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

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
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
The ability to shoot as a local without attracting attention to oneself is of major importance.

After some 20 years doing medical relief missions in South America Central America and West Africa I have been sensitized to the priorities of the local
community ... I rarely take a candid of anyone without their acceptance not their acquiscence and so I tend to avoid "people" shots. Lots of trees, buildings and
flora and fauna.

Still it is a wonder to have a small camera that is as complex and comprehensive as the RX1R II

Bob
 

retow

Member
Will pick mine up today and am quite curious to see whether it will show the perceived softness @f2.
 
Last edited:

Pradeep

Member
The ability to shoot as a local without attracting attention to oneself is of major importance.

After some 20 years doing medical relief missions in South America Central America and West Africa I have been sensitized to the priorities of the local
community ... I rarely take a candid of anyone without their acceptance not their acquiscence and so I tend to avoid "people" shots. Lots of trees, buildings and
flora and fauna.

Bob
Bob, thank you for saying that. I have a major problem with the invasion of the homes and privacy of indigenous peoples for the sake of a 'Steve McCurry' photo. I groan every time I meet someone at a workshop who is eager to show me their images of India. It is true, ordinary Indians, particularly the men with the turbans and women with their colorful ghagras and saris look exotic and 'different' enough to become a curiosity to a Westerner. One just has to reverse the situation a bit to understand how it would look from the other side.

I have no problems if it is well understood in advance and there is a compensation of sorts involved, like when you go visit a Maasai village in Tanzania you pay an admission price that allows you to take photos. Even then, I've seen photographers being overly aggressive, with golden reflectors being shoved in their face and people being asked to strike special poses for them.

Anyway, this little camera would be perfect for travel photography, can't wait to get mine.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Im +1 to that as well. Maybe a thread on this in sunset bar would be interesting. Bottom line I get paid to shoot, what i shoot should get paid as well. but I also have a moral issue as well.
 

Jeff Kott

New member
Here's a boring question.

What are those of you who just bought this camera or who have it on order doing for LCD screen protectors?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
+1.

Unboxed it at the camera shop and slapped the protector on immediately. Anything else would have been utterly moronic.
 

dandrewk

New member
I posted this in DPR, posting here because some have wondered about comparing the FE35/f2.8 with the RX1rII. I'll leave the comparisons with the FE35/f1.4 to someone who owns that lens.

I have this setup, so I thought a comparison between the two Zeiss Sonnars might be interesting. I realize it's a different lens on a different camera, but they use the same sensor and wanted to see them side by side.

These are tripod shots from my back yard balcony, on a bright, overcast day. It's a zip file with five RAW photos, so be patient with the (>200 mb) download. Two were shot with the A7rII @ f2.8 and f8.0. Three were shot with the RX1rII @ f2.0,f2.8 and f8.0. LPF setting on the latter set to "standard".

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wvqntlp14hulh0/LensTest.zip?dl=0

Naturally, there are lots of differences. Pixel peep, but pay particular attention to differences in tonal contrast, dynamic range and saturation.
 
Thanks so much for posting/linking these. More difference than I anticipated at f2.8, and now I can understand a little better why the RX2 and especially its lens reach $3300.

As I see it, for resolution the FE is usable at f8 but is really no match; and at the wider apertures the RX2 is so much better. Nevertheless there's a difference in the RX2 f2 and f2.8 shots that agrees with Eleanor's observations. This doesn't, though, suggest to me that the RX2 files need capture sharpening (such as Guy and Eleanor have decided on), except at f2.

With LR/ACR I could also see differences between cameras/lenses in dynamic range, 'flatness,' and tone. I tried both the Adobe Standard and Camera Standard profiles. The RX2 shadows (dark trees, lower left) and highlights (shingles) both look subtler to me. The RX2 file had to be a little darker for them to match, and needed a bit of vibrance. The FE file was warmer (driveway pavement, lower left). This made me wonder if the LR profiles for the FE lens have been diddled to suit average consumer preference for more contrast, saturation, and warmth?

Anyhow, thx again, this is all the pixel-peeping I needed to climb on board! I'll start harassing my dealer.

Kirk
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well they only need capture sharpening if you want to get to that pixel peeping level. It really depends on taste . Also Eleanor was trying to match her RX1 levels and to do that with the 42mpx sensor you need to use capture sharpening. It really comes down to what level you like. Now I just loaded C1 version 9 last night and I'm going have to see if any of this has changed. But I agree some folks like little sharpening coming off there cam. The thing I like about this 42 sensor it just has a big range in the sharpening area. Getting a very smooth file from some of the bigger pixel sensors it's just sharp. Here you get to pick your poison better.

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.
 

Zony user

New member
Sorry maybe I missed it, but how is it possible that the sensor is responsible for both soft images at f2 and clinically sharp images at f8? That doesn't make much sense to me. All fingers point to a soft or defective lens to me.....
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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
 
Last edited:

Jim DE

New member
The results from this camera look great to me on this thread.... Looks like there will be a lot of happy owners! Often wanted the RX1 even bid on a few used ones but never owned one. Looks like this new model got rid of many of the weaknesses the old model had. Still wish it had the ability to turn the LCD inward to shield it from abrasion but I wish my a7r2 had this feature as well.

Congrat's to all those who decided to get this new one and I am sure I will continue to lust for a RX looking at your images ;)
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
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/9806585/December%202015/_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.
 

Zony user

New member
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?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
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/9806585/December%202015/_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.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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
 
Top