p.322 #2 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
nlk10010 wrote:
You know, every time I see images from this camera I kick myself for selling mine (RX1R II). I actually had it and a Leica Q at the same time and, while I have respect for people who love the Q, IMO there was no contest. The Sony images were just staggering by comparison. I then sold the Q and kept the Sony, at least for a while.
I'm toying with the idea of buying another RX1R II (maybe via Greentoe) before Sony stops selling them altogether, but I know I'll be laughed at. A lot.
I just shot a Q, RX1R II and Leica M w/35 attached for the last month side by side. All wonderful cameras, but I ended up with none. Q was first to go. It was too big for a fixed lens for me, hated the shutter, pictures were great but most clinical out of the three. Plus I had a GR covering my 28mm street and in good light was as sharp as the Q. The RX2 vs M was a bigger struggle. The M seduced me with its charm and I sold the RX2. I was thinking about the RX2 again and started looking at files. Then I sorted through my old RX1R files and have to admit, that the original produced better results (to my taste) than the Q, RX2 and M. I've bought and sold a few in the last 5 years because of the focus at times and GAS. The M was sold and I just bought a used RX1R. I have my GR for fast snap on the street and RX for everything else. I've heard it so many times, here too...the 35 Sonnar can't be matched. So many go back to the camera after straying. I'm gonna keep this one till it breaks.
p.322 #3 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Nick Dakota wrote:
I just shot a Q, RX1R II and Leica M w/35 attached for the last month side by side. All wonderful cameras, but I ended up with none. Q was first to go. It was too big for a fixed lens for me, hated the shutter, pictures were great but most clinical out of the three. Plus I had a GR covering my 28mm street and in good light was as sharp as the Q. The RX2 vs M was a bigger struggle. The M seduced me with its charm and I sold the RX2. I was thinking about the RX2 again and started looking at files. Then I sorted through my old RX1R files and have to admit, that the original produced better results (to my taste) than the Q, RX2 and M. I've bought and sold a few in the last 5 years because of the focus at times and GAS. The M was sold and I just bought a used RX1R. I have my GR for fast snap on the street and RX for everything else. I've heard it so many times, here too...the 35 Sonnar can't be matched. So many go back to the camera after straying. I'm gonna keep this one till it breaks. ...Show more →
What 35 did you shoot on the M10? And when you say you like files on the RX1r better than the Rx1rII, how do you mean? I have owned all the Rx1's, and I too noticed some differences in IQ.
p.322 #4 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
nehemiahphoto wrote:
What 35 did you shoot on the M10? And when you say you like files on the RX1r better than the Rx1rII, how do you mean? I have owned all the Rx1's, and I too noticed some differences in IQ.
I tried the Cron and Zeiss Biogon. I like the Zeiss better than the Cron. One of the sharpest lenses I've tried. The Cron was just as sharp at 2.8, but flatter. Biogon had more character.
I had an original RX1 and sold it to buy the RX1R when it came out. Sold that. Missed it and a bought another RX1. Sold that. Now I'm back with an RX1R. All in the last 5ish years.
I bought the RX1R II and although the resolution was insane, I wasn't getting that wow factor consistently. With both the originals there's a sweet spot from minimum distance to about 12 feet out. I can take a pic of the most boring thing and it looks good. I didn't get that same vibe with the II. Not that it was bad in any way, just different.
The best way I can describe what I'm seeing is this. The II seems to render the scene with that Sonnar magic, but it does so in a more even way across the range. The original has the same great lens characteristics but the sensor resolves it differently. It seems to process the darks independently from the lights. The darks have deep blacks and microcontrast while the lights blend like butter. Even blown out highlights are creamy. It's like two different processing algorithms while the II handles the spectrum evenly. Not sure if that makes any sense, but I tried.
p.322 #5 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
I’ve shot both as well, though the R2 rather sparingly. However, I have seen the same thing you describe when first going to the A7R2. Blacks don’t seem as black, global contrast seems lower. Not surprising really considering the bump in DR we see from the newer sensor. But likely somewhat responsible for feeling like you’re seeing a flatter image.
Nick Dakota wrote:
I tried the Cron and Zeiss Biogon. I like the Zeiss better than the Cron. One of the sharpest lenses I've tried. The Cron was just as sharp at 2.8, but flatter. Biogon had more character.
I had an original RX1 and sold it to buy the RX1R when it came out. Sold that. Missed it and a bought another RX1. Sold that. Now I'm back with an RX1R. All in the last 5ish years.
I bought the RX1R II and although the resolution was insane, I wasn't getting that wow factor consistently. With both the originals there's a sweet spot from minimum distance to about 12 feet out. I can take a pic of the most boring thing and it looks good. I didn't get that same vibe with the II. Not that it was bad in any way, just different.
The best way I can describe what I'm seeing is this. The II seems to render the scene with that Sonnar magic, but it does so in a more even way across the range. The original has the same great lens characteristics but the sensor resolves it differently. It seems to process the darks independently from the lights. The darks have deep blacks and microcontrast while the lights blend like butter. Even blown out highlights are creamy. It's like two different processing algorithms while the II handles the spectrum evenly. Not sure if that makes any sense, but I tried.
p.322 #6 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Mathieu18 wrote:
I’ve shot both as well, though the R2 rather sparingly. However, I have seen the same thing you describe when first going to the A7R2. Blacks don’t seem as black, global contrast seems lower. Not surprising really considering the bump in DR we see from the newer sensor. But likely somewhat responsible for feeling like you’re seeing a flatter image.
I have had the same experience. I remember the first several photos I processed from my A7rII using the Minolta 58 1.2 after shooting the a7 for years, and they were far flatter and more subtle with nicer color (to my taste). Not necessarily good or bad, but definitely had a different feel. Probably took me a month to get used to the a7rII file nuances. The orignal A7 files are definatley crunchier than the a7rii. Same for rx1 and rx1r2 in my experience.
I can't find it, but I remember a comparison post between the rx1 and rx1r2 where there were color shifts between the two cameras where the setting parameters were the same, notably the blues.
p.322 #7 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
I still enjoy using the original RX1 very much. The files seemed to be very organic without excessive contrast compared with some of more recent Zeiss lenses.
p.322 #8 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Yup, that’s it. In fairness though, I’ve tried a couple A7II’s since and have trouble with them as well. They “feel” like they’re blocking up too quick while editing, but they’re also arguably more attractive SOOC.
That said, I have NOT felt the same way about RX1’s images despite shooting A7RII’s at the same time as well... probably just mind games but none the less...
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I have had the same experience. I remember the first several photos I processed from my A7rII using the Minolta 58 1.2 after shooting the a7 for years, and they were far flatter and more subtle with nicer color (to my taste). Not necessarily good or bad, but definitely had a different feel. Probably took me a month to get used to the a7rII file nuances. The orignal A7 files are definatley crunchier than the a7rii. Same for rx1 and rx1r2 in my experience.
I can't find it, but I remember a comparison post between the rx1 and rx1r2 where there were color shifts between the two cameras where the setting parameters were the same, notably the blues.
p.322 #9 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Mathieu18 wrote:
Yup, that’s it. In fairness though, I’ve tried a couple A7II’s since and have trouble with them as well. They “feel” like they’re blocking up too quick while editing, but they’re also arguably more attractive SOOC.
That said, I have NOT felt the same way about RX1’s images despite shooting A7RII’s at the same time as well... probably just mind games but none the less...
I was using an A7s for a bit and it came close, probably cause those large pixels...but couldn't get a 35mm to match the Sonnar.
p.322 #13 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Shebco wrote:
Decided to leave all the A7xxx gear home and bring just the RX1rII this past weekend to LA!! Reminded me of how fun and challenging 'simple' can be!
p.322 #16 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
The closest I can think of is the ZA 135 1.8. It has similar contrast (Zony Zeiss rendering) with minor fringing, uncannily smooth transitions and bokeh with exceptionally sharpness yet images do not feel sterile or overly digital.
p.322 #17 · Sony RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and RX1R III Image Thread
Shebco wrote:
Decided to leave all the A7xxx gear home and bring just the RX1rII this past weekend to LA!! Reminded me of how fun and challenging 'simple' can be!
