Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony RX100...  (Read 50427 times)
allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 623


« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2012, 12:24:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Ha, you should see what came with my X Pro 1... Thanks God LR 4 supports it.
Logged
Pingang
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #61 on: July 26, 2012, 07:56:40 PM »
ReplyReply

My Sigma DP2 Merrill was delayed so I did not pick it as i planed so I got a RX100 to give it a run yesterday, it was quite fun and 2 hours walking around the street the RX100 is pretty nice and intuitive to use, the camera feels nice in hand. It also feel a bit small but since I use iPhone to shoot sometimes so it is still tolerable, image quality is nice, probably the best compact camera I have since Contax T3.

Pingang



I have a Sigma DP-2 Merrill on order that I will have it next week so I will not get a RX100 but it would be nice if someone has both and a make a comparison.

Pingang
Shanghai



Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #62 on: July 28, 2012, 01:17:28 PM »
ReplyReply

What's the problem?



How's the RX100 feel in your hand? some point and shoots are a bit too small.
Marc
Logged

stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071


« Reply #63 on: July 28, 2012, 10:14:56 PM »
ReplyReply

does anyone make a battery charger that works with the RX100 battery?
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1194



« Reply #64 on: July 29, 2012, 02:59:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Today out of curiosity I shot the same scene with my Olympus E-M5 and the RX100 and printed them at 17x22 after matching wb, tonality, etc. as best I could in ACR and uprezzing to 360 ppi with Genuine Fractals, adding final sharpening, my normal workflow.  I had to use the ooc jpegs instead oF raw, though.  

The RX100 is amazingly good, you can see more noise in the shadows (I shot the OM-D at iso 200, f5.6 and the RX100 at iso 125, f4), tonality is not as smooth, and there's a greater degree of sharpness falloff as you move towards the edges, but considering what it is, the RX is totally impressive.  Unless you are looking for them, you are hard pressed to see the differences on the print.  At on the wall viewing distances, they look identical.  That's not something I could say with my Canon S90.

The bad news is that my RX is noticably softer on the right than the left, so I have to try another copy of the camera....

But I am extremely pleased, I now have a carry-everywhere camera which will let me make display prints if I run across that great shot when out with the wife, etc.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 05:12:56 PM by AFairley » Logged

allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 623


« Reply #65 on: July 29, 2012, 05:43:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Cool, thanks

Funny, was going to get an OM-D to replace DSLR-X (it's on ebay, I'm underwhelmed with the IQ for all the bruhaha).

Now, maybe I'd better go for the D800e or stay on the porch....
Logged
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1012



« Reply #66 on: July 30, 2012, 08:09:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been playing with my RX100 quite a lot these days, whenever I go out I take it with me.
Now I can say for sure that I can get some shots that I couldn't have taken with Canon S100. The look of the photos is more towards a large sensor camera vs a very good P&S.

One of the blemishes is that I get a lot of shots that are not sharp, despite decent exposure times. I don't know if it's also my technique but probably is mostly that the stabilization is below what Canon has. Many of the blurred shots were at macro distance, most of the others I can blame them on the kids moving which brings me to the fact that I can't set a minimum shutter speed in aperture mode.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8341



WWW
« Reply #67 on: July 30, 2012, 08:14:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been playing with my RX100 quite a lot these days, whenever I go out I take it with me.
Now I can say for sure that I can get some shots that I couldn't have taken with Canon S100. The look of the photos is more towards a large sensor camera vs a very good P&S.

One of the blemishes is that I get a lot of shots that are not sharp, despite decent exposure times. I don't know if it's also my technique but probably is mostly that the stabilization is below what Canon has. Many of the blurred shots were at macro distance, most of the others I can blame them on the kids moving which brings me to the fact that I can't set a minimum shutter speed in aperture mode.

For the Macro shots, are you sure you are simply not just below the minimal focusing distance of the lens?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1012



« Reply #68 on: July 30, 2012, 08:34:47 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems that it finds the focus point most of those shots (both on the LCD and by confirmation of the focus point). I don't know if it just thinks so instead of really being focused. Probably I should try more the manual focus for macro, after all I did set the Ok button to toggle between auto and manual focus.

When I does get the focus right it can make very nice shots, here are a couple of examples, ooc jpg
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071


« Reply #69 on: August 01, 2012, 07:01:01 PM »
ReplyReply

got mine yesterday and just finished some resolution tests - WOW.  very good corner-corner sharpness at ALL focal lengths and apetures (up to diffaction).  even if the RX 100 jpegs have more sharpening than the RAW conversions from my test of the Panny GX1 with pancake zoom (which got returned for resonance blur), the RX 100 is sharper corner - corner.  as expected, diffraction starts at f8 but only just measurable.  i completely agree with all the excited reviews i've read.

as one reviewer said, there's no reason for most people to buy a low-end mirrorless

of course i've got a few gripes about the fiddly controls (but they're no worse than other fiddly controls and better than some), lack of grip (which is really stupid), lack of external charger - how much more could that have cost than the equally bulky USB supply?  maybe Sony is intentionally trying not to kill the low end of the NEX line.  i could easily see using a little larger camera of this quality - with secure grip, more accesable control functions (and a rear focus button), hot shoe for a real flash - and EVF as a primary camera for many situations - and i'd be willing to pay for it.

now to figure out how to set up the controls and go out and shoot
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1194



« Reply #70 on: August 01, 2012, 07:09:06 PM »
ReplyReply

if the RX 100 jpegs have more sharpening than the RAW conversions from my test of the Panny GX1 with pancake zoom (which got returned for resonance blur), the RX 100 is sharper corner - corner. 

Hmm, my OMD and Panny pancake zoom (no blur issue) at iso 200 f5.6 clearly beats the RX100 at iso 125 f4 in the corners and just edges it in the center.  That's with OOC jpegs.  Not to say the RX100 isn't superb for what it is. 
Logged

stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #71 on: August 01, 2012, 11:21:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Using JPGS is really no way to test the potential of a camera. Download a trial of Raw Developer, try convolution sharpening at default, and (unless you have a bad sample of the camera, or you messed up with the shot) prepare to be amazed. I was and I've been doing this a few years now with everything up to 10x8 back in the film days, and IQ 180 backs just lately.

This camera has no right to be this good - but I'm glad it is.
Logged
DaveL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #72 on: August 03, 2012, 09:44:18 PM »
ReplyReply

How does image quality compare?
-NEX5
-RX100
-Nikon 1
-M4/3rds?
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #73 on: August 04, 2012, 12:25:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My experience is that the RX is very sharp at short focal lengths but corner sharpness is lacing on long focal lengths.

I just made an A2 size print from my RX100, a macro close up shot, and I am quite impressed.

Best regards
Erik


Hmm, my OMD and Panny pancake zoom (no blur issue) at iso 200 f5.6 clearly beats the RX100 at iso 125 f4 in the corners and just edges it in the center.  That's with OOC jpegs.  Not to say the RX100 isn't superb for what it is. 
Logged

DaveL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #74 on: August 05, 2012, 03:14:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Erik.  Much appreciated.
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071


« Reply #75 on: August 05, 2012, 05:49:51 PM »
ReplyReply

looked at my jpeg tests again, and see a minimal difference in resolution anywhere between different focal lengths - or larger apertures (since diffraction starts around f4)

haven't done a comparison yet, but from previous testing i think it's going to be sharper in the corners at 100mm than the 5D3 and 24-105!
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8341



WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 08, 2012, 12:23:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Regarding the RX100 vs J1 question.

I have not done any rigorous comparison, but my guts feeling is:

- In terms of image quality, the RX100 is overall more detailed, DR seems to be pretty similar (slight edge in favor of the J1 perhaps). I feel that the J1 is a bit better at high ISO, but would need a detailed comparison to confirm this very intuitive impression,
- In terms of AF, the J1 is far ahead in terms of speed in low light situations and on moving subjects, but the RX100 is pretty good on static subjects except when it is very dark. The face detection capability of the J1 is superior and seems to pretty much focus all by itself when I want more often than the RX100,
- In terms of quality of exposure, the J1 seems to be overall more accurate (it is the best exposing camera I have ever seen, clearly ahead of the D800 for example), but the RX100 is still pretty good,
- In terms of lens, the RX100 distorts very heavily on the wide end, but this is well corrected in in-camera jpgs, the 10-30 of the J1 being less compact, is better corrected natively but does still need software correction anyway so we have pretty much a draw here.

So all in all, I will probably use the RX100 when compactness is key (meaning as a always carry around camera) or for landscape kind of work and the J1 otherwise (that is when my wife is not using it).

I'll look at raw image quality more in depth when DxO will be supporting the RX100.

I posted some recent RX100 images here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157630947824710/

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
DaveL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #77 on: August 08, 2012, 06:08:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Truly appreciate your comments. My Sony NEX 5 isn't used much. I am considering changing it out.
Thanks
DaveL
Logged
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


« Reply #78 on: August 08, 2012, 12:57:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I've seen a lot of blogs talking about magnetic CPL and ND filters for the RX100.

But no brands / no resellers for thoses products ?!

Anyone who knows where to buy ?! Roll Eyes

Have a Nice Day.

Thierry Legros
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #79 on: August 08, 2012, 01:42:28 PM »
ReplyReply

- In terms of lens, the RX100 distorts very heavily on the wide end, but this is well corrected in in-camera jpgs,

The Sony RAW converter also fixes the distortion.

I've been converting my RAWs to 16bit TIFFs in the Sony App and then importing into LR.

PITA, but I am able to get good results.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad