Just Switched to the RX1 from the M9

Started Jun 8, 2013 | Discussions
earful
Senior MemberPosts: 1,111
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to DFPanno, Jun 9, 2013

DFPanno wrote:

I would be amazed if they released a companion 50mm camera.  A short telephoto would be a better complimentary camera and I doubt that will ever appear.

I would bet on a FF MILC first; even smaller then their "SLRs".

That's what my crystal ball says at any rate.

also acceptable to someone like me. some are shooting their leica lenses on nex cameras with adapters. i just like the ff output of the rx1 better. if we got to that point and the ff camera was good enough - goodbye m9.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robgo2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,531
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to DFPanno, Jun 10, 2013

DFPanno wrote:

I would be amazed if they released a companion 50mm camera.  A short telephoto would be a better complimentary camera and I doubt that will ever appear.

I would bet on a FF MILC first; even smaller then their "SLRs".

That's what my crystal ball says at any rate.

I have no idea what Sony's next move will be, but I wonder if an interchangeable lens camera would allow for the same sort of lens/sensor matching as we have in the RX1.  If not, that might mean a slight compromise in IQ.  Hence, for IQ fanatics, a second or even additional fixed lens cameras might be preferable to a FF ILC.  There are rumors of something new from Sony in August.  I'm not exactly holding my breath, but I am curious.

Rob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DFPanno
Senior MemberPosts: 2,799Gear list
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to Robgo2, Jun 10, 2013

Robgo2 wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

I would be amazed if they released a companion 50mm camera. A short telephoto would be a better complimentary camera and I doubt that will ever appear.

I would bet on a FF MILC first; even smaller then their "SLRs".

That's what my crystal ball says at any rate.

I have no idea what Sony's next move will be, but I wonder if an interchangeable lens camera would allow for the same sort of lens/sensor matching as we have in the RX1.

I would think that it would require a new kind of interface.

If not, that might mean a slight compromise in IQ.

Past analysis of the RX1 has suggested that this fixed lens/sensor optimization combo was responsible for the RX1's extraordinary IQ.  So that is probably right.

Hence, for IQ fanatics, a second or even additional fixed lens cameras might be preferable to a FF ILC. There are rumors of something new from Sony in August. I'm not exactly holding my breath, but I am curious.

IQ fanatics would love it but wonder if it is economically viable.

What I can tell you is that I have held off on purchasing new Canon lenses.  I want to see what SONY will do next.  The RX1 ruins you for other cameras.

Rob

 DFPanno's gear list:DFPanno's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
headofdestiny
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,222Gear list
Like?
Re: Just Switched to the RX1 from the M9
In reply to 1JB, Jun 10, 2013

You can't add me to the list.  I just sold my M9 and 35/2 ASPH, and I'm happily shooting the RX1, instead.  Great little camera with fantastic IQ.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robgo2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,531
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to DFPanno, Jun 10, 2013

DFPanno wrote:

What I can tell you is that I have held off on purchasing new Canon lenses. I want to see what SONY will do next. The RX1 ruins you for other cameras.

It really does have that effect, which is not entirely a good thing.  After all, there are photos that call for something other than a 35mm focal length.  Still, I find it increasingly hard to pick up my Pentax K-5.  As much as I like it, it's just not a enjoyable to use, and the results are not as good as with the RX1.

Rob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dmartin92
Senior MemberPosts: 1,494Gear list
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to DFPanno, Jun 10, 2013

DFPanno wrote:

I would be amazed if they released a companion 50mm camera.

You might be right, you might be wrong.

I know that 2 or 3 years ago I saw people in these same forums saying a compact Full Frame camera like the RX1 was technically impossible. The wiring stuff around the sensor, they said, would just take up too much space.

And farther back, say in 2004, I saw people giving long technical explanations why you would never see even a 1.6x crop DSLR for less than $2000.

Here we are talking about what the sort of market would be for a 50mm Full Frame camera.

You might be right, but this might be like Columbus saying you could get to India by sailing west. Later, after it's been done, and has become a bit of success, it will be obvious that there was a market for a 50mm Full Frame compact.

Or maybe you're right.

The thing is, with 50mm on Full Frame, you can almost shoot portraits, with a blurred background. But you can do lots of other stuff too.

The RX1 can almost do portraits too, but not quite. Not super well. The extra 15 mm would help a lot. And portraits are a big deal, because they can be of the people we share our lives with.

Imagine visiting Paris with only a 50mm Full Frame compact, and getting plenty of fine "city" photos, but also a few photos of the people you are traveling with, with the Eiffel Tower, blurred, in the background.

 dmartin92's gear list:dmartin92's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DFPanno
Senior MemberPosts: 2,799Gear list
Like?
I didn't say it couldn't be done.........
In reply to dmartin92, Jun 10, 2013

nor did I suggest that it wouldn't be nice.

I am guessing that the business model is not there.  Then again; what do I know?

If we are lucky I will be wrong.

Incidently; a 50 is not the first lens that comes to mind for European cities.  I generally shoot 24 - 35 in city environs (outside of the occasional portrait).

best -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfpanno/

 DFPanno's gear list:DFPanno's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robgo2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,531
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to dmartin92, Jun 10, 2013

dmartin92 wrote:

The RX1 can almost do portraits too, but not quite. Not super well. The extra 15 mm would help a lot. And portraits are a big deal, because they can be of the people we share our lives with.

The RX1 cannot quite do portraits?  I beg to differ.  The classic focal length for portraits is 75-85mm, but good portraits can be gotten at almost any focal length.

Rob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
earful
Senior MemberPosts: 1,111
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to Robgo2, Jun 10, 2013

Robgo2 wrote:

dmartin92 wrote:

The RX1 can almost do portraits too, but not quite. Not super well. The extra 15 mm would help a lot. And portraits are a big deal, because they can be of the people we share our lives with.

The RX1 cannot quite do portraits? I beg to differ. The classic focal length for portraits is 75-85mm, but good portraits can be gotten at almost any focal length.

Rob

actually one of the better portraits i have seen here with the rx1. but i would still like an 85mm lens for the traditional head shot.:-)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dmartin92
Senior MemberPosts: 1,494Gear list
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to Robgo2, Jun 10, 2013

Robgo2 wrote:

The RX1 cannot quite do portraits? I beg to differ. The classic focal length for portraits is 75-85mm, but good portraits can be gotten at almost any focal length.

Even though that's a fine enough shot, and the guy seems like a friendly person, the bookcase in the background, I'd say it shows exactly what I'm talking about.

But one can shoot portraits with a p&s too .... it all becomes a gray area, where one can put the gray area wherever one wants.

But for me, it's 50.

 dmartin92's gear list:dmartin92's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dmartin92
Senior MemberPosts: 1,494Gear list
Like?
Re: I didn't say it couldn't be done.........
In reply to DFPanno, Jun 10, 2013

DFPanno wrote:

nor did I suggest that it wouldn't be nice.

I am guessing that the business model is not there. Then again; what do I know?

Same here. I have to acknowledge, you might be right.

Kind regards.

 dmartin92's gear list:dmartin92's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
FramerDave
Contributing MemberPosts: 563
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to dmartin92, Jun 10, 2013

What lens would it take to go after the studio/portrait crowd? May be the Leica people can chime in as to what is the second most popular focal length besides the "standard" 35 or 50mm?

My head tells me the 50mm people are right but my heart wants a portrait focal length that would flatter the subject as well as isolate the subject with a blur out background. I would like to put my order in for a 85mm collapsible STF T(2.8) macro lens so the whole package is only slightly bigger than the RX1! Hey, I am dream can't I?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robgo2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,531
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to dmartin92, Jun 10, 2013

dmartin92 wrote:

Robgo2 wrote:

The RX1 cannot quite do portraits? I beg to differ. The classic focal length for portraits is 75-85mm, but good portraits can be gotten at almost any focal length.

Even though that's a fine enough shot, and the guy seems like a friendly person, the bookcase in the background, I'd say it shows exactly what I'm talking about.

It's an environmental portrait, for which the 35mm FL can work beautifully. Most of my portraits are environmental. For the most part, I find head shots to be boring. At any rate, it's all a matter of knowing how to use the lens at your disposal. Here's another RX1 portrait from a bit closer. And just as a reminder, I am on record as stating that I would be very interested in an RX1 with a 75-85mm lens.

Rob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Crevasse
Regular MemberPosts: 299Gear list
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to dmartin92, Jun 11, 2013

"Even though that's a fine enough shot, and the guy seems like a friendly person, the bookcase in the background, I'd say it shows exactly what I'm talking about."

Well, what exactly are you talking about?  You say that 35mm lenses are not good for portraits, but you don't say why, and I think Rob's two portraits disprove your theory.

Your reference to "the bookcase in the background" suggests you are referring to depth of field.  I guess it's time for this observation: given the same sensor size, aperture, and framing, the DOF of all lenses is the same. There may be other advantages to an 85mm lens (or other traditional portrait lens), but shallow DOF is not one of them, at least not when shot at the same aperture as any other lens.

 Chris Crevasse's gear list:Chris Crevasse's gear list
Sony RX1 Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Crevasse
Regular MemberPosts: 299Gear list
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to Robgo2, Jun 11, 2013

Robgo2 wrote:

dmartin92 wrote:

Robgo2 wrote:

The RX1 cannot quite do portraits? I beg to differ. The classic focal length for portraits is 75-85mm, but good portraits can be gotten at almost any focal length.

Even though that's a fine enough shot, and the guy seems like a friendly person, the bookcase in the background, I'd say it shows exactly what I'm talking about.

It's an environmental portrait, for which the 35mm FL can work beautifully. Most of my portraits are environmental. For the most part, I find head shots to be boring. At any rate, it's all a matter of knowing how to use the lens at your disposal. Here's another RX1 portrait from a bit closer. And just as a reminder, I am on record as stating that I would be very interested in an RX1 with a 75-85mm lens.

Rob

This is a great shot, Rob.

 Chris Crevasse's gear list:Chris Crevasse's gear list
Sony RX1 Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robgo2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,531
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to Chris Crevasse, Jun 11, 2013

Chris Crevasse wrote:

"Even though that's a fine enough shot, and the guy seems like a friendly person, the bookcase in the background, I'd say it shows exactly what I'm talking about."

Well, what exactly are you talking about? You say that 35mm lenses are not good for portraits, but you don't say why, and I think Rob's two portraits disprove your theory.

Your reference to "the bookcase in the background" suggests you are referring to depth of field. I guess it's time for this observation: given the same sensor size, aperture, and framing, the DOF of all lenses is the same. There may be other advantages to an 85mm lens (or other traditional portrait lens), but shallow DOF is not one of them, at least not when shot at the same aperture as any other lens.

The disadvantage to wider angle lenses in portraiture is that in order to fill the frame with the face, one has to get close to the subject, which tends to distort facial features.  It is a matter of perspective, not DOF.  For this reason, when using my RX1, I try to establish some distance between the subject and me or have the subject turn her face obliquely, so that the nose and mouth will not appear abnormally large.  Also, there are times such distortion can be used as an aesthetic element in a portrait, but it takes skill to do it well.

Rob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robgo2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,531
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to Chris Crevasse, Jun 11, 2013

Chris Crevasse wrote:

Robgo2 wrote:

dmartin92 wrote:

Robgo2 wrote:

The RX1 cannot quite do portraits? I beg to differ. The classic focal length for portraits is 75-85mm, but good portraits can be gotten at almost any focal length.

Even though that's a fine enough shot, and the guy seems like a friendly person, the bookcase in the background, I'd say it shows exactly what I'm talking about.

It's an environmental portrait, for which the 35mm FL can work beautifully. Most of my portraits are environmental. For the most part, I find head shots to be boring. At any rate, it's all a matter of knowing how to use the lens at your disposal. Here's another RX1 portrait from a bit closer. And just as a reminder, I am on record as stating that I would be very interested in an RX1 with a 75-85mm lens.

Rob

This is a great shot, Rob.

Chris, thanks.

Rob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jrdu
Forum ProPosts: 20,648
Like?
This is quite a posh thread
In reply to 1JB, Jun 11, 2013

Having just retired on a very small pension, I'd need to go back to work to afford an RX1 and I don't think I'll ever have any first hand experience of those lovely Leica lenses.

I bought an R1 seven or eight years ago, and it's interesting to read a modern debate about whether a matched sensor and lens pair gives you better IQ than the mix and match philosophy of a DSLR. The R1 can still compete in image quality with modern APS sensor cameras, while I suspect that a seven year old DSLR might not be a popular choice.

Sony were working on the R1 when they bought Minolta. The company changed direction then and tried to compete against Nikon and Canon in the DSLR field, but Sony found those two to be formidable adversaries. I was very happy and excited to see the R designation and philosophy return.

-- hide signature --

John Dunn
Portraits:http://www.fototime.com/users/jrdu@yahoo.com/Portraits

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Toccata47
Senior MemberPosts: 2,203
Like?
Re: Just Switched to the RX1 from the M9
In reply to 1JB, Jun 11, 2013

1JB wrote:

The M "240" sensor is not competitive with the Sony RX1 sensor

Oh really? If you put any stock in dxo ratings, you'll see that while the M does rank behind the rx1 and d800 in all categories, the difference ultimately amounts to about 2/3 of a stop of better "color depth", and of course roughly 1 stop of dynamic range as iso increases. While intellectually relevant this is almost a nonissue if you use the cameras for taking photos, measuring charts, well...

Bare in mind, the M outscores the 1DX in every category but iso. I assure you, if these sensor differences amount to much in the print our standards as consumers must be very low indeed as the 1dx has contributed a great deal of the everyday photography that we encounter in magazines, webpages, billboards and galleries.

The color rendition of the M is off, particularly in face tones and is only rectified through extensive profiling done on your own.

Bull. If this is an issue at all, it will be addressed and corrected like color issues always are with new cameras.

As you note the key to using the M is to do so "as intended" which translates to ample light and lower isos. At this point it is apparent to me that the tecnical issues associated with marrying the small M lenses to a sensor are proving difficult to overcome.

Bull.

Wait, didn't you say you came from shooting an M9? All sensors need adequate light to work as intended. M lenses transmit the same amount of light as reflex lenses, the body size is relative to the distance of the flange to the focal plane.

The live view interface on the M is cumbersome to use and manual focus for video is just silly. Leica fell further behind with the M. The superior sensor of the RX1 along with its versatility is eroding M sales.

Okay, you've never tried these cameras. You don't have a clue what you're writing about and you're just trolling. You should have just said that at the onset. The pretense is just silly and breaks down any chance of learning about the things your trashing (why bother? who cares, move on and have fun with whatever you really have).

I have no doubt that if the RX1 had a Leica red dot on it sales of the M would be eroded to the pont that the M would be a relic. The entire Leica lineup is extremely dated even with the release of the 'Milestone" M. The mini is going to be an even bigger disappointment. Leica makes rangefinders and lenses. They don't make sensors or software. Sensors and software are the future and Leica just can't compete in that arena. What Leica needed was a step change in its sensor on the M, instead it came out with a very mediocre 24mp cmos sensor.

Troll on bro! You tell the man! Down with leica! Let's trash them til prices come down. Or wait, maybe you can troll them so bad they move production to China? Oh yeah, that'll show 'em.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Crevasse
Regular MemberPosts: 299Gear list
Like?
Re: A 35 and a 50 ? 6K ? No way.
In reply to Robgo2, Jun 11, 2013

The disadvantage to wider angle lenses in portraiture is that in order to fill the frame with the face, one has to get close to the subject, which tends to distort facial features.  It is a matter of perspective, not DOF.  For this reason, when using my RX1, I try to establish some distance between the subject and me or have the subject turn her face obliquely, so that the nose and mouth will not appear abnormally large.  Also, there are times such distortion can be used as an aesthetic element in a portrait, but it takes skill to do it well.

Rob

An interesting feature of the lens on the RX1 is that its barrel distortion counteracts much of the distortion you would otherwise see at the edges of the frame.  For that reason, I often do not correct my raw files for distortion.

 Chris Crevasse's gear list:Chris Crevasse's gear list
Sony RX1 Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads