Sony Rx1R, RX100 Mark ii, and Nex 9

[mazor]

ptomsu, I think fultonpics is not complaining, rather stating facts that the resolution of the Rx1 is that good already with AA, why would you want to extract that tiny fraction more detail but having to sacrifice quality in certain situations where moire effects may be prevalent.

I like the idea of how the fuji tries to do away with an AA filter by rearranging their sensor array, plus clever processing to reduce moire effects

 

[fultonpics]

thks mazor, said it better than me!

i love the images i get from the RX1 and have used them commercially without a hitch. they are plenty sharp for magazines--but my lowly 16M Nikon D4 has produced images that print real good too. my only comment was that, while nice that we now have a choice, I want to see the pixel peepers go to town with the RX1r to find out what the real difference is. I betting not much in practical terms and there is a risk of requiring a bit more post process. But I can be totally wrong on this. Anyway, Sony was smart to offer this option and I wonder if it might kill sales of the non-r model. To the consumer, sharper (or more correctly, more contrast) is probably better.

I hope Sony continues to evolve this line. I was talking to someone from Sony and they seem to think that the product road map is killer. We all win!! (except our bank accounts)

 

[Show Performance]

DPR has their comparisons up. Doesn't look like a big difference to me but it is discernible.

Mo' Rez Mo' Moire

Agree that this is smart marketing and will drive sales of the flagship. I'm just so damn pleased with the regular ole' RX1 but more power to those that want and can afford the R.

 

[John Kraus]

To me the RX1R is completely about Sony trying to get more return on their investment with minimal cost. I love the RX1 as is though do wish for a few improvements, such as focus peaking at normal viewing, an EVF that locks on, and so on.
But in terms of sharpness the RX1 is perfect as is, and the difference in sharpness with the RX1R can be achieved by slightly more sharpening in post. It's a marketing gimmick for the most part to bring in some coin and keep the brand in the news.

 

[ecsh]

At least Sony did not gouge people for taking out the filter, like Nikon did with the D800E.

 

[philip_pj]

'I hope Sony continues to evolve this line. I was talking to someone from Sony and they seem to think that the product road map is killer.'

I have every confidence they will do so, nothing succeeds like success. Now ask yourself this: if Sony/Zeiss make another useful FL lens on an RX style camera (like 25mm or 50mm or 85mm), that was as good compared with the competition, would you be interested? If not why not?

My point is that if a small, useful camera can go better than established DSLR plus your general heavyweight lens, who would not be interested, if in the market? Lens speed matters less too with quality lenses - not too many moan about the lack of f1.4 speed with the RX1.

 

[xdayv]

At least Sony did not gouge people for taking out the filter, like Nikon did with the D800E.

+1.

 

[Vivek]

FF NEX will be here soon. My funds are going to be for that system.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

FF NEX will be here soon. My funds are going to be for that system.

So are mine :chug:

 

[Uaiomex]

So are mine :chug:

As much as I like my Nex 6, it is no FF quality. I'd love a FF Nex but I'm affraid the lenses would be big enough to dismiss it and just go back to my amazing 6D.
For those expecting a FF Nex in lieu of a Leica it would make a lot of sense though.

Color boy in Malecón, Havana, Cuba. Actual pixels crop from the Nex 6 with 16-50 kit lens. Auto-everything.

Eduardo

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

As much as I like my Nex 6, it is no FF quality. I'd love a FF Nex but I'm affraid the lenses would be big enough to dismiss it and just go back to my amazing 6D.
For those expecting a FF Nex in lieu of a Leica it would make a lot of sense though.

Color boy in Malecón, Havana, Cuba. Actual pixels crop from the Nex 6 with 16-50 kit lens. Auto-everything.

Eduardo

There are so many alt lenses to put on a FF NEX that it is a no brainer for me.
I need a great body
Most of these lenses are not to big for me, they become big once they have to put in AF and IS in those new lenses. Although I hope the rumor is true that it will have on sensor stabiliation.
Actually it is not a deal breaker for me if it does not have IS.


BTW nice portrait!

Michiel

 

[Vivek]

As much as I like my Nex 6, it is no FF quality. I'd love a FF Nex but I'm affraid the lenses would be big enough to dismiss it and just go back to my amazing 6D.
For those expecting a FF Nex in lieu of a Leica it would make a lot of sense though.

Color boy in Malecón, Havana, Cuba. Actual pixels crop from the Nex 6 with 16-50 kit lens. Auto-everything.

Eduardo

Not in place of a Leica (for my use) but as a sophisticated and versatile, compact modern FF camera.

I just hope that itwill have decent and low noise shutter.

 

[kit laughlin]

Vivek wrote:

a sophisticated and versatile, compact modern FF camera

Exactly. All my preset MF lenses will fit, assuming same mount and, if not, inexpensive adapters will do.

 

[Woody Campbell]

I've had an RX 100 II for three or four days now. The new sensor is very good as is the CZ lens. Surprisingly so for such a small package. My impression so far is that the back lit sensor produces a decent ISO 6400; the lens is surprisingly competent and the speed and accuracy of autofocus are impressive. I'll post images as I have a chance to upload them. Using it with a Voigtlander 28mm finder. A nice supplement to my Leica kit.

 

[timparkin]

I'm not really sure of the appeal of the RX1R, since the RX1 already shows moire relatively easily. AA-less cameras are starting to become a bit of a fad, because some see artifacts and false detail as "sharper." A proper sharpening routine should counter the effects of an AA filter.

As you say "fad" is perhaps the wrong word. The thing is it does take a reasonable amount of knowledge of sharpening to get the best out of a raw file taken with an AA filter. I spent a while writing an article that showed the differences were minimal as you can't add any sharpening to files that don't have an AA filter whereas you can to those with an AA filter (presuming the goal is to have no 'artefacts').

So people who don't know how to or don't want to sharpen files appropriately will get a better out of camera sharpness without an AA filter at the expense of the extra 'marketing fee' and possible moire and artificial colours.

The interesting thing is that if you know how to sharpen properly you can't also take pictures at f/11 and make them look as sharp as f/5.6 (well - actually sharper as the lenses tend to perform better in the corners at f/11).

Personally I'd still prefer to see a medium strength AA filters as I don't like phantom colour artefacts and hate moire (and moire reduction tools kill colour detail).

Tim