Leica vs. Sony RX1

[theguywitha645d]

The IQ of the Rx1 is outstanding, though, so I don't miss my M9+35/2 ASPH that I sold last week, since I've generally been a single prime kind of guy, anyways.

Welcome to the insanity.

[TMARK]

  The problem with an RX2 with interchangeable lenses is that, unless Sony adopts Leica's microlens strategy, the lenses will be relatively huge.  Even if they did, the lenses would need to accommodate AF and auto aperture motors and electronics.  The RX1's lens sits nearly right against the sensor, and the rear element is the largest I've seen in 35mm.  The IQ of the Rx1 is outstanding, though, so I don't miss my M9+35/2 ASPH that I sold last week, since I've generally been a single prime kind of guy, anyways.

I like the RX1 files, but its just not a camera I'm comfortable shooting. 

[theguywitha645d]

I like the RX1 files, but its just not a camera I'm comfortable shooting. 

How long did you have the RX-1?

[TMARK]

How long did you have the RX-1?

Borrowed one for 10 days.  Brilliant camera, but I'm a VF guy.  I also tried the DP2M.  Same thing.  I did like the X100, but limited manual focusing ruined it for me.  I've shot a Leica M since 1989.  I'm so used to the manual RF focusing and RF framelines, I can get the shots I want intuitively. 

[bcooter]

Borrowed one for 10 days.  Brilliant camera, but I'm a VF guy.  I also tried the DP2M.  Same thing.  I did like the X100, but limited manual focusing ruined it for me.  I've shot a Leica M since 1989.  I'm so used to the manual RF focusing and RF framelines, I can get the shots I want intuitively. 

I guess this is quote T day.

The sony with one lens to me is limited.  I don't use a lot of focal lengths, but one 35mm is too locked down.

Anyway, I also don't like holding a camera 2' from my face staring at a screen, but I do like the new electronic viewfinders.

Once you get past the what's in the screen is not the final image, I think they beat the heck out of optical finders and I never thought I'd say that.

I mean you can zoom in and focus, they see in virtual darkness and there is no doubt about what you frame will be the frame.

That new little Pen has the coolest evf I've seen as you can flip it up and shoot down like a waist level finder without forgetting that right is left, left is right.

I like that camera, but it's too small . . . way too small but it's a heck of a nice camera for the money.

I do like traditional cameras, but I've finally decided were not in a traditional world.  It's all electronics, always will be unless you stay with film and the things you can do with these electronic cameras is pretty cool.

IMO

BC

[scooby70]

...they see in virtual darkness and there is no doubt about what you frame will be the frame.

I wish they could do so without shining a torch in my eye. I find EVF's simply unuseable in very low light. They ruin night vision, shine a light in my eye and fail to display things clearly visible by eye.

Until those faults can be fixed I can't switch completely to a CSC with EVF and it frustrates me.

[TMARK]

I guess this is quote T day.

The sony with one lens to me is limited.  I don't use a lot of focal lengths, but one 35mm is too locked down.

Anyway, I also don't like holding a camera 2' from my face staring at a screen, but I do like the new electronic viewfinders.

Once you get past the what's in the screen is not the final image, I think they beat the heck out of optical finders and I never thought I'd say that.

I mean you can zoom in and focus, they see in virtual darkness and there is no doubt about what you frame will be the frame.

That new little Pen has the coolest evf I've seen as you can flip it up and shoot down like a waist level finder without forgetting that right is left, left is right.

I like that camera, but it's too small . . . way too small but it's a heck of a nice camera for the money.

I do like traditional cameras, but I've finally decided were not in a traditional world.  It's all electronics, always will be unless you stay with film and the things you can do with these electronic cameras is pretty cool.

IMO

BC

I don't mind an EVF but looking at a screen bothers me.  The X100's EVF in the viewfinder worked but the refresh was too slow which distracted me.  I need a viewfinder.  I don't care if what is beyond the cup is an optical path or an electronic path to the image, but that process of looking into the cup blocks out reality and allows me to focus on the image and composition, like going to a movie.  With the Red I would block shots by roughing in lighting and composition and camera movements, using the monitor, then go to the cup and see if it all works.  Removing reality with a VF is, to me, key to composition.  I just see things in the cup I don't on a monitor. 

The RX-1 I borrowed didn't have the external EVF. 

[theguywitha645d]

Using the rear screen is just like using a ground glass on a view camera.

[TMARK]

Using the rear screen is just like using a ground glass on a view camera.

Not for me.  As Keith wrote, no darkcloth, and the size of a LV screen is much smaller than 4x5 or 8x10.  I also shoot handheld.  My comments about screens and EVFs are all about how I shoot.  I rarely use tripods except with 6x6 or larger and only for set pieces.  I don't shoot landscapes, and when I did every once in a while, I used a Mamiya 7 handheld.

I think a screen COULD be like a ground glass, and an HDMI out to a monitor looks nice, but I would only use that on a tripod, like I did when shooting motion.

But I do see your point, and for some people it may work very well.

[fredjeang2]

Not for me.  As Keith wrote, no darkcloth, and the size of a LV screen is much smaller than 4x5 or 8x10.  I also shoot handheld.  My comments about screens and EVFs are all about how I shoot.  I rarely use tripods except with 6x6 or larger and only for set pieces.  I don't shoot landscapes, and when I did every once in a while, I used a Mamiya 7 handheld.

I think a screen COULD be like a ground glass, and an HDMI out to a monitor looks nice, but I would only use that on a tripod, like I did when shooting motion.

But I do see your point, and for some people it may work very well.

I have the sensation to be in a british club of chic gentlemen grandfathers, where it smells leather sofas and imported cigars from the colonies.

Why just not mounting a zacuto EVF on it? I mean, why not taking a good EVF from motion design and adpat it on a still cam with a small magic arm (not like the weak Giotto in the link below...). This Sony is ridiculously small, even with a big evf that could in fact add weight and stability, it would still fit in a little bag and you could use the evf in any position that would allow shooting in impossible angles instead of a fixed Leicastyle viewfinder that belongs to the eon-age design or to be more exact, before the solar system was born, when photography was smelling chemistry and photographers were rock stars. You'd plug the EVF in the HDMI keeping a "traditional" approach but with the benefits of electronics (and for the older foxes of the british club, you can even use the EVF in vertical position while smoking your cigars so it reminds the Hasselblad golden age when you were all shooting pin-ups for Cadillac garages...). Et voilà: http://www.eoshd.com/content/3500/zacuto-evf-flip-review

Ps: True that EVF are not going to display the image upside-down...

[TMARK]

I have the sensation to be in a british club of chic gentlemen grandfathers, where it smells leather sofas and imported cigars from the colonies.

Why just not mounting a zacuto EVF on it? I mean, why not taking a good EVF from motion design and adpat it on a still cam with a small magic arm (not like the weak Giotto in the link below...). This Sony is ridiculously small, even with a big evf that could in fact add weight and stability, it would still fit in a little bag and you could use the evf in any position that would allow shooting in impossible angles instead of a fixed Leicastyle viewfinder that belongs to the eon-age design or to be more exact, before the solar system was born, when photography was smelling chemistry and photographers were rock stars. You'd plug the EVF in the HDMI keeping a "traditional" approach but with the benefits of electronics (and for the older foxes of the british club, you can even use the EVF in vertical position while smoking your cigars so it reminds the Hasselblad golden age when you were all shooting pin-ups for Cadillac garages...). Et voilà: http://www.eoshd.com/content/3500/zacuto-evf-flip-review

Ps: True that EVF are not going to display the image upside-down...

Too awkward, too conspicious, too much set up for anything but PRODUCTION.   On the few editorials I shoot now a Zacuto or Sony HDMI screen works just fine, but I have other larger cameras for that with LV to a laptop or a HD panel.  I've used teh HDMI out from a D800 toa Sony panel (an old(er) one) on a magic arm mounted to a tripod.  It works well, but not for what I want. 

Maybe a Zacuto hood/eye piece for the rear screen might work, now that I'm thinging about it.  I used one of those on a 5D2 and 1d4 for shooting handheld video and liked it.

[TMARK]

I’m with T.

Give me an eyecup that isolates me from extraneous detritus and I’m happy.

Yup, and not to speak for you, but I would assume an EVF through a cup would work, if the EVF were good enough.  Its an immersive experience that changes how you see a photograph.

[fredjeang2]

It seems that you are looking for a candid, street config.
Agree that the Z evf is maybe too much of an hassle to setup and belongs
To prod. (although it's 15 sex but not
Discreete). You mentioned the eyecup that fits the screen,
It could be a solution.
I personaly find that it ends to be weired because
It's in the axis of the body and no flexibility to
Change angles, unless the all lcd moves but they
Are fragile and nothing more annoying than
Thinking about not breaking a device.
In the end, the Zac evf would be the most
Efficient unless discretion is requiered.

And T, Thanks you took my previous post as it was,
Just a tease. I'm not thinking that you're an old snob,
Smoking cigars in a british view cameras club.
Nooo. That's more Keith !
You know me for awhile and that's why I allowed
Myself this post.
I know you shoot Red and cutting-edge gear too.

But through this teaser, I wanted to express an idea.
You pointed that you're a VF guy. You are not: you're an image
Maker. What you really expressed was your comfort zone.
But, sometimes, we manage to not repeat ourselves too much
And not reproducing the same image when we aren't
Anymore in our confort zone.
Just think of this alternative idea: why instead of trying
To get a config you think you want, for many good reasons
I'n sure, you just shoot with the CAM as it, with this
Uncomfortable lcd as it. But not 10 days thinking of what's
Missing. Maybe you'll end doing different images.

[Rob C]

The bottom line is, all of us who owned 500 Series Hasselblads and 'lost' them, miss the goddam things because of the viewing system which was as perfect as any I ever found anywhere else.

Even the electronic Nikons don't seem to have the viewfinder quality of their older film sisters. Apart from size, interchangeable screens would have been nice...

They say you don't forget your first love.

When she was that good, why would you?

Rob C

[theguywitha645d]

Not for me.  As Keith wrote, no darkcloth, and the size of a LV screen is much smaller than 4x5 or 8x10.  I also shoot handheld.  My comments about screens and EVFs are all about how I shoot.  I rarely use tripods except with 6x6 or larger and only for set pieces.  I don't shoot landscapes, and when I did every once in a while, I used a Mamiya 7 handheld.

I think a screen COULD be like a ground glass, and an HDMI out to a monitor looks nice, but I would only use that on a tripod, like I did when shooting motion.

But I do see your point, and for some people it may work very well.

It was a little tongue in cheek. I have used tons of formats all the way up to 4x5 handheld--but mostly 6x6 and 6x12. I am not particularly attached to eye-level cameras. I knew I would get along with the RX-1 because I really enjoyed my E-P1 and while I got a viewfinder for the E-P1, I used the rear screen most of the time. Some don't like view camera focusing (I never used a dark cloth in the field, BTW) because it it up side down--somehow turning the camera over does not change that. I bought the RX-1 because it does not work like my other cameras. I believe changing your camera changes your photography. I am not sure the RX-1 would be my only camera, but considering the whole thing is about the same size as my 35mm lens for the Pentax 645D, it is great to stick into the bag. And the great thing is the quality of the RX-1 keeps up with the 645D so I can mix work from both of them.

[TMARK]

It seems that you are looking for a candid, street config.
Agree that the Z evf is maybe too much of an hassle to setup and belongs
To prod. (although it's 15 sex but not
Discreete). You mentioned the eyecup that fits the screen,
It could be a solution.
I personaly find that it ends to be weired because
It's in the axis of the body and no flexibility to
Change angles, unless the all lcd moves but they
Are fragile and nothing more annoying than
Thinking about not breaking a device.
In the end, the Zac evf would be the most
Efficient unless discretion is requiered.

And T, Thanks you took my previous post as it was,
Just a tease. I'm not thinking that you're an old snob,
Smoking cigars in a british view cameras club.
Nooo. That's more Keith !
You know me for awhile and that's why I allowed
Myself this post.
I know you shoot Red and cutting-edge gear too.

But through this teaser, I wanted to express an idea.
You pointed that you're a VF guy. You are not: you're an image
Maker. What you really expressed was your comfort zone.
But, sometimes, we manage to not repeat ourselves too much
And not reproducing the same image when we aren't
Anymore in our confort zone.
Just think of this alternative idea: why instead of trying
To get a config you think you want, for many good reasons
I'n sure, you just shoot with the CAM as it, with this
Uncomfortable lcd as it. But not 10 days thinking of what's
Missing. Maybe you'll end doing different images.

Fred I never took it as anything other than a tease.

I liked the IQ of the RX1, and the build, and if it were $1800 instead of $2800 I might have ended up with it.  That is to say, its too expensive to not do everything I want it to do.  The X100s on the other hand, . . .

[fredjeang2]

Hey, Fred, that new avatar reminds me of someone...

  if you think of Serge Gainsbourg, you'd not be far from the truth.
I'm looking a bit like Gainsbourg, but... he had bigger hears than mine...hey...

This pic was shot in a friend studio a few week ago. We were doing chaotic candids
after a session to release pressure
and the weather in spain has been so crap so,
sunglasses... attract sunshine.
He sent me the pics where I appeared later on.

[adrian tyler]

Re: Leica vs. Sony RX1

i had the m9 for over a year as i loved the m6 and the m3, however, it's a little bit bigger, it makes a click sound when you shoot and as i can't focus like i used to be able to and it's so critical wide open that i missed quite a few pictures, also it's stupidly expensive, and that myth that Leicas aren't recognised as such because of the retro design may have been true in the past, but i couldn't get comfortable walking around with all that money on me.
Therefore, for me, the rx1 was a dream come true, sure, i'd prefer a 50mm lens but it's a better sensor than the m9 and regarding the absence of a viewfinder, i dropped a voightlander 35mm round metal viewfinder on mine - like i did with the m3 when i used the 35mm - adjusted it a little bit with a "shim" to hold it tight in place, it's as bang on accurate.
i carry it around almost all the time, something that with the hasselblad 500's, the fuji 6x9's, the linhof, nikon slr's was a PTA, it's not perfect, but for a carry everywhere camera it's as good as it has got so far, for me...
http://adriantyler.net/lion.html

[Jim Kasson]

...but for a carry everywhere camera it's as good as it has got so far, for me...
http://adriantyler.net/lion.html

I'll second that. My first decent 35mm camera was a Nikon S2, bought used in 1958 for $180, which everything I'd managed to save from my summer job. I used it for decades. I had an M8, and have an M9, and for some purposes, like zone focusing with the 18mm f/3.8, I love it. What I don't love is not being able to focus accurately at 50mm and above (on a bad day, it's 35 mm and above), and not being able to frame accurately. I didn't like the noisy images above ISO 640. Not being a purist, I sometimes missed AF.

The RX-1 fixes the framing. There's no 50, so that's still a problem. It's lighter than the M9. It's incredibly quiet. It's great in dim light. I've used it with both an optical viewfinder and the EVF, and I like the EVF better, for framing accuracy and parallax-free seeing, and also for having the histogram right there all the time at the corner of the screen. It looks a little silly with a RRS L-plate and hand grip, but that's the way I use it when I'm not going for minimum weight and bulk. I think the lens is great. The ergonomics are not stellar, but they're better than tolerable.

It's still amazing to me the IQ I can get in this tiny package.

Jim

[fredjeang2]

The X100s on the other hand, . . .

If you can read spanish, they did a Fuji vs Sony comparative in this website and they were absolutly surprised by the Fuji.

http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x100s-analisis-muestras-comparativa-sony-rx1,1_9607

There are samples face-to-face at the very bottom of the article. You can download the Raws. The Fuji stands very well.