Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on June 06, 2012, 05:49:58 am
-
Fascinating move from Sony. Although it is of course pricier, it will probably attract the eye of many potential Canon S100 buyers.
It also casts an interesting light on the potential of CX sized sensors and on how small those cameras could become.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So there's already a 20mp version of the V1/J1 sensor? What do you suppose Nikon might do with that? :)
-
Yes, I agree, very interesting move. I bought into the micro 4/3 system because the image quality wasn't there with the Canon S90 if I wanted to try to make a serious print, but m4/3 is not really a "carry everywhere on the belt" system even with just one of the pancakes, so the Sony is definitely interesting. It will be interesting to see how the Sony raw files hold up. I do wish they had stuck with a 12MP or 16MP sensor, though, just how big does Sony think people want to print from a compact camera anyway? I'd rather have even marginally better DR and noise.
-
The DPR low-ISO images looked pretty damn good to me. You aren't really going to pay any IQ penalty for 20MP over 16MP.
-
And since the lens doesn't go much beyond 100mm equivalent, having the extra pixels for cropping will be useful.
-
The DPR low-ISO images looked pretty damn good to me. You aren't really going to pay any IQ penalty for 20MP over 16MP.
On reflection, I think the real IQ issue will be the corner performance of the little lens.
-
The form factor in relation to sensor size looks compelling to me.
But then it seems that the additional sensor size (e.g. compared to a Powershot G12) was largely invested to double the pixel count to 20 mp rather than increasing pixel size - and what we commonly attribute with it: dynamic range, less noise, low light high iso performace... unless the sensor itself would simply be better (such as with Nikon's D7000/5100, or Pentax's whatsoever generation - at the risk that I'm not really up to date anymore).
Another camera and 'fascinating move' which misses the sweet spot of camera size vs sensor size vs pixel count vs pixel quality ?
E.g. like the Powershot G1X - for my purposes.
Peter
--
http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx100
-
Of typical Nikon, they are likely to avoid to cannibalize the sales of the V1/J1 which I think is a limited system. Technology will eventually allow FF sensor to pack into small camera body as before with the Contax T3 or Minolta TC-1, there is a logical size for camera or simply it can be a iPhone, The RX-100 will eventually start a new trend of camera, which is good for users, not good for some camera makers.
Pingang
So there's already a 20mp version of the V1/J1 sensor? What do you suppose Nikon might do with that? :)
-
Technology will eventually allow FF sensor to pack into small camera body as before with the Contax T3 or Minolta TC-1, there is a logical size for camera or simply it can be a iPhone, The RX-100 will eventually start a new trend of camera, which is good for users, not good for some camera makers.
... agreed,
so we'll continue to wait.
--
-
... it seems that the additional sensor size (e.g. compared to a Powershot G12) was largely invested to double the pixel count to 20 mp rather than increasing pixel size ...
As I understand it, the sensor area is 4x that of the G12 while the pixel count is 2x. So the pixel size on the Sony should be twice that of the Canon.
(I am not so sure pixel area is indeed so important but what do I know ?)
Cheers
-
... the sensor area is 4x that of the G12 ...
?? looks more like something around 2.75x
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor%20sizes
--
-
?? looks more like something around 2.75x
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor%20sizes
I stand corrected. I remember reading somewhere that it was 4 times bigger but never looked at the actual sizes (or maybe I just dreamt it).
Sorry about the confusion.
-
Thanks for posting Bernard.
I have a Sony NEX5, and frankly I don't use it much. Kit zoom; 55-210 as well. Sony has too much of my money.
I visited the local Sony Store (Toronto) and asked when the NEX5N would be replaced. they showed me their computer screen. The silver 5N is discontinued. Surely a replacement for that cams is imminent too.
This camera looks very interesting. Truly appreciate the thoughts here.
DaveL
-
I've started working with the RX100 and will have a review within the next week or so. It's a pretty amazing little camera.
Michael
-
Good! My recent cameras include
G9 with Franiec grip (after the Japanese trip story here)
2-G11's
LX5
NEX5
My M3 was stolen years ago; my M4P and I didn't get along.
DaveL
-
Double good!
-
I've started working with the RX100 and will have a review within the next week or so. It's a pretty amazing little camera.
Same here. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
By the way, is there already a decent raw converter supporting the RX100?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are a couple, (Rawthereppe) but I don't think that they yet handle the optical correction codes. This camera / lens combo really needs it.
We're stuck with Sony's dreadful Image Data Converter for the moment.
Michael
-
There are a couple, (Rawthereppe) but I don't think that they yet handle the optical correction codes. This camera / lens combo really needs it.
We're stuck with Sony's dreadful Image Data Converter for the moment.
Michael,
Answering my own question, Raw Developper 1.95 does already support the RX100.
Nice conversions as usual.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are a couple, (Rawthereppe) but I don't think that they yet handle the optical correction codes. This camera / lens combo really needs it.
We're stuck with Sony's dreadful Image Data Converter for the moment.
Michael
What IDC lacks in features it makes up for on colour accuracy. I usually get fabulous colour with no messing around. If I want finer detail I use Raw Therapee. That or C1 or anything else I have tried usually requires some fiddling to get colour that looks as good. In other words messing with it until it looks like the IDC version.
-
A few samples...
One Raw developper conversion:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8017/7532145892_6b23df053c_o.jpg)
In camera jpgs with default settings:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7132/7526791828_e588b24050_o.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8283/7526791508_6e0f414777_o.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8428/7526791256_32a68a2306_o.jpg)
A few more after the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157630477128592/with/7532145892/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks Bernard! Good to see.
(I'm still stumbling to find a good mini camera system. Sony NEX5 right now with kit zoom lens; may change.)
DaveL
Toronto
-
I've started working with the RX100 and will have a review within the next week or so. It's a pretty amazing little camera.
Michael
Thanks! Now Ineed to see this camera!
Dave
-
My review is now online.
Michael
-
Hi Michael,
I ordered an RX100 promptly after seeing your review...
Best regards
Erik
My review is now online.
Michael
-
I like this camera but i cannot figure out a few things:
-no bulit in ND filter, correct?
-does it have autofocus in video mode? touch screen?
-is manual focus on the lens barrel?
-
Damn! I have a Alpha 900 and a KM 7D. I was all set to plunk down for a NEX 7 before Michael published his review. I never liked the idea of dropping $1,500 for the camera and kit lens plus the converter to use my A-mount lenses. Then there's the possibility of having to buy a whole new lens system. Pretty rich for me. The RX 100's starting to look better and better.
-
I like this camera but i cannot figure out a few things:
-no bulit in ND filter, correct?
-does it have autofocus in video mode? touch screen?
-is manual focus on the lens barrel?
No filter and no touch screen. I don't know about video autofocus. The ring on the barrel can be programmed to do several things including manual focus.
-
How is it's macro capability?
Marc
-
especially the macro at 50mm-e and 100mm-e.
also, how much highlight recovery can you pull off with this camera? the samples i see online still have the p&s look to them, and i don't mean deep d-o-f. i like the nice design of this camera, and i might get one if the files look like they came from a dslr as reviewers say.
-
No filter and no touch screen. I don't know about video autofocus. The ring on the barrel can be programmed to do several things including manual focus.
thanks.
I guess my next question would be how best to applying Neutral Density ( I would be using this primarily for video ). I guess with some sort of small glass screw on filter hacked on there. Kinda defeats the purpose of a small camera though.
Also still trying to figure out if it has AF during video.
-
it does have AF in video.
-
There's another great review by EOSHD.com - http://www.eoshd.com/content/8499/sony-rx100-review (http://www.eoshd.com/content/8499/sony-rx100-review) bit more video orientated. The 1080 50p footage is amazing.
I had a play with this camera yesterday in the store and after reading the reviews (thanks Michael and Bernard) think I might pick up one this afternoon. This along with my GoPro2 will be perfect on my two week cycling tour of Sri Lanka in a few weeks. Sorry 5D3 you can to stay at home.
Derryck.
-
But how is it's macro capability?
Marc
-
Sorry Marc, didn't check that feature out :)
But I did notice that it has a "Gourmet" setting as one of it's scene modes which really should please all those people who like to photograph what they are eating and post it on Facebook.
-
Just went across the street and picked one up (In China if you have to travel more than a block to get anything then it's probably not something you need). Looking forward to shooting some video and stills later today. Why diet and exercise to loose weight when you can just start carrying a smaller camera.
Marc, this camera can still focus just over an inch away from the subject. Below is a processed Raw file with no sharpening.
Cheers, Derryck.
-
Just for fun, I did a quick comparison just to see how this little camera would compare to the 5D3. This test is not very scientific as I haven't read the manual for the RX100 yet so I'm sure there's some settings that could have been adjusted, especially for the video. The 5D3 has the new 40mm pancake lens attached and the RX100 was zoomed to the equivalent angle of view. First image is just showing the full frame. The second is a still image comparison and the third compares 100% screen grabs from video. It's quite incredible what this camera manages to record at full HD at 50p.
The 5D image is on top.
-
Derryck
Thanks for the images I think the RX100 out resolves the 5DIII note the 2 xtra people that the RX100 resolved and the 5DIII did not! :)
The macro ability looks good when I bought a Canon G1X I didn't think I'd miss it but I do.
Marc
-
Yeah,
It's remarkable what a difference a few MP and some dt can make ;-)
Best regards
Erik
Derryck
Thanks for the images I think the RX100 out resolves the 5DIII note the 2 xtra people that the RX100 resolved and the 5DIII did not! :)
The macro ability looks good when I bought a Canon G1X I didn't think I'd miss it but I do.
Marc
-
I haven't owned a point and shoot camera since the late 90s so I was pretty impressed when I reached page 67 of the owners manual which describes how to best use the "Smile Shutter"!!
I think it's great that Sony have thought about the chance that your subject may not really be in the mood for a portrait so there's the "Slight Smile" setting.
-
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
I haven't owned a point and shoot camera since the late 90s so I was pretty impressed when I reached page 67 of the owners manual which describes how to best use the "Smile Shutter"!!
I think it's great that Sony have thought about the chance that your subject may not really be in the mood for a portrait so there's the "Slight Smile" setting.
-
I just picked up an RX100 at the Sony Store in Manhattan about 45 minutes ago.
They were going fast ... there were only two left.
-
I just picked up an RX100 at the Sony Store in Manhattan about 45 minutes ago.
They were going fast ... there were only two left.
jealous. since you have it in hand, what do you think the best approach is for putting ND filters on it for video would be?
-
jealous. since you have it in hand, what do you think the best approach is for putting ND filters on it for video would be?
Hmmm ... If they make gel filters, you could cut a small circle and tape it onto the lens.
I used to do that with gels and my Canon G9 for use underwater.
-
How's the RX100 feel in your hand? some point and shoots are a bit too small.
Marc
-
Richard has a grip he makes specially for the camera. Just released.
I bought the Canon G9 and put a Franiec grip on it after reading of a trip to Japan where the writer used this camera instead of a Leica M8...
Richard's grips are incredible.
Here's a link:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/07/19/Sony-RX100-accessory-grip-from-Richard-Franeic
-
The more you add on, the less the ideal little traveller anything becomes. Sort of defeats the point, one might think.
Rob C
-
The more you add on, the less the ideal little traveller anything becomes. Sort of defeats the point, one might think.
Rob C
True, but the grip doesn't extend past the the lens ring, so it doesn't add anything to the gross dimensions of the camera. That said, I didn't feel the need for one on the S90, and will not be getting one for the RX11.
-
The more you add on, the less the ideal little traveller anything becomes. Sort of defeats the point, one might think.
Rob C
Everyone's needs are different. His grips are works of art. Ifound my G9 much easier to grasp and easier to hold still The G9 with grip suited me better than the G11 with factory shape.
it was no harder to store,just easier to use. ifrequentlycarry a small P&S in a scottevest pocket. The grip makes it easier/quicker to pull the camera out and shoot. YMMV
-
Very good, more quality than expected, the manual focusing ring is better than many DSLR lenses. Nice weight and size.
The more you add on, the less the ideal little traveller anything becomes. Sort of defeats the point, one might think.
Rob C
-
Any idea when raw support will be more popular, for CameraRaw mainly, DxO is usually way too slow anyway (and I rarely use it these days) ?
I have a few shots that I can say I couldn't have taken with the Canon S100 but they need more work.
Also, any proper manual or guide around the web? I'm using it without reading anything for few days now but there are some things that bother me, such as how do I set the min shutter speed in Aperture more. If possible, as the default at 28mm is 1/30 and while it's ok for stable subjects it's too slow for moving kids.
-
As I partially won against my inertia here is a nice link, at the bottom of the page there is a dropbox link to a more proper manual for RX100: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&thread=41949972&page=1
-
True, but the grip doesn't extend past the the lens ring, so it doesn't add anything to the gross dimensions of the camera.
And to me, so long as the grip does not extend past the front of the retracted lens (or the front of the shortest lens for a system camera), I would take the bigger grip for more secure holding and extra battery room. (This is one design disagreement I have with the Olympus E-M5.)
-
jealous. since you have it in hand, what do you think the best approach is for putting ND filters on it for video would be?
Just spotted this link on another forum, not available yet but looks like it might be a useful product.
http://cheesycam.com/nd-or-cpl-filters-for-sony-rx100/ (http://cheesycam.com/nd-or-cpl-filters-for-sony-rx100/)
-
i've found the Franeic grip very useful of the s90 and will add one to the soon arriving RX100 - and eagerly anticipating the retirement of the S90
completely agree that proper grips should be a higher priority for small cameras - could be much larger without impacting the overall enelope of the camera/smallest lens with useful added battery capacity for a much improve sense of security and shooting experience
-
have found that shooting with a "pinch" maneuver works well due to the unit's balance
index finger on the shutter, thumb on baseplate. Long term holds may get dicey for some, I guess it depends upon who is holding...
but works for me. it's not a landscape camera in my bag.
-
Hi,
My feeling is that it is OK. I hold mine between the thumb and the index finger of both hands, so I would not have use for a grip.
This is the first P&S I'm satisfied with, but I miss a viewfinder.
Best regards
Erik
How's the RX100 feel in your hand? some point and shoots are a bit too small.
Marc
-
This is the first P&S I'm satisfied with, but I miss a viewfinder.
Frankly, I would gladly give up the LCD for an EVF. I tend just to put the E-M5 up to my eye to change settings rather than switch to the LCD and have to put on my glasses. The volume saved from the LCD might offset a good deal of the volume of the EVF, allowing the same overall form factor.
-
Wow, the Sony RAW software is a complete dog! Even worse than the Oly raw converter, which is quite an accomplishment. Anyone have any hint when the RX100 will be supported in the Adobe DNG converter (the first place I'd expect it to be)?
-
Ha, you should see what came with my X Pro 1... Thanks God LR 4 supports it.
-
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
-
What's the problem?
How's the RX100 feel in your hand? some point and shoots are a bit too small.
Marc
-
does anyone make a battery charger that works with the RX100 battery?
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
How does image quality compare?
-NEX5
-RX100
-Nikon 1
-M4/3rds?
-
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.
-
Thanks Erik. Much appreciated.
-
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!
-
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
-
Truly appreciate your comments. My Sony NEX 5 isn't used much. I am considering changing it out.
Thanks
DaveL
-
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 ?! ::)
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry Legros
-
- 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.
-
Hi,
My take right now is that in camera JPEGs are quite good. I'm shooting RAW+JPEG and hoping for better times. On the other hand I must say that in camera JPEGs are better than what I can achieve with "RAWDeveloper", but that may be my fault.
Best regards
Erik
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.
-
I don't think I've worked with a raw converter that takes so long to go image select to complete since I suffered through Nikon Capture. And when I look at the TIFF files produced, I'm certain there's more there that a decent raw converter could bring out. I find the colors in particular to be inconsistent. I wish I could figure out why it seems so hard to control. It's not like I'm a total noob at image processing - I can shoot m4/3 and a couple different Nikons and process the raw files and you can't tell which camera was used. There's something distinctively RX-100 about the output from the raw processor. That's kind of counter to the concept of raw, I think.
Do love the camera. First camera I've shot with since the GF1 with 20mm came out that makes me smile when I'm shooting. It's enough different looking and handling, in a good way, because of its size, that it's fun to use. The whacky zoomy continuous AF - almost brings on motion sickness - is probably a lag in lens distortion adjustment versus speed of autofocus adjustment.
Am I totally missing something, or is macro (or even close up) really limited to the widest zoom setting? That is kind of a fun spoiler, puts me in dangerous dog nose print on lens territory when photographing my puppy.
-
Was playing around with close-ups today ... a couple shots with crops attached.
-
I’ve recently taken possession of an Rx100 as a replacement for my long in the tooth Lumix LX1. As Michael says, it’s a joy to use. It’s quick to focus and the resolution is amazing for a P&S. If it lasts as a carry-around half as long as my LX1 did I’ll be more than satisfied.
I have noticed, though, in shots taken with lens at it’s maximum reach that all four corners have a greenish cast. (I’ll try to append a sample of an OOC jpeg).
What I’m uncertain of is whether I just have an “off” copy or if it’s a characteristic of the camera. I’m also wondering, if it is in fact inherent to the camera’s design, if Camera Raw’s Lens Correction tab will take care it when it becomes available.
Has anyone else encountere this issue?
-
I have noticed, though, in shots taken with lens at it’s maximum reach that all four corners have a greenish cast. (I’ll try to append a sample of an OOC jpeg).
I believe this issue popped up on the depreview Sony forum and was discussed there in the ususal DPR forum fashion, so it's not just your camera. I just checked mine and see the same thing, FWIW.
-
I haven't noticed the green cast but I'll check some of my shots.
-
Has anyone heard of a waterproof housing available for it? This would make a great little camera for all my ocean based activities. Should be a lot cheaper than a housing for the d700 as well! :D
-
Has anyone heard of a waterproof housing available for it? This would make a great little camera for all my ocean based activities. Should be a lot cheaper than a housing for the d700 as well! :D
Recsea makes one already. Ikelite will, I'm sure.
The lack of an underwater mode leads me to believe sony won't ... Which is strange to me as this is would make a dreamy underwater camera ...
-
I got to read on some forums that there are a lot of issues with the RX100 lens which kind of contradicts what I heard before, here or elsewhere. Main issues were lens too soft in the corners and green corners.
On mine I didn't notice much in regular shooting, except for expected softer corners, but I wasn't really looking either.
How are your experiences?
-
i remain amazed by the image quality in jpeg, but am eagerly awaiting Adobe RAW before being completely satisfied. surprised to find that LR 4 can really help jpegs. the camera is far and away better than anything else you can put in your pocket.
just got the Franiec grip which is a help
still working on control setup
-
I got to read on some forums that there are a lot of issues with the RX100 lens which kind of contradicts what I heard before, here or elsewhere. Main issues were lens too soft in the corners and green corners.
On mine I didn't notice much in regular shooting, except for expected softer corners, but I wasn't really looking either.
How are your experiences?
I see the green corner issue, but it is pretty subtle and a non-issue IMO, and if it ever did intrude could easily be corrected in post. I personally experienced some sample variation in the amount of corner softness, but again IMO it's pretty obvious if you have a "bad copy" -- the corner softness is there if you pixel peep, but not so much so on a print
-
I'm currently in Kandy halfway through our two week cycling tour of Sri Lanka and absolutely loving using this camera. Taken about 1200 shots so far and so many that I wouldn't have taken if I took my DSLR.
Though I'm not expecting to take many shots tomorrow just hoping to survive the day which sees us climb 2000m over 100km.
-
I will check for soft and green corner issue.
But for me, a big issue is that when you choose ISO for the ring, you can't use the ring any more in scene and auto modes !!!
Canon is more logical, and when you choose someting in manual modes, it does not affect auto modes.
Why has chosen Sony to affect all modes when personalizing ring and function button ???!!!
Hope they will change that in a new firmware.
Thierry
-
Has anyone heard of a waterproof housing available for it? This would make a great little camera for all my ocean based activities. Should be a lot cheaper than a housing for the d700 as well! :D
http://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-scuba-ocean-news/nauticam-announces-housing-for-sony-rx100-compact/
-
http://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-scuba-ocean-news/nauticam-announces-housing-for-sony-rx100-compact/
And more
http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/sony-rx100-review
Question: what is the RX100 real base ISO ?!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
From what I read it seems to be 125.
-
Pretty detailed review: http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Sony-Cyber-shot-RX100-Digital-Camera-Review.htm
It kind of confirms my suspicions that the stabilizer isn't that good. Also they don't speak too highly about the sensor performance (color accuracy, noise, DR, etc) but the big size combined with the excellent bright lens can give you that DSLR look that I couldn't get in my S100.
-
very tedious to get thru this review to clear information. their resolution test matches mine (looks like they may be using Imatest with the same target), however impressive this is (and i was very impressed by my tests at all focal lengths), i'm still reserving judgement until LR4.2 and evaluating some RAW files (i've been shooting RAW + JPEG in anticipation) as i am suspicious of what they may be doing in JPEG - but haven't tried any large print evaluations.
it's taking me some time to come up with a setup for intuitive fast operation - i'd like to be able to use the camera for street photography. any suggestions are welcome.
-
It kind of confirms my suspicions that the stabilizer isn't that good. Also they don't speak too highly about the sensor performance (color accuracy, noise, DR, etc) but the big size combined with the excellent bright lens can give you that DSLR look that I couldn't get in my S100.
Do you have both cameras? I was ready to buy an S100 before the RX100 came along, and still might considering that it's half the price, but so many people seem really excited about the Sony.
-
Adobe has just announced release candidates for for Lightroom & camera raw that recognizes the Sony RX100: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/
-
Thanks for this interresting news !!
-
Do you have both cameras? I was ready to buy an S100 before the RX100 came along, and still might considering that it's half the price, but so many people seem really excited about the Sony.
Yes, and I also had (or still have but not using an S90). RX100 is not twice as good as S100, but we all know that incremental improvements on the high end cost exponentially more.
Depth of field is what makes the camera, you can get the bigger camera look which wasn't the case most of the times with the S100. That is if you don't want maximum depth of field.
At low iso I don't see that much of a difference when equivalent DOF is used. For color accuracy, WB, etc you should look for more specialized reviews.
Noise is better on RX100, we'll see when LR supports it how much the difference really is. I'm using RX100 at auto iso max 1600, the S100 at max 400. The difference might be a little less than 2 stops though.
Handling is different, it might be a matter of getting used to it. With RX100 you have to go the menus often if you like to tinker things often, but most of the settings can be accessed with few clicks only. Most of the times I use it on Aperture priority, auto iso up to 1600, I have exp com on the ring (works so-so) and manual focus -auto focus switch with the back center button (or however it's called). And few often used settings on the Fn button. I usually set same basic stuff appropriate for the scene and then I rarely change anything unless I change entirely the subject or the scene so it works OK for me.
-
And it seems to work well with LR4.2 RC.
But is it normal that you don't have access to lens correction sliders.
It seems like it was an incorporated lens correction invisible and not accessible to the user.
For my S90, I can modify embedded corrections with the sliders in LR3.
Yes, LR4 is new for me, so I'm not sure that the lens correction panel is the same as LR3 one.
Now I've to make a color profile of my RX100, because I'm not fully satisfied with those proposed in LR4.2 RC.
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
dpreview has it's review up also
-
Thierry, I have access to the Lens Correction sliders for my RX100 in LR4.2RC. Make sure that the little "enable" box at the top left of the panel is turned on.
-
Did you experiment some problems in macro in medium to low light ?!
I was shooting some detail of a tablecloth yesterday, and my S90 had absolutely no difficuties at all, but the RX100 was completely unable to focus on those details, it could only work with more contrasty details of another tablecloth.
Note taht the light assistance led was working.
As there is no macro button, I asked myself if the RX100 could only work with macro in the scene menu ?!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
As there is no macro button, I asked myself if the RX100 could only work with macro in the scene menu ?!
My hunch is that you were zoomed ... The working distance increases dramatically if you aren't at the wide end.
-
Sorry, but I was at maximum wide angle.
So, I've made further tests and it seems that my RX100 has some problems with some textures to focus !
For sure, I've tested in macro scene mode, but it's exactly the same, and even sometimes you hear the "good focus bip" and see the "green brackets", but you really see on the screen that is is completely out of focus.
Now I can tell that in macro condition, S90 is far better for autofocus.
May you test with different textures to confirm that I'm not the only one ?!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
RX100 needs a little room in order to focus in macro and you don't need to switch to macro scene.
In other order, DxO released a new version with RX100 support. Here is a photo that I worked on initially in LR4 starting from jpeg, and now I first used DxO for raw to dng, then LR4. They are BW and I didn't spend enough time to match them in terms of tonality or exact exposure but they are close. You can see 100% crops from each. Probably you can better than what I got.
They are both exported from the Ilford Gold Fibre Silk proof, relative rendering, hopefully that shows a little better what to expect in a print.
PS. shot is at iso 1600
-
Sorry, but I was at maximum wide angle.
So, I've made further tests and it seems that my RX100 has some problems with some textures to focus !
For sure, I've tested in macro scene mode, but it's exactly the same, and even sometimes you hear the "good focus bip" and see the "green brackets", but you really see on the screen that is is completely out of focus.
Now I can tell that in macro condition, S90 is far better for autofocus.
May you test with different textures to confirm that I'm not the only one ?!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
I think it's going to depend a lot on the nature of the texture, lighting and the degree of contrast, but I tried it on my sofa cushion, which I would say has moderate contrast. No problem auto-focusing properly in fairly dim, oblique light (f/1.8, 1/30 sec, auto iso = 800), wide angle, at the closest focusing distance of about 5 cm. Autofocus Area and Metering Mode both set to Center. I set the cushion at an angle so I could easily tell which parts were in and out of focus. I don't have an s90 or similar camera to compare it to, but it is performing as well as I would expect in the circumstances.
-
OK, I've understood now.
It seems that in macro and low light conditions the RX100 underexpose about 1EV !
So, simply pushing + 1EV solve my problem.
But Jeremy was right when he said that you must be in wide angle to shoot macro.
As soon as you zoom, the minimum focus distance increase a lot !!!
Now I know how to cope with thoses things ;)
Thierry
-
There was some discussion earlier in this thread about underwater housings for the RX100, which look interesting. For anyone who isn't looking to go that far, but would like a case that does a good job of protecting the camera against the elements--for example when you are kayaking, fishing, hiking in the rain, etc.--you might take a look at the Pelican Micro 1010 case. I just bought one for $16 at REI, and it fits the RX100 just about perfectly. The camera fits into a rubber lining within the hard plastic case. The case is crushproof, dustproof, and water resistant. It's not guaranteed to be waterproof, and it's not recommended to submerge it. But I tested it by filling it with tissues, and then holding it at the bottom of a sink filled with water for 30 sec. No water leaked inside. So I think it's a better choice than the standard case for those activities where splashing or a brief dunking is a possibility.
-
I also have a Pelican box, but larger to accept the shoulder strap, it's fine and very robust.
Do you also remark, like me and some reviewers, that the steadyshot is very effective in video, but almost non effective in photo ?!
So I hope it's a firmware problem and the new version will allow good anti-shake performances !!!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
Few days ago I took the S100 to photograph my kids in the park, meaning fast targets and lower light. I didn't realize until then that RX100 is in a different class when it comes to how fast it acquires focus (at least in the lower light) and shutter lag. I usually use less focus tracking and for single focus I can use RX almost without missing my SLR with a much smaller package.
-
I considered the pelican case since I have the same one for my hearing aids, but I went with Aquapac, which is a fraction of the weight, totally waterproof, and you could throw it against a brick wall without any camera damage. The best camera case I own.
Aquapac Medium Camera Pouch http://usstore.aquapac.net/explore-product-range/waterproof-camera-cases/medium-stormproof-camera-pouch-uss021.html
-
From Sri Lanka.
-
Like these, Derryck. Any HDR used?
-
No, I just shot them raw and then played around with some dodging and burning using layer masks in Photoshop. I've got some more images from the trip in the User Critiques section.
I took over 2000 images with this camera and was glad that Adobe had updated Camera Raw by the time I got back.
-
"No, I just shot them raw and then played around with some dodging and burning using layer masks in Photoshop. "
I think it has quite a good DR for a relatively small sensor, but I also find it's wise to take real care not to burn the highlights, more so than say a decent dslr. I lost quite a few early shots from exposing too much to the right (new acronym -TMTTR?) and losing the highlights. But like you, a bit of photoshopping is all it takes.
-
Most of the time, I'm satisfied with my RX100, but there are some drawbacks.
Do you also remark, like me and some reviewers, that the steadyshot is very effective in video, but almost non effective in photo ?!
So I hope it's a firmware problem and the new version will allow good anti-shake performances !!!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
Strange...My first camera with IS and I have been amazed at being able to hand hold at 1/20 sec with sharp results ??
-
DxOMark review: 66 points
LINK (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Sony/Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100)
-
DxOMark review: 66 points
LINK (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Sony/Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100)
Interesting, a little better than speculated in some areas and a little worse in others.
Compared to Canon S100: low iso is only a little over 1 stop advantage, which is probably right (I was thinking more towards 2 stops but likely it was the new camera enthusiasm talking). Much better on the other parameters.
Also, comparing to my other camera Nikon D90, it's almost a perfect match except the low iso performance.
Some critique against it is that at higher iso it loses the color accuracy faster than other cameras, such as Nikon J1/V1, don't know if this is true.
Bottom line, for this size or less (pocketable) there is nothing better on the market.
-
Interesting, a little better than speculated in some areas and a little worse in others.
Compared to Canon S100: low iso is only a little over 1 stop advantage, which is probably right (I was thinking more towards 2 stops but likely it was the new camera enthusiasm talking). Much better on the other parameters.
Also, comparing to my other camera Nikon D90, it's almost a perfect match except the low iso performance.
Some critique against it is that at higher iso it loses the color accuracy faster than other cameras, such as Nikon J1/V1, don't know if this is true.
Bottom line, for this size or less (pocketable) there is nothing better on the market.
Agree. Beside making the classical dual illuminant profile, I may decide to make single/dual illuminant profiles on specific high ISO to be able to get fine colors for nightlife or indoor parties.
Before anyone asks, yes: I'd like to have true colors even for party shots. That's me :)
-
Strange...My first camera with IS and I have been amazed at being able to hand hold at 1/20 sec with sharp results ??
With my S90 I'm able to hand hold at 0.5 sec with sharp results ;) ;) ;)
So, very deceived with the RX100 Steadyshot !!!
-
That's fabulous that your able to hand hold for 1/2 sec. I've never had that talent, so I'm quite happy that the rx100 allows me that option.
-
From DP review forum, what confirms my tests:
1. "I've noticed this too. For still images, steadyshot doesn't seem to do anything at all at the wide end and maybe 1 stop at the long end. I find the IS on my canon s90 to be extremely effective, so I'm pretty sure it's not something I'm doing wrong.
On the other hand, steadyshot on video is fantastic. Unfortunately I don't really care about video too much."
2. "Hopefully it can be rectified soon.
Maybe they forgot to enable it in firmware !
But that would be embarrassing."
So, I've asked Sony about that.
Hope to have good news because, it's an interresting feature when hiking or biking without a tripod !
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
As a side note about the screen: it looks better in the sun than other LCDs BUT it has to be clean. If it gets a thin grease/dust pelicle on it as most do its performance is not that good.
And it scratches easily! I cleaned it with my t-shirt (I know) and a got a small scratch on it, and I didn't see any particles on it before cleaning. As Murphy law is working this was just one day before the shipment of the semirigid protective screen arrived and the first LCD I scratch (ever) >:(
-
From DP review forum, what confirms my tests:
1. "I've noticed this too. For still images, steadyshot doesn't seem to do anything at all at the wide end and maybe 1 stop at the long end. I find the IS on my canon s90 to be extremely effective, so I'm pretty sure it's not something I'm doing wrong.
On the other hand, steadyshot on video is fantastic. Unfortunately I don't really care about video too much."
100% agree. I'm somewhat disappointed by the IS.
-
Message to all RX100 owners.
Could you please, contact your respective country dealer to inform them of the problem ?
Or better, if someone may inform Sony Japan Headquarters, it could be kind.
I hope it's a firmware problem, so Sony has to be clearly and quickly informed !!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
Played a bit with the RX100 this evening. Indoor, mid level light.
Focus is almost OK but goes a bit slow when on telephoto end.
To me, at the moment, the worst issues are the size and the handling. Despite having quite small hands I really have to keep the camera with the finger tips.
It's very difficult to get stable shots.
Sony worked hard to reduce sizes and weight. I'd pay for a bulkier (not bulky) body! :-[
The lens dial is driving me nuts. If you change it's behavior on a mode, switching to another mode it carries the new function with it.
I usually set as "zoom" for movie mode and "standard" for PASM modes.
-
Paolo,
You're absolutely right.
For the ring and Steadyshot, I've asked Sony to correct this in next firmware, Hope they will do it !
Size is not a problem for me as I've small hands and use the strap to firmly stabilize the body.
But of course, a decent steadyshot is mandatory for waterfalls shot for example.
I've done very good waterfalls photos with my G10 at 1/5 or 1/4 sec without any tripod.
Thierry
-
Now that I installed LR 4.2 RC I started to play with the raws directly in LR. I did a quick process of a photo that should stretch the DR
- The jpg was out of camera with extra processing in LR 4.1.
- The LR was raw directly processed in LR 4.2 RC
- DxO was initially processed partially in DxO 7.5 then sent to LR 4.2RC where I continued (use of the "HDR" slider in DxO looked quite bad)
-
Shadow detail (as it was pushed a good amount). Now I see that the LR shot I did push a little more.
-
And highlight detail
-
Now that I installed LR 4.2 RC I started to play with the raws directly in LR. I did a quick process of a photo that should stretch the DR
So what's your judgement?
-
Although some say the jpeg engine is very good you can get much better results (at least when viewed at 100%) with both LR and DxO and I'm sure the difference would be obvious when printing larger also.
The bigger question is between LR and DxO and I can't say for sure now. The LR results look as good without the trip in DxO and the DxO look overprocessed; thing is in print they tend to look better when not printed very large.
I need to figure out if it's worth doing anything more than geometric corrections and lens softness correction, +/- noise correction. The real test would be a larger print of something that I like (this particular example is not something that I plan on printing).
PS. I posted the above images so you can make your own conclusions also.
-
Some photos taken very recently with RX100.
-
(http://cl.ly/image/3C0a372A0x3k/imovie.png)
RX100 MP4 movies work on iMovie for iOS
Having just upgrade to iOS 6 and iMovie for iOS 1.4, I tried to import all the different movie formats to the iPad via camera connection kit.
√ MP4 1440x1080
X AVCHD (any)
Sure, the MP4 container with rectangular pixel and 12Mbps is not the top of the quality, but still it's way batter than iPad/iPhone camera for the video maker/journalist on the go.
-
Was wondering if anyone has been running LR 4.2 Beta to process their RX100 RAW images? Do you convert the images in 4.2 and go back to 4.1 to edit? Or is 4.2 stable enough to complete the editing, and final printing? Are there any major (or minor) problems - dangers to installing the 4.2 beta?? Can it corrupt all your saved presets, settings, or paper presets?? Or are they copied from 4.1 and not updated by changes made while in 4.2? Sorry for so many run-on questions but I've never been tempted to run a "release candidate" before.
Have not used the camera much yet but It looks pretty nice! One thing that bothers me though is the lack of a filter adapter!!! I always cap my lenses with a multi-coated UV filter as soon as received.
Why do we need to tape(!!) a modified filter holder to the camera??!! This is after all, an "enthusiasts" camera.......Has anyone found a better solution?
