RX100 portrait - can RX1 do it like this?

I know the RX1 has superior image quality (esp bokeh) but I often like to take casual portraits like the one below. [I know the RX100 is 'just' a pocket cam ... if I want to take a special portrait, I'll haul out my a900]. I'm very much thinking of getting an RX1, but I wonder if the 35mm lens on a FF will not allow me to get portraits this close in without wide-angle distortion.

Would be great if people could share their 'close' portraits here (thanks in advance). I'm still trying to decide if the RX1 would be a step up for me ... I do city and travel shooting, but as I said, I also like the option of being able to do a portrait like this occasionally...

ORIGINAL:



CLOSER CROPPING (to show detail):

100% CROP:

--
NEX-7, Sony a900; SEL18-200mm, CZ135mm, CZ24-70mm, SAL70-300mmG, 50mm F1.4, 100mm F2.8 macro, KM17-35mm, CZ16-80mm, KM11-18mm, SAL18-250mm
http://lh5.google.com.au/glennjude/Rsa2wUQ1RxI/AAAAAAAAA-g/TjvlEY5BpIA/s400/Pano%20-%20Glaciers%20and%20Temple.jpg

Wonderful portrait.

I wonder too.  How much better is the RX1?  Smoother for sure, especially at high ISO.

Trouble is, the RX100 is so d*mn capable.

how big do you want to print them? Have you read about the crop option to 50 and 75 mm?

Very nice portrait, beautifully done with available light and a beautiful model. I'm sure that with her hair done, she looks even more beautiful. Also, the quality coming from the RX100 is nothing less than amazing.

As for the RX1, being a ff camera it has proably a better IQ but I doubt  if you'll see much of a difference without deep pixel peeping. on the other hand, it is much less versatile and flexible and 35 mm is not the best fov for portraits.

As for bokeh, your photo is the best prove that it is not always necessary. People look at bokeh as if is is the holy grail of photography and use it to the extreme weather it contributes or not. If you really need it, you already got the gear that will give you a much better control than the RX1.

Of course, if you have nothing else to do with your money and you want it just to have one, get one. You might event see a slight difference if you print very large and look from very close. Otherwise, I can't think of any real advantage you'll get from the RX1 for this investment, compared to what you already have, in any case, I don't see it as a step up for you. My 2c

Cheers

Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

Crop option will just crop but will not change the lens characteristics and will not give the the natural look that you get from longer optical focal length.

Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

And this is how much you cam pull the shadows easily...

--
--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

Thanks ... And yes, that's what I'm struggling with. The RX1 is so damn tempting in many respects, but the RX100 is so damn fulfilling already. Arrrrrgh!

--
NEX-7, Sony a900; SEL18-200mm, CZ135mm, CZ24-70mm, SAL70-300mmG, 50mm F1.4, 100mm F2.8 macro, KM17-35mm, CZ16-80mm, KM11-18mm, SAL18-250mm
http://lh5.google.com.au/glennjude/Rsa2wUQ1RxI/AAAAAAAAA-g/TjvlEY5BpIA/s400/Pano%20-%20Glaciers%20and%20Temple.jpg

With your photos you've convinced me that the RX1 can capture amazing detail and is incredibly sharp. You've pushed me closer. I usually don't print larger than A4 / 8.5x11 and I wonder if your tighter crops would print at that size, but I suspect they would. Thanks.

--
NEX-7, Sony a900; SEL18-200mm, CZ135mm, CZ24-70mm, SAL70-300mmG, 50mm F1.4, 100mm F2.8 macro, KM17-35mm, CZ16-80mm, KM11-18mm, SAL18-250mm
http://lh5.google.com.au/glennjude/Rsa2wUQ1RxI/AAAAAAAAA-g/TjvlEY5BpIA/s400/Pano%20-%20Glaciers%20and%20Temple.jpg

For portraits I mostly only print at A4. The crop to 50/75 I'm not aware of, but I assume that's for jpeg shooting but I much prefer shooting in raw because you can usually squeeze out a little more IQ and I simply enjoy the process...

--
NEX-7, Sony a900; SEL18-200mm, CZ135mm, CZ24-70mm, SAL70-300mmG, 50mm F1.4, 100mm F2.8 macro, KM17-35mm, CZ16-80mm, KM11-18mm, SAL18-250mm
http://lh5.google.com.au/glennjude/Rsa2wUQ1RxI/AAAAAAAAA-g/TjvlEY5BpIA/s400/Pano%20-%20Glaciers%20and%20Temple.jpg

Thanks - I'll definitely tell her you said that (about being a beautiful model). She doesn't believe me when I say that, so it will be good to show her that a complete stranger thinks the same thing 

Yeah, this is my biggest concern. That, and i think the RX1 is not jeans-pocketable which means I can't just carry it around in just-in-case mode....

You've got a good point here. And I'm probably one of the guilty parties. I quite like the look of shallow DOF and nice bokeh because it's so different from how we consciously perceive the world around us (in the sense that our eyes dart about trying to keep everything somewhat in focus). And it also gives images a more convincing three dimensional appearance. But yes, one can become pre-occupied with it.

Thanks for your insights, Moti...

--
NEX-7, Sony a900; SEL18-200mm, CZ135mm, CZ24-70mm, SAL70-300mmG, 50mm F1.4, 100mm F2.8 macro, KM17-35mm, CZ16-80mm, KM11-18mm, SAL18-250mm
http://lh5.google.com.au/glennjude/Rsa2wUQ1RxI/AAAAAAAAA-g/TjvlEY5BpIA/s400/Pano%20-%20Glaciers%20and%20Temple.jpg

Doc if you had used the RX1 for that portrait, folks would be drooling and eyebrows would be raising...the RX1 in your capable hands will shine, there is no other word for it....we were shooting the RX100 along with RX1 on these family "snaps" (no EVF in use)...and I am not proficient enough at portraits...somebody that is good at portraits and has a model will turn out some fantastic photos to behold...

I like your portrait much better than mine...by far due to natural lighting...

--
--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

It is not the lack of details or any other attribute of the IQ, which would negatively affect your "portrait" results. It is relatively wide angle of the lens, causing geometrical distortion, especially at the short distance. For the portrait you need at least 60-70mm lens.

Yours is not a question, is it? As nice as the RX100 is, latest sensor mft with a decent lens as well as aps-ce sensor cameras with a decent lens walk all over it in terms of IQ. So you do not really ask about a newest generation FF cam with an excellent lens, but want to shocase how great a portrait shooter you are. Too obvious, I'm afraid. And for the record, I do own the RX100 and the RX1.

May not be your intent but you read like a jerk.

I would have to disagree...some of the greatest portraits known to man are 35mm...

http://stevemccurry.com/galleries/portraits?view=slideshow

--
--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

If you see my postings on other recent threads, you will see that I am seriously considering the RX1. Go ahead... check my profile for recent postings. I even asked another poster in Singapore (where I live) where he got his RX1 ... turned out it was Japan. I don't consider myself a 'great portrait shooter'... portraits are about 25% of what I do (but it's the stuff that makes my friends happy), and I am only a hobbyist. But i AM wondering whether a 35mm fixed lens would work for me given my shooting preferences. So you should give up on psychology and stick with your day job. But thanks for your time anyway....

--
NEX-7, Sony a900; SEL18-200mm, CZ135mm, CZ24-70mm, SAL70-300mmG, 50mm F1.4, 100mm F2.8 macro, KM17-35mm, CZ16-80mm, KM11-18mm, SAL18-250mm
http://lh5.google.com.au/glennjude/Rsa2wUQ1RxI/AAAAAAAAA-g/TjvlEY5BpIA/s400/Pano%20-%20Glaciers%20and%20Temple.jpg

Since you presumably bought the RX1 after the RX100, how much use does your RX100 still get? And how do you divide your time up between the two cameras?

--
NEX-7, Sony a900; SEL18-200mm, CZ135mm, CZ24-70mm, SAL70-300mmG, 50mm F1.4, 100mm F2.8 macro, KM17-35mm, CZ16-80mm, KM11-18mm, SAL18-250mm
http://lh5.google.com.au/glennjude/Rsa2wUQ1RxI/AAAAAAAAA-g/TjvlEY5BpIA/s400/Pano%20-%20Glaciers%20and%20Temple.jpg

http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

--

Moti

Where exactly did you see that Steve McCuwithies a 35mm lens for his portraits. Are you sure you are not confusing with a 35mm camera?

Absolutely stunning, well done. Thanks for posting. Happy Holoday!

--
Kirk

I can see where ekaton is coming from, but I think you guys might be misreading him.  He is complimenting your portraiture skills and rightly so.  By the way, your model isn't just beautiful, she's seriously beautiful!

Anyone with the skills to take such portraits is already aware that the RX1, with it's 35mm lens, will not flatter your model if you fill the frame to the same degree.  If you take picture from the same distance as you did with the RX100, you will get the same perspective, but will need to crop and in so doing, you will have far fewer pixels than you would have with the RX1, but as ekaton was pointing out, someone as accomplished as you will know this already.

So, even if you are seriously considering an RX1, you were showing off your portrait skills and why not, as we are all the better for seeing your excellent image.

And yes, the RX1 will produce excellent portraits, just not flattering headshots of beautiful models.  Excellent for street photography, character portraits and possibly three quarter and full length portraits of beautiful models, if framed properly.

Feel free to show us some more RX100 pics, as we would all enjoy them, I feel certain.