RX100M2 OOC softness re RX100M1

Dale Cotton

Senior Member
Messages
1,937
Solutions
5
Reaction score
108
Location
Toronto Area, CA
From the A7/R preview:

"Sony is being a little vague on specifics but is touting the new processor [Bionz X] as offering 'Detail Reproduction Technology' which appears to be a more subtle and sophisticated sharpening system. The company promises less apparent emphasis on edges, giving a more convincing representation of fine detail'."

There have been several complaints that the Mark 2 produces softer, less sharp images than the Mark 1. The distinction between resolution (fineness of detail captured) and acutance (preciseness of detail edges) is not commonly made in user forums. But pretty clearly Sony has toned down the OOC JPEG Sharpness settings in the interim between the Mark 1 and Mark 2. Interesting whether even +3 on the Mark 2 can equal 0 on the Mark 1.

I know this seems like a step backward to most people. But the point of capturing 20 MP is for there to be an improvement in all aspects of IQ over 10 or 15 MP. High acutance sharpening comes at a price. Not only to resolution, but to subtlety of tonal gradations, subtlety of colour gradations, and to enlarge-ability. Apparently, Sony decided that the RX100/2 is sufficiently a pro-centric camera that the full-res JPEG output should meet pro standards. What they should have done is include a punchy sharpening option, as well.

In the same vein, I'm noticing that there are some voices that talk about the "crappy" colours of the Sony RX100/2 or just Sony cameras in general. What I'm seeing is that the defaults are actually unusually accurate for OOC JPEGS (excepting a tendency for auto WB to shift slightly to blue). Here, I'd think all you need to do is switch to one of the more vivid picture styles if accuracy is not your bag.

I don't suppose this will be a popular post, but the RX100/2 has become the pocket cam of choice for pro and, generally, veteran photographers. I think it's pretty clear that this is a clientele Sony is choosing to court with this camera. Just as they do with the RX1 ... and in spite the full set of auto modes on the mode dial. There are people who spent decades looking at medium format and large format film output, who would love to have that sort of goodness in their pockets. These are very influential word-of-mouth de facto sales people ("you're a pro -- what camera would you recommend?").

Hopefully, Sony will learn how to better support both ends of the end user spectrum as time goes on. For now, I'd think this new lower acutance business would be a check mark in favour of the Mark 1 over the Mark 2 for auto mode shooters. But those with both cameras might want to weigh in on that.
 
Dale Cotton wrote:

In the same vein, I'm noticing that there are some voices that talk about the "crappy" colours of the Sony RX100/2 or just Sony cameras in general. What I'm seeing is that the defaults are actually unusually accurate for OOC JPEGS (excepting a tendency for auto WB to shift slightly to blue). Here, I'd think all you need to do is switch to one of the more vivid picture styles if accuracy is not your bag.
My RX100 II is my first Sony digital camera. I've used Nikon DSLRs and Canon and Panasonic P&S's. All of them were used in raw mode for the past several years. I use my RX100 II in raw mode as well, and I honestly don't see any problems with the colours at all.
 
larsbc wrote:
Dale Cotton wrote:

In the same vein, I'm noticing that there are some voices that talk about the "crappy" colours of the Sony RX100/2 or just Sony cameras in general. What I'm seeing is that the defaults are actually unusually accurate for OOC JPEGS (excepting a tendency for auto WB to shift slightly to blue). Here, I'd think all you need to do is switch to one of the more vivid picture styles if accuracy is not your bag.
My RX100 II is my first Sony digital camera. I've used Nikon DSLRs and Canon and Panasonic P&S's. All of them were used in raw mode for the past several years. I use my RX100 II in raw mode as well, and I honestly don't see any problems with the colours at all.
I do not know what all this talk about the softness issue with the RX100M2 is all about.

I upgraded from a RX100, and the RX100M2 images seem perfectly sharp and detailed to me.
 
Interesting posting. I had an RX100M2 for several days when it first came out, comparing it extensively with my Mk.1 in RAW as well as jpegs, and had a difficult time getting images from the M2 that appeared as sharp as those from the MK.1 Increasing sharpening made shadow noise more noticeable. The only clear advantage of the Mk.2 was at ISO3200 and above (less noise)--and the advantage wasn't THAT great. I ended up returning the Mk.2. I wondered at the time whether I happened to get a Mk.2 whose lens was sub-par, or perhaps the lens of my Mk.1 is an unusually good one. Anyway, I wasn't motivated enough to try another sample.

Bob
 
I had a very similar experience to the last poster, getting MKII after mark I, except I kept my mark II eventually. It does seem softer. And I too wondered whether my MKII is below average or MKI was just stellar. The biggest problem I find with MKII is below average AWB, wherein AWB on MKI was the best I ever had on any camera, with perfect automatic color rendition in any circumstances.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top