cirke Posted December 24, 2015 Share #161 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) If you need 14 stops of DR for all your photos (btw your eyes only have 6.5 stops worth of DR) I suggest you learn how to expose properly. the reason of my my answer was just because of your suggestion ... you don't need 14stops (but maybe someone does) , and you know how to expose better than someone that you don't know ... Edited December 24, 2015 by erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Hi cirke, Take a look here Any Thoughts on How the New Sony RX1R II with 42mp Will Compare?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted December 24, 2015 Share #162 Posted December 24, 2015 The retina has a static contrast ratio of around 100 000:1 (about 6.5 f-stops to Wikipedia). To me it looks more like 17 stops btw. Erick's figure refers to the total dynamic range including the "Aperture" of the iris. So you are both right or wrong based on how one looks at it. https://books.google.nl/books?id=6jK_jXsWZXsC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=dynamic+range+100000&source=bl&ots=Y1OcQPLuoc&sig=Qd4D0AXi1yQRyZ11gksKRiXJ1So&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjV5oXomvTJAhVFXhQKHWy7Aa0Q6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=dynamic%20range%20100000&f=false 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted December 24, 2015 Share #163 Posted December 24, 2015 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 24, 2015 Share #164 Posted December 24, 2015 the reason of my my answer was just because of your suggestion ... you don't need 14stops (but maybe someone does) , and you know how to expose better than someone that you doesn't know ... I was just pointing out that if someone ALWAYS needs 14 stops of DR, they are probably exposing incorrectly and attempting to fix their mistakes in post-processing, The key word is "always" I could definitely see benefits for landscapes, but the Sony sensor provides no real advantages for landscapes either because you could bracket the exposure (HDR) and get extra stops of DR. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 24, 2015 Share #165 Posted December 24, 2015 Yes, I saw that. And my RX1 beats the new RX2 by 0.4 stops. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 24, 2015 Share #166 Posted December 24, 2015 Yes, and we all know that DXO scores are window dressing as they bear no relationship to image quality, which is far more complex than three simple camera output measurements. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted December 24, 2015 Share #167 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, and we all know that DXO scores are window dressing as they bear no relationship to image quality, which is far more complex than three simple camera output measurements. Image quality is subjective there is no measurements for it , and additionally if you are a Leica fan the subjective part become irrational DXO mark do a very good job : you get the Color depth, DR and ISO (I never keep the over all score) Edited December 24, 2015 by erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 24, 2015 Share #168 Posted December 24, 2015 Yes, and we all know that DXO scores are window dressing as they bear no relationship to image quality, which is far more complex than three simple camera output measurements. Totally agree. One other thing to note is that the Q has much better color accuracy (especially skin tones) and much better exposure metering than the Sony's. The RX2 may have better DR and supposed color depth, but the Sony metering is all over the target while the Q consistently hits the bulls eye. So I'm not sure if the RX2 has as much as an advantage as the numbers suggest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted December 24, 2015 Share #169 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) The Problem With Leica http://www.streetshootr.com/the-problem-with-leica-camera/ :-) Edited December 24, 2015 by erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 24, 2015 Share #170 Posted December 24, 2015 Talking about subjective... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgrayson3 Posted December 24, 2015 Share #171 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) It's always interesting to see a product designed to hit the numbers instead of the user experience. Both are viable strategies - some users are happy knowing that their equipment has high scores. Some people are happy with their equipment's style and personality. Which one doesn't seem to have too much correlation with the quality of the photos, as long as you like using your equipment. DxO and Sony have a good relationship. DxO provides a target, Sony hits it, both brands get good press. Rinse and repeat. Personally? Sony makes a great sensor. Maybe the best sensor. But that doesn't make a camera. You need profiles, a UI, a physical box, and a lens (or lenses). How well those integrate is more important to me than the numbers. (You need a photographer, too, and if I could upgrade THAT, I would.) --Matt Edited December 24, 2015 by mgrayson3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 24, 2015 Share #172 Posted December 24, 2015 Image quality is subjective there is no measurements for it , and additionally if you are a Leica fan the subjective part become irrational DXO mark do a very good job : you get the Color depth, DR and ISO (I never keep the over all score) But it does not relate to the incredibly good stuff coming out of the DMR, M8 an Digilux2... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted December 24, 2015 Share #173 Posted December 24, 2015 Talking about subjective... no more no less that you do ... a simple point of view (but I agree) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted December 24, 2015 Share #174 Posted December 24, 2015 But it does not relate to the incredibly good stuff coming out of the DMR, M8 an Digilux2... incredibly good compared to what ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 24, 2015 Share #175 Posted December 24, 2015 Does good need a comparison? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted December 24, 2015 Share #176 Posted December 24, 2015 Does good need a comparison? all is comparison, there is nowhere any good alone Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 24, 2015 Share #177 Posted December 24, 2015 all is comparison, there is nowhere any good alone A good philosophical proposition. This should keep the thread going for a few hundred pages. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted December 25, 2015 Share #178 Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) Totally agree. One other thing to note is that the Q has much better color accuracy (especially skin tones) and much better exposure metering than the Sony's. The RX2 may have better DR and supposed color depth, but the Sony metering is all over the target while the Q consistently hits the bulls eye. So I'm not sure if the RX2 has as much as an advantage as the numbers suggest. Really? Asks this Q and RXIIr user. "Much better", "all over the target", "consistently hits the bull eye", a lot of superlatives. All based on your true own experience of some real quality time with both cameras, I assume. As far as metering is concerned, the Q has a tendency to blow highlights. The Sony doesn`t. Let`s face it, the Sony sensor simply is better, by quite a margin and not because its superior resolution only. And no, I am not a Sony fan but a Leica user of three systems, M, S, Q. Some things Sony simply does better than Leica, and they deserve credit for it. Edited December 25, 2015 by Ecaton 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricky1981 Posted December 25, 2015 Share #179 Posted December 25, 2015 ^ Agree with the above, I would love the Sony sensor in the Q even though I prefer pretty much everything else about the Q (and hence why I picked it). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 25, 2015 Share #180 Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) Really? Asks this Q and RXIIr user. "Much better", "all over the target", "consistently hits the bull eye", a lot of superlatives. All based on your true own experience of some real quality time with both cameras, I assume. As far as metering is concerned, the Q has a tendency to blow highlights. The Sony doesn`t. Let`s face it, the Sony sensor simply is better, by quite a margin and not because its superior resolution only. And no, I am not a Sony fan but a Leica user of three systems, M, S, Q. Some things Sony simply does better than Leica, and they deserve credit for it. Yes, the Sony has the better sensor by quite a margin. Processing is a whole different matter. And this is coming from a current owner of the RX100m4, RX1R, A7S and A7RII. I have seen enough samples to conclude that the RX2 has the typical Sony color pallette. I am a self-proclaimed Sony fanboy, and I'll be the first to admit that Sony has it's weaknesses, which in my opinion are colors, AWB metering, and exposure metering. Edited December 25, 2015 by Mr.Q Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.