RX1 Landscapes???

[rashid7]

I have now read in at least 2 reviews that the RX1 lens is not optimized for subjects @ long distances. If this is the case, being mostly interested in a trekking camera, I don't believe it would be a good investment. (Currently I use RX10 & m4/3)

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[KBKB]

Can you provide links to those reviews?

(I think the RX1 should be very good for landscapes. After all, the 35mm focal length is less than ideal for portraits. I don't own one though, so this is only speculation on my part.)

 

[rashid7]

I've read reviews by Steve Huff, Ken Rockwell, MirrorLessons, Reichman/Luminous Lscape, and many reviews from customers on Amazon, B&H, etc. Can't remember which. The implication was that the immaculate IQ at short & moderate distances is not matched at infinity.

 

[Mike Fewster]

I've read reviews by Steve Huff, Ken Rockwell, MirrorLessons, Reichman/Luminous Lscape, and many reviews from customers on Amazon, B&H, etc. Can't remember which. The implication was that the immaculate IQ at short & moderate distances is not matched at infinity.

 

[Tirpitz666]

Glad I've taken a lot of amazing landscapes (not my merit of course, just of the places AND the camera) shots with that "unoptimized" lens in the past

Seriuosly, I recall a review of a guy that was stating this "optimized only for close-medium range" issue, that after some more thorough testing was definitely correcting the statement and writing that there is nothing wrong with the RX1 lens in rendering even far details.

Of course being a FF camera, you should shoot at least at F8/F11 if you want really absolutely everything in focus till infinity (but not more than that due to diffraction kicking-in), F5.6 won't probably do if you plan to print big.

If you are a trekker I would say it is the perfect camera to carry around, you wont' find anything so diminutive and light that can ensure you such a level of IQ (not to mention the monstruos dynamic range which for landscape photography for me is even more important than ultimate sharpness)

Next days will try to post some samples so you can judge yourself.

 

[rashid7]

thanks 4 the replies everyone. I need 2 b REALLY sure before making the inve$tment!

 

[Mike Fewster]

I've read reviews by Steve Huff, Ken Rockwell, MirrorLessons, Reichman/Luminous Lscape, and many reviews from customers on Amazon, B&H, etc. Can't remember which. The implication was that the immaculate IQ at short & moderate distances is not matched at infinity.

 

[mod2001]

have no RX1 (not yet however, wouldn't surprise me if the lens is more optimized for the close to mid-range as Sony had for sure not landscape photographers in mind when developing the cam. Have the same issue for example with Nikons 28mm AIS, extremely sharp in close/midrange, but easy noticeable less sharp at infinity.

Yogi

 

[Mike Fewster]

have no RX1 (not yet however, wouldn't surprise me if the lens is more optimized for the close to mid-range as Sony had for sure not landscape photographers in mind when developing the cam. Have the same issue for example with Nikons 28mm AIS, extremely sharp in close/midrange, but easy noticeable less sharp at infinity.

Yogi

OK, but I am mainly a landscape photographer and I sell large prints of my shots and I have never seen anything to support such a statement. In particular if any such issue existed I would have expected it to have been picked up in the Michael Reichman Luminous Landscape reviews as at that site they specialize in landscape photography.

Why do you say Sony for sure didn't have landscape photographers in mind? The size weight IQ of the thing immediately appealed to me and my landscape shooting friends as carrying it to inaccessible places was going to be such a breeze compared to anything else on the market. If it had been designed primarily for street work, the lack of a tilt screen or faster AF is incomprehensible.

 

[rashid7]

thanks 4 checking those reviews. Must have been some of the buyers on Amazon, or B&H [some folk go into great detail, and many are experienced w/ other cutting-edge cams]

I'm not sure i even know how a lens can be sharp, say at profile or street distances, and not at infinity.

It sounds like a great option for my hiking/bkpaking. But I thot so re the Nikon coolpix A too, but was disappointed, finding the GX7w/ latest lumix superzoom better (!?)

I agree that it is hard to imagine this as a street shooter... w/ weak low-light AF

 

[Frits]

I must be easy to please (NOT!). I love my RX1r for landscapes.

My main use is for lightweight walkabout when I don't want to be burdened with my DSLR (Nikon D4). As such I mostly shoot city-like touristy stuff but certainly also the occasional landscape. This little marvel performs great for both.

 

[travelinbri_74]

For the record, I have owned a Sony RX1R since it came out, and haven't found any issues with rendering details at distance. The RX1 series has its issues - as every camera does - such as slowish AF, low battery life, lack of integrated VF, but I have never had any issue with the rendering. Some of my favorite photography trips were taken with just the RX1R and a Ricoh GR (for those times when I just wanted to have a camera in the pocket and nothing more). The lens and files from the Sony are beautiful.

-TBri

 

[SonyRX1]

I believe DFPanno on this board mentioned something along the lines of "the A7R II and FE35/2.8 combo performs better at infinity than the RX1" I've never tested that lens so it could be true, but the A7R II also has almost double the resolution, so it's not exactly a fair fight.

 

[adam10]

May I respectfully suggest that you read "Tim Ashley's" review of the RX1 - He advises that the lens is very good for landscapes - Within his review are full resolution images to download. I had an RX1. Landscape shots were good however at 100% I believe that something like the Nikon D800E would have bettered it for detail. Now however the RX1R II is a very, very enticing product. 42MP promises super duper detail landscape images particularly when mated to that Zeiss 35mm lens. Unfortunately I sold my RX1 and regret it but I will buy the RX1R II without doubt.

