Reading mode: Light Dark

A6000 not as sharp as RX100??

Go to last post
123Mike said:
tomtom50 said:
We'll have to wait for a review of that lens.

I had assumed that my a6000 with kit lens outperformed my RX100, but then I took some comparison pictures and...

it wasn't the case! Confirmation bias and all that.
Click to expand...
If that's accurate, then the 16-50 is indeed as bad as I thought it might be. Myself, I avoided the 16-50 altogether, and instead tracked down a 18-55 (which came with a free A3000 pretty much). But now it's all about the 18-105.

But one thing that you should watch carefully though, when presented with comparisons. Is the lens stopped down for things like outdoor landscape shots. I makes no sense at all to shoot wide open for a landscape. In fact, stop down just before diffraction sets in (eg. f/8 ?). Some lenses peak at sharpness before then, like the 18-105, which according to tests, peaks at f/5.6. That's ok for wide angle, making the DOF deep enough.

Another thing to look for in comparisons, is the focus set right. From the looks of it, it's almost like the 16-50 sample shot is focused past infinity...

The the 16-50 has low contrast, but at every aperture though? In lower light conditions, lower contrast (or, a slight haze) becomes less apparent. The upside of the 16-50 is the amazing compact size. *IF* the 16-50 can produce a bit better results that what's shown, then it's ok I think. If not, I say it's not good enough. Someone showing a cherry picked 16-50 photo is not going to help. Something comparable, like a landscape with lots of features and from mid distance to far distance, in bright sunlight, would be appropriate to show. And same time of day, so not a night shot of golden hour shot. Sun just plain blaring from above mid day. Anyone?
Click to expand...
I wasn't shooting a landscape. I was using a landscape as a high detail sample scene to rate one lens against another.

I shot wide open because slow lenses tend to be used at their widest aperture. I also used a faster aperture with the RX100 since its sensor is less sensitive. I shot the priomes at an optimum aperture because I wasn't testing the primes, I was using them as a standard of excellence to show what a good lens can do.

I carefully focused on infinity using center CDAF.

I think the photos I took are a good test. They are real scenes, so we are not extrapolating from a test chart. They have enough detail so differences are not too subjective (is that leaf clear or blurred? Can we see the siding on that house or not?)

The order of image quality was clear.
  1. a6000 with sharp prime at optimum aperture clear to the edges with great acuity
  2. RX100 wide open at same field of view close but a bit worse than the prime in the center, definitely smudges towards the edges.
  3. a6000 with kit lens clearly worse in the center and worse still at the edges.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com
 
tomtom50 said:
My thread at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3695465#forum-post-53980108 makes no broad claim. It shows that a good prime lens is sharper than the RX100.

But it also shows that the RX100 is sharper than an a6000 with the kit lens, which surprised me!
Click to expand...
I've been staring at those shots a few times now. I do notice something, and it's something I suspect. It looks like the 16-50 is resolving more and is sharper at features *WAY* in the distance. The tree line of the distance hills for instance. And that's beyond the resolution difference I think. A few features on the far far buildings. It's as if the focus of the 16-50 ended up being set just slightly *past* infinity, where actual infinity is included in the focused range, but that the moment you get a little closer, even at medium distances, it's already becoming out of focus. More so that the RX shot. This makes it *look* like the RX is superior, but I think it's possible that this is a matter of the focus not being set optimally.
 
Better than the NEX shots, methinks. Content (and creative PP) trumps.
 
tomtom50 said:
123Mike said:
tomtom50 said:
We'll have to wait for a review of that lens.

I had assumed that my a6000 with kit lens outperformed my RX100, but then I took some comparison pictures and...

it wasn't the case! Confirmation bias and all that.
Click to expand...
If that's accurate, then the 16-50 is indeed as bad as I thought it might be. Myself, I avoided the 16-50 altogether, and instead tracked down a 18-55 (which came with a free A3000 pretty much). But now it's all about the 18-105.

But one thing that you should watch carefully though, when presented with comparisons. Is the lens stopped down for things like outdoor landscape shots. I makes no sense at all to shoot wide open for a landscape. In fact, stop down just before diffraction sets in (eg. f/8 ?). Some lenses peak at sharpness before then, like the 18-105, which according to tests, peaks at f/5.6. That's ok for wide angle, making the DOF deep enough.

Another thing to look for in comparisons, is the focus set right. From the looks of it, it's almost like the 16-50 sample shot is focused past infinity...

The the 16-50 has low contrast, but at every aperture though? In lower light conditions, lower contrast (or, a slight haze) becomes less apparent. The upside of the 16-50 is the amazing compact size. *IF* the 16-50 can produce a bit better results that what's shown, then it's ok I think. If not, I say it's not good enough. Someone showing a cherry picked 16-50 photo is not going to help. Something comparable, like a landscape with lots of features and from mid distance to far distance, in bright sunlight, would be appropriate to show. And same time of day, so not a night shot of golden hour shot. Sun just plain blaring from above mid day. Anyone?
Click to expand...
I wasn't shooting a landscape. I was using a landscape as a high detail sample scene to rate one lens against another.

I shot wide open because slow lenses tend to be used at their widest aperture. I also used a faster aperture with the RX100 since its sensor is less sensitive. I shot the priomes at an optimum aperture because I wasn't testing the primes, I was using them as a standard of excellence to show what a good lens can do.

I carefully focused on infinity using center CDAF.

I think the photos I took are a good test. They are real scenes, so we are not extrapolating from a test chart. They have enough detail so differences are not too subjective (is that leaf clear or blurred? Can we see the siding on that house or not?)

The order of image quality was clear.
  1. a6000 with sharp prime at optimum aperture clear to the edges with great acuity
  2. RX100 wide open at same field of view close but a bit worse than the prime in the center, definitely smudges towards the edges.
  3. a6000 with kit lens clearly worse in the center and worse still at the edges.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3695465#forum-post-53980108
Click to expand...
Something is not right with how the focus was set. Far far away features are no less sharp of the 16-50, whereas closer features are out of focus, more so that from the RX, or the prime one.
 
The studio shots are done with a top-rate prime lens on interchangeable lens cameras. I found you won't get better results with an a6000 unless you use a good (better than kit) lens.
 
123Mike said:
tomtom50 said:
My thread at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3695465#forum-post-53980108 makes no broad claim. It shows that a good prime lens is sharper than the RX100.

But it also shows that the RX100 is sharper than an a6000 with the kit lens, which surprised me!
Click to expand...
I've been staring at those shots a few times now. I do notice something, and it's something I suspect. It looks like the 16-50 is resolving more and is sharper at features *WAY* in the distance. The tree line of the distance hills for instance. And that's beyond the resolution difference I think. A few features on the far far buildings. It's as if the focus of the 16-50 ended up being set just slightly *past* infinity, where actual infinity is included in the focused range, but that the moment you get a little closer, even at medium distances, it's already becoming out of focus. More so that the RX shot. This makes it *look* like the RX is superior, but I think it's possible that this is a matter of the focus not being set optimally.
Click to expand...
Did you see this at both fields of view? I can re-do manually focusing.

I focused in the center, so if the lens has field curvature of the right type it can give the effect you describe, but that's not so wonderful either.
 
123Mike said:
Opening with "LOL" is condescending. Disagreements is not something to laugh at.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? I was LAUGHING AT HIS INTENDED PUN! Perhaps you didn't catch his pun? I can laugh at his pun. Don't tell me I can't laugh at someone's pun.
I MEAN SERIOUSLY GUY!!!
 
123Mike said:
Something is not right with how the focus was set. Far far away features are no less sharp of the 16-50, whereas closer features are out of focus, more so that from the RX, or the prime one.
Click to expand...
There is atmospheric haze, so the really far distances (across Lake Washington) have less detail, period.

That reduces the apparent difference. The furthest distances have less detail to resolve, so then the 16-50 is good enough.
 
:-)tomtom50 said:
My thread at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3695465#forum-post-53980108 makes no broad claim. It shows that a good prime lens is sharper than the RX100.

But it also shows that the RX100 is sharper than an a6000 with the kit lens, which surprised me!
Click to expand...
Interesting.

