Site Sponsors
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 650 of 853

Thread: Rx1r2

  1. #601
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    There is no such lens on the planet at its widest aperture that would ever match the same lens at F8. If you know of one I'll buy 2 of them . Usually with the very best there is it starts about a stop down and that is center. The corners take longer to start getting real good typically about 2 stops. My Batis 25 as good as it is and it's really good F2 and F2.8 at 2.8 it's almost at its best but F4 is really the sweet spot both center and corners. This is how optics work. Even the famed Otis lenses

    Sensor is a different element altogether. This 42 MPX sensor images are softer wide open than say a 24 MPX as I explained earlier. It has more to do with sensor pitch and DR, tonal range and such, what is happening is we are losing some micro contrast and detail. Gotta run out the door catch up later
    Sorry what I meant is compared to the original RX1. If the RX2 is soft at F2 compared to the RX1, and the sensor is at fault, it should be equally soft at F8, no?

  2. #602
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Quentin_Bargate View Post
    I have shot a few tests shots with my just arrived RX1R2 (For goodness sake Sony give these cameras better names!)

    Here is a link to a full rezz image shot at 400ISO wide open at F/2, raw, ACR using the ACR profile, no additional sharpening (ACR defaults, whatever they were)

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...5/_DSC0017.jpg

    Things are looking good so far, but it is of course very early days.

    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.
    Congrats, Quentin!

    Try C1 (just the free express would do for a converter) and you would find the CA wide open to be minimal. At f/2 shutter speed of at least 1/200s for hand held operation is optimal.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #603
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Rx1r2

    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  4. #604
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by fishjump View Post
    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.

  5. #605
    Senior Member eleanorbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston and Keystone, Colorado
    Posts
    706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    40

    Re: Rx1r2

    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

    [IMG][/IMG]

    [IMG][/IMG]

    [IMG][/IMG]
    Eleanor Brown
    http://www.eleanorbrown.com
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #606
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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?
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  7. #607
    Senior Member Hulyss Bowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,085
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Zony user View Post
    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.
    Kind regards - Hulyss - hulyssbowman.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #608
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    No CA
    Posts
    795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    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
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #609
    Senior Member Hulyss Bowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,085
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by thompsonkirk View Post
    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...
    Kind regards - Hulyss - hulyssbowman.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #610
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by thompsonkirk View Post
    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.

  11. #611
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Quentin_Bargate View Post

    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.

  12. #612
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,300
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    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!
    With best regards, K-H.

  13. #613
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post

    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.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  14. #614
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Hulyss Bowman View Post
    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #615
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    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.

  16. #616
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    The FE35 never really sharpens up at any aperture.
    My FE35 (shot on A7RII) is every bit as sharp as my (now sold) RX1 at equivalent apertures. Like all lenses, sample variation comes into play.

  17. #617
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by lambert View Post
    My FE35 (shot on A7RII) is every bit as sharp as my (now sold) RX1 at equivalent apertures. Like all lenses, sample variation comes into play.
    Vastly different sensors between the two setups.

  18. #618
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Hulyss Bowman View Post
    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.

  19. #619
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Rx1r2

    Pradeep - yes probably one for the sunset bar but definitely falls into the category of "Inconvenient Truth"
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  20. #620
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Pradeep - yes probably one for the sunset bar but definitely falls into the category of "Inconvenient Truth"
    Perfectly said .
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  21. #621
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    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?

  22. #622
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by retow View Post
    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?
    What do you think?

  23. #623
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by retow View Post
    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?
    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.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #624
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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.

  25. #625
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by retow View Post
    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #626
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by retow View Post
    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.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  27. #627
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Rx1r2

    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #628
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    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.

  29. #629
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #630
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #631
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    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.

  32. #632
    Senior Member Hulyss Bowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,085
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by doublezd View Post
    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 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.
    Kind regards - Hulyss - hulyssbowman.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #633
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    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

  34. #634
    Senior Member seb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    ...I print using QImage ...
    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.

  35. #635
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by seb View Post
    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.
    This is what you want... https://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/downloads.htm

    I've been using and advocating Qimage since I bought my first DSLR (The Nikon D1) - it's great for producing files ready for 3rd party prints too.

    Kind regards

    Brian

  36. #636
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by seb View Post
    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #637
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Vivek, thanks for your recommendation. I stumbled across the Fotodiox hood and placed an order.

    Paul
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #638
    Senior Member Quentin_Bargate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Saffron Walden, UK
    Posts
    1,983
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    58

    Re: Rx1r2

    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.







    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View 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
    Quentin Bargate
    Director of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2012 - 2017, ”leading individual”, Chambers HNW guide, 2017, Photographer
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #639
    Senior Member Hulyss Bowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,085
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Quentin_Bargate View Post
    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
    Kind regards - Hulyss - hulyssbowman.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #640
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Rx1r2

    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.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #641
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Quentin_Bargate View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hulyss Bowman View Post
    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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #642
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Hulyss Bowman View Post

    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.

  43. #643
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Rx1r2

    The printed piece is a important end result and glad it was discussed. For some it's the end game.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  44. #644
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Rx1r2

    I've drifted away from printing over the last few years... I have an HP B9180+ with a bulk ink system - for those up to speed, what's the latest best option for printing up to A3+?

    Thanks

    Brian

  45. #645
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Rx1r2

    Well, in the meantime I think I'll look out for a specialist printer local to me, with whom I can work.

    That seems to be the most economical way forward.

    Cheers

    Brian

  46. #646
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Mosley View Post
    I've drifted away from printing over the last few years... I have an HP B9180+ with a bulk ink system - for those up to speed, what's the latest best option for printing up to A3+?

    Thanks

    Brian
    Brian, funny you should mention the HP. I had that printer many years ago after I was frustrated by the Canon offerings and it did a great job, especially B&W prints. The unit was plagued by hardware problems though and I had it replaced five times in the four year period of my extended warranty.

    The Epson printers are outstanding, especially the new Sure Color range. The P800 does 17", larger than the HP you have and of course costs more, but the results are truly jaw-dropping. It prints blacks that are so much more saturated than the HP could.

    There is no doubt that a Master Printer will get you great prints, but be aware that in all probability he would have the same tools to work with, the days when Pros had the best equipment and therefore got better results are long over. If you have the ability or are willing to learn, you can get very close to what you would get from a big printing house. Plus the sheer joy of watching that beautiful image being created right before your very eyes. That's what the old 'Darkroom' magic used to be, now you can recreate it at home!

    And now perhaps we can move this discussion to a different thread, this one is drifting seriously!
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  47. #647
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post

    And now perhaps we can move this discussion to a different thread, this one is drifting seriously!
    What was this thread about?
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #648
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    No CA
    Posts
    795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    There's a 'Fun with' thread, and I hope to see more pictures (and fewer words) over there.

    Kirk
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  49. #649
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View 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
    I don't mean to be argumentative either but I have seen the difference and have a photog friend who also can.
    The 8 x 10 from the Sigma Merrill were better than the LX3 and even the X100. I don't know what was wrong about Michael's test but it does not always apply IMO.
    I don't always print inkjet either.

  50. #650
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Rx1r2

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    I don't mean to be argumentative either but I have seen the difference and have a photog friend who also can.
    The 8 x 10 from the Sigma Merrill were better than the LX3 and even the X100. I don't know what was wrong about Michael's test but it does not always apply IMO.
    I don't always print inkjet either.
    Tim, I've also owned all three of the cameras you mention and still have the LX3 (gosh, what a gear slut I am!).

    I agree, a low resolution image will be obviously yield a print that will be of low resolution and depending upon the size of the print one may be able to tell it apart from a higher resolution camera. So the size of the final print is perhaps the key.

    When I bought my Phase IQ180, I was told by many that you could tell the difference between the prints from it and the Canon 1DX at 8X10 size. I found that to be absolutely untrue. I have not done Reichmann's test myself since I don't have the exact same cameras, but my own testing of the Canon and Phase (18MP vs 80MP and more than twice the sensor size) files did not show me any difference at 13X19. Yes, at 24X36, sure.

    I may not have the same sharp vision or ability as you, so this may be my failing, but if so, it means I am easily pleased, which in this instance is a good thing.

    Regards.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •