Steve Huff Does Another Crazy Comparison M v RX1 v X100s

[barjohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Steve's site has another one of his crazy comparisons. He has compared the M to the Sony RX1 and the Fuji X100s. What is most interesting to me and most surprising was the difference in opinion as to what constitutes good bokeh in the comments thread. I thought, and I prefer, smooth creamy bokeh as the optimum; however, the Leica lens produced bokeh balls all over the background and many Leica fans said that was good bokeh. To me it looked busy and hurt my eyes and dsitracted me from the subject.

 

Is there any general consensus on what constitutes "good bokeh?" Are bokeh balls in an image supposed to the the sign of a good lens?

 

I was equally surprised that the RX1 lens had better corner to conrer sharpness over the Leica Sumicron 35mm aspherical. Comments?

[dwbell]

Where's my popcorn? This has *so* many special LUF ways it could go.

[macjonny1]

and hurt my eyes

 

It really hurt your eyes?

[barjohn]

This comparison raises other interesting questions. For example: Are RAW file conversions at LR defaults the right way to judge images? Does the image that the manufacturer set to higher contrast or a more pleasing if less accurate white balance better? Does lens vignetting help in delivering the 3D look? I have suggested to Sean Reid and Steve Huff that they should white balance to the same target and then optimize adjustment to what they consider an optimal file using their best judgement. One might disagree but their years of expeience should produce files that are representative of the best the equipment can produce with the given conversion tool. Anyone else have a different idea?

[barjohn]

It really hurt your eyes?

 

Yes almost makes them water!

[andybarton]

Am I the only one who is getting thoroughly sick of "comparison", erm, "reviews"?

 

I am convinced that there are at least 500 members here who could do a lot better than this kind of nonsense. God help us, I'm one of them.

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Andy -

 

Couldn't agree with you more. Count me in the group: I could care less.

 

Anybody else?

 

Rick

[jaapv]

Maybe I would be in the group "could not care less" but I agree with the implied sentiment.

[rirakuma]

Well Zeiss renders differently to Leica and for some scenes the bokeh might look more pleasing with the Zeiss. I wouldn't worry about it too much, I think Steve just wanted to point out that the RX1 and X100s is good value for money. Leica's always been an expensive niche product and it does not always mean you will get the best (subjective) pictures out of them.

[Rick]

Maybe I would be in the group "could not care less" but I agree with the implied sentiment.

 

Mom had a degree in English. She always wanted me to speak good.

[paulsydaus]

All of Steve's reviews are crazy. Just sayin'

[tele_player]

Actually, to me, a true amateur, this comparison doesn't seem so crazy at all. It demonstrates that, for me, any of these cameras is good enough.

 

If the Sony had a builtin optical viewfinder, I'd have it - and I'd consider selling my M9 and all those lenses.

 

For now, I'm keeping my M9 setup.

 

-Robert

[Scotttokar]

The Bokeh you are seeing is due to the aperture blades here. I think it depends on the situation. If you shot Christmas lights with the same 3 cameras your opinion may differ.

[semi-ambivalent]

All of Steve's reviews are crazy. Just sayin'

 

This is the Internet. Content is secondary to delivering eyeballs to your advertisers.

 

s-a

[algrove]

This comparison raises other interesting questions. For example: Are RAW file conversions at LR defaults the right way to judge images? Does the image that the manufacturer set to higher contrast or a more pleasing if less accurate white balance better? Does lens vignetting help in delivering the 3D look? I have suggested to Sean Reid and Steve Huff that they should white balance to the same target and then optimize adjustment to what they consider an optimal file using their best judgement. One might disagree but their years of expeience should produce files that are representative of the best the equipment can produce with the given conversion tool. Anyone else have a different idea?

 

I'm no expert on all this, but IMHO if you want to eliminate any manufacturer's spin on their own jpeg output, one must convert all RAW files in the same way into Jpeg from LR or PS. Sure there must be some manufacturer's impact on RAW's, but I surmise it might be less than their impact on Jpegs.