Please correct me if I read your test wrong, but from what I see, the 6000 with kit has better resolution - by a very clear margin btw. Here it is. A6000 on the right shows a few pols on top of the hills, just to the left of the highest point. These are missing on the left side...

Note that sharpness and resolution are not one and the same all the time.

96e6d43ae95f4b90a382adf1450b1362.jpg
 
Last edited:
tomtom50 said:
123Mike said:
tomtom50 said:
My thread at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3695465#forum-post-53980108 makes no broad claim. It shows that a good prime lens is sharper than the RX100.

But it also shows that the RX100 is sharper than an a6000 with the kit lens, which surprised me!
Click to expand...
I've been staring at those shots a few times now. I do notice something, and it's something I suspect. It looks like the 16-50 is resolving more and is sharper at features *WAY* in the distance. The tree line of the distance hills for instance. And that's beyond the resolution difference I think. A few features on the far far buildings. It's as if the focus of the 16-50 ended up being set just slightly *past* infinity, where actual infinity is included in the focused range, but that the moment you get a little closer, even at medium distances, it's already becoming out of focus. More so that the RX shot. This makes it *look* like the RX is superior, but I think it's possible that this is a matter of the focus not being set optimally.
Click to expand...
Did you see this at both fields of view? I can re-do manually focusing.

I focused in the center, so if the lens has field curvature of the right type it can give the effect you describe, but that's not so wonderful either.
Click to expand...
I took up the discussion on the thread in question...
 
123Mike said:
Pepe-Lepue said:
123Mike said:
Opening with "LOL" is condescending. Disagreements is not something to laugh at.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? I was LAUGHING AT HIS INTENDED PUN! Perhaps you didn't catch his pun? I can laugh at his pun. Don't tell me I can't laugh at someone's pun.
I MEAN SERIOUSLY GUY!!!
Click to expand...
Calm down, you're losing it.
Click to expand...
Please don't accuse me of things without understanding the intent. That was pretty nasty on your part.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed
 
gkstar said:
:-)tomtom50 said:
My thread at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3695465#forum-post-53980108 makes no broad claim. It shows that a good prime lens is sharper than the RX100.

But it also shows that the RX100 is sharper than an a6000 with the kit lens, which surprised me!
Click to expand...
Interesting.

Please correct me if I read your test wrong, but from what I see, the 6000 with kit has better resolution - by a very clear margin btw. Here it is. A6000 on the right shows a few pols on top of the hills, on the left side of the highest point. These are missing on the left side...

Note that sharpness and resolution are not one and the same all the time.

96e6d43ae95f4b90a382adf1450b1362.jpg
Click to expand...
That's hilarious (not meant in a condescending way). Interesting as well. Makes me think that some internal image processing algorithm that is intended to improve IQ, ends up erasing details... Mind you, it's pretty darn faint, so it might be purely resolution that's the difference.

Myself I think that the 16-50's focus was set further back than the other two shots.
 
Pepe-Lepue said:
Pepe-Lepue said:
Pepe-Lepue said:
123Mike said:
Opening with "LOL" is condescending. Disagreements is not something to laugh at.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? I was LAUGHING AT HIS INTENDED PUN! Perhaps you didn't catch his pun? I can laugh at his pun. Don't tell me I can't laugh at someone's pun.
I MEAN SERIOUSLY GUY!!!
Click to expand...
Calm down, you're losing it.
Click to expand...
Please don't accuse me of things without understanding the intent. That was pretty nasty on your part.
Click to expand...
Who's being nasty and condescending is for others to judge.
 
123Mike said:
Pepe-Lepue said:
123Mike said:
Pepe-Lepue said:
123Mike said:
Opening with "LOL" is condescending. Disagreements is not something to laugh at.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? I was LAUGHING AT HIS INTENDED PUN! Perhaps you didn't catch his pun? I can laugh at his pun. Don't tell me I can't laugh at someone's pun.
I MEAN SERIOUSLY GUY!!!
Click to expand...
Calm down, you're losing it.
Click to expand...
Please don't accuse me of things without understanding the intent. That was pretty nasty on your part.
Click to expand...
Who's being nasty and condescending is for others to judge.
Click to expand...
That's fine. But you could man-up and acknowledge that my LOL was posted right after an intended pun. And that you misunderstood.
 
123Mike said:
123Mike said:
Stuff deleted
Click to expand...
That's hilarious (not meant in a condescending way). Interesting as well. Makes me think that some internal image processing algorithm that is intended to improve IQ, ends up erasing details... Mind you, it's pretty darn faint, so it might be purely resolution that's the difference.

Myself I think that the 16-50's focus was set further back than the other two shots.
Click to expand...
Possible. Coming from video projectors and displays - the first order of business is to turn sharpness all the way down as sharpening kills resolution most of the time. Something similar may be going on here. Even when comparing the distant buildings at the 50mm focal length, I can see just a bit more clear detail with the 6k/kit. Could be the added resolution. On the other hand, greens and contrast show a bit better on the RX100. It is never black and white - it's not been for a while now ;-)
 
Last edited:
tomtom50 said:
Better than the NEX shots, methinks. Content (and creative PP) trumps.
Click to expand...
Thank you! That just so happens to be the camera that is on me ALL THE TIME! I'm not so much into the pixel peeping as I am the tool that gets me there.
The htc one is no champ. But it's always in my pocket. I'm afraid in a gear forum others will not understand this.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed
 
i'm re-doing it to double-check. Another beautiful day.

This time I will focus on buildings rather than the horizon, at 30mm (45mm equiv) since I think that is the focal length you are mentioning.

I used center CDAF and took three shots to catch a misfocus (none happened). Focus was on the center of the frame.

The same thing 123mike noticed happened again. The center of the 16-50 was worse, the the 16-50 was a bit clearer at the horizon. I think both lenses have sharper and softer spots. They are both complex formulas with a lot of elements, so I suppose it is not surprising.



16-50 at 30mm f5 on a6000 center AF

16-50 at 30mm f5 on a6000 center AF



RX100 at 17mm f3.2 Center AF

RX100 at 17mm f3.2 Center AF

The difference that leaps out at me is this zone near the center:



Both on same portion

Both on same portion

Maybe this is a 16-50 soft spot just as the horizon is a sharp spot, but this looks pretty ugly to me.
 
I think now you got the focus of the 16-50 further nearby than the RX one, because the tree on the left top is much sharper on the 16-50 than the RX...

Focusing is often off in comparison tests. Even both DPR and Imaging Resource for instance, screw up focus in their tests all the time it seems.
 
Pepe-Lepue said:
pixelpushing said:
Pepe-Lepue said:
?
Click to expand...
If you did post actual comparison data rather than colorfully embellished anecdotal impressions, we could (then) begin to have a dialogue about 'proof' of something relevant to your A6000 v. RX100 claims.
Click to expand...
There you go again. Are you not too astute? You can't help but to see the world in such dichometric ways. It's not a verses thing. Its two systems that COMPLIMENT each other well.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, you're the very one setting up strident A > B rhetorical constructs, blasting at strawmen, raising defensive hackles to proclaim the RX100 SUPERIOR to the A6000 and doling out the personal slurs about such things as 'astuteness'. I don't recall anyone else here forwarding such product biased preferences or trolling language before you started in on it.
Pepe-Lepue said:
Pepe-Lepue said:
This lovely resume of ownership is, however, neither in question nor relevant. Ironically, you're the sole source of undermining people's opinions in this thread for not 'currently owning' the cameras in question. This notion of 'proof of your past gear' is only one of several strawmen you've concocted in just a few hours.
Click to expand...
No - You're just a gearhead. And you act like a gearhead. I offered you a blind test between two zoom options. Because that's an area the RX100 iii makes up for the horribly lacking e mount zoom offerings.
Click to expand...
You're not proving one thing here, other than your penchant for labels and insults.
Pepe-Lepue said:
Pepe-Lepue said:
I'll say this, if you shoot with a fraction the fervor that you advocate for the RX100, I'm sure you've got galleries lining up.
Click to expand...
Not yet. Had a pbase account that closed. Working on it. See my thread on greatly speeding up the boot time of the a6000?
Click to expand...
I'll pass, thanks. Your proclamations and edicts are a little 'polarized' for my liking (there's that personal preference thing, again)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top