For advanced users: RX1 tips

Mine arrived yesterday and I started a slightly tongue-in-cheek unboxing thread, which led to a more serious look into some aspects of the camera's files and lens. I am going to be reviewing the camera in a lot more depth but today I did some useful stuff and thought I'd share it.

Firstly, I shot the same scene from the same tripod, same effective focal length at ISO 200 and F5.6 with the RX1, RX100, Fuji X100, Canon 5DII with 35L lens, and Nikon D800E with 24-120VRII lens (I have no 35mm prime on the Nikon) and then I compared the files. The full details will have to await my review, and some serious sorting and uploading, much of which will have to wait ten days since I am about to go away but my initial impression:

The RX1 smoked the Fuji: that answers the question I had about whether it replaces it fully: it does.

The RX100 did better than you'd expect and for prints up to about 54cm on the long side, only the very fussy would care about the difference at low ISO, though the very edges of the lens were a little softer

The RX1 stood very happily against the Canon and I think it might be better in terms of the processing latitude of the files (I shot one batch at -2EV so I can check that in detail when I have time). Certainly the lens held its own against one of Canon's better pieces of glass.

The D800E clearly wins, BUT the lens lets it down: for a straight shot of this scene to print up to around 30" I would prefer to use the RX1 - or better still, the Nikon with a prime.

These things are pretty contentious and there could be a zillion arguments about how to 'normalise' the results in terms of up and down-resing the images so as to compare them 'fairly' and no two people will agree on what is fair. So these are merely my initial impressions and they tell me that the RX1 and the RX100 together will make a truly useful travel kit, even for certain types of professional use. I am about to test this hypothesis on a trip. But what I have proved to my initial satisfaction is that the lens on the RX1 behaves like the good prime we are paying for, at least at intermediate and close distance. I am still not convinced it performs as well as I'd expect at far distance.

Of more practical use, I ran some tests on processing and sharpening and I can say, given that the only software that 'reads' RX1 raw files at the moment is either Sony Image Data Converter or Capture One 7 latest version, the best method I have found is:

Open the file in C1-7, set all NR and sharpening to 0 (you might need to set Colour Noise Reduction to +1 or 2 due to an export bug that corrupts files if you don't but the effect on results is irrelevant) then export to Prophoto 16bit TIFF. Import that file to Lightroom 4 and set sharpening to 60/0.7/70/20 and NR to zero or to taste.

That gives better results than either C1 default or Sony IDC.

Next up, the same scene shot at +1 and -2 EV to get a sense of DR. I learn, as I said yesterday that the in-camera warnings are about a stop too conservative. Even at +1 and slight blinkies on the LCD, the file was not blown. However, processing both files so as to give about the same tonality showed clearly that if you want noise free shadows you need to expose to the right, whereas if you want to darken the sky in post, then underexposing at the outset gives you a cleaner end result, examples below:


Exposure normalised crop from shadow area of frame exposed at +1EV



Exposure normalised crop from shadow area of frame exposed at -2EV









Exposure darkened crop from sky area of frame exposed at +1EV









Exposure darkened crop from sky area of frame exposed at -2EV




Please note that when viewed at 50% so as to emulate a 200dpi print, the noise in the shadow areas of the underexposed image is effectively downsampled out of existence, whereas the sky still looks a little grainy in the adjusted +1 frame.

Bottom line, the files seem to me to be very flexible. Not quite as flexible as a D800 files but better than most cameras I own. And that is as I'd expect. But if you are a fan of adding darkening grads to skies in post, then don't be tempted to ETTR too much: if the sky is starting to blink out, it's not blown but it is going to be noisier to correct than needs be, given the latitude of the shadows.

There will be a lot more to come, and a lot more 'proof' but for now, these tips might be useful to some.

--
Gallery & Blog : http://www.timashley.com

Thank you! Very useful. Could you please post some full-res landscapes with proper processing? Or RAWs. Comparative pictures (RX1 vs 5D, D800) would be even better. I am not very like such photos in JPEG and want to understand - it's the lens or processing problems.

Wonderful. Some of the best info I have seem on the RX1.

-Bill

Fashion Meets Fighting

I stepped up from a a T2i to a 5D3 kit last spring.

I have added a 50 1.2 in the interim (and a RX100).

Photography is moving along so fast that I am wondering if adding to my Canon gear is a smart move.

Yes; the Sony Exmor rocks. If it wasn't for all the QC issues with Nikon gear I would have moved over.

Nice to see that the RX100 held up so well. I love mine and on some levels enjoy it as much, if not more than my 5D3. :-O

A similar FF SONY (RX-X ?) with an integral 24-70 F2 zoom would be an ass-kickin' camera.

Thanks for the post.

DFPanno said:

DFPanno wrote:
A similar FF SONY (RX-X ?) with an integral 24-70 F2 zoom would be an ass-kickin' camera.

Click to expand...

No doubt. Especially the size and weight.

