@Barney, could you please tell us whether the Mark ii still has the forced MF assist when focus peaking, or can they be separated as on every other Sony model?
How soon before the actual menus are posted on DPReview? It seems a shady practice to me that the Sony's user manual seems to be embargoed until preorders are filled on this camera.
Raist3d: @Barney/Dpreview staff- can you confirm that the smart teleconverter feature only works in JPEG or did Sony also support a crop like the Ricoh GR/Leica Q for RAW?
I really really want Sony to give that option. It changes the usability for shooting at "50/70" tremendously.
@Barney Britton please tell Sony and advertise this as a real missed opportunity. Raw shooters--especially with this crazy resolution--also deserve the ability to do in-camera cropping to 50mm or 70mm, even for full size raw files with the cropping specified (which I believe is how aspect ratios also work). There is no substitute for in-viewfinder visualization at the time of capture. After-the-fact cropping makes post processing that much more onerous.
ThatCamFan: My interest died because of the megapixel count, a 16-24mp rx1 with the af improved would of been a must have for me.
@fedway, sorry, just bought my second NAS for storage, and this is not the first RX1 I've ever ordered. It seems to me there is a fallacy that anyone who can spend X and also spend Y. I'm investing in multi-year insurance for this beast.
JEROME NOLAS: This photo viewer is hopeless, but on the other side all pics from all cameras look great..!
@Barney, the loupe feature would be much improved if it were possible to see the marquee outline of the square being magnified on the image rather than superimpose it over the image--just as you do with the image comparison tool. Navigating with the loupe really doesn't work well unless the unmagnified image takes up way too much real estate, in which case, 1:1 is a better choice. Also offer an additional ratio other than 1:1, such as 1:2, especially for the mp counts over 24.
It would be even better if Sony offered oversampled raw files. We could still have all the dynamic range and bit depth, and not have to bother with processing massive files for applications that really don't need it (I'm thinking of portraits). And there wouldn't be any complaints about 1:1 crops.
aut0maticdan: Stripped down != affordable
At least with the Df Nikon brought a sensor you couldn't get previously at the asking price. They also added some ergonomics otherwise unavailable.
Ha! At least there's a very good reason the Df ergonomics were not available before. Nor should they be available now! :)
Valentin Stan: This is what one would call "Shutter Shock". At 42 mpx without electronic shutter or a smarter mechanical shutter this is the result everytime. If you look closely RX1R has the same shake.
Leaf shutter. No shock to speak of. You guys need to read carefully
What I don't understand about the test is, given its limitations with fixed wide angle lens cameras,1. why can't there be more interesting stuff in the center of the image?2. Why, when testing couldn't you show additional results with correction enabled?3. Similarly, why can't we see the focus point adjusted for a representative off center location?
Also, though I appreciate the lense info is recoverable, most of us never discover that. Better to bring the lens/exposure info front and center.
nicoboston: Surprisingly [or not], there's nothing about the build quality and the durability of these cameras. They are supposed to be "pocketable", so we should be able to take them everywhere without special precautions. I have purchased 2 "G" Canon in the past: G2 in 2001, G10 in 2008. 14 (!!!) and 7 years later, respectively, both cameras work perfectly and have only minor scratches.
In contrast, my X30 went back to Fujifilm for repair twice and has now a loose hot shoe :-(
I do not have a Sony, but I know that RX100s have quite notorious reliability and durability issues. They have certainly brilliant studio performance, however I do not live in a studio.
Sadly, reliability and durability are not even discussed in your roundup.
@sierranvin: it's a classic case of YMMV where RX100s are concerned. I had a very lightly used RX100 mk I, which I sold after not more than a year, and it just died shortly afterward. The very nicely built RX1s are apparently experiencing lens focusing failures (not mine so far).
I would strongly urge anyone buying Sonys (and I still do) to factor in the cost of a 3 year protection plan.
Thanks for the early heads up on the uncompressed ARW progress. Do you know whether or not the new uncompressed ARW format will require RAW converter updates (Lightroom, ACR, C1, etc ?)
It was my concern about posterization in the sky that got me started on checking out the raw compression three years ago. Now, possibly, there is some contribution to banding due to the data being only 11 bits (not thirteen, but ELEVEN albeit mapped very well to a curve). However, the 7 bit delta encoding is very competent to replicate a smooth gradation of tones. It's the high contrast edges that that catch up the algorithm. And the reasoning is that fast transitions don't really benefit from all that bit depth. And from most images with most processing Sony was right.
Is still want those 14 bits. But now we have to wake up and realize that we are getting, in most cases, a 0.1% benefit in exchange for a 100% file size and multiple shot buffer penalty. I hope this feature can be assigned to a function button!
Esstee: I just want to thank the staff at DPReview for taking the time to write the article and bring matters to Sony's attention.
Excellent job, and I couldn't be happier!
I wouldn't say that DPReview is the one who brought this matter to Sony's attention. But it's entirely possible that it was DPReview's article that finally GOT their attention, and forced the change.
40daystogo: Just so that Sony is made clear on how users feel:
-- I want a third option of: lossless, compressed RAW.
I would have preferred Sony relay this and done it properly, rather than giving us some half-hearted attempt to pacify upset users.
The problem is, now that Sony gives us a half-hearted fix, they might delay the lossless, compressed RAW for a long time, thinking that people are satisfied. We're not.
Sony, given the choice of compressed, lossless RAW, versus uncompressed, mega-big files - what sort of crazy person would want to massively large uncompressed files?
You have no appreciation of the potential limitations built into the camera. They have a fixed set of chips designed to do specific jobs. Yes, there is general computing power on the chip, but don't assume that it could--without other compromises--compress files prior to storing them in the buffer. The little red light would probably be flashing for too long a time after each shot.
There isn't any licensing issue here. They found a way to address an issue with some existing cameras in a reasonable amount of time.
Frank_BR: "What difference does this make?"-----------------------------------------
Well, the difference I see is that the ARTIFACTS in left photo appears as NOISE in the right picture. What was the gain? Is it more a case where "six of one was traded for half a dozen of the other"?
Many people want passionately lossless RAW. They like to say they don't want to discard any information. Perhaps they forget that noise is not information. What a good lossy compression tries to do is to discard irrelevant information. What can be good in many cases.
To me it is clear that a better RAW converter which does not produce visible artifacts is perfectly possible to implement. Technically, this kind of "fix" would be better because the RAW files would remain small as they are now. Besides, the new RAW converter could be used to convert photos already taken including with discontinued camera models. Finally, the photographer would not have to worry about deciding between several RAW format options.
Frank_BR: my posts aren't as old as the one sited above. But still significantly earlier than the posts you mention.
I searched through my old threads, oddly, the body of my original posts on the first two threads seem to be missing, and it can only be inferred from the replies. dpreview, where are the rest of my posts?
On the Sony Mirrorless forum (before the forums were split for Cybershot, FE, etc.)http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50550388
On the Sony Alpha DSLR forumhttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50550413
Back to the (now) Cybershot forumhttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50549274
Note on this last post. I started digging into the file format when I was having issues with artifacts that were probably unrelated to what I was originally looking into.
IdM photography: Lossy compressed RAW is NOT RAW... A RAW file must contain the unaltered data as coming out from the sensor. It's just unbelievebable that Sony could invent lossy compressed RAW files... I hope they correct this soon, and implement a lossless compression.
Each manufacturer gets to decide what "raw" really is. You're describing an ideal, one from which every camera manufacturer departs to the degree it suits them.
At the very least Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic are cooking their raw files to an extent, whether it's long exposure noise reduction, lens shading compensation, chromatic aberration correction or even distortion correction.
I'm sure the list of manufacturers is much longer than this, those are just some well known examples.
You haven't been paying attention. Complaints about this haven't just started with the A7. I complained about this when I found artifacts in heavy postprocessing when the RX1 came out. I then checked and found the same algorithm employed on my NEX cameras, but those cameras didn't promise me 14 bit output.
exapixel: I have the depressing feeling that Sony will provide full 14-bit losslessly compressed RAW output only after exploring all of the other alternatives first. This current announcement looks like they're just turning off the 16px isochromatic block encoding, so the output will just be an uncompressed stream of 11-bit codes for their subset of the 14-bit space.
We'll have to wait and see, but I think exapixel may be right. I've been predicting the same. I bought an RX1 on the promise of 14 bit output. I'm still waiting.
Glenn Barber: Agreed - we want Compressed Lossless Raw like on Canon and Nikon. WHo thought Uncompressed Raw was what we wanted?
@Random, If Sony says there will be two choices, and one of them is compressed, then it will be the existing lossy compression. One can hope this is a miscommunication, and they meant to say lossless vs lossy compression. No one wants huge files, but perhaps they couldn't add a lossless compression scheme this time around without an update to their Bionz processor.
Davud: Who needs to shoot over ISO 6400? For low light action, post processing a 6400 to +5 exposure, would give a better result (Noise, Highlight) than a sensor amplified virtual ISO.
@LightCapture: boosting exposure in postprocessing applies a multiplier to digital data, increasing posterization as darkest tones move into the middle range.
But increasing ISO in the camera is boosting the analog signal prior to capture (which also increases noise)
Nereo: Um... I'm beginning to think we need a new standard other than "ISO" to measure light sensitivity.
ISO came from the sensitivity of coated glass collodian plates (ISO ~1 !) Then came the films, and it was still easy to keep track that ISO 100 was 4x as sensitive as ISO 25. But now we've got cameras with ISO 102,400 and now 4 million?! Quick: how many stops between 1600 and 102,400?
Since camera sensitivities now exceed two orders of magnitude, why not have a sensitivity measurement that matches? e.g. ISO 100 = 1, 200 = 2, 400 = 3, 1600 = 4... each double the previous level in sensitivity. This new camera exceeds "16" on our sensitivity scale!
The ISO standard already incorporates a logarithmic scale from the DIN standard. The log numbers are written with the "degree" symbol. One million ISO would be about 60 on that scale.
21 -- 10024 -- 20027 -- 400...36 -- 320039 -- 6400...56 -- 409,600
But does the shutter still make a loud "clack"?