-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
RX1 review from whatdigitalcamera
- Thread starter elverket
- Start date
Very even and factual review that confirms this is a great camera for use in specific circumstances or by those with specific needs. The one thing of concern is if frequent low level light photos with AF are planned, as AF can be challenged in these situations... a point identified by others. Positive comments related to its video capability.
Last edited:
barjohn
Senior Member
The reviews ratings and words seem incongruent. They seem to go back and forth. If one was just reading the words and did not look at their ratings values one could easily reach the conclusion that the camera is fatally flawed on both low light AF and battery life and that IQ was not quite up to what one would expect in a camera in this price range. For example, the discussion on noise seemed to indicate that noise was visible as pattern noise above ISO200 but noise was very good to ISO6400. Same with the discussion on the lens performance. It was good on center but soft in the corners unless stopped down and had chromatic aberration that the software could not correct. No examples were given to show what the author was talking about in any of the cases. While a 92 overall rating is very good, if I were going by the description in the text I would have given it an 81. Anyone else reach the same conclusion? Maybe its jus the way the British write and to someone from the UK they would see and read the text differently.
The main thing that bothered me about the review was the lack of examples, in particular examples to demonstrate a stated result. Most of the shots in the article were of little value to me and certainly not to my liking. I would have tossed most of those images in the trash bin as misfires.
I look forward to other comments.
The main thing that bothered me about the review was the lack of examples, in particular examples to demonstrate a stated result. Most of the shots in the article were of little value to me and certainly not to my liking. I would have tossed most of those images in the trash bin as misfires.
I look forward to other comments.
I just checked the review, and it looks like they confused lateral chromatic aberration, (which is correctable, produces cyan and magenta fringes, and not related to out of focus areas) and longitudinal chromatic aberration (which produces green and purple fringes behind and in front of the plane of focus), which is not something that any camera ever corrects for.
Lightroom does have a very useful tool to mitigate LoCA. You would need an APO lens to
That was a lackluster read: quite the opposite of a Steve Huff review.
After experimenting with this camera for 2 weeks, I agree that the battery life stinks. But I guess I will have to suck it up because it is a fair trade-off for camera size.
As for AF, it isn't poor. It is adequate 90% of the time. As I have shown in my videos, focus speed is not the issue. It is actually quite fast. Hunting and accuracy is where the problem lies. That is why an EVF is a must to confirm that the subject is locked on. I'm sure Sony will fine-tune the AF with a firmware update so I am not overly worried about this.
I don't pocket my camera so the dials have never accidentally rotated. The dials are quite stiff btw.
After experimenting with this camera for 2 weeks, I agree that the battery life stinks. But I guess I will have to suck it up because it is a fair trade-off for camera size.
As for AF, it isn't poor. It is adequate 90% of the time. As I have shown in my videos, focus speed is not the issue. It is actually quite fast. Hunting and accuracy is where the problem lies. That is why an EVF is a must to confirm that the subject is locked on. I'm sure Sony will fine-tune the AF with a firmware update so I am not overly worried about this.
I don't pocket my camera so the dials have never accidentally rotated. The dials are quite stiff btw.
Tulaev
Senior Member
Could you tell more about the battery life and battery indicator accuracy?
Last edited:
Tulaev
Senior Member
Thank you very much! About the same as my X100.
For someone who really doesn't care about AF at all, can you confirm whether the retail bodies have focus peaking or not?
Yes it does have focus peaking, but it only works under 5.1x magnification.
sroute
Senior Member
Using the resolution test target from Imaging-Resource.com I found that a very light touch on the LoCA control - purple only - did a good job at reducing visible longitudinal CA found towards the edges. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at this - I did most of my comparisions with all correction turned off for both the RX1 and comparison cameras.
As Rich and I were discussing the other day, it'd be great if Sony/Zeiss designed and implemented a mostly distortion free lens that doesn't suffer from CA of any time, but such a lens would be larger, heavier, and cost more. They picked a useful point of balance I think - make it darn good in the centre and quite good to the edges. I didn't see anything in comparison on D600 or D800 test charts that cased my interest in the RX1 to shriviel.
But test charts aren't the real world, just a heads up on what to expect. Now that I have some raw files from real life subjects I'm having a second look at all of this.
Last edited:
Matt Golowczynski
New member
The review states "The camera's focusing system is a fast performer overall... In many conditions it's performance is likely to be deemed more than good"
The review goes on "...although it does often hunt when light levels fall, even when the AF assist light is activated. At times it misfocuses (confirming incorrect focus) and sometimes fails to find focus at all. The system does have a certain manic quality, so even if it does need to travel through its range, and when it hunts, it does so quickly."
So, at least on these points, we appear to agree rather than differ.
If you don't pocket your camera it stands to reason that you will not experience this issue. But its small size means that others are more likely to pocket it for convenience, and this is where it can become a problem.
M
Marti58
Guest
so sure that Sony will bring out a FW update to fix it ?
Sorry to say but Sony has not the best history if it comes to that.
