Rx1r2

[eleanorbrown]

Will do but I guarantee you will be disappointed with NO sharpening at f2 especially. I don't even look at digital files in C1 unless they have default sharpening of 120 .8 1 for the Sony. Very soft (except for the rx1r.). I am using my Leica 50 summilux asph on my a7r2 and it is stunning but beginning at f2. I'm super particular about lenses. The reason I'm obsessive about f2 on this new rx1r2 is that I rarely shoot above ISO 100 as I'm always trying to get as close to my phase one files as possible. I'm not really into shooting at high ISO s.

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.)

 

[eleanorbrown]

First after I got these of the Chardonnay bottle uploaded I realized they were the other file (exactly like the one I already posted but looks like the camera was moved slightly. Anyway this one may actually be better focused that the one I posted with sharpening. Here first one at 100 percent screen shot with NO processing of any kind and NO sharpening. F2 shot on tripod. Second one just showing more of the file and not at 100 percent. eleanor

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[thompsonkirk]

"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." ––Guy

I suppose we should each buy into the other's theory and say that both make sense. We're in the outer space where the designers have to make some trade-offs, and I'm in no position to weigh the balance. And neither of us can weigh what's attributable to the new back-illuminated sensor design, another part pf the picture.

For sure I buy your point that larger photosites allow fewer of them to read their exposure to light as misinformation / noise. This is how the Canon D30 (hope I got that right) made its breakthrough, and how medium format retains its advantage. But I suspect this – photo site size or pixel pitch – is more important than the idea that broader dynamic range is reducing micro-detail.

But at the same time, eliminating the AA filter (or making it adjustable on RX2) does noticeably increase micro-detail and make less sharpening necessary.

So IMO it's a both/and trade-off – with the new sensor design also making a difference.

It's interesting – but less interesting than Eleanor's actual tests – to try to think these things through.

Kirk

 

[thompsonkirk]

Thank you, Eleanor, and I think the new unsharpened version looks just great, with lots of clarity in the lettering. It seems (on a monitor) to have the level of detail the I'd like to see in a print.

It's maybe a question of whether the label in that light really had all the texture we can see in the sharpened version, or whether the version above is a better 'representation.' Only your eyes know that!

Thank you so much for your help. And my tentative conclusion (spell-checker had changed it to 'confusion'!) is that the lens is fine, and the sensor can reveal the very slightest focus error or camera movement.

Kirk

 

[eleanorbrown]

Realize this is not real world shooting but at this point I'm just interested to know if my 35 lens on my new rx1r2 is as it should be wide open with this new sensor. These compared to my Zeiss 35mm f 1.4 stopped down to f2. rx1r2 always on top and in the image of 4 of the statue the ONLY one from A7r2 is on bottom right. All sharpened at 300 .6 .6. Any ideas? I'll do more tests later today. Don't know why the flowers results are not closer. will try those again. Once I get to f 2.8 on the RX1r2 results are incredible both in sharpness and micro contrast. I'm wondering if these comparisons are really fair as the 35 lens on the A7r2 is stopped down one stop. (EVERYTHING AT 100 percent in samples here) eleanor

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[eleanorbrown]

Yes Kirk, soon many issues come into play in these tests...lighting, ever ever so slight focus differences, position of objects, and on and on. I actually was not as disappointed in the 100 percent samples with zero processing that I though I'd be. The files do show more micro contrast in the label and lettering than I expected. And the file is oh so smooth! I am using C1. eleanor

Thank you, Eleanor, and I think the new unsharpened version looks just great, with lots of clarity in the lettering. It seems (on a monitor) to have the level of detail the I'd like to see in a print.

It's maybe a question of whether the label in that light really had all the texture we can see in the sharpened version, or whether the version above is a better 'representation.' Only your eyes know that!

Thank you so much for your help. And my tentative conclusion (spell-checker had changed it to 'confusion'!) is that the lens is fine, and the sensor can reveal the very slightest focus error or camera movement.

Kirk

 

[MILESF]

Does anyone who has the RX1R ii know if the RRS L bracket from the RX1 fits it ?

 

[dandrewk]

Does anyone who has the RX1R ii know if the RRS L bracket from the RX1 fits it ?

A user on DPR says it does, but not very snug. The same goes for the Fotodiox I have (and will be returning). I think they are usable, but not ideal.

 

[eleanorbrown]

I have been using the RRS base place with handle attached that I took off my RX1r and it fits perfectly! used it from the minute I got the camera yesterday. Don't know if this is what you care calling the L bracket or not?? What I'm using is very snug. On second thought what I'm using is probably not the "L" bracket you're referring to. I can only attach my tripod to base of camera....not the side. sorry for the confusion. eleanor

Does anyone who has the RX1R ii know if the RRS L bracket from the RX1 fits it ?

 

[scho]

I used an old RRS L plate made for the Panasonic G1 on my RX1R. Worked well, but I don't know yet if it will fit the RX1RII or if RRS even still has this model.

 

[docmoore]

I'm wondering if these comparisons are really fair as the 35 lens on the A7r2 is stopped down one stop.

It is obvious that the limited DOF on the RX1R II at 2.0 is killing the 100 percent views ... and that the 35 1.4 is one of the best lenses ever.

But if real world bokeh and feel of the RX1R II at full image is acceptable and as it is stopped down it improves you have acceptable choices
when you shoot with it. As long as you nail your focus point of interest and have the option of wide open or somewhat stopped down it should
allow any sense of capture that you desire.

Personally ... I preferred the 35 1.4 100 percent views but imagine that the convenience and imaging of the RX1R II will be stellar. I would
probably bracket aperture in the field to ensure that I captured the best image possible.

Glad to know that the lens is acceptable and that you do not have to play chase the QC lens acquisition game.

Lovely choice of wines BTW ... :ROTFL:

Regards,

Bob

 

[eleanorbrown]

Last of testing....I know it's getting redundant but if someone is coming from the RX1r they might be shocked at files wide open at f2 on the RX1r2. New sensor...needs different processing, not to mention shooting...more attention to exact focus, etc. The camera image and single palm leaf both sharpened at 300 .6 .6 (samples at 100 percent.) No clarity on either. Image of the broader view of palm also same but not 100 percent. Good color, bokeh, etc. Almost think the camera image could have used slightly less sharpening...maybe as Guy mentioned...280 .5 .5 or so. ISO 100 ...eleanor

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yea you can bring the sharpness down to even 250 but keep your radius and threshold at .5 or .6. 300 is a touch agressive and good for landscape type images. No rules whatever looks best per image.

I think everything is looking as it should. Now go have fun. Lol

 

[Jeff Kott]

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.

If Sony and C1 are working so closely together, why do you think the default C1 sharpening settings are so far from the mark?

 

[MILESF]

I have been using the RRS base place with handle attached that I took off my RX1r and it fits perfectly! used it from the minute I got the camera yesterday. Don't know if this is what you care calling the L bracket or not?? What I'm using is very snug. On second thought what I'm using is probably not the "L" bracket you're referring to. I can only attach my tripod to base of camera....not the side. sorry for the confusion. eleanor

Thanks, that really helps even though I probably have something different from yours. On my RX1 I have the RRS BRX1 base plate and the BRX1-L which makes it into an L bracket and allows both Landscape and Portrait orientation on the ball head. I'm waiting for the RX1R ii inthe UK and want to take it on a trip in the near future. So it's good to know that that base plate works fine in case RRS don't bring out a new model in time and I can always turn the ball head 90 degrees if I need to without the extra piece.

Good news and thanks.

 

[eleanorbrown]

Thanks for all your help Guy. Another thing I've noticed is that I need a faster shutter speed to get hand help sharp with rx2.... With rx1r I was getting consistently super sharp images with MUCH lower shutter speeds. More pixels makes a difference I think. Eleanor

Yea you can bring the sharpness down to even 250 but keep your radius and threshold at .5 or .6. 300 is a touch agressive and good for landscape type images. No rules whatever looks best per image.

I think everything is looking as it should. Now go have fun. Lol

 

[Guy Mancuso]

If Sony and C1 are working so closely together, why do you think the default C1 sharpening settings are so far from the mark?

Because they don't want to give it at that level they just give you a nice base . They do this even with there own backs. There more involved in the color profiles than output settings. That's up to us

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thanks for all your help Guy. Another thing I've noticed is that I need a faster shutter speed to get hand help sharp with rx2.... With rx1r I was getting consistently super sharp images with MUCH lower shutter speeds. More pixels makes a difference I think. Eleanor

No question better technique when you start getting at these high mpx. Every flaw shows up.

We may hear more complaints or questions when more folks start getting these . It's a different camera now even though the same.

 

[eleanorbrown]

Thanks Bob...I'm really trying to move away form all large heavy cameras....Nikon, phase one, etc. but want to make sure I'm getting equivalent or near so quality with sonys. Yes I love my a7r2 with the incredible zeiss 35 lens at f 1.4... I will mostly use the rx1r2 when I do shooting in public...markets, street, and also when hiking as it will fit in my rain jacket pocket. I took my rx1r with no EVF and no baseplate and handle to Russia last year, and I looked like a tourist, even a local.....and not shooting for artistic reasons, etc. I blended n With the crowds! Eleanor

It is obvious that the limited DOF on the RX1R II at 2.0 is killing the 100 percent views ... and that the 35 1.4 is one of the best lenses ever.

But if real world bokeh and feel of the RX1R II at full image is acceptable and as it is stopped down it improves you have acceptable choices
when you shoot with it. As long as you nail your focus point of interest and have the option of wide open or somewhat stopped down it should
allow any sense of capture that you desire.

Personally ... I preferred the 35 1.4 100 percent views but imagine that the convenience and imaging of the RX1R II will be stellar. I would
probably bracket aperture in the field to ensure that I captured the best image possible.

Glad to know that the lens is acceptable and that you do not have to play chase the QC lens acquisition game.

Lovely choice of wines BTW ... :ROTFL:

Regards,

Bob

 

[eleanorbrown]

Yes...very different handling and processing is a must....all this has been an eye opener to me. Eleanor

No question better technique when you start getting at these high mpx. Every flaw shows up.

We may hear more complaints or questions when more folks start getting these . It's a different camera now even though the same.