-
Was wondering if anyone has been running LR 4.2 Beta to process their RX100 RAW images? Do you convert the images in 4.2 and go back to 4.1 to edit? Or is 4.2 stable enough to complete the editing, and final printing?
[...]
It's a RC (Release Candidate). It means that it's stable enough for everyday use. It's not a beta.
It overwritten my 4.1 and works flawlessly for me since then. :)
-
LR4.2 RC is as stable as a final version :) ;)
Magnetic fixed filter will be the best solution ;)
Thierry
-
Magnetic fixed filter will be the best solution ;)
It seems like a good alternative but I am concerned about placing a strong magnet onto a device that depends on moving electrons about on a nano scale ???
Glad to hear about 4.2! Thanks!!
-
LR4.2 RC is as stable as a final version :) ;)
Not exactly. A GM would be quite as stable as a Release Candidate. Beside that I didn't find any serious bug :)
-
Whats a GM?
-
Whats a GM?
A genetically modified version ;)
Alternatively, a golden master.
Jeremy
-
Just saw this filter adapter (threaded ring is attached to front of lens with double-sided tape). Filters I don't care so much about, but this would let me use a lens hood, which I do care about. Of course, and attached lens hood destroys the compact form factor of the camera (somewhat). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNv6IXJZ3xI
-
To wake-up the post and give more information about lowest ISO ;) ;)
I've made a lot of tests this afternoon, and now I've understood almost everything.
So, I've made manual shots (@f3.5) of a colorchecker, 1st 1/4s @ISO80, 2nd 1/5s @ISO100, 3rd 1/6s @ISO125.
All shots are properly exposed (ETTR) and need only a slight correction (max 0.1Ev) to obtain exactly same exposure in LR4.2.
Results: RAW with same exposure exhibit more noise @ISO100 and even more @ISO125, so DXOMark DR results are correct !
JPG doesn't need any exposure correction, exposure really identical, but it's clear that ISO125 is progressively compressed in the highlights, but neither ISO80, nor ISO100, so DPReview results are correct too !
So, if you shoot RAW, use ISO80 if it's possible.
Also noticed that the 2 last patches of my colorcheker were blinking (@ISO80 and 100), but RAW data were not clipped !!!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
Hi!
What happens is that exposure is actually reduced. So if a certain patch would see 1000 photons at 1/4s it would only see 666 photons at 1/6s. From photon statistics, SNR would be 31.6 at 1/4s and 25.8 at 1/6s. That is physics, nothing software can do anything about. The JPEG processing pipeline probably does some noise reduction and sharpening (among many other things) and will take ISO setting into account.
Best regards
Erik
To wake-up the post and give more information about lowest ISO ;) ;)
I've made a lot of tests this afternoon, and now I've understood almost everything.
So, I've made manual shots (@f3.5) of a colorchecker, 1st 1/4s @ISO80, 2nd 1/5s @ISO100, 3rd 1/6s @ISO125.
All shots are properly exposed (ETTR) and need only a slight correction (max 0.1Ev) to obtain exactly same exposure in LR4.2.
Results: RAW with same exposure exhibit more noise @ISO100 and even more @ISO125, so DXOMark DR results are correct !
JPG doesn't need any exposure correction, exposure really identical, but it's clear that ISO125 is progressively compressed in the highlights, but neither ISO80, nor ISO100, so DPReview results are correct too !
So, if you shoot RAW, use ISO80 if it's possible.
Also noticed that the 2 last patches of my colorcheker were blinking (@ISO80 and 100), but RAW data were not clipped !!!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
More tests this morning that confirm results of DXO ;) ;)
I've made 9 shots of the colorchecker in manual mode @ISO100, the first to be just below onset of clipping, others with speed doubled each time (-1EV steps).
Developped in LR with exposure compensation.
Up to +5EV, no problems, but after I've to tweak with curves to obtain the good correction.
318 is -6EV, 316 is -4EV, 313 is -2EV, 311 is correct exposure.
As you can see, results are very good up to -6EV.
-
The last one -8EV had to be tweaked with massive NR (100 lum. and 50 chrom.), some contrast and some vibrance to restore colors.
Of course, it's far from a perfect result !!!
So, if the DR of a colorchecker is 6EV, fairly good results of the -6EV exposure confirms the 12EV DR found by DXO.
And NR of LR4.2 allows me to obtain 1 more EV.
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
To compare, I've tested my old G10, very disapointed :-[
1392 is properly exposed, 1394 is -2EV, 1396 is -4 EV, 1396 is -6EV.
But the biggest difference is that even @ISO80 the properly exposed shot exhibit noise in the blue channel !!!
Hopefully LR4.2 has a very good noise reduction system that works well up to -4EV with no drawbaks at all.
But below -4EV it's another matter.
-
So, my G10 DR is just under 10EV @ISO80, with really worse SNR18% than the RX100.
The last G10 shot (-8EV), just to show you that it's really unusable.
But in real world, with good light, G10 is not crappy, and sometimes I prefer G10 result over RX100 !!!
Why, it's very difficult to explain, just like you may prefer valve audio amp ;) ;) ;)
Thierry
-
Michael,
How does it compare to the Sigma DP2M?
Pro's / con's of both? Independent of price difference.
-
I guess Michael is on vacation ...... :(
....... or he is still figuring out which one is best. :)
-
Or he doesn't want to indulge the question of what the differences are between apples and oranges.
-
Thierry,
Thanks for the research. DR is more important to me that noise on the RX100, so I always have shot at 125 assuming that's what will give me the most DR. What could you tell about where the DR "sweet spot" is from the tests you ran?
-
From all my tests, it appears that you'd better choose ISO80 for RAW.
But if you use Jpg ISO125 will give you the best results.
Just pay attention that "Blinking Clipping Indicator" is extremely conservative (about 0.7EV), so you don't need to add a safety margin when using ETTR in RAW ;) ;) ;)
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
DR is more important to me that noise on the RX100, so I always have shot at 125 assuming that's what will give me the most DR.
Bill Claff's data shows that the photographically useful dynamic range is as follows:
- ISO 81 ... 8.73 stops
- ISO 100 ... 8.41 stops
- ISO 126 ... 8.71 stops
http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm
-
Or he doesn't want to indulge the question of what the differences are between apples and oranges.
I believe Michael may have said he was going to compare the Sony RX1 with the Sigma and this could be the source of confusion here ...
-
Hi,
You will get the best DR if you expose at the lowest ISO fully to the right. Reason is that you want to utilize the full well capacity of the sensor optimally.
I'm pretty sure that the drop at 100 ISO is a red herring, but I cannot explain it.
Best regards
Erik
Bill Claff's data shows that the photographically useful dynamic range is as follows:
- ISO 81 ... 8.73 stops
- ISO 100 ... 8.41 stops
- ISO 126 ... 8.71 stops
http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm
-
I'm pretty sure that the drop at 100 ISO is a red herring, but I cannot explain it.
Best regards
Erik
I've got a hunch that ISOs 80 and 100 are gonna turn out to be the red herrings.
I just gotten my replacement RX100 - Sony was nice enough to simply exchange it for me - and intend to do some research when I get the time ... it may not be until the 1st week of January that I do, but eventually I'll do my own analysis and get back to y'all.
-
Could you also tell us if it's still 1.0 Firmware ?!
-
Thanks for all infomation shared.
Anyone tried to use charger for mobile phone with usb connector (such as Samsung)? Anyone tried any lens hood/filters, in paricular pola.
Thanks!
-
Thanks for all infomation shared.
Anyone tried to use charger for mobile phone with usb connector (such as Samsung)? Anyone tried any lens hood/filters, in paricular pola.
Thanks!
I've used a bunch of usb power out wall warts, if it will charge a phone, it will charge the camera. As will the computer's usb although it will take longer b/c of lower amperage.
-
Complete French Manual is available in html (Zip) and as an .exe file.
See French website.
Thierry
-
Hi,
You will get the best DR if you expose at the lowest ISO fully to the right. Reason is that you want to utilize the full well capacity of the sensor optimally.
I'm pretty sure that the drop at 100 ISO is a red herring, but I cannot explain it.
Best regards
Erik
It depends little bit of the camera, for example a 5dmk3 you can underexpose little bit , the ratio between Signal and Noise is almost the same in 100 and 200iso. At the same time you are under exposing you create a head room and can adjust / rolling in the high light softer with your own curves.
-
Yes, but LR is so good in "highlight recovery" that you frankly may use ISO80 !
Higher ISO are only interresting when you need higher speed.
Thierry
-
Yes, but LR is so good in "highlight recovery" that you frankly may use ISO80 !
Higher ISO are only interresting when you need higher speed.
Thierry
you are closer to clipping, and the estimations of true colors in the high lights will not be so exact as with a small head room
-
You are right, but most of the time it's not a real problem.
Exposition is very often a shadows-highlights tradeoff ;)
Choose the right one ;) ;)
-
You are right, but most of the time it's not a real problem.
Exposition is very often a shadows-highlights tradeoff ;)
Choose the right one ;) ;)
it depends also which camera you are using, d800 you can expose after high lights and adjust middle tones, low levels
with a Canon you have to chose your exposure more carefully
-
I recently came back from a trip in Dolomites.
What can I say is that RX100 tends to badly underexpose in bright sun with snow all around, much more than newest DSLR and somewhat like old film bodies.
I often had to overexpose by at least a full stop in order to have a proper histogram.
Shooting Raw is not easy to understand what is still not clipped and what it is. I decided not to risk that much and keep some underexposures.
ISO 125 is not a problem. With RX100 you can shoot with quite small apertures without affecting the IQ that much, since the sensor is quite large.
1/2000th of a second at ƒ/5.6 and it's almost impossible to blow highlights, even with the whiter snow, fully lit by the sun.
With high contrast scenes, like deep into a forest with spots of lit snow here and there, it tends to overexpose a bit too much, so I had to lower the bias more than my DSLR.
Here ISO 125 is mandatory to try to get back some details in the shadow without starting a noise party.
-
I recently came back from a trip in Dolomites.
What can I say is that RX100 tends to badly underexpose in bright sun with snow all around, much more than newest DSLR and somewhat like old film bodies.
REMEMBER: a light meter is designed to recognize (1) value, that being 18% grey. If you have a scene which is predominately white, then the meter will tell you to expose it to render as neutral grey(18%). YOU have to manually adjust the exposure(or if it has an exposure compensation dial) so the nice, brightly lit white snow reads as such. This, in my experience, usually means approximately +1.5 to +2 stops over your meter reading(reflective off of the snow).
I often had to overexpose by at least a full stop in order to have a proper histogram.
see my answer above
Shooting Raw is not easy to understand what is still not clipped and what it is. I decided not to risk that much and keep some underexposures.
This generally a good idea, so you can adjust/fine-tune it to a proper density in post.
ISO 125 is not a problem. With RX100 you can shoot with quite small apertures without affecting the IQ that much, since the sensor is quite large.
1/2000th of a second at ƒ/5.6 and it's almost impossible to blow highlights, even with the whiter snow, fully lit by the sun.
With high contrast scenes, like deep into a forest with spots of lit snow here and there, it tends to overexpose a bit too much, so I had to lower the bias more than my DSLR.
Here ISO 125 is mandatory to try to get back some details in the shadow without starting a noise party.
-
[...]
Thanks Daniel but, I even teach photography, I quite know that :)
Evaluative metering (since 2006 or so…) knows what a bright scene is and doesn't meter for 18% grey, since lit snow is -much- more than a single stop above medium grey.
It's just that any camera for any brand behaves differently. This is how the RX100 behaves in this context.
-
Hi to all,
Just discovered that RX1 has some tint issue in Imaging Ressource : http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/02/01/latest-from-the-ir-labsony-rx1-tint-problem-a-sneak-peak-at-camera-tests (http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/02/01/latest-from-the-ir-labsony-rx1-tint-problem-a-sneak-peak-at-camera-tests)
That explain the tint issues I have with RX100 especially when shooting snow Landscape.
RX1 is software corected, but it seems that RX100 is not at all, or not enough corrected.
Sadly, there is no real tool in LR or DXO to correct that tint shift.
Hope Sony will cure it in a new firmware.
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry