move lens elements. This is not scientificic insight, just my opinion based on my experience.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I wonder if part of the issue could also be power conservation. Maybe Sony could add an AF boost mode in a future firmware update.
Also wonder how much not having IBIS affects AF performance. Seems logical that hit rates would be better without the image shaking around.
We have come to expect a lot more these days and have been spoiled by the incredible AF on the latest Sony cameras. The Sonnar 35/2 lens is an older design that works surprisingly well with the new algorithms, AI and processing power, but it still can't match the speed of modern lenses. In an interview about the lens design (Link on this thread) and how it interacts with the body, Sony explained that the motors in this lens need to move 10X more weight than a typical lens. So while the motor is strong, it is not as quick as the latest linear motor technology.
For Sony to bring this lens up to current standards, they would likely have to redesign it completely, which probably was not cost-effective for a niche camera like this. The autofocus is good enough for what the RX1R III is meant to be, but it is not the ideal tool for fast action, even though it remains very capable for general shooting. As soon as I saw that Sony reused the same lens, I expected there would be a compromise in speed, which translates to limits in focus tracking accuracy depending on the situation.
IBIS should not make a difference here as long as shutter speed is appropriate for action. I also doubt there is any possibility of an autofocus boost. The motors are already working as hard as they can, and I honestly wonder if they will last as long as in the earlier RX1 models, given that they are pushed to their limits.
My hit rate so far is definitely a step down from the A7c.2, but I've found it to be totally workable. Maybe I came at it with very realistic (read: low) expectations.