Sony RX1 Review

[Rob C]

It changes how you see.

Rich

Yes; being stuck with one lens actually helps you deal with subject matter better. It focusses the mind on what's reasonably correct usage for a particular lens. As long as you work within that restriction you should do all right; forcing its natural boundaries doesn't usually work unless you are dealing with subjects other than people, where distortion is seldom flattering, though even that can be subject to convention: during the 60s many working on 135 format used to use 35mm lenses as standard, even shooting half-lengths with it. In some cases and from higher angles, there was a signature distortion with the top of the model's head; an obvious effect of perspective that was a trademark of the times then, but just looks ugly today. Beware dramatically fashionable!

Having written that, I'm also aware of having seen some really ugly shots from guys using the new breed of Zeiss 35mm  optics... so-called portraits that do nothing positive for the subject but do show the excellence of the lens. Seems a bit of a perverse use.

Rob C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In compact cameras there was a Leica lens, which also was named Panasonic but was made Canon, it was known as "The Canon Lens".

Best regards
Erik

In my opinion this should be checked, if possible, with Panasonic sources.

I think Leica's participation in the development process of Panasonic lenses (branded as "Leica") is merely nominal.

[Ernst Dinkla]

http://www.flickr.com/groups/carlzeisslenses/discuss/72157631540021363/

It will be an illusion to relate the RX1 lens character to the old Sonnar designs. The RX1 lens has 8 elements in 7 groups, 3 of the elements are aspherical.  Zeiss + Sony could have given the lens-sensor (micro lenses) combination any character if they wished so. The classical Sonnars have 6 or 7 elements in 3 groups to keep the air/glass surfaces as low as possible before lens coatings were invented. Here we have just one group for 8 elements. Zeiss already split the front element in two much longer ago in Sonnar designs but it also labeled lenses as Sonnar that had no relation to the original design at all.

http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar_en.html

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

[wazu]

Great little writeup Michael. I have had the 'little gem' in my hands just a few days now and am discovering how to adjust to the small peculiarities of the menus and button assignments. My only really negative issue so far which you failed to address is the out of round aperture blades (diaphram). I'm pretty certain the out of focus oblong and odd shaped highlights could be nicer if the blades formed a more perfect circle. However since many have the problem I'm not sure returning it will yield a better result. Much like finding your pro lens isn't as sharp as the reviews state and you opt to swap for another in hopes it will improve. I've also noticed the bokeh highlights often have concentric rings much like my oddball diffractive 70-300 Canon DO lens has.
Like you I'm severely dissapointed in not having an external charger as well as the prices of certain accessories. I did get a 30% discount voucher from Sony after registering, however most of the accessories are not possible to order yet on their site. So after waiting more than 3 months for this camera after ordering it upon it's announcement I am both over and underwhelmed by it's capabilities and build. Battery life and availability is poor but then again if you compare it to DP2M it wins hands down. I was very pleasantly surprised by the film like grain at high ISOs. I will soon try some A1 prints on my IPF6300 and am pretty sure I'll be as happy with the output of this as compared to my 5D2 with L glass.
I envy you being able to test out your RX1 in sunny warm Mexico and have enjoyed seeing the first images from there. I would like to hear more from people who are using their RX1 without a VF. As it is only the Zeiss OVF is available to purchase and it's just far too expen$ive to consider.