The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony RX1

V

Vivek

Guest
Actually, DPReview lists what lens and settings are used for each photograph. If you hover over the little star shaped button at the lower right of each photo, it will show the details. Most of the Nikon, Canon and Sony FF shots were made with an 85mm, other than the Rx1 of course. They were also generally done at f/11 which probably isn't ideal for comparing sharpness.
The last sentence is quite important. I think the folks there do it as a job and may find the job quite boring. :)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
with all respect to preview - the comparison images are a joke IMO.
Who is interested how plastic looks in artificial light at 1m?
What would 1 image say about a camera or lens?
The RX1 is not for me for certain reasons but I can see that for someone who is compfortable with 35mm for, wants to shoot a lot in low light or likes shallow DOF the RX1 is very appealing.
The idea is you put the same scene shot under the same condition which allows you to make a comparison. But you need to also be able to look at an image like that and see the information that can be extrapolated. I suspect many people don't do a good job of getting information from these images. A random image taken under random conditions of a random subject would say absolutely nothing, no matter how pretty or captivating it is.
 

philber

Member
I have now done some comparisons between to comparable systems: RX1 and NEX 7 + Leica Elmar 24mm f:3.8. For the comparison to be truly apples-to-apples is just impossible, nor for just one, but for a number of reasons, so that this comparison is more of a "what one system dones, with the other as a yardstick" than a true shoot-out IMHO.
 

jonoslack

Active member
The idea is you put the same scene shot under the same condition which allows you to make a comparison. But you need to also be able to look at an image like that and see the information that can be extrapolated. I suspect many people don't do a good job of getting information from these images. A random image taken under random conditions of a random subject would say absolutely nothing, no matter how pretty or captivating it is.
Of course - the problem with the dpreview setup is that it rather implies some kind of empirical truth, whereas, a short look at any comparison shows that a different area does better for each camera (as Tom has pointed out). Clearly the focus point is not as accurately selected as it should be, which, makes the comparison no more useful than a random image (and much less attractive!).
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Of course - the problem with the dpreview setup is that it rather implies some kind of empirical truth, whereas, a short look at any comparison shows that a different area does better for each camera (as Tom has pointed out). Clearly the focus point is not as accurately selected as it should be, which, makes the comparison no more useful than a random image (and much less attractive!).
That is kind of interesting because I never thought of it as empirical in any way. You really need to look around and sort of limit the type of information that is possible to extract. It really is a subjective test and one where you need to pay attention. I have noticed different focus points and optics. But even with the errors, it is a useful metric when searching for a camera. And lets face it, the similarities between these cameras are more obvious than their differences; we are really nit picking to some degree.

DxOmark has the opposite problem, where it is trying to present quantitative results, but those are much harder because spatial information has been removed from the equation and I don't think people find it easy separate the spacial component from photography--it is important after all.

But none of these test will tell you want is good, but rather points to limitations within a particular system. And they certainly don't point to winners and losers--the M9 does not do well at high ISO, but that does not mean you cannot get rich images out of the thing.

What I find funny is those that want really interesting test shots--those award winning type of images. Those really reflect the photographer more than the machine. I find the boring shot more illuminating as they are under more typical lighting and the type we have more experience with.

But no test is definitive. They simply suggest different qualities in a system. I am glad DPreview, Imaging Resource, and DxOmarks do what they do. It is really a good baseline to judge these cameras. Of course, the hard work comes by actually using the darn thing to take good pictures and no firmware updates is going to achieve that. At some point the customer has to step up to the plate...
 

jonoslack

Active member
That is kind of interesting because I never thought of it as empirical in any way. You really need to look around and sort of limit the type of information that is possible to extract. It really is a subjective test and one where you need to pay attention. I have noticed different focus points and optics. But even with the errors, it is a useful metric when searching for a camera. And lets face it, the similarities between these cameras are more obvious than their differences; we are really nit picking to some degree.

DxOmark has the opposite problem, where it is trying to present quantitative results, but those are much harder because spatial information has been removed from the equation and I don't think people find it easy separate the spacial component from photography--it is important after all.

But none of these test will tell you want is good, but rather points to limitations within a particular system. And they certainly don't point to winners and losers--the M9 does not do well at high ISO, but that does not mean you cannot get rich images out of the thing.

What I find funny is those that want really interesting test shots--those award winning type of images. Those really reflect the photographer more than the machine. I find the boring shot more illuminating as they are under more typical lighting and the type we have more experience with.

But no test is definitive. They simply suggest different qualities in a system. I am glad DPreview, Imaging Resource, and DxOmarks do what they do. It is really a good baseline to judge these cameras. Of course, the hard work comes by actually using the darn thing to take good pictures and no firmware updates is going to achieve that. At some point the customer has to step up to the plate...
Hi Shashin
Well - thank you for the well thought out response - I was being rather flippant, and I agree that the dpreview comparisons are much more useful than many reviewers who take interesting shots. (criticising them is quite good fun though :ROTFL:)

I quite agree that looking at a number of different comparisons, including dpreview and DxO is useful.

To be honest, the bottom line always seems to be that if it's a 'fair' comparison then you may as well toss a coin (eg one APSc sensor to another). If it's an 'unfair' comparison (e.g. Sony RX100 to RX1) then the distinctions are rather obvious.

Generally speaking the subjective suitability of the camera is usually much more important. . I like shooting rangefinders, I understand about the poor high ISO of the M9, but I can get around it with fast lenses and a steady hand.

The reason I'm not yet planning on an RX1 (even though I really like my obviously inferior RX100) is that I can't see it as the solution to any of my (limited) needs. For Instance I can't see when it'll be better for me than an M9 and a 35 FLE. . . but of course, I do HAVE an M9 and a 35 FLE!

all the best
 

fotografz

Well-known member
That is kind of interesting because I never thought of it as empirical in any way. You really need to look around and sort of limit the type of information that is possible to extract. It really is a subjective test and one where you need to pay attention. I have noticed different focus points and optics. But even with the errors, it is a useful metric when searching for a camera. And lets face it, the similarities between these cameras are more obvious than their differences; we are really nit picking to some degree.

DxOmark has the opposite problem, where it is trying to present quantitative results, but those are much harder because spatial information has been removed from the equation and I don't think people find it easy separate the spacial component from photography--it is important after all.

But none of these test will tell you want is good, but rather points to limitations within a particular system. And they certainly don't point to winners and losers--the M9 does not do well at high ISO, but that does not mean you cannot get rich images out of the thing.

What I find funny is those that want really interesting test shots--those award winning type of images. Those really reflect the photographer more than the machine. I find the boring shot more illuminating as they are under more typical lighting and the type we have more experience with.

But no test is definitive. They simply suggest different qualities in a system. I am glad DPreview, Imaging Resource, and DxOmarks do what they do. It is really a good baseline to judge these cameras. Of course, the hard work comes by actually using the darn thing to take good pictures and no firmware updates is going to achieve that. At some point the customer has to step up to the plate...
Personally, I have come to the opposite conclusion regarding what I want to see before I part with cash for a camera ... I DO want to see stuff from the tool done by photographers I personally respect ... not some technoid slaving away in a test lab.

As insipid as it may sound, I didn't become interested in a Leica rangefinder because some lab rat said it was good ... or put off one because their data charts said something was better. I got one because I was inspired by HCB and Chim, and that whole pack of rangefinder photographers.

I poured over the specs and data on the A99 until I could recite them in my sleep, and read with interest the tecno-junkies claims of the second coming ... and how so "yesterday" the A900 is ... yet, where's the beef? I've been sucked into this sort of grift too many times now ... I'll wait to see some great shots with one, then think about it. However, by then, the A99 will be so "yesterday" ... :ROTFL:

-Marc
 

Jay Emm

Member
Thanks philber for the reviews on your blog. Very interesting! Hope to pick my RX1 up at the end of this week.
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
I red your blog about the RX1 with interest, Philber, although I knew it would not be a camera for me for a number of reasons.
No interchangable lenses and size being the main ones.
You confirmed the point about the size. I think there is a certain limit to making cameras smaller and smaller (and lighter) unless you want to become a spy,
which seems to be a rather outdated profession these days.
I even made my NEX-7 bigger and heavyer with the Gariz case which makes it feel a whole lot better to my hands.

But it was an interesting read! It will make a difference to the size and weight of your wallet!

(BTW :OT: I wondered what you, being so focused on sheer image quality, think of the Sigma DP1m. Besides IQ I know its limitations of course, but it is a point and shoot!)

Best regards, Michiel
 

Mike Hatam

Senior Subscriber Member
Interesting thread - and I learned something from this thread about those DPReview camera comparison images - definitely take those with a huge grain of salt!

I guess I'm a little surprised by some of the heated negative comments directed at Sony and this camera. Personally, I applaud Sony for pushing the envelop, and being one of the most innovative companies in the industry at this time (along with Fuji and Sigma).

Yes, this first iteration (RX1) is not perfect, but it's a really a major technical breakthrough that should open the door for further R&D efforts down this path, leading to more complete and refined offerings in the future. It should also be a kick in the *** to Canon and Nikon, who have been far too stagnant with regard to R&D and innovation. Nikon has been reaping the rewards of Sony's CMOS innovations, and Canon has been milking their existing technology for a long time, without any sort of breakthrough in quite some time.

OK, off my soap-box - here's how I personally view this camera...

I have an a99 for my DSLR use, and I'm very happy with it. Best IQ I've ever had in a camera, and that includes my M9 (which I no longer own). The a99 / Z24-70 combo is really impressive for IQ and video. Sony's latest generation of AF logic works very well, and I'm now using the a99 / 70-400G combo for shooting soccer (something that my former a77 struggled to do).

But, I absolutely HATE traveling with a DSLR. There's nothing worse than lugging a huge camera bag all day when traveling, or schlepping it through airports.

I picked up the RX100 for travel, and I'm extremely happy with it. So happy in fact, that I've decided to sell off my NEX-7 system, as it hardly gets used any more. The RX100 with the magfilter CPL gives me a great tiny travel kit.

But there are times when I want to take a critical shot when traveling - something that I want to have very thin DOF, beautiful bokeh, or print really large. In those moments, I always wish I had my a99/Z24-70 with me.

This is where the RX1 will fit in for me. As a travel kit, I'll bring the RX1 & RX100. The RX1 for critical work or where 35mm focal length works. The RX100 for zoom and as back-up camera.

To me, the RX1 is well worth the price - I view it as a miniature a99/Z35 fixed combo that I can take anywhere and stick in my coat pocket. I wish there was a built in viewfinder, but even without one, it's still worth the price to me.

So my new kit will be the a99 (Z24-70, 70-400G, Z135-f1.8), RX1, and RX100. The a99 for all my local work / sports shooting, and the RX1/RX100 combo for travel or walk-abouts.

I really hope Sony gets plenty of kudos and sales for this RX1, and continues to invest in this R&D path, as I'm sure an RX2 or RX3 would check off several more important boxes (features) for the pro/enthusiast and also hopefully drive more innovation from the other sleeping giants as well.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Personally, I have come to the opposite conclusion regarding what I want to see before I part with cash for a camera ... I DO want to see stuff from the tool done by photographers I personally respect ... not some technoid slaving away in a test lab.

As insipid as it may sound, I didn't become interested in a Leica rangefinder because some lab rat said it was good ... or put off one because their data charts said something was better. I got one because I was inspired by HCB and Chim, and that whole pack of rangefinder photographers.

I poured over the specs and data on the A99 until I could recite them in my sleep, and read with interest the tecno-junkies claims of the second coming ... and how so "yesterday" the A900 is ... yet, where's the beef? I've been sucked into this sort of grift too many times now ... I'll wait to see some great shots with one, then think about it. However, by then, the A99 will be so "yesterday" ... :ROTFL:

-Marc
Those "technoids," as you call them, are actually the people who create these cameras. Photographers create images. I hate to say this, but while agree that the tool is important, you are not going to become HCB because you have a Leica rangefinder. Personally, any good photographer can make good images from any camera. I have never bought a camera because one of the photographers I respected used it, simply because the creative process is a personal journey that simply cannot done by copying others.

I know it is very fashionable to slam "faceless" corporations and those that work with the technology, but the truth of the matter is there are real, competent people there. You can find one of those faces in the current self-portrait thread in the Leica forum.
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
I really hope Sony gets plenty of kudos and sales for this RX1, and continues to invest in this R&D path, as I'm sure an RX2 or RX3 would check off several more important boxes (features) for the pro/enthusiast and also hopefully drive more innovation from the other sleeping giants as well.
Mike, While I am happy that this cam will fit the bill for one of your purposes, I do not share your wish about this half baked product. I made the mistake of buying (with exact same expectations) the NEX-5 that only sat round for a long period of time unused. The later iterations of the NEX, I did find useful and do use. I will not make the mistake I did with the 5 and will look out for the version that has more than what the Rx1 offers. FWIW, I have used tiny 35mm (film) cameras- all had a built in VF and a hotshoe and some were even RF coupled or had AF.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
FWIW, "HBC" in some technoid circles is an abbreviation for "Hexabenzocoronene", a Graphene unit which may replace silicon in displays and other applications quite soon (Samsung are really going full speed with it).

HCB, OTOH, refers to a French photographer who used Leica cameras. :)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
FWIW, "HBC" in some technoid circles is an abbreviation for "Hexabenzocoronene", a Graphene unit which may replace silicon in displays and other applications quite soon (Samsung are really going full speed with it).

HCB, OTOH, refers to a French photographer who used Leica cameras. :)
Thanks. I thought you were ignoring me?
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I am even surprised that there is so much discussion about the dpreview images.
I have no doubt at all that the IQ of the RX1 is top rate.
I understand that it also has 2 f-stops advantage over a Leica x2 regarding shallow DOF. (One caused by the larger sensor, one by the faster lens.

I think the question is more if the rx1 is small enough (for those who want a small camera) or big enough (for those who want to use it as main camera) and flexible enough for spending 3000 $.
Of course it depends on your needs.

The images at dpreview would be the least important factor if I had to make a decision about buying the RX1.
 
Any question I had about the RX1 image quality was resolvd as soon as I saw a large ~40"x60" print from one the camera at PhotoPlus. The printed image was the photo of the colorful string balls that Sony is using in the literature for the RX1. The image quality in the print was excellent.
 
Last edited:

peterv

New member
Yes Mark, I admired that print too, at Photokina. They had 3, 4 prints from the very first series, shot in Japan. All prints looked very good indeed.
Still, I think I'm not going to buy because
- high price, especially in Europe
- no articulating LCD
- no EVF
- 35 mm is not my favorite focal length

I do think the RX1 is a very interesting, highly desirable camera! Ahhh, money..! That's the biggest problem.
 

douglasf13

New member
I've been pretty happy with 35mm digital IQ since I bought the A900 four years ago. At this point, I have to wonder how relatively incremental IQ improvements are going to tangibly improve my photography...especially since I find myself adding grain to my photos quite often, and I rarely print over 13x19. :)

I'm sure the RX1's IQ will be fantastic, in the same ballpark as new Nikons and Canons, and won't hold anyone's photography back.

For me, choosing a camera over the last few years has been based primarily on handling, and, to a certain extent, size. The RX1 looks great in the size department, but I've come to realize that I'm a guy that prefers more traditional cameras in terms of usability, and leaving off the tilt LCD and EVF of the NEX6/7 in the RX1 would be a further step backwards for me from NEX cameras, so I'm not interested. Unfortunately for me, the step forward in usability has been the M9, which was a more costly endeavor.

p.s. the above is why I'm not currently interested in upgrading my M9 to the M 240, either.
 
Last edited:
Top