That's interesting - I was under the impression that the RX1r did not have image stabilization. I'll have to look into that.The stabilization on the RX1r works really well for video, hoping the OSS in the 24-70 would do the same.
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!
That's interesting - I was under the impression that the RX1r did not have image stabilization. I'll have to look into that.The stabilization on the RX1r works really well for video, hoping the OSS in the 24-70 would do the same.
The RX1/r have electronic stabilisation for video. The focal length is cropped to around 44mm, with IS active.That's interesting - I was under the impression that the RX1r did not have image stabilization. I'll have to look into that.
Are you saying I'm not stable. LolAn added benefit of stabilisation is that it makes magnified manual focus a lot easier at everything over 35mm focal length...
what he saidThe RX1/r have electronic stabilisation for video. The focal length is cropped to around 44mm, with IS active.
That's an interesting twist, but it is in particular OSS for my single native FE lens that I was looking for.I’m thinking that someone in Zeiss’ design office is reading this thread, and saying: “If Sony hadn’t told us to put OSS into this darned lens, we’d have knocked the socks off those GetDPI pixel peepers!” I can’t find the place now, but I’ve read that Zeiss is not enthusiastic about the IQ compromises that are required to stabilise a lens. They’ve not done it often. Nettar
Hi TimMark, for my way of shooting, a mid-range zoom is absolutely essential. I have learned from long experience of my own laziness that when casually travelling or taking a hike, a zoom is all I will carry even if I have packed a load more. Of course if I am actually out to take specific images then I will take good primes, but for when I am ostensibly doing something else but want the ability to get good quality shots if something interesting crops up, the zoom is non-negotiable. So much so in fact that if this lens was notably less able than the Nikon 24-70 I would have got rid of the entire Sony kit and used the Oly for this purpose and the D800E for 'real' work. But as it is, I can increasingly imagine a world with far fewer cameras and lenses than I currently have!
Hi NettarI’m thinking that someone in Zeiss’ design office is reading this thread, and saying: “If Sony hadn’t told us to put OSS into this darned lens, we’d have knocked the socks off those GetDPI pixel peepers!” I can’t find the place now, but I’ve read that Zeiss is not enthusiastic about the IQ compromises that are required to stabilise a lens. They’ve not done it often. Nettar
I'm not so sure: all the frames need corrections but this is the only one that does this!Tim: about the 33mm thing. I read in the rolling review link, as speculation naturally, that this lens was designed with electronic corrections in mind. The 33mm frame after the slight crop that happens in correction results in a 35mm corrected frame. This could explain what you're seeing.
//Juha