I was recently looking at some of my old RX1 files and they are gorgeous. Colour, saturation, detail is spot on , as is the DR.

These files are so good to work with in post processing. You can push the various sliders in LR at will and the files will just sit there and take it without image degradation

Adam.

 

[bhollis]

I have now read in at least 2 reviews that the RX1 lens is not optimized for subjects @ long distances. If this is the case, being mostly interested in a trekking camera, I don't believe it would be a good investment. (Currently I use RX10 & m4/3)

Please correct me if I am wrong.

--
Keep it fun!

Don't primarily shoot landscapes with my RX1R, but have shot a few. Have also shot lots of cityscapes at long distances. No complaints about my RX1R's ability to render distant detail.




Mt Timpanogos near SLC, Utah






Chicago

 

[mod2001]

Hi Mike, regarding Nikon lenses and their use for landscapes, there are a lot of comments and tests to find from serious landscape photographers regarding this issue, especially with the 28mm AIS from Nikon, for example here http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html. Matches my observation as well. Question is of course if you care or not, I do, others don't. Same with the RX1(R), in case the lens has this problem, I can't judge.

Regarding Sonys main buyer target for the RX1, just my observation, 35mm is not wide enough for most of the serious landscape photographers or vice versa not long enough. Of course, this doesn't mean you can't use it for landscape or another example for portraits.

Yogi

 

[bpjod]

The RX1 does very well for landscapes. I have only one caveat. Mine (not saying all...) does not focus to infinity when I manually focus. To focus at infinity I have to use AF. I can then switch to MF so that I don't have to refocus for every shot, but I cannot set it to MF, then rotate the focussing ring to infinity and get a sharp horizon.

This may (and probably is) only my unit, but is something to be aware of and to test for. I was rather surprised at this problem, but it does explain why my attempts to take photos at night (not stopped down) always ended up with blurred horizons and stars!

 

[mreynolds767]

As someone who has made a statement that somewhat resembles what you are implying I wanted to chime in.

I have said a few times either here or on the E Mount Full Frame forum that when comparing IQ on the Rx1 to the A7R with Loxia 35 lens that each have some advantages.

The RX1 being superior at close distances and wide open at all distances.

The Loxia on the A7r starts to show advantages over the Rx1 at longer distances, the detail is much better in those cases, which would usually be an F8 - F16 situation.

Now, I never said it was because of the lens itself, could easily because of the 36MP sensor in the A7R compared to the Rx1.

I do think the A7R and Loxia 35 is better for landscapes but not by much and that option costs more and is much larger in size. Rx1 has other advantages such as Macro ability, silent shutter, etc...

I also never implied the Rx1 is not a great tool for landscape photography.

The new RX1 II will I imagine will likely be better in all aspects of photography than the original A7R and the Loxia 35 lens combo.

--
online gallery at:
www.MattReynoldsPhotography.com

 

[rashid7]

As someone who has made a statement that somewhat resembles what you are implying I wanted to chime in.

I have said a few times either here or on the E Mount Full Frame forum that when comparing IQ on the Rx1 to the A7R with Loxia 35 lens that each have some advantages.

The RX1 being superior at close distances and wide open at all distances.

The Loxia on the A7r starts to show advantages over the Rx1 at longer distances, the detail is much better in those cases, which would usually be an F8 - F16 situation.

Now, I never said it was because of the lens itself, could easily because of the 36MP sensor in the A7R compared to the Rx1.

I do think the A7R and Loxia 35 is better for landscapes but not by much and that option costs more and is much larger in size. Rx1 has other advantages such as Macro ability, silent shutter, etc...

I also never implied the Rx1 is not a great tool for landscape photography.

The new RX1 II will I imagine will likely be better in all aspects of photography than the original A7R and the Loxia 35 lens combo.

 

[mreynolds767]

Will add for any wide angle on a full frame camera, if shooting a landscape I don't think I would ever focus at Infinity. I focus on infinity only when shooting Stars or the Moon.

You will get better results having everything sharp by using hyperfocal distance. I also add a little so if hyperfocal distance is say 4 or 5 meters I would go to 8 or 10 meters as long as nothing I wanted to be in focus was closer to me than that. I find that results in sharper overall images than using Infinity focus.

If only using the Rx1 you only need to know your hyperfocal distances for 35mm so it is not hard to memorize for the different F stops you might use, since you are padding each you don't have to worry about the fractions but I listed below the actual hyperfocal distances for this lens at typical landscape F stops. When you can I recommend doubling the actual number, or at least that is what I do.

F8: 5.14 m

F9: 4.58 m

F10: 4.09 m

F11: 3.64 m

F13: 3.25 m

F14: 2.9 m

F16: 2.59 m

F22: 1.84 m

One of the reasons I prefer a lens like the Loxia 35 for landscapes is you can just set the focal distance on the outside of the lens and leave the camera on MF and you will have sharp landscapes easy as pie.

Same thing on the RX1 but have to use the in camera focus by wire magnetic based system which resets each time you turn the camera on and off.

--
online gallery at:
www.MattReynoldsPhotography.com