[No message]

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/lenses/slr/zuiko-lens-ed-14-35mm-f2-0-swd.html


And it's only 4/3" frame size...

Brain fart. Would have to be essentially the same lens.

Thanks for the comments and questions guys!

Here's a link to something you might find useful:

http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/p674639076/h4eb85da0#h4eb840ea

Shot on the same tripod, unmoving between shots (though tripod plate placement and mild differences in FOV make the framing slightly different between shots) these were all taken at ISO 200 (the lowest ISO common to all cameras tested) and F5.6 and for each camera tested, one was taken as per in-camera metering at 0EV and one at -2EV.

The frames were then imported as RAW into Capture One 7, given no sharpening or NR, and exported immediately as 16 bit TIFF full size. They were then imported into LR4 and given my default sharpening, which is 60/0.7/70/20 and NR 0. I also manually White Balanced them to give similar results. The -2EV shots were then given +2 stops exposure compensation in LR, aside from the RX100 which was only given +1 because its maximum shutter speed did not allow the initial -2EV frame to be correctly captured so instead it was effectively at -1EV. In other words, all the underexposed versions were normalised so as to see how each camera's files fared by being underexposed and then compensated in post.

The files were then exported to 92% quality JPEG, full size, ProPhoto colour space.

The files are in this order:

RX1 @ 0EV then -2EV

5DII @ 0EV then -2EV (shot with Canon 35 F1.4L)

D800E @ 0EV then -2EV (shot with 24-120VRII at 35mm, see note below)

RX100 @ 0EV then -2EV (actually only -1EV due to shutter speed limitations)

Fuji X100@ 0EV then -2EV

Notes:

The Nikon shot is the best BUT it is also very soft on the right hand side: my own copy of this lens has had multiple repairs and has this problem so I have a loaner from NPS which has just arrived and is showing the same problem, which indicated a problem with my D800E but there is no evidence of this with other lenses. A currently unsolved mystery.

The exposure differs slightly across frames and cameras: cameras meter slightly differently, their lenses have different T stops even if shot at the same F stop, and their actual ISOs are not the same as their nomnal ISOs. Light and shade fluctuated during the test, too. I have made no attempt to normalise exposures other than boosting those shots made with negative exposure compensation by the amount the were underexposed.

Comparing the files is non-trivial since there is no level playing field. They could all be upresed to the resolution of the D800, downresed to the Fuji, or mid-resed to the RX1 and a case could be made for any of these. In any event I suggest comparing centre and left of frame at a 50% zoom view on screen. The full-sized JPEGS are all downloadable: click on a thumbnail, when the larger image loads, mouseover it and the Menu at top left of the image will give an option to download the original whereas the 'i' button top right of the image gives EXIF.

Enjoy!

i think that the 800 with a 35 prime would yield better results then you have now with a zoom lens attached, and the differences will be bigger, so hopefully you can make a comparison with it attached.

Not with this lens! I reduced the size of the D800 photo to the RX1 size - RX1 is sharper everywhere.

Many thanks for your work!

just curious about shooting distance in view of earlier comments about the rx1 possibly being soft for landscapes when focused at infinity?

earful said:

earful wrote:

just curious about shooting distance in view of earlier comments about the rx1 possibly being soft for landscapes when focused at infinity?

Click to expand...

The depth of the scene is approximately 15 feet to 250. by infinity weakness, I mean distant scenes such as a hillside foliage more than 1/4 mile away, far mountains, that sort of thing.

Thanks for doing these Tim. What did you use as the focus point for each?

PS: The RX1's field of view is slightly wider than the X100. Not a big difference but perhaps useful to some. Your shots are the first I've seen comparing two subjects from the same vantage point with both cameras.

sroute said:

sroute wrote:

Thanks for doing these Tim. What did you use as the focus point for each?

PS: Another observation - the field of view is slightly wider on the RX1 than the X100.

Click to expand...

My pleasure!

Zooming the RX100 is a bit of a guess, but they all have slightly different FOV anyway since the true focal length of a lens often differs from its nominal.

Focus points were all dead centre on the facades of the building opposite.

Was just editing my post and should have added Fujifilm X100 to avoid confusion with the RX100 because in this forum it's necessary as there are TOO MANY X cameras out there in the world LOL.

I was on my iPad earlier so I just now downloaded the originals and imported into Aperture for 100% pixel peeping.

I think you're right about the Nikon D800 being the best (even though it's not on the right side). As I viewed various spots I seemed to conclude the RX1 was doing very well against the full frame competition. For example, there is a boat on the far left with some writing on it and a number (685). The text is barely recognizable as text with the RX1 and the Fujifilm cameras. But the 3 FF cameras make it more clear. The RX1 seems to be directly in between the D800 and the 5DIII. That being said, the Nikon D800 was also displaying that text and the number larger than the other cameras so I am sure that played into my analysis.

I don't think landscape photographers have to worry about using the RX1.