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

eleanorbrown

New member
Yes my LPF setting was on off from the get go...and the above comparison was against the zeiss 35 1.4 at f2 on A7r2....It's evident as Guy said, that the RX1r and RX1r2 have very different sensors. Eleanor

In the crops above, Eleanor was comparing to the a7RII with FE 35/1.4 @ f/2 wasn't she? Same sensor.

Eleanor - Definitely check the LPF setting but it shouldn't be that drastic of a difference - although I hope it is.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Now I would not be surprised if the 35 1.4 was sharper or resolved more detail more on the wide open side. These are different designed lenses the 35 1.4 is a Distagon which is known be be very very good in the wide open area. The Sonnar which I have not shot yet but I can tell it's different with more a look or character in its design. So even though the Sonnar is highly regarded it maybe more in areas that are color, pop, saturation and amazing bokeh that is more evident than raw sharpness. Bottom line there both incredible lenses but my bet is the Distagon may have a slight edge on the resolving detail better. Love to test them two side by side myself because I'm trying to see what one would work best for me also.
 

Eoin

Member
Wow!, I am so surprised at the difference between the 2 camera/lens combinations.
Yes I accept lenses generally improve stopped down a touch, but for a fixed lens with all the hype the Zeiss Sonnar has received in the past, I would be seriously considering returning this camera and trying another sample.
If the results are the same, so be it. But I would have expected better.

I am, regardless of differences between Sonnar and Distagon lens design amazed by the pop and resolution of that distagon at f2. I have been toying with the idea of adding a C/Y distagon to my alt glass, I may just bite the bullet a get the Sony with all the bells and whistles.

Send it back ...
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I'm actually a little surprised by these observations. We've always found that base acuity is less without sharpening as you increase the resolution. The extra MP will show off the extra tonal range but you may end up seeing softness @ 100% on screen in the same lens that you didn't see before. It's inevitable.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Ouch, I did read somewhere that the lens has to be set extremely precisely to the sensor - perhaps this is an early QA issue? dpreview's samples were very poor in comparison to the Imaging Resource samples.

I think I would definitely request a replacement, Eleanor :scry:

Good luck

Brian
 

monza

Active member
I'd suggest another test. Looks very slightly misfocused to me. I find that much more likely; Occam's Razor.

:)
 

stephen.s1

Member
My copy of this little camera produces images that're extremely sharp. Right on a par with my A7rII. If I had the results you are having, I'd return it for another copy.
 

eleanorbrown

New member
I have been doing more testing much of today, this time the RX1r2 against my RX1r. As I mentioned before the RX1r files at f2 are razor sharp....not so with the Mark 2 version. I think what I'm finding since this is the same lens is that the sensor with more pixels gives a depth of field wide open that is less for sure and it seems to me that even the slightest difference in lens to subject distance can soften the focus area ever so slightly (among other things). Also the sensor on the RX1r just gives a very "crisp" file so needs very little sharpening. I have been experimenting with a good amount of sharpening...up to 300 .6 .6 with my RX1r2 and this makes a significant difference. This file at f2 on the RX1r2 has been sharpened and a tiny bit clarity added in places. The out of focus areas are dreamy I think. These files, as Guy mentioned, have to be processed differently than the original RX1r. eleanor

[/IMG]
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Perfect Eleanor you hit the sweet spot. Awesome setting and great clarity. Try not to get past like 10plus on clarity. It can start to break down. Also structure is very interesting but again if any very small amount.

Bottom line the default is just different with this sensor. I'm almost the Same sharpening setting on the A7rII and right out of the gate I went hmmm this looks very very smooth and it is but if you want crisp you have to make that adjustment .

Great work. This looks so much better now
 

eleanorbrown

New member
Here's a screen shot that indicates what I was trying to say regarding less depth of field at f2 gives impression of more softness in the lens. Top at f2 and bottom at 2.8 in RX1r2. In both files where there is max. focus both are very sharp *300 .6 .6......But in the f2 file where there is less depth of field it appears softer. Thus the lens itself appears to be fine. ...this shown at 100 percent by the way... Hoping I'm making sense. eleanor

[/URL]
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My initial thought given the big jump in MPX is focus is very critical on the RX2 given we have to bump the sharpness up it makes sense as the RX1 maybe a little looser on focus. It just sounds a lot like Mdium format to me with the high powered MPX sensors we just need to be much more critical with our technique . Bad choice of words but you can be more sloppy on technique on the lower MPX sensor. One other thing too the RX1 Raws could be cooked too but not sure. Im not going to open that can of worms. I think the bottom line like the A7rII with high MPX sensor we just have to more diligent in our technique.

I would still like to see you run a better test now against the FE 35 1.4 just to make sure your not having a issue. You have a little time to return but I like to see you be exactly sure before that time runs out. It's hard since I don't have them in front of me so I want to make sure your running good.
 

eleanorbrown

New member
Last test image....another from my kitchen....rainy and cold out today so working inside...RX1r2 at f2 sharping 300 .6 .6 and little clarity on parts of bottle. As before the out of focus background is superb...iso 100. eleanor

[/IMG]
 

eleanorbrown

New member
Thanks Guy...will do another test against the A7r2 with 35 lens (but that 1.4 lens at f2 is already stopped down one stop). Just posted another image at f2 and I'm getting a feel a bit like medium format as far as the smoothness of the files. eleanor

My initial thought given the big jump in MPX is focus is very critical on the RX2 given we have to bump the sharpness up it makes sense as the RX1 maybe a little looser on focus. It just sounds a lot like Mdium format to me with the high powered MPX sensors we just need to be much more critical with our technique . Bad choice of words but you can be more sloppy on technique on the lower MPX sensor. One other thing too the RX1 Raws could be cooked too but not sure. Im not going to open that can of worms. I think the bottom line like the A7rII with high MPX sensor we just have to more diligent in our technique.

I would still like to see you run a better test now against the FE 35 1.4 just to make sure your not having a issue. You have a little time to return but I like to see you be exactly sure before that time runs out. It's hard since I don't have them in front of me so I want to make sure your running good.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Thanks Guy...will do another test against the A7r2 with 35 lens (but that 1.4 lens at f2 is already stopped down one stop). Just posted another image at f2 and I'm getting a feel a bit like medium format as far as the smoothness of the files. eleanor
Why im so excited about this sensor, it feels very much like my Phase backs. First time ever in 35mm would I ever say that.

Really just want to see if it's close than you should be good. Your first test made I think all of us a little nervous for you.
 

eleanorbrown

New member
Yes those initial files were sharpened to 120 .8 1 and with that I could easily get by with those numbers on my RX1r files....that why I was so shocked. Need good bit more sharpening with these new files or they look quite soft at f2. 2.8 is very very good and f4 is excellent. Eleanor

Why im so excited about this sensor, it feels very much like my Phase backs. First time ever in 35mm would I ever say that.

Really just want to see if it's close than you should be good. Your first test made I think all of us a little nervous for you.
 
Eleanor, would you mind posting the shot of that nice chardonnay bottle both with and without sharpening? Pretty please? :)

–––––

My reason for asking is that my thinking runs sort of counter to Guy's. I'm not interested in the apparent sharpness of web material, but only in the appearance of medium or medium-large print output. From this perspective, little initial 'capture sharpening' should be necessary on a file made without an AA filter. Default and 'capture' sharpening were initially intended simply to counteract the blur of AA filters. A 42MP Sony file will already print as 14x21 at 360 ppi; 22x33 @ 240, 30x45 @ 180. In many instances one may be resing down, rather than up, to print. So even in fairly large prints, one should need only a little 'output sharpening.'

What I'm really hoping for from the RX2: From this expensive, small, light, constant-companion, carry-around camera I'd like to see something like what I get from the A7rII using the better and sometimes older Zeiss and Leica lenses. I mean a detailed file with enhanced tonal gradation, and a bit of the old Zeiss '3D' look – that is, good resolution at the point of focus (even wide open), an appearance of roundness of objects and faces, separation of subject from background, and good bokeh.

If one is old-fashioned enough to fear an overtly digital look, then the unsharpened performance or rendering of the lens-and-sensor combination should be quite good initially and all by itself, without needing much sharpening – barring a bad lens copy or poor adjustment of lens to sensor.

Maybe there are two different goals here – one is achieving maximum apparent micro-contrtast and/or resolution; the other, displaying the native rendering of really nice lenses. I'm more interested in the latter.

Kirk

(A further note, less relevant to Eleanor's helpful testing: I'm now printing mostly BW from converted A7rII files. I've compared these to my 18MB Monochrom files made with no Bayer array, and at 100% the converted 42MB Sony files do look a bit less sharp, as folks have mentioned above. But the Sony file is larger; so the MM files have to be res'd up, or the Sony files downsized, to make the same size of print. After this step the 'softer' 42MB Sony files yield equal-or-better image quality in printed output. I'd be expecting the same result from the RX2's sensor as from the A7rII's. If I didn't see that, I'd suspect problems of quality control.)
 
Last edited:

Jeff Kott

New member
Question regarding the various comments on sharpening. Is the 300/ .6/ .6 setting in ACR or Capture One?

If in Capture One, I'm surprised that the RX1Rii raw files are supported so quickly.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My theory on this sensor compared to some other sensors is the raw file with the high DR flattens the tonal range to a point it losses the micro detail in the file. Why they look soft coming in without the sharpening. The bigger pixel sensors like these 24mpx the DR is not as high and the micro detail is still maintaining to a certain degree why we use lower sharpening . Case here , now what She has set up is high sharpening but a very low radius and threshold so it's punching back up the micro detail before it gets to a point that it becomes destructive to the file. This brings me back to MF take a P25 9 micron sensor I hardly did any sharpening on those file. The DR was low as it did not drown out the micro detail in the tonal range but when I went to a IQ 160 at 5.4 micron with higher DR things changed you need higher sharpening and clarity to get that punch to the micro detail. I feel it's the same here low micron sensor and huge DR. Be this is right or wrong I believe just from working these different type of sensors this is the effect of high DR and low microns is we have to apply more sharpening back in at the capture level to get to a point where we like our sharpness levels. Of course not every image needs this and depends on subject. Portraits I go completely the other way and soften more. At least this is what I have noticed the last few years. I'm not sure I'm exactly correct but that's what my gut tells me. Again I'm not the engineer or the scientist by any stretch. Lol
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Question regarding the various comments on sharpening. Is the 300/ .6/ .6 setting in ACR or Capture One?

If in Capture One, I'm surprised that the RX1Rii raw files are supported so quickly.
C1, it was supported before it even came out on the last update. Sony is now a partner with C1 so imagine they are working close together on getting the support for there cameras.
 
Top