Sony finally notices that people like small cameras, releases RX1R III

[MrSMW]

6 hours ago, mercer said:

It was just a joke because @MrSMW has switched back and forth between systems (cameras) a few times in the past couple years. No offense intended. 

Except he hasn’t.

As above, in 25 years, I’ve only been in 3 systems, albeit a few side dalliances from time to time trying out a few things, but have never flip flopped between systems.

I have had many many cameras over that time, but 90% of them have been upgrades to new models within a system as most full-time pros tend to do.

The only exception to that has been the last 1.5 years when I bought a Sony and a Nikon because L Mount was frustrating me in that regard, both in the body and in the lens department, but more in the lens.

There are still 2 holes within L Mount regarding lens IMO, but within the last 1.5 years, they have also popped out a couple that addressed some of my needs.

I was also a little guilty of buying into the  ‘L Mount is dead, Lumix won’t be making any more cameras’ line that many were spinning a year or two back and so 🤷‍♂️

But switched back and forth between camera systems… Mentally, many times and talked about hypothetical options, yep, guilty as charged, but flip-flopped like a YouTube shillster, nope.

And no offense taken. I’m just having a moment on my soap box in denial of the accusation 😘

[Andrew Reid]

For the first time I got my hands on an S1 II yesterday, just in a shop. All my initial suspicions are correct, it's a second rate sensor in a very plasticky cheap feeling body. Not impressed at all with the way it feels in the hand given the lofty price tag.

[EduPortas]

DP Reviews image tests on the new RX1 Mark III just came out.

The lens is incredibly soft. Too many MPXs on that sensor for a 10 year-old lens.

[Andrew Reid]

You can't compare a fast 35mm to a 50mm F8 macro lens or whatever it is they usually use on the DPR test scene.

It's a fantastic lens, always was.

Even wide open at F2.0 it's close in sharpness to F5.6 stopped down.

Of course, only in the centre - but the DPR test scene is a sensor test scene, it isn't designed for wide angle lenses.

The real-world performance of the lens is what matters.

It's not as good as a Leica M APO 35mm F2 for 4 grand or the 35mm F2.0 lens on the Zeiss ZX1, but it's still very good.

I have always treasured the shots from my RX1R and RX1R II

That's what counts, not the pixel peeping at 2000% magnification.

I think it does just fine...

By far the most important thing with a lens is to go out and take real shots with it...

The Panasonic 28-200mm on paper is a piece of garbage.

Is not the sharpest, not the fastest, F7.1 at the telephoto end, and yet it shoots shots like this... Which look like they're shot with a high-end 135mm F2.0.

The rendering is just superb at 200mm F7.1

Does it look like F7?

Nah.

[eatstoomuchjam]

I'd also say that lens sharpness is relevant only in some contexts.  A 35mm f/2 lens on a high-end point and shoot really needs to be "sharp enough" - and has to find the balance between sharpness and being too clinical.  Unless you're taking pictures of a brick wall 30 meters away, chances are that the 35 has all the detail you'll ever need.

Keep in mind that the previous camera using that lens had 45 megapixels - jumping to 61 is not huge.  If I were only interested in still photos, the RX1R II would almost hands down be the choice, especially if I found a good deal.  Flippy screen and cute lil' pop-up EVF like the RX100 series?  Sign me up.

Some of the other ergonomics look better on the new camera and it can record in 4K, barely.  Is that worth thousands of dollars more?  Not for me.  Could be be an interesting camera in 5 years when the used price (hopefully) drops it more than 60%?  Yes, it could be.

Would I take it over a GFX 100RF that costs less?  Absolutely not.  My most frequently-used lens on the GFX 100 is the 32-64 and that's also an f/4 lens.  Very sharp too.  You can really count the molecules in those bricks in the wall 30 meters away.

[Andrew Reid]

I'd also argue that the conventional wisdom over high resolution sensors needing better glass is false unless you are heavily cropping the image.

I've had soft 50 euro lenses look better and better, the larger and higher the resolution of the sensor.

Same soft lens on a Micro Four Thirds camera or X-T5 looks terrible.

Put it on a GFX 100 and it completely transforms and looks so much sharper when you're viewing the whole shot as intended, as long as you don't start pixel peeping it of course.