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

retow

Member
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.
My apologies if this came across insulting. This was certainly not my intention. I do not question your expertise or experience. But as far as the RXrII is concerned all I have seen so far are not convincingly sharp close up shots from one camera sample which may well be caused by lens sample variation.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
But as far as the RXrII is concerned all I have seen so far are not convincingly sharp close up shots from one camera sample which may well be caused by lens sample variation.
Or too low a shutter speed and/or improper focusing.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My apologies if this came across insulting. This was certainly not my intention. I do not question your expertise or experience. But as far as the RXrII is concerned all I have seen so far are not convincingly sharp close up shots from one camera sample which may well be caused by lens sample variation.
I think Eleanor first test she may have missed ever so slightly. The other issue is you put up anything against a Distagon. Your in for battle, they are very sharp and draw every drop of blood off the sensor. I view the Sonnar in a different way it's a look lens wth a lot of character that has a unusually 3D look to it that just pops sharp or not it just jumps off screen. If it truly is a touch softer than a Distagon than my view is that just maybe normal but you can get it a ton out of it that would smoke many lenses out there . Now realize where also talking top of the food chain here any real difference is way above others pay grade. I would buy this in a second if I had the cash but I am buying my 35 1.4 back as I had a bad copy.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Dated August 22nd I just found this in a test of three lenses I did

I'm speaking of the A7rII


I owned them all and I owned many Medium Format backs and I made 5 statements when I had this the first two days. Here they are and I am sticking to my guns here and my mind is even firmer on it after a couple weeks. Do we have some things to address . Yes Sony does but Im not getting into that at the moment , maybe later when we get more answers.

DR better by maybe 1/2 stop over the A7r
Noise floor looks like two stops of high ISO advantage over the A7r
Smokes the crap out of the A7r on feature sets and fixes
Major improvement in AF. It actually works
File: best 35mm files I have seen that have a very smooth look to them with a film like look and closest to Medium Format yet. This one is the most important. The files just do not look that digital. There is a lot of headroom for sharpening but out of the box its very very smooth. Whether you keep that look or apply sharpening is up to taste but you get some nice options
 

Tim

Active member
I am curious to hear from RX1rII and RX1 owners about manual focusing at infinity.
This might seem like an odd question but I have found some lenses fail to hit infinity and overshoot when hitting the stop.
Do the RX<xxx> cameras overshoot infinity focus or are they hitting good focus with the camera racked to infinity?

Thanks in advance.
 

Tim

Active member
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.
Pradeep,
While I agree with FB and web, I most respectfully disagree with 8x10.
I have some old 8x10s printed from a Panasonic LX3 from back in the day and I find the IQ quite 'meh' to average even at a fair viewing distance.
Its a pretty small sensor in the LX3 for sure.

IMO at even medium print sizes a larger sensor yield something a bit intangible, hard to describe that -I- can see. (DR perhaps?)
I guess there are too many variables to pin it all down.
My audience may not see it or likely don't care. But I can see it and I mostly make images for me.

Cheers.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I am curious to hear from RX1rII and RX1 owners about manual focusing at infinity.
This might seem like an odd question but I have found some lenses fail to hit infinity and overshoot when hitting the stop.
Do the RX<xxx> cameras overshoot infinity focus or are they hitting good focus with the camera racked to infinity?

Thanks in advance.
But for the battery life, everything with this camera is just fine. :)
 

doublezd

New member
I have been reading this thread with interest as I am torn between keeping the Rx1r2 which just arrived or exchanging it for the Rx1R.

My situation is:
* I am a head over heels enthusiast! -- albeit a relatively new one. I have much to learn.
* Beyond the basics, I know very little about the technical aspects of the sensor - lens partnership, so while this thread is teaching me a great deal, much of it is over my head
* I do print larger than 8x10
* My favorite lens is the ZA 55/1.8 which lives on my A7ii. I love the pop and especially the sharpness of this lens.
* I rented the Rx1R earlier this year, and loved the images...but wasn't fond of the separate viewfinder.
* When I saw the Rx1r2 was coming, I was thrilled to have more cropping options, as well as an in camera viewfinder, and I ordered one -- which arrived this week.
* My first impressions are mixed. Shooting wide open, images are much softer than I was getting with the Rx1R. The dof seems smaller (right word??) than the Rx1R. Part of the "subject", (i.e, a piece of bark), is in focus and part is out of focus -- even with a relatively flat subject. Stopped down, images are sharper-- but still maybe not as sharp as the Rx1R. Colors are rich and lovely -- the Zeiss pop.
* I don't like to post process for clarity, etc., and don't want to be "forced" to do so for a sharp image.

So, from what I've gathered In this thread, that softness is probably to be expected...and can be remedied in post. Is that correct?

If so...maybe the Rx1R would be a better choice for me???

Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Thank you.
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
I have been reading this thread with interest as I am torn between keeping the Rx1r2 which just arrived or exchanging it for the Rx1R.
So, from what I've gathered In this thread, that softness is probably to be expected...and can be remedied in post. Is that correct?
Yes this is correct. The RX1R2 is a far better camera than was the RX1R. Of course the "signature" is different because of the new sensor, that's all.

The major problem for ppl here is the "virtual" output aka screen vision and that can be changed to their taste in post processing. The 42MP files are extremely malleable.

If ppl still prefer the original RX1 output they can always return their camera and buy it on Ebay or Amazon.

But for web representation I still say that it is not "necessary" to PP files like a mad man. You can PP your file to store it as a TIFF for future printing, that is perfectly understandable. For web you just have to downsize it to 1024 long edge using soft-bicubic, as I said.

If you download Lord Bargate jpeg, yes you can be a little bit disappointed. But it is a WO shoot. If this shoot should be displayed for sharing on internet forum just downsize it with my übber method :grin: then all the "flaws" will disappear and nobody will notice the little imperfections.

Image courtesy of Quentin Bragate, no post processing applied :



I like what I'm seeing.

1024px long edge is far sufficient to appreciate a shoot on a forum. It is also quicker to load for ppl like me who have a bit slow internet.
 

Pradeep

Member
Pradeep,
While I agree with FB and web, I most respectfully disagree with 8x10.
I have some old 8x10s printed from a Panasonic LX3 from back in the day and I find the IQ quite 'meh' to average even at a fair viewing distance.
Its a pretty small sensor in the LX3 for sure.

IMO at even medium print sizes a larger sensor yield something a bit intangible, hard to describe that -I- can see. (DR perhaps?)
I guess there are too many variables to pin it all down.
My audience may not see it or likely don't care. But I can see it and I mostly make images for me.

Cheers.
Hi Tim. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I've owned and used MF (IQ180 and now the 645Z) and I tend to agree with Michael Reichmann's conclusion here :

"In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10."

However, what I can say with confidence about printing is that more than perhaps the camera, it is the printer and even more importantly the print-engine that makes the difference. I print using QImage which I run in a Windows shell on my Mac. At even 5X7 size, the difference between this approach and printing via Photoshop or LR is obvious. The best $70 you can ever spend on your photography.

And sorry about causing more thread drift :)
 

Pradeep

Member
May you share a link to the right software? There are some with qimage in the name and I just want to be sure, before I start to inform me about the program.
Here you go. I've been using this for over 10 yrs, it is the only reason I still run Windows in a shell. Mike Chaney will just NOT develop a Mac version :(

Sorry, just saw Brian's post. Now that I recall it, I think I've always printed through this. The interface is still clunky IMHO and not terribly intuitive, but it is a great piece of software, does a lot more than simply print. However, I only use it for printing.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
When I visited Michael Reichmann in Toronto a few years ago, I took the comparison test. There were no discernible differences in the prints from the different cameras used. All looked great.

i have used Qimage, but for critical work I send my large prints to specialists because it's not just the print quality that impacts final perception, but other choices such as paper choice, printer choice, mounting and framing choices. Qimage is of peripheral relevance in this wider list of choices.

The Rx1r2 is a fine camera, but it's a work in progress. Excessive longitudinal CA is a marginal concern buyers need to be aware of, even if it effects can be mitigated in post.







Hi Tim. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I've owned and used MF (IQ180 and now the 645Z) and I tend to agree with Michael Reichmann's conclusion here :

"In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10."

However, what I can say with confidence about printing is that more than perhaps the camera, it is the printer and even more importantly the print-engine that makes the difference. I print using QImage which I run in a Windows shell on my Mac. At even 5X7 size, the difference between this approach and printing via Photoshop or LR is obvious. The best $70 you can ever spend on your photography.

And sorry about causing more thread drift :)
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
I have used Qimage, but for critical work I send my large prints to specialists because it's not just the print quality that impacts final perception, but other choices such as paper choice, printer choice, mounting and framing choices.
This is exactly what I do in parallel of photography : Printing. Whatever output we can get on screen (here again : whatever screen...) the paper and the skills behind the printer are the most important. That come at the expense of a lot of ink and tests over years. This year I printed more than 460 prints for clients in + of photography. Around 10% 10x15, 25% 21x29.7, 40% A3/A3+ and 25% A0. For the framing I have a master artisan at disposal but state of the art framing have a cost and clients often can't pay that much. A correct master framing for A3+ picture with Passe-Partout and museum glass is minimum 90€ /95USD. This year I did more prints than photos...

But I stop here the digression. I want to see more pics out of this camera I really love it :)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
This is really a exciting camera one as it stands on its own two feet but also as a compliment to the Sony Eco system as well. For A7rII shooters be it on a Pro or Hobbyist level it can work side by side with it and for me I find that as not only a tool to work with but also a fun cam to travel with. My files from both cameras would work in concert together in post. That's pretty cool. I'll wait to get it but I'm excited to see more images from. So far artistic talent aside I see some great imagery coming from the sensor lens combo.
 

Pradeep

Member
i have used Qimage, but for critical work I send my large prints to specialists because it's not just the print quality that impacts final perception, but other choices such as paper choice, printer choice, mounting and framing choices. Qimage is of peripheral relevance in this wider list of choices.

This is exactly what I do in parallel of photography : Printing. Whatever output we can get on screen (here again : whatever screen...) the paper and the skills behind the printer are the most important. That come at the expense of a lot of ink and tests over years.
I agree completely, a master printer is an artisan and the final presentation of the print is really what matters.

However, I am not a pro and actually enjoy the process of printing much more than just sending it out. I also study and read and test what I can, when I can. Over the years I've done my own evaluations with all kinds of paper and have settled on a few that I think work for me. I've got many acrylic mounted prints (the rage for a while now as I am sure everyone knows) and some professionally framed ones, but the greatest joy I get is in doing it all myself. In that context, I've found QImage to be invaluable.

After all, I take the photos myself too, if I was only concerned about the best images to hang on my wall, I would simply buy a top grade fine art print from any of the stalwarts here :)
 

Pradeep

Member
But I stop here the digression. I want to see more pics out of this camera I really love it :)
Me too, and sorry about the drift.

Let's see some more shots folks. Sadly, I missed the first lot, but my dealer has promised me it will be here in a few days at most.

Looking forward to trying it out.
 
Top