Fun with the RX-1

[ashwinrao1]

Today, I was present for the unboxing of the first RX-1 available in Seattle, to my knowledge...

Photos taken of this RX-1 and the "unboxing"...next up, let's see some photos from the RX1!











While the camera is not mine, I was able to handle and take a few photos. Initial impression:
1. More responsive than I thought
2. Quiet Shutter
3. For me, I'd require some ergonomic adjustments (thumbs up), etc to make it more handle-able...hopefully Tim Isaac is working on something, and/or Sony enables a version with a hot shoe
4. It's quite small. Substantially smaller than the M9 with a 35 mm f/2 mounted...a really impressive feat...
5. Built well, though the finish is a tad slippery where there is no grip...would have preferred the "pebble finish", but this version looks slick
6. Lack of an articulated rear LCD screen is a bummer. The EVF seems that it would be a must for me, but then consequently increases the size and diminishes the ergonomics. It's a trade off for sure

Kudos to Sony for bringing this to the market. I have my hands full with other gear, but for those willing and able, it'll be a fantastic addition to their kits, from what I can tell...so for all of you lucky enough to own one, let the photo posts begin!

[Shashin]

Hopefully B&H is shipping mine tomorrow. Battery is charging as I type.

[m_driscoll]

Ash: Nicely photographed!

Shashin: You'll love it!

JPEGS out of the camera. I didn't get out after I picked it up. I like it!

















Cheers, Matt

[Shashin]

Well, someone looks "impressed"(?)! LOL

Originally Posted by m_driscoll

Shashin: You'll love it!


Cheers, Matt

[m_driscoll]

Two more...as I sit here. OOC Jpegs.





Cheers, Matt

[Vivek]

Walker certainly has aquired some color, Matt.

Reminds me of my problems with the Zony 24/1.8 on the NEX-7.

[m_driscoll]

Originally Posted by Vivek

Walker certainly has aquired some color, Matt.

Reminds me of my problems with the Zony 24/1.8 on the NEX-7.

Vivek: My copy has a buff cover exactly the color of the photo? Is yours white?

Cheers, Matt

[Vivek]

It is the same, Matt but without the red/magenta W and the greenish r.

[Taylor Sherman]

He might be referring to the bokeh fringing? But it's almost un-noticeable in the full frame picture, it just shows up in the 100% crop. I don't see any CA issues in the other pics either.

The close-up of the book looks like something taken with a 100 makro-planar. Impressive.

[m_driscoll]

Originally Posted by Vivek

It is the same, Matt but without the red/magenta W and the greenish r.

Vivek: I see what you mean, now. I'm going to try the Sony RAW conversion software tomorrow. Still 'dinking' around.

Cheers, Matt

[ashwinrao1]

Definitely curious if the RAW images preserve detail. Looks like some JPEG smoothing going on...

Shashin, I'm always "impressed" LOL....Gosh I have a round face

[m_driscoll]

Originally Posted by ashwinrao1

Definitely curious if the RAW images preserve detail. Looks like some JPEG smoothing going on...

Shashin, I'm always "impressed" LOL....Gosh I have a round face

Ash: Since, I always shoot RAW, I'm going to have to tweak the JPEG settings.

Cheers, Matt

[rayyan]

Congratulations Matt

Best.

[m_driscoll]

Rayyan: Thank you, sir!

Here's a couple more of one of our kittens. BTW: the Sony Raw Image Converter isn't good for me. I'll wait for ACR. JPEGS OOC w/LR4.

RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/80s @ f/2; ISO 2500


RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/80s @ f/2; ISO 2500


RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/80s @ f/2; ISO 5000


Cheers, Matt

[Shashin]

Can wait to take a picture of my dog!

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by Taylor Sherman

He might be referring to the bokeh fringing? But it's almost un-noticeable in the full frame picture, it just shows up in the 100% crop. I don't see any CA issues in the other pics either.

The close-up of the book looks like something taken with a 100 makro-planar. Impressive.

Absolutely not CA. It is just color mixing in the out of focus image which is completely normal and nothing to do a specific lens.

[Taylor Sherman]

Originally Posted by Shashin

Absolutely not CA. It is just color mixing in the out of focus image which is completely normal and nothing to do a specific lens.

What? It's longitudinal chromatic aberration. If the colors all focused the same, the demosaicing wouldn't produce those results.

Meanwhile, more examples on Huff's site, this one shows some more CA under admittedly tough conditions

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-con...012/12/web.jpg

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by Taylor Sherman

What? It's longitudinal chromatic aberration. If the colors all focused the same, the demosaicing wouldn't produce those results.

Meanwhile, more examples on Huff's site, this one shows some more CA under admittedly tough conditions

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-con...012/12/web.jpg

That is correct!

If a high contrast street sign is shot, for example, this will show prominently.

It has to do with the IF construction of the lens and is fully anticipated. One has to live with it. Not a big disaster though.

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by Taylor Sherman

What? It's longitudinal chromatic aberration. If the colors all focused the same, the demosaicing wouldn't produce those results.

Meanwhile, more examples on Huff's site, this one shows some more CA under admittedly tough conditions

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-con...012/12/web.jpg

Then why a red and green shift? Not typical CA behavior, especially on such low contrast targets. Given the fact this is not a text book setup for copy work and placed in complex environment, to jump to longitudinal CA as a cause (and an unusual one where it is increasing with a loss of focus) is a bit of a jump, especially when it simply can be the influence of the surroundings.

Steve's images are showing lateral CA (but not longitudinal CA). And, as you pointed out, under very high-contrast conditions.

Sorry, but there has been no real evidence that this lens has such a serious CA problem.

[Taylor Sherman]

Originally Posted by Shashin

Then why a red and green shift? Not typical CA behavior, especially on such low contrast targets. Given the fact this is not a text book setup for copy work and placed in complex environment, to jump to longitudinal CA as a cause (and an unusual one where it is increasing with a loss of focus) is a bit of a jump, especially when it simply can be the influence of the surroundings.

Steve's images are showing lateral CA (but not longitudinal CA). And, as you pointed out, under very high-contrast conditions.

Sorry, but there has been no real evidence that this lens has such a serious CA problem.

Chromatic aberrations

Meanwhile - more pictures please! ;-)

[ptomsu]

Originally Posted by Taylor Sherman

What? It's longitudinal chromatic aberration. If the colors all focused the same, the demosaicing wouldn't produce those results.

Meanwhile, more examples on Huff's site, this one shows some more CA under admittedly tough conditions

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-con...012/12/web.jpg

Fully agree this is CA, although it is far less than lenses like the Nikkor or Sony/Zeiss 1.4/85 or the 1.4/35 Zeiss etc.

Easy to correct BTW, but a bit strange as normally one would not expect that from a 2/35 - at least my 2/35 M ASPH does not show this.

Maybe this lens is not as great as most expect?

[bradhusick]

Originally Posted by ashwinrao1

LOL....Gosh I have a round face

Ashwin, that's a 35 for ya. Not a flattering close portrait focal length. That's why I have commented that I'd wait for a 50 on the Sony.

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by Taylor Sherman

Chromatic aberrations

Meanwhile - more pictures please! ;-)

Taylor, I am glad you looked up the definition of CA. Now hopefully you can learn to recognize it. Steve's example shows Lateral or Transverse CA, not longitudinal as you claim (and your link shows the difference). And Matt's images shows nothing.

But I agree, more images.

[jonoslack]

Congratulations Matt - it's certainly looking interesting.
all the best

[Taylor Sherman]

Sigh. So, if the lens is focusing the colors perfectly, how could the color-mixing processing be consistently shifting the color one way for parts in front of the focus plane, and differently for parts behind it? It can't. It doesn't have that information and therefore there's no way for that to be possible.

I'm happy to be wrong about things. Because when I'm wrong, I've just learned something. But what have I learned so far? that you disagree with me, that the picture shows "nothing" despite having purple and green artifacts, that purple and green artifacts aren't "typical" of CA yet when I link a page that describes LoCA by demonstrating purple and green artifacts due to front- and back-focus you dismiss this without any reasoning as to why this is "the definition" yet I don't "recognize" it.

Are you trying to be helpful? because it's not coming through.

I didn't mean to say that Steve's picture showed LoCA, just CA in general.

[ptomsu]

Originally Posted by Shashin

Taylor, I am glad you looked up the definition of CA. Now hopefully you can learn to recognize it. Steve's example shows Lateral or Transverse CA, not longitudinal as you claim (and your link shows the difference). And Matt's images shows nothing.

But I agree, more images.

I could not care less if either LCA or TCA is creating wrong colors, I would expect a specialized high grade lens which is optimized for a sensor and comes from Zeiss would do better. Or at least would be corrected in camera.

So something is wrong ....

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Shashin

Then why a red and green shift? Not typical CA behavior, especially on such low contrast targets. Given the fact this is not a text book setup for copy work and placed in complex environment, to jump to longitudinal CA as a cause (and an unusual one where it is increasing with a loss of focus) is a bit of a jump, especially when it simply can be the influence of the surroundings.

Steve's images are showing lateral CA (but not longitudinal CA). And, as you pointed out, under very high-contrast conditions.

Sorry, but there has been no real evidence that this lens has such a serious CA problem.

Longitudinal CA is CA on different focus planes behind and in front of the focus point, and it is usually red and green. Steve Huff's example shows this, as the red CA on the left side of the pic is in front of the focus plane, and the green CA on the right side of the pic is behind the focus plane.

Longitudinal CA is pretty common in most fast-ish lenses to some degree, and most Sony fast lenses that I've owned exhibit it at least a little. The ZA 85/1.4 has the most longitudinal CA that I've ever seen in a lens, although LR4 makes this pretty easy to correct, for the most part.

That certainly looks like longitudinal CA on the title of the book pictured above.

[ausemmao]

Originally Posted by ptomsu

Fully agree this is CA, although it is far less than lenses like the Nikkor or Sony/Zeiss 1.4/85 or the 1.4/35 Zeiss etc.

Easy to correct BTW, but a bit strange as normally one would not expect that from a 2/35 - at least my 2/35 M ASPH does not show this.

Maybe this lens is not as great as most expect?

Dunno how well I'm remembering my physics and optics. But for there to be no LoCA in a fast lens, you'd either need lens material with a wavelength invariant refractive index (doesn't exist) or made almost entirely from ultra low dispersion (so reduced wavelength invariance) elements (hello $$$$$ and size), or lose the internal focusing capability so that an apochromatic design can be used and IIRC, that's goodbye f/2.

Then again you're determined to dislike this camera, so :shrug:

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by ausemmao

Dunno how well I'm remembering my physics and optics. But for there to be no LoCA in a fast lens, you'd either need lens material with a wavelength invariant refractive index (doesn't exist) or made almost entirely from ultra low dispersion (so reduced wavelength invariance) elements (hello $$$$$ and size), or lose the internal focusing capability so that an apochromatic design can be used and IIRC, that's goodbye f/2.

Then again you're determined to dislike this camera, so :shrug:

Yep, and even APO designs don't necessarily correct all CA outside of the focus plane.

Either way, like you said, most fast-ish lenses have LOCA. It's the amount of LOCA that varies, and I can't tell if the LOCA in the above pic is above normal.

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Longitudinal CA is CA on different focus planes behind and in front of the focus point, and it is usually red and green. Steve Huff's example shows this, as the red CA on the left side of the pic is in front of the focus plane, and the green CA on the right side of the pic is behind the focus plane.

Longitudinal CA is pretty common in most fast-ish lenses to some degree, and most Sony fast lenses that I've owned exhibit it at least a little. The ZA 85/1.4 has the most longitudinal CA that I've ever seen in a lens, although LR4 makes this pretty easy to correct, for the most part.

That certainly looks like longitudinal CA on the title of the book pictured above.

First, Steve's example show lateral or transverse CA, not longitudinal CA--you are seeing the effect off axis. And longitudinal CA is blue to red--blue being the shortest wavelength to red, the longest. But I doubt Sony is using a simple lens. With a achromat, that has two wavelength corrected (blue/red), and so the classic signal is green fringing, but not red. An apochromat would correct for three wavelength and you would think that red and green would be in there somewhere. Sorry, there is nothing here in this single image to point to that conclusion that it is CA. It could simply be the influence of the environment.

BTW, software corrects for lateral CA not longitudinal CA. But the book image is not showing longitudinal CA because it simply does not look like it. The other problem is that CA tends to be optics specific and this is not a problem showing up in other images. And this is really low contrast.

[douglasf13]

Nope. Longitudinal CA, which some call fringing or bokeh fringing, is magenta in front of the focus point and green behind it, and the image of the book above shows this. Scroll to the bottom of this link to see Photozone's test for it: Sony E 50mm f/1.8 OSS (SEL-50F18) - Review / Lens Test - Analysis

Lateral CA has easily fixable for a while, but longitudinal CA has become somewhat fixable only more recently with LR4's new defringe tool.

[jonoslack]

Ah Well
Interesting discussion . . I've seen it before (lots of times) the Walker Evans book at an angle is an obvious culprit (like Photozone's excellent tests).
I don't believe it's usually much of a problem in real life (unless you're taking pictures of text at 45 degrees).

. ... me ? I'd rather shoot with an M and a 35 FLE, but there's no accounting for taste! Added to which it really is a lot more expensive in the UK

[Shashin]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Nope. Longitudinal CA, which some call fringing or bokeh fringing, is magenta in front of the focus point and green behind it, and the image of the book above shows this. Scroll to the bottom of this link to see Photozone's test for it: Sony E 50mm f/1.8 OSS (SEL-50F18) - Review / Lens Test - Analysis

Lateral CA has easily fixable for a while, but longitudinal CA has become somewhat fixable only more recently with LR4's new defringe tool.

Thank you for that. It has been my first time with the effect.

[douglasf13]

No problemo, Shashin. I can't say that seeing one example of it in the RX1 indicates whether the camera has a problem with it or not. It's pretty common, and I've never found it all that objectionable in use...except with that ZA 85 that I mentioned.

I just went back and looked at more pics up close with the ZA 85 on my A900, and it has LOCA at wide apertures like I've never seen before. My Sony 50/1.4 had it noticeably, too, but not like the ZA 85, where the LOCA bothered me quite often. Pics of my wife often look like she is surrounded in green/magenta, angelic halos with that lens. LR4's new corrections still don't fix it all that well. Really great lens, otherwise.

Can't wait to see more RX1 pics. Looks like a cool camera.

[Show Performance]

Can someone please refund the last 10 minutes of my life spent reading that CA discussion

What is the consensus on JPEG detail/sharpness? Is it me or does it look less than impressive*

*comparing to X-PRO1 here.

Chad

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Show Performance

Can someone please refund the last 10 minutes of my life spent reading that CA discussion

What is the consensus on JPEG detail/sharpness? Is it me or does it look less than impressive*

*comparing to X-PRO1 here.

Chad

I'm not sure if there's a consensus, but, if the jpeg engine is anything like prior Sony cameras, detail and sharpness often lags compared to the competitions, but color is usually very good.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by Shashin

Thank you for that. It has been my first time with the effect.

If you look at photozone lens reviews, there is hardly a lens which does not exhibit it - and often much worse than this.

I'd say that it's a serious non-issue!

all the best

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Originally Posted by Show Performance

Can someone please refund the last 10 minutes of my life spent reading that CA discussion

What is the consensus on JPEG detail/sharpness? Is it me or does it look less than impressive*

*comparing to X-PRO1 here.

Chad

Isn't it a bit early for consensus?
Tjeezz the camera hardly came out of the box.

I see a real sharp nice cat's head popping out, in the second photo, with a pleasant background Zeiss blur.

Let's give the camera a chance
Time for a RAW file to study first, I think

Michiel

[Show Performance]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I'm not sure if there's a consensus, but, if the jpeg engine is anything like prior Sony cameras, detail and sharpness often lags compared to the competitions, but color is usually very good.

That's been my experience as well. And as a NEX, Alpha and X-Pro shooter, I'm not trying to disparage the RX-1 or the Sony brand. This is an exciting camera and Sony should be rewarded for their bold move here.

I had one on pre-order and got the call that it was waiting for me at Precision but after falling hard for the X-Pro I can't justify the purchase.

Chad

[Show Performance]

Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek

Isn't it a bit early for consensus?
Tjeezz the camera hardly came out of the box.


Michiel

Baring a FW update, I wasn't aware that JPEGs got better with age Michiel

Don't bother with a defensive reply, I'm jesting and of course we need to see more but the early indications here are not overly impressive to me personally (and I'm only talking about jpeg detail and sharpness - the lens renders nicely).

Best,
Chad

[pophoto]

Honestly it's not even that obvious in normal view, sure I see it in the crop, but lets not blow this out of proportion

I really like most of what I am seeing, I just hope to see most posts soon rather than idle discussion that involves little creativity, keep 'em coming, good job guys!

[barjohn]

By the way the latest version of Capture One supports the RX1 RAW files. I have also played with the RAW files and using EXIFTOOL fooled LR into thinking they are A99 files and that works too but a bit more work. My observations so far is that there is significant more detail in the RAW files and fewer strange artifacts that I see in the JPGs as ISO goes up. I was doing comparisons between DP1M and RX1 and with RAW for both, they are close.

The last image is a comparison between the RX1 at ISO 6400 RAW vs JPG.

[retow]

Originally Posted by m_driscoll

Rayyan: Thank you, sir!

Here's a couple more of one of our kittens. BTW: the Sony Raw Image Converter isn't good for me. I'll wait for ACR. JPEGS OOC w/LR4.

RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/80s @ f/2; ISO 2500


RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/80s @ f/2; ISO 2500


RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/80s @ f/2; ISO 5000


Cheers, Matt

Looking good and do I see some Leica 3D rendering ?

[m_driscoll]

I feel like a real slacker, but, my wife won't let me quit my day job.

Great posts. Here's a few more. Again OOC jpegs tweaked in LR4.

RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/200s @ f/2; ISO 100


RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/500s @ f/2; ISO 100


RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/400s @ f8; ISO 100


RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/80s @ f8; ISO 800


RX1; 35mm f/2; 1/80s @ f2; ISO 800


Cheers, Matt

[6x6]

Ever since I went digital, years ago, I have been waiting for a camera that was close to my Contax G2. I had such an attachment to that camera, it went with me everywhere. I think I may have found it in the RX1.

My Use Case for this camera.

Much of my personal work is made using an Alpa TC / P40+ and this camera will be a great compliment to it. There are many situations where I see something which is a real challenge for the Alpa (e.g. closer than 3m). I have always held back from buying into a 35mm system, but this setup is small enough, discrete and with great IQ. But most importantly it looks solid. After years of abuse, my G2 held up really well. This looks like it will too, EVF aside.

[6x6]

Viewfinder
Sony also missed a trick here, that they could still recover! The contax had a viewfinder that was positioned on the back of the camera. It protruded just slightly off the top left. This gave a great position for the eye, so your face was not pressed into the back of the camera and your left eye was free to roam.

There is space for an after market EVF that attaches to the RX1 hot shoe. But instead of rising up like a plastic monster, went down and across to the left. I don't need it to cantilever. Just be solid, fixed and not get destroyed with going in and out of a bag 1000 times. Only problem is the flash button, but I would never use this. This would give a much better perspective to the photog.

See this old for sale post for an example:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/gear-f...lanar-tla.html

Lens / Sensor Matching
Lastly to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I am pretty sold on the idea that the lens and sensor must work in harmony for ultimate IQ. I won't be at all surprised if the RX1 gives better IQ than the A99 in certain situations. After shimming my back to match the lens on my Alpa I am sold on the idea that this is how to extract the last bit of IQ out of your setup. So I think Sony has done something right here by having a fixed lens /sensor combination. I would be OK paying $2,700 for a couple of RX1's. People regularly pay that for one Leica lens. I pay that for one Phase One LS lens. The advantage is that if one RX1 broke down, I could still carry on. I would be ok owning a RX1/35mm and a RX1/50mm for example. As long as the rationale was because the lens matched the sensor perfectly.

Having said that please don't read this Phase One. I can't afford to buy a new P40+ everytime I buy a new lens. There is a price point where this is ok!

[douglasf13]

6x6, the Nex-6 and Nex-7 have an EVF positioned exactly as you described. By trying to make the RX-1 as small as possible, I think Sony missed the boat in not including a similar, built-in EVF (they should have also included the tilt-up LCD, IMO.)

[pophoto]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

6x6, the Nex-6 and Nex-7 have an EVF positioned exactly as you described. By trying to make the RX-1 as small as possible, I think Sony missed the boat in not including a similar, built-in EVF (they should have also included the tilt-up LCD, IMO.)

They could have and should have included both, I mentioned this on another thread, where size would have remained small like the NEX.

Anyways, it didn't happen and I await a future release, but in the meantime, GREAT stuff Matt, and keep them coming.

[Vivek]

Originally Posted by pophoto

.., GREAT stuff Matt, and keep them coming.

With an apology for an earlier transgression (on CA, though on topic, I think?), may I suggest that all the future possibilities be relegated to the other thread on RX-1 (where most have been already).

[ken_vs_ryu]

Originally Posted by pophoto

They could have and should have included both, I mentioned this on another thread, where size would have remained small like the NEX.

Anyways, it didn't happen and I await a future release, but in the meantime, GREAT stuff Matt, and keep them coming.

people are already griping about the price - adding those features would most likely push the price close to $3500.

local shop had a few that flew off the shelves - none for me to play with.