Matt Golowczynski
New member
The gallery linked to the review has 38 images from the RX1, all full-resolution and with basic metadata attached. As the metadata should show, they were captured over a range of apertures, sensitivities etc and, where possible, positioned under/above the various points being made (low-light image under the image noise paragraph, images showing distortion next to the Lens/Raw and JPEG comments and so on). Obviously some images will be aesthetically more appealing to some people than others but that's not the main point of their inclusion; they are there to illustrate various points made in the copy with regards to the camera's performance.
WCguy
Senior Member
I agree with you but lets all hope that with Sony wanting this camera (the first small FF camera on the market) to be a major success and are going to do what is necessary to correct some of their minor problems in the very near future. Many folks around the world have ordered the pricey RX1 and it would be in Sony's best interest to address these issues Here's hoping and staying positive for now.....WC
viztyger
Senior Member
There really isn't enough information here to draw definitive conclusions.
There's no mention of which AF area they used. Perhaps their comments refer to multi area AF while some of us would use center or flexible spot autofocus. I don't know about the RX1, but spot focusing certainly improved AF speed when using my NEX-7 in low light.
As with every complex tool, you have to learn how to get the best results from it and that takes time. Just pointing it somewhere, hoping for the best, then declaring failure isn't enough. I'm not saying they did that here, but it's also not clear exactly how they used the camera.
There's no mention of which AF area they used. Perhaps their comments refer to multi area AF while some of us would use center or flexible spot autofocus. I don't know about the RX1, but spot focusing certainly improved AF speed when using my NEX-7 in low light.
As with every complex tool, you have to learn how to get the best results from it and that takes time. Just pointing it somewhere, hoping for the best, then declaring failure isn't enough. I'm not saying they did that here, but it's also not clear exactly how they used the camera.
barjohn
Senior Member
I would have expected a major publication to do a more professional job with videos to demonstrate the AF operation both good and under bad conditions so we could see what the reviewer was doing and how the camera was performing. If the examples in the test were meant to illustrate a point, then circle or point to the area of the image that illustrates the point, don't make the reader hunt for it. Give some context such as here is a photo shot under these conditions and here with arrow pointing to it is where the camera failed to produce a proper result or here is an artifact that shouldn't be there. Where was the example of pattern noise above ISO200? What does that mean? Give me an example of pattern noise as opposed to grain. Is it a repeating blob? How visible is it? Can one only see it at 100%, 200%, 400%?
Look at the photo after the discussion about macro capability and tell me how that proves the point. You have no context or comparison to another camera or lens with better capability and can't even discern the subject other than it appears to be bark. How close was the camera? What would it have looked like as a crop when sot at the closest normal focal distance? I can't tell and I doubt any reader can either.
What does the picture of the bar sign below the discussion of special modes and face detection have to do with the subject of the discussion? What is it supposed to illustrate?
In the section on design what do the photos of the apples or the blurry whatever it is have to do with the camera's design? What do they illustrate about the design?
The images below the discussion on AF appear to be in focus so how do they demonstrate the conditions where the camera fails? In fact the shot of the tennis ball appears to be in low light and appears to be in focus.
I could go on but it is boring and tedious. My point is that it is fine to make claims but this is an instrument to produce visual images and it should be possible to clearly illustrate the points you make with either example shots from the camera or videos of the performance being discussed or comparing with measured data the camera to other well known cameras so that the reader has context. It's the old "compare and contrast" you were taught in grade school.
If you read any of the professional reviewers (they charge money for their reviews) like Sean Reid or Lloyd Chambers you will see them illustrate claims they make with multiple clear examples and clear explanations of terms they use and their own biases. They compare and contrast the results of similar items both visually and in words.
The text was often contradictory with one sentence praising and the next condemning the same thing that had been praised. A look at their review of the XPRO-1 shows them rating image quality as a 20/20 but the RX1 is only 18/20. Really? If that is true, show us how you came to the conclusion. Both cameras are rated a 92 overall so does that make the XPRO-1 that costs less, much less the better buy? If so, why?
The reviewer should have shown us why one camera received a 20/20 and the other was only given an 18/20 so we can understand the basis for the judgement. It isn't there.
Tulaev
Senior Member
What's the problem? Pay and enjoy the reviews of Sean Reid and Lloyd Chambers!
The latter has already promised review of RX1.
"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
The latter has already promised review of RX1.
"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
barjohn
Senior Member
No problem for me as I already subscribe to both. I was just responding to comments made about my comments. I guess one could say that free reviews are worth what you pay for them.
I have the camera on order and will make my own judgements. If it fails in ways I find unacceptable I'll return it. My only other point is that we need a higher quality of journalism in the field but I realize this would require more work and effort and good lab equipment which few reviewers have redaily available.
Since I work for the DoD and we have a significant electro-optics lab I have a pretty good idea of what is an acceptable evaluation of an optical system. I don't expect that degree in a consumer publication but I expect better than I am seeing generally.
I have the camera on order and will make my own judgements. If it fails in ways I find unacceptable I'll return it. My only other point is that we need a higher quality of journalism in the field but I realize this would require more work and effort and good lab equipment which few reviewers have redaily available.
Since I work for the DoD and we have a significant electro-optics lab I have a pretty good idea of what is an acceptable evaluation of an optical system. I don't expect that degree in a consumer publication but I expect better than I am seeing generally.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum