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!

Fun with the RX-1

scho

Well-known member
A couple of shots taken in the Bully Hill winery museum of some Cooper's workshop tools. Very dim lighting and shot handheld with the RX1R.



 

scho

Well-known member
All with RX1R taken hand held on a walk near the Cornell arboretum.

Weathered barn wood and grape vines



Arboretum ponds



Geese & goslings

 

scho

Well-known member
Those G...D Canadians are back again (actually they never left). Time to bring in the coyotes and start oiling eggs in the spring. RX1R.

Crossing #1



Crossing #2



Q: Why do the geese cross the road? A: So they can get to the golf course on the other side of the creek and crap that up as well. Last year the golfers set up stuffed coyotes around the greens to keep the geese away.

This bunch is totally disorganized and incontinent as well. :D

 

The Ute

Well-known member
I'm new to RX1 ownership and just received the Ricoh GW-3 wide-angle converter I bought to try with my RX1.

I'm replacing a Fuji X100S outfit and really liked the 35/28 combo I achieved using a WCL-X100 wide-angle converter and am hoping to come up with something similar for my RX1 outfit.

I must say that, so far, I am favorably impressed by the GW-3's performance ... see the attached photos of my next-door neighbor's house, which were taken at f8 and focused manually using the macro ring hack. The corners are a teeny bit soft, but the center looks to be decently sharp and most importantly, the RX1's essential character remains.
Do you need an adapter ?
Can you use the GW2 ?
Would the new Sony 21mm UW converter work ?

TIA
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Do you need an adapter ?
Can you use the GW2 ?
Would the new Sony 21mm UW converter work ?

TIA
I don't know if the GW-2 will work, but I know the GW-3 does ... sort of. To my eyes, its performance is really only acceptable at f8, as any faster aperture causes a noticeable loss of resolution and some vignetting. On the positive side, it's quite compact and doesn't require an adapter, as its 49mm male thread screws right into the RX1's 49mm filter thread. They can also be purchased relatively inexpensively from overseas vendors (IIRC, mine was $180 delivered.)

Yes, Sony's SEL075UWC .75X converter for the new 28mm FE lens can be made to work, but to do so, it requires several permanent modifications, including shortening the metal lens barrel by ~5mm and trimming the plastic lens mount bayonet, so it's probably not something the faint-hearted should consider doing or doing themselves. For those with the necessary tools and skills, however, it's a relatively easy job.

That said, I have modified mine so it will mount onto my RX1s -- see the photo below -- and it works great ... sort of. In my tests, I found it outperforms the GW-3 at apertures below f8 and is usable all the way down to f2.8, but my GW-3 very slightly outperforms it in terms of resolution at f8. (I only rarely use f/11 and never use f/16 or f/22, so I didn't bother testing at those apertures. And this could simply reflect sample-to-sample variability; i.e., my GW-3 is a better than average performer and my SEL075UWC slightly worse than average, but I'm not about to buy another pair of them to confirm or deny this.)



I didn't expect this to be the case and it actually causes me a bit of a dilemma, because I don't want to carry both converters around with me when I'm out and about. I bought my RX1s because I like to travel light, as the photo of my RX1 kit* below shows, and I don't have room in my small belt pouch to carry two converters, depending upon which aperture I'm using for any given photo.



Because I use f8 for more than half of my photos, I'm leaning toward keeping the GW-3 and carrying that with me most of the time, but since I modified the SEL075UWC, thus reducing its potential resale value, I'll probably keep it around as well, as it wasn't very expensive regardless. Interestingly, the GW-3 is about half the volume of the SEL075UWC because it has a removable rubber lens hood whereas the Sony converter's plastic lens hood is built-in and non-removable, but the two weigh roughly the same, so from that perspective, it doesn't matter which one you carry, even if you're obsessive-compulsive about keeping the weight of your outfit down (as I am.)

And since this thread is about RX1 photos, here are a few gratuitous ones from my recent NYC outing (the first two of which were taken with the GW-3 at f8 and the resulting barrel distortion was corrected adequately in post, and the third was taken with the RX1 naked):







* Not shown is the very functional and ultralightweight Benro C-0681T tripod and ballhead combo that I use when traveling (only 2.5 lbs and now NLA, alas, but the curious can see it here: (Benro C-0681 Travel Angel CF Tripod (Trans-Functional) C0681TB00. FWIW, NOS ones for sale can still be found if one searches around a bit.)
 

The Ute

Well-known member
I don't know if the GW-2 will work, but I know the GW-3 does ... sort of. To my eyes, its performance is really only acceptable at f8, as any faster aperture causes a noticeable loss of resolution and some vignetting. On the positive side, it's quite compact and doesn't require an adapter, as its 49mm male thread screws right into the RX1's 49mm filter thread. They can also be purchased relatively inexpensively from overseas vendors (IIRC, mine was $180 delivered.)

Yes, Sony's SEL075UWC .75X converter for the new 28mm FE lens can be made to work, but to do so, it requires several permanent modifications, including shortening the metal lens barrel by ~5mm and trimming the plastic lens mount bayonet, so it's probably not something the faint-hearted should consider doing or doing themselves. For those with the necessary tools and skills, however, it's a relatively easy job.

That said, I have modified mine so it will mount onto my RX1s -- see the photo below -- and it works great ... sort of. In my tests, I found it outperforms the GW-3 at apertures below f8 and is usable all the way down to f2.8, but my GW-3 very slightly outperforms it in terms of resolution at f8. (I only rarely use f/11 and never use f/16 or f/22, so I didn't bother testing at those apertures. And this could simply reflect sample-to-sample variability; i.e., my GW-3 is a better than average performer and my SEL075UWC slightly worse than average, but I'm not about to buy another pair of them to confirm or deny this.)



I didn't expect this to be the case and it actually causes me a bit of a dilemma, because I don't want to carry both converters around with me when I'm out and about. I bought my RX1s because I like to travel light, as the photo of my RX1 kit* below shows, and I don't have room in my small belt pouch to carry two converters, depending upon which aperture I'm using for any given photo.



Because I use f8 for more than half of my photos, I'm leaning toward keeping the GW-3 and carrying that with me most of the time, but since I modified the SEL075UWC, thus reducing its potential resale value, I'll probably keep it around as well, as it wasn't very expensive regardless. Interestingly, the GW-3 is about half the volume of the SEL075UWC because it has a removable rubber lens hood whereas the Sony converter's plastic lens hood is built-in and non-removable, but the two weigh roughly the same, so from that perspective, it doesn't matter which one you carry, even if you're obsessive-compulsive about keeping the weight of your outfit down (as I am.)

And since this thread is about RX1 photos, here are a few gratuitous ones from my recent NYC outing (the first two of which were taken with the GW-3 at f8 and the resulting barrel distortion was corrected adequately in post, and the third was taken with the RX1 naked):







* Not shown is the very functional and ultralightweight Benro C-0681T tripod and ballhead combo that I use when traveling (only 2.5 lbs and now NLA, alas, but the curious can see it here: (Benro C-0681 Travel Angel CF Tripod (Trans-Functional) C0681TB00. FWIW, NOS ones for sale can still be found if one searches around a bit.)
Thanks so much for your response. Much appreciated.
 

scho

Well-known member
Couple RX1R monochromes from AccuRaw Monochrome shot today at marina.



 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
Carl, the first one in the above post is just lovely! :)

Me being a novice when it comes to PP (lack of effort I must say), may I ask what your general impression of the Accuraw output? Also how many pixels are getting out?
 

scho

Well-known member
Carl, the first one in the above post is just lovely! :)

Me being a novice when it comes to PP (lack of effort I must say), may I ask what your general impression of the Accuraw output? Also how many pixels are getting out?
Thank you Vivek. I'm also a novice when it comes to monochrome processing. I just used the default monochrome preset and adjusted the ETTR slider to lighten/darken images as necessary. No other processing, other than cropping, in either AccuRaw or LR. I like the AccuRaw monochrome output and in particular the smooth tonality. The output size of exported tiff files from AccuRaw monochrome is 6024x4024 pixels for the RX1R.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
So I've been thinking: If the .75X (21mm) wide-angle converter for the 28mm/f2 FE lens can be modified to mount onto the RX1's lens and work well enough to be useful, then so should the matching .57X fisheye converter.

That said, I'm not sure I have much reason to ever use a fisheye lens, although the effective 20mm focal length would certainly come in handy at times and it does offer a novel look.

Hmm....
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Thank you Vivek. I'm also a novice when it comes to monochrome processing. I just used the default monochrome preset and adjusted the ETTR slider to lighten/darken images as necessary. No other processing, other than cropping, in either AccuRaw or LR. I like the AccuRaw monochrome output and in particular the smooth tonality. The output size of exported tiff files from AccuRaw monochrome is 6024x4024 pixels for the RX1R.
Thank you, Carl. I thought I read Sandy posting somewhere that you can read individual pixels. => 4x pixel output.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Thank you, Carl. I thought I read Sandy posting somewhere that you can read individual pixels. => 4x pixel output.
How would "4x pixel output" even be possible? Demosaicing a file doesn't change the number of pixels it contains, it merely changes their RGB values by mathematically recreating the color components that weren't sampled at each sensel.

FWIW, Raw Therapee, as well as several other RAW processing programs, also allows one to process RAW files without demosaicing them, which has caused me to start thinking about having my "broken" RX1 modified for monochrome-only use. While I'm not wild about losing the ability to control tonality post-exposure by tweaking the color channels for each image during the conversion to B&W, the potential increase in resolution has a strong appeal for me given the type of photography I like to do and since the camera isn't worth much in its present state, why not try it?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Yes, I am confused about it. There was an example put out by Sandy (Accuraw creator) that showed 400% crop from a regular (bayer) camera vs 100% crop from a debayered one. Hence the query.

I hope you find a solution for your RX1. You should keep in mind that the sensor could be completely destroyed during the monochrome conversion and be prepared to take that risk. Not for everyone.
 
Top