In search of image quality

Started Feb 7, 2014 | Discussions thread
Michel J Veteran Member • Posts: 4,009
Re: RX1

doctorxring wrote:

Mike Fewster wrote:

doctorxring wrote:


I've been enjoying my A65 and DT1650 lens for the past two years immensely. But as many enthusiasts do, I would like "more" in respect to image quality.

I've been considering the following options, 1 of two lens options for my A65 or the one camera option.

1. Sony Zeiss 24mm f/2

2. Sony Zeiss 2470mm f/2.8

3. Sony RX1

Which of these options will give the best image quality over what I have already ? Would this be a small increment of image quality or a significant increase over my current combo ?

Thanks for any and all input on this.



If the topic is just IQ and what will give the biggest incremental jump over your present gear, the RX1 is a runaway winner. It isn't just pixel peeking, the RX1 IQ is immediately apparent. I have had many many cameras over 50+ years of photography and the RX1 continues to stun me with it's IQ.

But there are other considerations. Only you can decide whether the flexibility of an interchangeable lens camera is ultimately worth more to you than the absolute IQ superiority of the RX1. I couldn't answer this myself so I have an RX1 and an interchangeable lens camera. I find that 75% of what I do can be handled by the RX1 but whether this is true for you will depend entirely on your interests and shooting style.

-- hide signature --

Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia



Yes, you have have answered my question. The question was about camera hardware defined image quality, not technique. Technique is a lifelong journey and the replies given here about that are also appreciated. I do have 2 very good tripods and a good monopod, and remote release. I do PP, but have been using JPG. I will begin working with raw files.

I suspected the RX1 might offer what you have mentioned, but one likes to hear the voice of experience. I sometimes carry two cameras, so even if the RX1 is paired with the A65-1650 I have no problem with that. At the moment at least 80% of my photography is done with the 1650 and a lot of that could be done at 35mm FF. So an RX1 could have a big impact on my overall "kit".

Buying a used RX1 looks to be fairly risk free. This will be a good way for me to investigate FF with a good lens matched to it.

thanks kindly, Chris

Since the IQ is my main concern, I don't know what you mean folks about RX1. The RX1r resolve more with it's stunning (but indecent, lol) 3800LPH when the RX1 stick on 3400LPH. The bad news is that some RX1r shots are pretty unusable because of the moiré and other artefacts, like overrepresentation of dust, artifacts and so on:

Source: dPr (of this psychedelic rendering lol) here more is less

If you go FF, resolution power of the A65/A77 is higher with it's 3000LPH vs 2800LPH for the A99:

Source: dPr, resolving power of A65/A77 for wild life, is better (look at the shadow in low lit).

Better resolving details in low light is the most important thing.

Too much LPH means a lot of time to clean up your shots in PP:

Source: dPr, as you can see, all the FF show more dust in glass flat area, than the A65/A77 despite to the fact than resolving power is intact.

And the .JPEG engine and his "specific area noise reduction algorithm" is stunning:

Source: dPr, the A65/A77 jpeg engine, is probably the best ever.

So here, all is question of compromises, and most of the time, if you think about overall parameters, you have the best tool already except one point:

If I had an A65, I should consider more an upgrade to A77, to get AF-micro ajustments (more than the A99). But yes, that means getting the best lenses lineup ever for APS-C. What is resuming in very few lenses.

I would confess than the RX1r have a better resolution power, but all in all the whole problem will rest on where to point the cursor between "clean" shots made in-camera by algorithm VS over definition which you have to clean up by yourself, and which is not noticebale once printing is done (except silkscreen on truck tarpaulins for the printing size, which is NOT required according to the viewing distance lol). So in this aspect, the A99 can win over the A77 after spending thousand of hours in PP (but I don't know you, but I have only one life, lol)

If I can't wait, I should consider more the CZ 24-70mm, but as you wrote, you can do a lot at 35mm, you have the excellent kit-lens to cover the 18-30mm gap (if wide angle is really required) as well.

And the Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM to cover a "clean" 70mm-150mm gap (and up if stoping down).

So you have all what is required to wait for the Sigma combo, and you can know the difference (nano-coating and new optic formulas with optical organic glass molded elements...).

-- hide signature --

Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow