Sony RX1

[ptomsu]

Maybe your beef is with the bloggers and not with the camera...also, those were pre-release cameras, right? As neither were shipping two months ago, and the RX1 still isn't.

Are you looking at direct comparison photos of RX1 next to the A99, with all factors being equal other than the camera?

Was just looking at comparisons from Dpreview, nothing else. I did not find any note that this was a pre release camera or FW, but you all can check out for yourself and see if you like what is coming out of this camera.

Also please refer to the test methods of Dpreview for further details on parameters and factors ....

 

[Shashin]

The samples at DPreview and the Imaging Resource really show the same thing, the RX1 is just as good as any modern 35mm sensor like the D600, at least for the RAW images (I am not interested in JPEG). By why is that surprising as Sony made those sensors as well?

 

[jonoslack]

If one has to pick the nits then might as well wonder how a lens with so many elements make the camera weigh so little, especially given that it is an "all metal construction". Could the "advanced aspherics" (or at least some of the elements) used are plastic?

HI Vivek
I thought that 'advanced aspherics' were nearly always made of plastic - much too expensive to grind out of glass (I've seen Leica's machine for doing this, one element at a time as far as I can remember).

Well - samples look good to me - It's one of those cameras for which one should be very pleased and grateful it exists . . . . and even more so that it doesn't seem necessary to buy :chug:

 

[douglasf13]

I'm sure that, once the raws of this camera are thoroughly tested by a site like DxO Mark, we'll see the usual Sony traits. The RX1 will likely be a fraction of a stop better than the A99 in SNR and DR, because of the A99's mirror, and the RX1 will be a fraction of a stop worse than the D600 in SNR and DR, because Sony tends to use stronger color filters.

That's generally been the story for a while with Sony cameras, and I'm sure the RX1 will follow suit.

 

[Vivek]

HI Vivek
I thought that 'advanced aspherics' were nearly always made of plastic - much too expensive to grind out of glass (I've seen Leica's machine for doing this, one element at a time as far as I can remember).

Well - samples look good to me - It's one of those cameras for which one should be very pleased and grateful it exists . . . . and even more so that it doesn't seem necessary to buy :chug:

Hi Jono,

Whether it is plastic or glass it is always one element or, more specifically, one surface at a time.

Leica's techniques may be a bit dated as far as aspheric surfaces go (the one example of that is the old Noctilux 50/1.2). I am pretty sure that the lenses made for Panasonic and other fine cameras do not have any ground out glass but are injection molded. Yes, injection moldable glass are also used for making aspheric surfaces besides plastic.

Lots of cameras are made and do exist or may exist in the future like the "Lunar".

 

[Dan Ortego]

I had the RX1 on pre-order but cancelled it after some more soul-searching. The price of the cam’ combined with a viewfinder and hood was just too much for too little on return. I kept comparing like’ dollars to a new MacBook Pro with an SSD and Retina, or a D800 with a kit lens. Then of course there was the whole ‘early adopter thing’ and Sony’s horrid financials.

Yes I know; it’s all about the convenience of the camera for its intended use i.e. travel friendly, etc. Still, I wasn’t prepared to roll the dice on something that may or may not be well supported after the fact.

Anyway, that's my 2-cents.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono,

Whether it is plastic or glass it is always one element or, more specifically, one surface at a time.

Leica's techniques may be a bit dated as far as aspheric surfaces go

I'm sorry Vivek I'm not as techie as I should be about such stuff, but as far as I remember the machine I saw was very new, and mostly related to the Noctilux.

As far as I remember the computer assesses the moulded glass blank, then applied magnetic abrasive to specific areas and did a bit of rubbing; then it analysed the surface and did it again until perfect. Expensive quality.

 

[ptomsu]

Not sure what either of us is smoking

but if I compare results, for me clearly the RX1 comes last in IQ - these are only 2 examples at ISO100 and ISO1600, but this stays consistent IMHO if you look to the other sample comparisons ....

 

[Vivek]

I'm sorry Vivek I'm not as techie as I should be about such stuff, but as far as I remember the machine I saw was very new, and mostly related to the Noctilux.

As far as I remember the computer assesses the moulded glass blank, then applied magnetic abrasive to specific areas and did a bit of rubbing; then it analysed the surface and did it again until perfect. Expensive quality.

Not questioning that Jono. But many Japanese makers have been injection molding glass aspherics for sometime now. This makes the process cheaper.

Leica's 50 year old "simple" triplets are impressive performers even today. Sony isn't Leica and a lens hood can not be priced even more expensive than that of Leica ones.

 

[barjohn]

I'm not sure what ptomsu is smoking either but I looked at those images and concluded just the opposite. It even beat out the XPRO1. I would suggest maybe one of needed glasses but I was wearing mine.

 

[monza]

Reading this is like reading a dpreview thread.

"It's great!"

"No, it sucks"

"Look at the corners, it's soft!"

"What are you talking about? It's sharp as a tack!"

 

[ptomsu]

I'm not sure what ptomsu is smoking either but I looked at those images and concluded just the opposite. It even beat out the XPRO1. I would suggest maybe one of needed glasses but I was wearing mine.

Well, I was wearing mine as well

Anyway I see it different, but lets stop this discussion and enjoy the RX1

 

[Steen]

I think we need to take the DPReview Studio Shot Comparison web page with a grain of salt.

Usually we can make most cameras look pretty good just by choosing parts of the DPReview test target where focus is spot on.
The DPR test target is not flat, it has depth.
And I'm sure we all know how extremely difficult it is to put focus in exactly the same plane when shooting the same target with more than one camera.


As an example I can make the fixed lens Sony look good by choosing this crop of the frame for the comparison (Screendump from the DPReview website)

 

[Steen]

Or I can make the Canon look good by choosing one of these crops

 

[Steen]

I can make the Nikon look fine by choosing one of these crops

 

[Steen]

And here's a special offer for the usual Nikon bashers

 

[Vivek]

Reading this is like reading a dpreview thread.

"It's great!"

"No, it sucks"

"Look at the corners, it's soft!"

"What are you talking about? It's sharp as a tack!"

Mission accomplished for Sony!

 

[Steen]

This crop is interesting as it shows that with the Sony RX1 the capture position and angle has been changed quite a bit
and it also looks like the Depth Of Field is quite different

 

[Shashin]

It might be important to note with the Dpreview images that the RX1 is using a wide-angle lens and all the interchangeable lens cameras have longer focal length lenses. Possibly macro lenses. (Which also means object distance is not the same.) I have never known a wide angle lens to be the best at essentially copy work compared with a longer focal length.

 

[monza]

Steen, you just blew a hole in everything, now all of them suck. Time to enjoy some of the Baileys...