Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony RX1 worse than the NEX7?  (Read 7522 times)
Jason Denning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



WWW
« on: January 11, 2013, 05:26:02 PM »
ReplyReply

When the RX1 was announced I thought it may be a perfect buy, but looking at recent Raw tests and image comparisons on DPReview the image quality looks worse than an NEX 7, i know it has better dynamic range and high ISO but I shoot landscapes so sharpness is what I'm looking for and it seems to be a disappointment.

Has anyone any thoughts on this and examples that prove otherwise? I really want it to be as good as I expect!

Thanks

Jason
Logged

www.jasondenning.co.uk


Fotoman 617 with Rodenstock 55mm, 90mm and 180mm lenses
Mamiya 645 Pro TL, and every lens mamiya made.
Sony A7 with 35mm and 55mm Primes
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7405


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2013, 08:36:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

You may check: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/1/sony-rx1-executive-summary-lazy-readers-digest-top-tips-for-best-results

For my part, I would never buy a camera with a fixed focal non interchangable lens, so I am not interested.

Best regards
Erik


When the RX1 was announced I thought it may be a perfect buy, but looking at recent Raw tests and image comparisons on DPReview the image quality looks worse than an NEX 7, i know it has better dynamic range and high ISO but I shoot landscapes so sharpness is what I'm looking for and it seems to be a disappointment.

Has anyone any thoughts on this and examples that prove otherwise? I really want it to be as good as I expect!

Thanks

Jason
Logged

Jason Denning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2013, 04:01:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the link, sadly whilst he says it's great like everyone does looking at images myself I'm not impresses. On the DPreview image comparison even the Olympus OMD looks better than the RX1 which doesn't make sense. I haven't found a single image that shows good detail.

I shoot on film so I'm just interested in this camera as a good small point and shoot that is small and light.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 04:20:03 AM by Jason Denning » Logged

www.jasondenning.co.uk


Fotoman 617 with Rodenstock 55mm, 90mm and 180mm lenses
Mamiya 645 Pro TL, and every lens mamiya made.
Sony A7 with 35mm and 55mm Primes
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7405


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2013, 04:30:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

If you want a small camera and don't print very large a Sony RX100 or any similar camera would make a lot of sense.

I'm not particularly interested in the RX1, myself. Shooting mostly DSLRs, but I also have an RX100. The RX100 fits in my pockets an RX1 would not.

How do you judge the images at DPReview, anyway? Comparing web size images say nothing about a camera. If you download full size images and look at actual pixels the camera with the higher MPIX will always look bad. The best way to compare is to print. If you don't print, you don't need 24 MPixels, full HD is just 2 MPixels.

Best regards
Erik


Thanks for the link, sadly whilst he says it's great like everyone does looking at images myself I'm not impresses. On the DPreview image comparison even the Olympus OMD looks better than the RX1 which doesn't make sense. I haven't found a single image that shows good detail.

I shoot on film so I'm just interested in this camera as a good small point and shoot that is small and light.
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4857



« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2013, 10:00:37 AM »
ReplyReply

In my experience the RX1 produces images far superior to the NEX-7; indeed against any camera I own except the D800e with a top lens (and the IQ180 on an Alpa with Schneider or Rodenstock glass). I'm also including the Leica M9 (though it's a close call there).

Don't believe everything you read on the web including here.

If you're interested in a particular camera buy from a dealer that has a fair return policy and try it yourself.

Michael
Logged
Jason Denning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2013, 02:39:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Michael,

I thought it was odd that everything I've found on the web looks terrible, I have an Mamiya 645 with an old 22mp Imacon 132c digital back and I guess I am hoping for something that would almost come close to that in quality but at a smaller size but maybe thats a silly goal, I know it beats it hands down in low light.

Logged

www.jasondenning.co.uk


Fotoman 617 with Rodenstock 55mm, 90mm and 180mm lenses
Mamiya 645 Pro TL, and every lens mamiya made.
Sony A7 with 35mm and 55mm Primes
Jason Denning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2013, 02:46:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I do want the option to print large if I need to otherwise I would buy the RX100. Currently I'm stick between the RX1 or the new Fuji x100s although raw conversion isn't good enough yet.
Logged

www.jasondenning.co.uk


Fotoman 617 with Rodenstock 55mm, 90mm and 180mm lenses
Mamiya 645 Pro TL, and every lens mamiya made.
Sony A7 with 35mm and 55mm Primes
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 494



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2013, 04:37:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Michael,

I thought it was odd that everything I've found on the web looks terrible, I have an Mamiya 645 with an old 22mp Imacon 132c digital back and I guess I am hoping for something that would almost come close to that in quality but at a smaller size but maybe thats a silly goal, I know it beats it hands down in low light.


I do want the option to print large if I need to otherwise I would buy the RX100. Currently I'm stick between the RX1 or the new Fuji x100s although raw conversion isn't good enough yet.

I think you are looking for unicorn Smiley Your MF will alway have an "IQ advantage" over all the camera mentioned above.

Without speaking about printing large, what mater is the size of the sensor. Yes, the RX1 produce beautiful picture (when used by a photographer, not a damn geek), far better than the RX100 pictures. I was a time interested by this RX1 but I decided to go other way (too expensive). So, between the X100s, RX100 and RX1 there is no real choice >> the RX1 IS the winner, period; But your Mamyia is above in IQ even with 2 MP less. If I were you I would go on a new affordable back, for example the leaf aptus II 5 because of his touch screen and native ISO 25 and a DP2 Merrill because (you can trust Michael around this part too) it will blow your mind away at pixel level.

Ok, ISO are not the strength of the DP but the IQ is just incredible.

If you have the money and want to please yourself with a good but expensive camera, go RX1. Otherwise, you a load of other options. But never think you will surpass your MF back with the actual "small" sensor camera.



Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
neways
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2013, 04:46:34 PM »
ReplyReply

How do you compare the IQ of Rx-1 to Sigma DP2M?

Thanks.


Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 494



WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2013, 05:32:54 PM »
ReplyReply

How do you compare the IQ of Rx-1 to Sigma DP2M?

Thanks.

Hoo, I do. For landscape, at base ISO, the DP2m will bury the RX1. For architectural or interior stitching shoot, the DP2m will bury the RX1. But, for bokeh, smoothness, subject isolation and high ISO, the RX1 will bury the DP2m. The only BIG difference is ONLY on big print bigger than A1 and here I speak compared to D800 and Leica S2, not the RX1.

I just 100% agree with Michael's statement :

Quote
I have no experience with the X2, but I do with the DP2M. I've done some image comparisons between the two, and I'll state categorically that the DP2M has higher resolution. It doesn't match the RX1 in any other way, but man that Foveon sensor and the camera's built-in lens are stunning. (No, I will not publish comparison results. These cameras use different sensor technology, different raw software, have different sized sensors and have different resolutions. Any comparison between cameras is difficult and will invariably bring the country folk to the castle gate with pitchforks in hand, so I'll simply say that if you want the better all-around camera, it's the RX1, but that the DP2M produces sharper and higher resolution results at normal print sizes, as well as on screen).

For his price and for the IQ produced, the DP2m IS the must have of any serious IQ lover. For someone who never tested it before, this is almost a visual revelation and I moderate my words.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 05:35:02 PM by Hulyss » Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7966



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2013, 04:25:56 AM »
ReplyReply

For what it is worth, I recently read the test of the RX1 in reference French mag Chasseur d'Image. They are extatic about the image quality at all ISOs, but disliked a lot of the rest. They are calling it an unfinished technological demonstrator.

- AF way too slow,
- poorly designed accessories,
- ...

Specwise, they were disapointed by:
- lack of viewfinder,
- lack of stabilization.

In the end it got 3 stars out of 5.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 04:27:39 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
palpman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2013, 05:08:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I also thought that the RX1 would be the perfect camera for me. However then I saw a few landscape shots and was disappointed by the flatness of the pics. The lens seems to be optimized for close distance photography. Since I shoot mostly landscapes I finally went for the DP2 Merrill.
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2013, 11:13:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Wait for the FF NEX. Being stuck with a single wide angle is crazy.
Logged
photodan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2013, 09:14:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I used to own a Nex7 with the Sony Zeiss 24mm lens, and the Sigma DP2M. I currently have the Sony RX1 with electronic viewfinder, and also a Nikon D800E.

My favorite focal length in photography is a DSLR full frame equivalent of 35mm so spent a boatload of money on the RX1. The idea of whether it is worth the money is something that I can't even answer for myself right now, but I would like to comment on the other aspects.  My experience with the RX1 is very positive image quality wise, and overall I have a very similar impression to that Michael stated in his review of the camera.

I find the RX1 to be far superior in image quality to the Nex7 w/24mm lens - close up and also for landscapes with the lens focused at or near infinity. Superior in sharpness, color, contrast, dynamic range. This conclusion is from pixel peeping the images taken in raw format and processed in LightRoom. There is some very slight purple fringing with the RX1 at f2 to f4 in some high contrast situations, but I think the Nex7 24mm combo had it or more as well. The RX1 lens seem to have a fair amount of vignetting but it's easily corrected if needed of course.

I've tried a bunch of 35mm focal length lenses on the D800E (rentals and some purchase w/returns) - including the Nikon 35mm f1.4G, Zeiss 1.4, Zeiss f2, Nikon AF-D f2, Nokton 40mm, and more recently a  Sigma f 1.4 and another round with some of the other lenses. My primary subject is landscape and I concentrated on sharpness at near infinity across the entire image.  At the individual pixel level so to speak I am happier with the RX1. It amazes me just how sharp the lens is, even at f2. Much better uniformity at all apertures as compared to most of my experiences with the D800E.  I had some commercial prints made on a Lightject (not inkjet) and regardless of capture and post sharpening the differences don't really show up that much at all up to 16x24", in sharpness. Digital LJ or Chromira, the great equalizer for the digital age. Maybe my techniques are deficient and/or maybe I need to move to inkjet printing, but that's another whole topic.

If have found focusing with the D800E to be more problematic than with the RX1. Live view is not great on the 800E and I found extremely tiny rotation differences of the SLR lenses to make a significant difference in sharpness (again, at the pixel peeping level).  I also found a wide variance in performance of all the lenses - for example the Zeiss 1.4 was the best for landscapes when stopped down to f8. It was a rental. I bought the lens but it was far inferior to the rental. Tried another copy. Even worse than the 1st. The Nikkor 1.4 apparently had tilted elements and the right side was way off from the left side of the image. Tried renting some same lenses again and the results were worse - either I got lazy in focusing or these samples were beat up. The Sigma was better than all of them with the possible exception of the Zeiss f2 lens, but none of the results were as good as when I first rented lenses a few months ago. The Sigma has gotten great reviews but I don't think any of them have been on the 36mp Nikon.  So at the moment I do not have a 35mm lens for the 800E. The RX1 is so good that it mitigates this situation to a great extent.

The RX1 is such a specialized and different tool than a DSLR - much smaller, lighter, and extremely quiet. I don't like electronic finders, but the one for the RX1 is good.  I wish Sony had put it in the RX1 body  even though it would made the body a little larger. I preferred the Nex style grip much more than the RX1 - I found it so much easier to hold the Nex than the RX1. I don't like the add-on electric finder sticking up above the body of the Rx1.  However on the upside the 90 degree rotation ability of that finder can come in very handy for some shots.

I customized the buttons on the RX1 slightly and have found it very easy to shoot with in a variety of conditions. It is much easier to take with me for casual outings than a DSLR. It provides great image quality. It oozes quality in the way it is built and how the controls feel. I've other smaller format cameras including several micro-4/3 but there really is no comparison image-quality wise with the RX1.

I don't have my Sigma DP2M anymore -I found it too time consuming to shoot in raw and process the color and contrast to my satisfaction, but the major reason was the 45mm equivalent is not a favorite focal length of mine. Comparing the DP2M to the RX1 is difficult because of the difference in equivalent focal lengths.  Yes the DP2M is much sharper on a pixel basis, but it has a smaller field of view. Cropping the RX1 images to the same field of view as the DP2M does seems to yield a sharpness advantage to the DP2M, but that doesn't do me much good when I want a 35mm type of field of view.

As to bokeh, indeed this must be one of personal preference, and also it does vary from subject to subject, various lighting, distance to subject /foreground/background, etc.  For me I find the RX1 bokeh to vary from pretty good to not very good. I like the bokeh from the DP2M (better than the RX1).  For the DSLR lenses I liked the two Zeiss lenses better than all the others including the Sigma.

After having gone through many iterations of equipment (with more sure to come) and doing my own comparison, I have reached the conclusion that most tests on the web and in photography magazines, can be helpful but also can be misleading - leaving one in no-man's land. I think this is due to sample variation and variations in methods of testing and shooting test charts that are relatively close to the camera as compared to landscapes.  As just one example, you'll see test of lenses on the Sigma from DxOMark, a resolution test on Lensrentals, other web lens test sites and one in the current issue of Pop Photo. The one from Pop photo doesn't give the Sigma the highest marks as the other sites have, yet that test report coincides with part of my experience as noted above  - the Zeiss lenses being better than the Sigma, at least the 1st time around with the 1.4. I have found sample images on the web to be almost useless for any purpose - too many variables.

The most useful tests I have found are here on LL by Michael, and some on Diglloyd and on Reid reviews.

Logged
Jason Denning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2013, 04:17:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Dan, I appreciate the time you took to write all that!

Jason
Logged

www.jasondenning.co.uk


Fotoman 617 with Rodenstock 55mm, 90mm and 180mm lenses
Mamiya 645 Pro TL, and every lens mamiya made.
Sony A7 with 35mm and 55mm Primes
photodan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2013, 06:56:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Dan, I appreciate the time you took to write all that!
Jason

You are very welcome Jason.  I see from your byline that you shoot 617 as part of your photography. I did a little bit of 617 shooting with a later model Fuji & 90mm lens in the past and enjoyed it.
Dan
Logged
Jason Denning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2013, 04:49:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes I Mainly shoot on 617, love the format and I haven't touched my Mamiya in 2 years! I'm mainly looking at the RX1 as a lightweight high quality addition to the 617 when on trips. It's a tough decision.
Logged

www.jasondenning.co.uk


Fotoman 617 with Rodenstock 55mm, 90mm and 180mm lenses
Mamiya 645 Pro TL, and every lens mamiya made.
Sony A7 with 35mm and 55mm Primes
jfirneno
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2013, 06:34:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Dan:
That was a very informative comparison.  You mentioned that you were mostly comparing the 800E to the RX-1 in landscape work.  I was curious to see if you had any chance to compare the auto-focus accuracy of the RX-1 vs the 800E in lower light conditions.  I'm a Sony user (both DSLR and mirrorless) and my experience is that Sony's contrast AF is much less capable in low light than the PDAF in my DSLR.  I'd love to get your take on the comparison if you've noted one.

Regards,
John
Logged
photodan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2013, 04:28:44 PM »
ReplyReply

... I was curious to see if you had any chance to compare the auto-focus accuracy of the RX-1 vs the 800E in lower light conditions.  I'm a Sony user (both DSLR and mirrorless) and my experience is that Sony's contrast AF is much less capable in low light than the PDAF in my DSLR.  ...
John, I haven't done much shooting in lower light conditions so please take this with more than one grain of salt: the AF in the Nikon seems about equally accurate as the RX1 in lower light. If either camera is able to focus at all it seems that accuracy is about the same, and good. That assumes the AF adjustment of the particular lens has been made with the Nikon camera custom option, if needed. I don't use the AF assist light on any of my cameras and as a general rule with all cameras I've had in the past I almost always use just one AF point and the smallest one I can select if there is a choice.

Some people have reported occasional focus issues with foreground vs. background objects (in any light) with the RX1 but I haven't encountered any so far. I don't shoot much in the way of action shots, so my experience applies just to static subjects (however of course DSLRs are known to perform much better than mirrorless cameras for action shooting).

I came across a blog that has some interesting info on the RX1 at  http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog

Dan
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 05:39:46 PM by photodan » Logged
jfirneno
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2013, 07:01:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the information Dan.  So many options these days.  The mind begins to boggle.

Regards,
John
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad