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!

Rx1r2

V

Vivek

Guest
Anybody have a recommendation for a lens hood?

Thanks,

Paul
A 49 to 37mm step down filter adapter works and is the lowest profile "hood". This, along with a plastic replacement hood for the E 18-55 kitzoom (~$2 shipped, works fine) are the cheapest.

The hood from Zony E 24/1.8 fits perfectly and is the largest hood (but works nicely).

There are a few others (Sony and aftermarket) for more cash.
 

eleanorbrown

New member
These shots started out as kina a joke of sorts to myself on my walk yesterday with my sony RX1r2. After all my obsessive testing for wide open sharpness and micro contrast I decided to go 180 degrees the opposite direction and have fun. Camera stopped down to smaller apertures with camera panning... Like it or not here's what I came up with. iso 100, C1 and Photoshop processing uncompressed RAW. eleanor

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]
 

Zony user

New member
Driving to La but go back and read about the sensor difference earlier in the thread. The extra DR and smaller pixel pitch on this 42 sensor creates a very flat tonal range and my belief it actually lowers the micro detail and we have to bring it back up. I think her lens is acting as it should given this bigger sensor. I noticed this day one when I got the A7rII as my files looked so smooth which I love but it lost a little bite until you knock sharpness up a touch
I just went back and read. I still don't understand the logic behind a sensor losing detail only when the aperture is wide open. There have been reports that the RX2 files are sharper than the RX1 files at F8. Why wouldn't the flat tonal range affect the files the same?
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
I just went back and read. I still don't understand the logic behind a sensor losing detail only when the aperture is wide open. There have been reports that the RX2 files are sharper than the RX1 files at F8. Why wouldn't the flat tonal range affect the files the same?
The RX1R2 sensor isn't loosing details. The final picture can appear "soft". Soft isn't the correct word let's call it "smooth". This "smoothness" is due to the 42MP and the BSI structure "washing" contrasts away. The Sonar design is also maxed out with this technology. Only the Distagon design can milk the best out of this new sensor (especially at large apertures).

We just speak about the "perceived sharpness" or "acutance".

So yes, for some photographers, the files will need a bit more work to "pop" like a 24MP sensor but do not worry, the details are here.
 
That's what I was trying to say, and I'm not sure that sharpening is the best way to get at it. There are other tools for increasing local contrast that are less likely to produce artifacts in larger prints.

Kirk
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
That's what I was trying to say, and I'm not sure that sharpening is the best way to get at it. There are other tools for increasing local contrast that are less likely to produce artifacts in larger prints.

Kirk
IMHO there is nothing to do more than down-sampling to 1024px large side using soft bi-cubic. We are on internet here and I do not see where is the interest to loose precious time to please eyes "that much" on a forum. So at the end no need of any sharpening.
Photographers over here should print more :) at least over A2... they will see that those files do not need that much work. There is a bit of a difference between screen vision and paper vision...
 

dandrewk

New member
That's what I was trying to say, and I'm not sure that sharpening is the best way to get at it. There are other tools for increasing local contrast that are less likely to produce artifacts in larger prints.

Kirk
There are a couple of ways that can improve (RELATIVE TERM) things if you want to "sharpen" the image without using the typical "unsharp mask" type filter.

1. I've posted many times that OnOne's "dynamic contrast" is the best clarity/micro contrast filter available. It gives you total control over what details you want to adjust (small, medium, large) and various other adjustments. It's a lot more powerful and less obtrusive than Adobe's clarity slider, which only gives you overall strength. Dynamic contrast is reason enough to buy the package.

2. I've tried just about every raw convertor, and nothing compares to DxO's OP 10 for profiling. Unlike Adobe and Phase One, they have separate profiles for every individual lens for a given camera. The results show improved edge distortion and vignetting on WA lenses, and much more finite center sharpening. The images come out looking more natural and more sharp, without a trace of sharpness artifacts.

A small downside is the time it takes DxO to support a new camera and/or lens. e.g. When the A7rII was released, they had to profile every single FE lens (and several third party lenses) for the new camera. Likewise, when Sony releases a new FE lens, they have to build profiles for every A7 series camera. When uncompressed RAW became available, they had to do everything all over again. Since the RX1rII only has one camera/lens, I'm hoping it won't take much time, even if they build profiles for the three LPF settings.
 

dandrewk

New member
My only complaint is that, in common with most Zeiss prime lenses I have owned regardless of platform, there is a fair bit of longitudinal CA at wide apertures. It's almost gone by F/4. This seems to be a trade off made by Zeiss probably to keep size and possibly costs down.
Funnily enough, this CA can be beneficial for critical focus. When going to max. magnification you can plainly see CA in contrasty areas. Racking the focus knob you can see the CA alters from cyan to magenta and back. Finding the spot where the CA coloring changes (and is nearly invisible) is perfect focus.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Funnily enough, this CA can be beneficial for critical focus. When going to max. magnification you can plainly see CA in contrasty areas. Racking the focus knob you can see the CA alters from cyan to magenta and back. Finding the spot where the CA coloring changes (and is nearly invisible) is perfect focus.
So true! :bugeyes:
 

dandrewk

New member
I have not read Dans test and I'm driving to LA in a few hours but be nice if he could give us his bottom line on it.
Sure, but first a public service announcement. Don't use those files to judge sharpness at wide open settings. When I made the shots yesterday, the light was fading and I was in a bit of a hurry. I relied on autofocus. Lazy... bad... and it resulted in the RX images to be -ever so slightly- soft focused. You can only see it at 2:1 or above, but it's quite profound and makes the lens look terrible when compared to the FE35/2.8. You can use the files to compare the DR and color, but not a whole lot more.

Apologies to all to downloaded these files. I went out this morning and repeated the tests, this time with a full range of F stops. If anyone would like to see these (much improved focus) shots, I will be more than happy to make the RAW files available.

Anyway, back to "bottom line":

Sharpness - It's a bit hard to compare, as it sure seems the "smoothness" Guy refers to is a bit more pronounced with the RX. Shot wide open, the FE35 is a tad sharper, but then that would be f/2.8 vs. f/2.0. Comparing f/2.8, I give the edge to the RX. By F8, the two are too close to call. This shouldn't come as a surprise as the FE35/2.8 is an excellent lens for its size/cost.

Everything else - Dynamic range, tonal range, color rendition, the nebulous "pop" - RX wins easily. The RX has much more "presence", almost a 3d quality. It's plain to see in flat lighting and would be more so in contrasty situations. It makes a boring image seem much more interesting and engaging.

A couple of other observations - I shot the RX wide open at the three LPF settings. At 3:1, I could barely discern a difference. I suspect if I'd use a focus chart, it might be more apparent. But for real life photography, it's a non-issue.

Also, the RX's sweet spot is f/5.6 - f/8. At f/11, things start getting a bit soft. The same goes for the FE35.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The RX1R2 sensor isn't loosing details. The final picture can appear "soft". Soft isn't the correct word let's call it "smooth". This "smoothness" is due to the 42MP and the BSI structure "washing" contrasts away. The Sonar design is also maxed out with this technology. Only the Distagon design can milk the best out of this new sensor (especially at large apertures).

We just speak about the "perceived sharpness" or "acutance".

So yes, for some photographers, the files will need a bit more work to "pop" like a 24MP sensor but do not worry, the details are here.

Well said , I should have said smoother
 

dandrewk

New member
Sure, but first a public service announcement. Don't use those files to judge sharpness at wide open settings. When I made the shots yesterday, the light was fading and I was in a bit of a hurry. I relied on autofocus. Lazy... bad... and it resulted in the RX images to be -ever so slightly- soft focused. You can only see it at 2:1 or above, but it's quite profound and makes the lens look terrible when compared to the FE35/2.8. You can use the files to compare the DR and color, but not a whole lot more.

Apologies to all to downloaded these files. I went out this morning and repeated the tests, this time with a full range of F stops. If anyone would like to see these (much improved focus) shots, I will be more than happy to make the RAW files available.

Anyway, back to "bottom line":

Sharpness - It's a bit hard to compare, as it sure seems the "smoothness" Guy refers to is a bit more pronounced with the RX. Shot wide open, the FE35 is a tad sharper, but then that would be f/2.8 vs. f/2.0. Comparing f/2.8, I give the edge to the RX. By F8, the two are too close to call. This shouldn't come as a surprise as the FE35/2.8 is an excellent lens for its size/cost.

Everything else - Dynamic range, tonal range, color rendition, the nebulous "pop" - RX wins easily. The RX has much more "presence", almost a 3d quality. It's plain to see in flat lighting and would be more so in contrasty situations. It makes a boring image seem much more interesting and engaging.

A couple of other observations - I shot the RX wide open at the three LPF settings. At 3:1, I could barely discern a difference. I suspect if I'd use a focus chart, it might be more apparent. But for real life photography, it's a non-issue.

Also, the RX's sweet spot is f/5.6 - f/8. At f/11, things start getting a bit soft. The same goes for the FE35.
Adding to the above, when I said the sharpness between the two lenses were close, I was referring to center sharpness. On the edges, the RX wins easily at all aperture. The FE35 never really sharpens up at any aperture.

Also, comparing the two lenses, it's easily apparent that the RX is not 35mm. It's probably closer to 32 or 33 mm.
 

Pradeep

Member
IMHO there is nothing to do more than down-sampling to 1024px large side using soft bi-cubic. We are on internet here and I do not see where is the interest to loose precious time to please eyes "that much" on a forum. So at the end no need of any sharpening.
Photographers over here should print more :) at least over A2... they will see that those files do not need that much work. There is a bit of a difference between screen vision and paper vision...
This may be OT completely and perhaps as Guy suggested about another thought process, maybe we should discuss this in the Sunset Bar, but one of the questions I always ask of the fellow travelers in a workshop/tour is 'what do you do with your pictures'?

If you are a professional and make a living from photography you are unlikely to be attending a workshop hosted by another pro, but even if you do, the answers are usually obvious.

In the case of most amateur enthusiasts like myself, the question is vitally important, IMHO because that is really what should determine what camera/lens you buy and how much measurebating you need to do or spend time on threads such as this.

I am amazed at the answers I get. Basicallly, there are VERY FEW amateurs who print at sizes big enough to make a difference.

Folks, if you are not printing bigger than 8X10, just buy a compact camera and be done with it. If your final destination is a website or Facebook, the same applies. It is only when you intend your work to be displayed on a wall at large sizes that it begins to matter whether the lens is critically sharp or not.

It also depends upon how easily satisfied you are. People will put up their fuzzy images on the wall, the fact that they took the pictures is the most important factor. I doubt people here belong to that category though.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Pradeep - yes probably one for the sunset bar but definitely falls into the category of "Inconvenient Truth" :thumbs:
 

retow

Member
And now it is established in this forum that the RXrII produces (too) smooth files? Proven and done as it is based on one sensor & lens combo sample and a few shots therewith? Which is statistically relevant, of course? :watch:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
And now it is established in this forum that the RXrII produces (too) smooth files? Proven and done as it is based on one sensor & lens combo sample and a few shots therewith? Which is statistically relevant, of course? :watch:
What do you think? :)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
And now it is established in this forum that the RXrII produces (too) smooth files? Proven and done as it is based on one sensor & lens combo sample and a few shots therewith? Which is statistically relevant, of course? :watch:
It's the same sensor as the A7rII and that is a proven fact. And no one said too smooth. Typical people blow **** so out of proportion. Honestly it's getting to the point I won't even bother posting anymore. It has the same tendency as the A7rII which if you look back in this forum the first day I got the A7rII I said three things that have not changed since. Smoother files, higher ISO , more DR and a few other things . Look I have been doing this 40 years and I'm damn good at it. If you don't trust my opinion that's fine but don't insult it. I don't get paid for these opinions but I do expect some respect for them. And if you have exposing facts than show them.
 
Top