Jump to content

The Leica Forum uses cookies. Read the privacy statement for more info. To remove this message, please click the button to the right:    OK, understood.

Photo
- - - - -

Sony RX1 Ranked #4 on DXO Mark at 93


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 barjohn

barjohn

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,069 posts
  • City / Ort:San Clemente

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:26

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)
This is quite remarkable performance and at the top of the heap with only very small differences between it and the very top D800E. High dynamic range (14.3EV), great SNR across the ISO range and color depth (>25 bits). The new M-240 will have quite a challenge producing a sensor that out performs the state of the art Sony sensors and the Zeiss lens is rated the equal of the Leica 35 by Lloyd Chambers and other reviewers very familiar with Leica..

Edited by barjohn, 09 January 2013 - 07:28.

  • colonel and andyedward said thank you to this

#2 kdriceman

kdriceman

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,451 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted 09 January 2013 - 14:17

It is, no doubt, a great camera, but at $3,000 I would expect a built in viewfinder (hybrid would be nice, but at least an EVF), the ability to change lenses with an ability to use an adapter for 3rd party lenses and phase-detect autofocus instead of contrast-detect. The NEX 6 now has all these features, lacking only the full frame sensor. My guess is that Sony is milking the top of the market for now and will introduce a more complete version of a full frame CSC before long.

#3 iedei

iedei

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 865 posts
  • City / Ort:Brooklyn NYC

Posted 09 January 2013 - 14:40

It is, no doubt, a great camera, but at $3,000 I would expect a built in viewfinder (hybrid would be nice, but at least an EVF), the ability to change lenses with an ability to use an adapter for 3rd party lenses and phase-detect autofocus instead of contrast-detect. The NEX 6 now has all these features, lacking only the full frame sensor. My guess is that Sony is milking the top of the market for now and will introduce a more complete version of a full frame CSC before long.


i kind of like the idea of a fixed lens, however i agree that i just can't get over the idea of the RX1 not having a viewfinder......i can't take it seriously without it! With the added accessory, it becomes much larger....taller than an M-E, in fact.
  • squarenegs likes this
SYED
Leica M5 & Leica M8.1
Elmarit 21mm F2.8
Komura 35mm F3.5
Summicron 40mm F2.0
Summilux 50mm F1.4
Super Rokkor 50mm F1.8
Ricoh GRD-3 & GXR
500px

#4 Paul J

Paul J

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 3,047 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 15:40

There's just something about the colour and contrast and the way it swallows up the detail and micro contrast that makes pictures look a bit amateur IMO. Like a cheap dSLR albeit with a decent lens. Perhaps it's just the sample I've seen.
Perception. Not perfection

#5 thedigitalbean

thedigitalbean

    Neuer Benutzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • City / Ort:Silicon Valley

Posted 09 January 2013 - 15:51

When the RX-1 was first announced I too was ready to dismiss it. The lack of a viewfinder made it difficult to take seriously. However, after several individuals whose opinions on equipment I trust completely highly recommended the camera I gave it a shot, with the intention that if it really didn't work out I would return it.

Upon first using the camera, it became clear with the goals of the design team were. They wanted to build a FF compact to be as absolutely small as possible. Its clear from handling the camera that adding an EVF would increase size, making the mount take interchangeable lenses would also increase the size. Of course, not everyone will be comfortable with the compromises made to get to a FF compact of this size. Then again, there are many people who think the compromises made to get to a compact FF rangefinder like the M9 are too much.

For myself, the 35 ASPH FLE is usually the lens stuck on my M9, its a lens I love and 35mm has always given me a FOV I've liked. After getting the RX-1, I think in many cases I'd rather use it than the M9+35 FLE. That said, optically speaking the RX-1 lens is simply superb, but its also no 35 FLE (no idea what the 35 'cron is line since I've never owned one).

#6 Tonki-M

Tonki-M

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 418 posts
  • City / Ort:Bangkok

Posted 09 January 2013 - 18:25

but its also no 35 FLE (no idea what the 35 'cron is line since I've never owned one).


the lux FLE has the advantage of 1 stop, FLE helps close up performance and focus shift issue and faster transition from focus to blur. in real world use, at equal aperture, they are EXTREMELY close, you would really need to pixel peep to see any discernible difference. so basically, you pay extra for that 3D look @ F/1.4 (and the 1 stop ofc)

#7 Ecaton

Ecaton

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,707 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:22

There's just something about the colour and contrast and the way it swallows up the detail and micro contrast that makes pictures look a bit amateur IMO. Like a cheap dSLR albeit with a decent lens. Perhaps it's just the sample I've seen.


You might refer to the Sonnar lens rendering. Have a look at M9 files shot with the ZM 50 Sonnar at f1.5 and f2 for comparison.

#8 barjohn

barjohn

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,069 posts
  • City / Ort:San Clemente

Posted 13 January 2013 - 06:29

There are three basic links in the production of the image, the lens, sensor and processing software. You can never get better than the weakest link. In the M9, the weakest link is the sensor. Leica obviously works hard in the software to try and overcome the weakness in the sensor (see DXO Mark evaluation) but there are limits to what can be done in processing and they do a very good job with what they have. The RX1 has one of the best sensors on the market today and an excellent lens. The software is very good but probably not as mature as the software on the M9. The images are superb as has been reported by many M9 owners and reviewers.

#9 jaapv

jaapv

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 38,678 posts
  • LocationBehind a Red Dot

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:18

Uh- no. The weakest link analogy is faulty. The final quality is a combined result of the factors involved. Improve one without the other and quality still goes up.

Please note that DxO measures the results of the files out of camera, not the sensor output.
All digital cooking by the firmware is included, making sensor comparisons based on their measurement rather doubtful, to put it mildly.
But the site has very pretty graphs.
  • Tonki-M likes this
Jaap

WWW.JAAPVPHOTOGRAPHY.EU

Posts in blue bold font are made as a moderator

Leica user since 1976

#10 Peter D Lux 2

Peter D Lux 2

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,096 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 22:44

Whatever. Fact remains that the RX1 combo yields really good IQ.

#11 jaapv

jaapv

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 38,678 posts
  • LocationBehind a Red Dot

Posted 15 January 2013 - 14:16

Nobody is disputing that.
Jaap

WWW.JAAPVPHOTOGRAPHY.EU

Posts in blue bold font are made as a moderator

Leica user since 1976

#12 Ecaton

Ecaton

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,707 posts
  • City / Ort:USA

Posted 15 January 2013 - 15:27

Uh- no. The weakest link analogy is faulty. The final quality is a combined result of the factors involved. Improve one without the other and quality still goes up.

Please note that DxO measures the results of the files out of camera, not the sensor output.
All digital cooking by the firmware is included, making sensor comparisons based on their measurement rather doubtful, to put it mildly.
But the site has very pretty graphs.


As a user what I get is the "result out of the camera". Even the RAW files get some cooking, don't they.

#13 jaapv

jaapv

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 38,678 posts
  • LocationBehind a Red Dot

Posted 15 January 2013 - 15:37

True - but there is a difference between the very strong in-camera processing of a small-sensor CMos P&S and the minimally worked-on output from a CCD based MF camera (or Leica M for that matter). DxO does not take that into account with their rankings, which makes for some weird results.
Jaap

WWW.JAAPVPHOTOGRAPHY.EU

Posts in blue bold font are made as a moderator

Leica user since 1976

#14 barjohn

barjohn

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,069 posts
  • City / Ort:San Clemente

Posted 16 January 2013 - 06:22

True - but there is a difference between the very strong in-camera processing of a small-sensor CMos P&S and the minimally worked-on output from a CCD based MF camera (or Leica M for that matter). DxO does not take that into account with their rankings, which makes for some weird results.


The M's work on moire reduction, color shift problems, and vignetting in processing the RAW files in camera based on lens identification. I don't think one can call that minimal processing. For all we know they may also do work on noise reduction.

#15 barjohn

barjohn

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,069 posts
  • City / Ort:San Clemente

Posted 16 January 2013 - 06:26

Uh- no. The weakest link analogy is faulty. The final quality is a combined result of the factors involved. Improve one without the other and quality still goes up.

Please note that DxO measures the results of the files out of camera, not the sensor output.
All digital cooking by the firmware is included, making sensor comparisons based on their measurement rather doubtful, to put it mildly.
But the site has very pretty graphs.


I have to disagree. If the lens produced a weak blurry picture all of the improvements in the world to the sensor and processing would not improve the image. If the sensor produces smeary images with color shifts and other strange artifacts, no matter how good the lens or how you improved the processing would you make for a better image. The final product can be no better than the weakest link in the chain.
  • andyedward likes this

#16 jaapv

jaapv

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 38,678 posts
  • LocationBehind a Red Dot

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:03

The M's work on moire reduction, color shift problems, and vignetting in processing the RAW files in camera based on lens identification. I don't think one can call that minimal processing. For all we know they may also do work on noise reduction.


The M8 does no noise reduction, the M9 has a minimal amount for noise that cannot be addressed in post at high iso and a shifted black point. Yes you are right Leica does apply some necessary manipulations to the raw data, but compared to some other cameras it is very minimal.
Jaap

WWW.JAAPVPHOTOGRAPHY.EU

Posts in blue bold font are made as a moderator

Leica user since 1976

#17 jaapv

jaapv

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 38,678 posts
  • LocationBehind a Red Dot

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:07

I have to disagree. If the lens produced a weak blurry picture all of the improvements in the world to the sensor and processing would not improve the image. If the sensor produces smeary images with color shifts and other strange artifacts, no matter how good the lens or how you improved the processing would you make for a better image. The final product can be no better than the weakest link in the chain.

No that is not correct. A blurry lens will still deliver an improved image on a better sensor. Or, if you prefer to put it the other way around, an even worse image on an inferior sensor.
Jaap

WWW.JAAPVPHOTOGRAPHY.EU

Posts in blue bold font are made as a moderator

Leica user since 1976

#18 lanetomlane

lanetomlane

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,150 posts
  • City / Ort:Earith, Cambs, UK

Posted 17 January 2013 - 16:58

I'd love to be able to comment on the image quality from the RX1 ..... I received mine yesterday, but it didn't work! :confused:
________________
Cheers, Tom
  • withoutone likes this

#19 barjohn

barjohn

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 2,069 posts
  • City / Ort:San Clemente

Posted 18 January 2013 - 14:53

The M8 does no noise reduction, the M9 has a minimal amount for noise that cannot be addressed in post at high iso and a shifted black point. Yes you are right Leica does apply some necessary manipulations to the raw data, but compared to some other cameras it is very minimal.


I guess it depends on your definition of minimal. Some cameras do noise reduction on RAWs and that is about it. One could call that minimal compared to the intense processing required to deal with color shifts in the M9.

An improved blurry image is still a blurry image.
  • earful likes this

#20 myshkine

myshkine

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 470 posts
  • City / Ort:Europe

Posted 26 January 2013 - 22:27

It is, no doubt, a great camera, but at $3,000 I would expect a built in viewfinder (hybrid would be nice, but at least an EVF), the ability to change lenses with an ability to use an adapter for 3rd party lenses and phase-detect autofocus instead of contrast-detect. The NEX 6 now has all these features, lacking only the full frame sensor. My guess is that Sony is milking the top of the market for now and will introduce a more complete version of a full frame CSC before long.


I agree. Maybe the RX1 is just an experiment, to see how the market reacts and what technical results it achieves. It may well be followed by a "full size" version, one with EVF (or even a hybrid) and interchangeable lenses, on the footsteps of Fuji.
<><><><><><><><><><>
Sebastiano




0 user(s) are reading this topic