Sony RX1 Review

[Jim Pascoe]

Michael, many thanks for the review and for making me think I now want one of these cameras!  35mm on full frame is my favourite combination and I have a Zeiss 35mm lens for Canon 1Ds.  The fact it is non-interchangeable is a bonus in a way because it simplifies the way of seeing images and I would love a really high quality compact.  However one part you seemed to gloss over a bit was the use of the EVF.  I'm not sure despite reading the review a couple of times whether you actually got to use the EVF much.  I know from previous reviews that you consider a viewfinder a must for photography and like me think the rear LCD screen less suitable.  I am used to the GH2's and would like to know if the Sony EVF is at least up to the standard of that.  An EVF is essential to me and so would appreciate any clarification you could give.

Many thanks

Jim

[soboyle]

A peak into the future - what camera's will look like in a year or three, but at a more affordable cost. IQ looks great. Just needs the eye level viewfinder and Bob's your uncle.

[Petrus]

One clear contender would also be Fuji X-E1 with the promised 23mm F1.4 lens. Picture quality can not be far apart, full frame or not, and to my eyes X-Pro1/X-E1 produce cleaner files at high ISO.

Sounds like an excellent camera, though, do doubt about it. Too bad I can not afford them all...

[Vladimirovich]

> Of course we should recognise that Panasonic does the same thing with Leica lenses. These lenses are designed by Leica, and then built by Panasonic under supervision by Leica staff quality control experts.

absolutely not... Leica does not design anything for Panasonic and there is no need to... in the age of modern CAD/CAM systems for optical design, you do not need any Leica - you just need to decide what your lens will cost to manufacture vs what your target audience is willing to pay vs size/weight - but you do not need any hand tuning by elves these days...

the scope of Leica's involvement is very clearly stated by Panasonic on record, read any fine print from Panasonic related to Leica name on their lenses

*Leica is a registered trademark of Leica Microsystems IR GmbH. *The Leica DC lenses are manufactured using measurement instruments and quality assurance systems that have been certified by Leica Camera AG based on the company's quality standards. *All other company and product names are trademarks of their respective corporations.

there is no Leica design, no Leica QA... the only Leica involvment is that Leica certified that Panasonic's own "measurement instruments and quality assurance system" are up to Leica's standards... that's it and nothing more.

[ErikKaffehr]

Michael,

Thanks for the review. I'm somewhat astonished by the MTF figures. I have seen them before but I have a feeling that they were designed by Sony Marketing Department and not measured in a lab.

Best regards
Erik

 

[Nemo]

Of course we should recognise that Panasonic does the same thing with Leica lenses. These lenses are designed by Leica, and then built by Panasonic under supervision by Leica staff quality control experts.

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.

[Vladimirovich]

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

fine print is very clear... why 'd Panasonic try to write it clear that there is actually no design by Leica using a small font somewhere below blah-blah-blah if that was not the case 

[theguywitha645d]

Very nice read. The Minolta engineers that worked on the CL/CLE did not work on the RX1--they have long since retired. However, the Konica engineers that worked on the Hexar AF, a much closer relative, and Hexar RF could have worked on this project. In 2006 before the division was moved to Sony, it was called Konica Minolta Photo Imaging.

To comment of two really insignificant point:

As far as switching between still and different video files, it can be done straight from the playback mode--press the FN button to see the index and then use the controller to switch. Very simple and fluid. I actually like the files to be separate as they are easier to find especially with a lot of mixed files. While I know it is popular to bash the camera makers, I like the organization so maybe it is just a personal preference and not a flaw.

Personally, I am also happy that Sony does not pad the packaging like some high-end manufacturers. I have this large hard case that came with my p25+ that sits and gathers dust because it only fits a small MFD back. It is also a pain when I need to ship the back for repair because of its size and shippers don't insure expensive gear if not in original packaging. You will also notice the Sony packaging is recyclable. I also like that there paper manuals are smaller and there is no CD--just more junk for my drawers or the landfill. It is nice that this can be gotten from the web. I am happy to buy a great camera--I don't need to pay for fluff that is just to stroke my ego. BTW, a CD cost 15c, but what are the additional cost in production, shipping, and then making sure they get into a box. It is nice to try to break manufacturing into material cost, but it does come up short. I am happy that Sony put the money into what counts.

The charger thing I agree with, even if it did add $50 to the price.

[theguywitha645d]

Michael,

Thanks for the review. I'm somewhat astonished by the MTF figures. I have seen them before but I have a feeling that they were designed by Sony Marketing Department and not measured in a lab.

Best regards
Erik

 

Erik, the figures came from the optical engineers, not the marketers. Like all manufacturers, they are calculated, not measured.

[nemo295]

Thank you, Michael. Great review of a great camera.

I just wish the damn thing wasn't so damned expensive. I know, quality costs. Sigh.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,
 
The issue I have is that MTF at 10 lp/mm at f/8 is shown at 100% and MTF at 30 lp/mm is shown at perhaps 98%, neither value is physically feasible. as diffraction limit at f/8 seems to be around 0.9. So the figures are beyond what is physically possible, calculated or not. I have noticed that Michael talks about purported MTF, BTW.



Best regards
Erik

Erik, the figures came from the optical engineers, not the marketers. Like all manufacturers, they are calculated, not measured.

[cunim]

Am I missing something here?  These are not MTF charts.  They show contrast transfer for a fixed set of line pairs (probably very broad) as you go from center to edge.  Essentially, they show the spatial distribution of contrast response under unstressed conditions.  Nothing unusual about the type of result shown.

[cunim]

OK, I read the linked explanation by Zeiss and understand that some of the lines represent high spatial frequencies but no legend.  Wonder how high.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Normally, the curves published used to be either 10 and 30 lp/mm or 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm. I guess it is the former. Achiving 100% MTF at say 10 lp/mm is not possible but you ca get pretty close. I think I have seen 20 lp/mm above 90% coming from the Canon 200/1.8 L, perhaps, but 30 lp/mm above 90%, I don't think so.

Best regards
Erik

OK, I read the linked explanation by Zeiss and understand that some of the lines represent high spatial frequencies but no legend.  Wonder how high.

[BJL]

Erik,

I vaguely recall reading that the computation of MTF graphs is done with geometric optics, via ray tracing or such. If so, this ignores diffraction. That would still give a fair relative comparison between lenses, since diffraction multiplies the MTF by the same factor at any given combination of aperture and lp/mm level.

P. S. a few lenses come with actual measured MTF graphs, measured from a specimen of the model: Zeiss says that it does this for at least some models of its lenses. And some high end cine-camera lenses come with MTF graphs measured from the actual lens in the box.

P. P. S. all the MTF curves that Zeiss provides at http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf.php are for 10, 20, and 40 lp/mm, and I have seen other graphs with just 10 and 40, so I would guess 10 and 40 here.

[ErikKaffehr]

Bill,

Thank's a lot!

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

I vaguely recall reading that the computation of MTF graphs is done with geometric optics, via ray tracing or such. If so, this ignores diffraction. That would still give a fair relative comparison between lenses, since diffraction multiplies the MTF by the same factor at any given combination of aperture and lp/mm level.

P. S. a few lenses come with actual measured MTF graphs, measured from a specimen of the model: Zeiss says that it does this for at least some models of its lenses. And some high end cine-camera lenses come with MTF graphs measured from the actual lens in the box.

P. P. S. all the MTF curves that Zeiss provides at http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf.php are for 10, 20, and 40 lp/mm, and I have seen other graphs with just 10 and 40, so I would guess 10 and 40 here.

[Vladimirovich]

Hi,

Normally, the curves published used to be either 10 and 30 lp/mm or 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm. I guess it is the former. Achiving 100% MTF at say 10 lp/mm is not possible but you ca get pretty close. I think I have seen 20 lp/mm above 90% coming from the Canon 200/1.8 L, perhaps, but 30 lp/mm above 90%, I don't think so.

Best regards
Erik

Olympus lenses have MTF for 20lp/mm and 60lp/mm.... naturally being for a small sensor they have a lot (even among the cheapest) of lenses with 20lp/mm @ 90% and even slightly higher, including both zooms and fixed

[dreed]

Something that I find hard to come to terms with is not having any ability to zoom with a lens.

For those that have used cameras (such as the RX1) that have no zoom, how does this impact using them?

Does it just mean more walking?
Does the required change in distance impose on the subject (where it is a person)?
Or does it simply change what pictures you do and do not take?

[Richowens]

It changes how you see.

Rich

[BernardLanguillier]

Something that I find hard to come to terms with is not having any ability to zoom with a lens.

For those that have used cameras (such as the RX1) that have no zoom, how does this impact using them?

Does it just mean more walking?
Does the required change in distance impose on the subject (where it is a person)?
Or does it simply change what pictures you do and do not take?

Same thing with the DP2m, I have not found this to be a problem for some types of photography where you shoot what you want to.

It obviously doesn't work that well when you need to shoot something specific.

Cheers,
Bernard