RX1R again

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Aug 26, 2013.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    <http://sandman.net/files/DSC00124.jpg>

    Just a quick pull and shoot picture, the focus is slightly off from her
    left eye and is probably more on her nose than on her right eye. Even
    so, I love the dynamic range, the bokeh and the temperature. This is an
    totally unedited out of the camera shot. And this is a camera JPG image,
    not RAW.

    I got flak for not getting a Leica M9, and while the Leica is
    undoubtedly a better camera, the quality this little camera can deliver
    is just astounding.

    Something that is bothering me a bit is that the focus area is so huge
    on the LCD, that focusing on eyes is a bit tricky. I thought face
    detection would make this easier because the software should be able to
    determine where the eyes are, but I've not seen any difference there.

    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 26, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    Mort Guest

    Sandman wrote:
    > <http://sandman.net/files/DSC00124.jpg>
    >
    > Just a quick pull and shoot picture, the focus is slightly off from her
    > left eye and is probably more on her nose than on her right eye. Even
    > so, I love the dynamic range, the bokeh and the temperature. This is an
    > totally unedited out of the camera shot. And this is a camera JPG image,
    > not RAW.
    >
    > I got flak for not getting a Leica M9, and while the Leica is
    > undoubtedly a better camera, the quality this little camera can deliver
    > is just astounding.
    >
    > Something that is bothering me a bit is that the focus area is so huge
    > on the LCD, that focusing on eyes is a bit tricky. I thought face
    > detection would make this easier because the software should be able to
    > determine where the eyes are, but I've not seen any difference there.
    >


    Hi,

    Nice picture. I have two suggestions:

    1) Get down on one knee, so that you are at the child's eye level, to
    avoid the angular perspective distortion.

    2) Either use a longer focal length lens, or shoot from further away.

    Mort Linder
    Mort, Aug 26, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:04:35 -0400, Mort <> wrote:

    >Sandman wrote:
    >> <http://sandman.net/files/DSC00124.jpg>
    >>
    >> Just a quick pull and shoot picture, the focus is slightly off from her
    >> left eye and is probably more on her nose than on her right eye. Even
    >> so, I love the dynamic range, the bokeh and the temperature. This is an
    >> totally unedited out of the camera shot. And this is a camera JPG image,
    >> not RAW.
    >>
    >> I got flak for not getting a Leica M9, and while the Leica is
    >> undoubtedly a better camera, the quality this little camera can deliver
    >> is just astounding.
    >>
    >> Something that is bothering me a bit is that the focus area is so huge
    >> on the LCD, that focusing on eyes is a bit tricky. I thought face
    >> detection would make this easier because the software should be able to
    >> determine where the eyes are, but I've not seen any difference there.
    >>

    >
    >Hi,
    >
    >Nice picture. I have two suggestions:
    >
    >1) Get down on one knee, so that you are at the child's eye level, to
    >avoid the angular perspective distortion.
    >
    >2) Either use a longer focal length lens, or shoot from further away.
    >
    >Mort Linder


    That's been a lesson I've learned...shooting at eye-level with
    children. There are some shots from very high shooting down or very
    low shooting up that can be effective, but - for the most part -
    getting down to their level garners the best results.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Aug 27, 2013
    #3
  4. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <UhQSt.107635$>, Mort <>
    wrote:

    > > <http://sandman.net/files/DSC00124.jpg>
    > >
    > > Just a quick pull and shoot picture, the focus is slightly off from her
    > > left eye and is probably more on her nose than on her right eye. Even
    > > so, I love the dynamic range, the bokeh and the temperature. This is an
    > > totally unedited out of the camera shot. And this is a camera JPG image,
    > > not RAW.
    > >
    > > I got flak for not getting a Leica M9, and while the Leica is
    > > undoubtedly a better camera, the quality this little camera can deliver
    > > is just astounding.
    > >
    > > Something that is bothering me a bit is that the focus area is so huge
    > > on the LCD, that focusing on eyes is a bit tricky. I thought face
    > > detection would make this easier because the software should be able to
    > > determine where the eyes are, but I've not seen any difference there.

    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > Nice picture. I have two suggestions:
    >
    > 1) Get down on one knee, so that you are at the child's eye level, to
    > avoid the angular perspective distortion.


    Oh absolutely, this was just a quick shot with no thought behind it at
    all. That's my point, given preparation and setup, most cameras can be
    put to their full potential. The RX1 just did it so effortlessly.

    But I do agree though

    > 2) Either use a longer focal length lens, or shoot from further away.


    Right, but this was an example of a picture taken with the Sony
    DSC-RX1R, which is a 35mm fixed lens compact camera. So I don't have
    that option. :)




    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 27, 2013
    #4
  5. Sandman

    David Taylor Guest

    On 27/08/2013 06:11, Sandman wrote:
    []
    > Right, but this was an example of a picture taken with the Sony
    > DSC-RX1R, which is a 35mm fixed lens compact camera. So I don't have
    > that option. :)


    So it's sort of "take it or leave it" with the image the camera
    presents. I think that would make me give a fixed lens camera a miss.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Aug 27, 2013
    #5
  6. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <kvhevv$56k$>,
    David Taylor <> wrote:

    > > > <http://sandman.net/files/DSC00124.jpg>

    > >
    > > Right, but this was an example of a picture taken with the Sony
    > > DSC-RX1R, which is a 35mm fixed lens compact camera. So I don't have
    > > that option. :)

    >
    > So it's sort of "take it or leave it" with the image the camera
    > presents. I think that would make me give a fixed lens camera a miss.


    Yeah, well, I'm not sure what benefit an interchangeable lens would give
    me in this scenario. I mean, sure the lenses may be of differing quality
    and allow for different composition in terms of focal length and focus
    limits, but the entire idea here is for a camera that would replace my
    iPhone as a carry-on camera. This shot in particular was taken on a BBQ
    with friends, somewhere I might not always bring my Nikon D4, the
    14-24/2.8, the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 and the 50/1.4 just to be
    covered in all aspects of image capture.

    Plus, this is the kind of shot where you are always left with "take it
    or leave it" since it's a impulsive "bring up the camera and click" kind
    of situation, not the "wait there, hunny, I'll just change the lens on
    my camera to optimize the parameters for this particular shot" kind of
    thing :)

    The entire point of my post was to show the tremendous quality you get
    from a seriously small compact camera when NOT setting up these
    parameters.



    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 27, 2013
    #6
  7. Sandman

    Mort Guest

    Sandman wrote:
    > Right, but this was an example of a picture taken with the Sony
    > DSC-RX1R, which is a 35mm fixed lens compact camera. So I don't have
    > that option.:)


    Yes you do; you can do it with your feet. Walk back from the subject,
    accept a smaller image with more natural perspective, then crop as
    necessary. I had a Nikon Ti with a similar lens setup, and did just that.

    Mort Linder
    Mort, Aug 27, 2013
    #7
  8. Sandman

    Mort Guest

    Sandman wrote:
    > The entire point of my post was to show the tremendous quality you get
    > from a seriously small compact camera when NOT setting up these
    > parameters.


    You possibly miss my point. Your "tremendous quality" is a sharp image,
    but there is more to photography than a sharp image. Perspective is
    important, for if a child's face is distorted to resemble a watermelon,
    then where is the high quality?

    Mort Linder
    Mort, Aug 27, 2013
    #8
  9. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <xq8Tt.174711$>, Mort <>
    wrote:

    > > Right, but this was an example of a picture taken with the Sony
    > > DSC-RX1R, which is a 35mm fixed lens compact camera. So I don't have
    > > that option.:)

    >
    > Yes you do; you can do it with your feet. Walk back from the subject,
    > accept a smaller image with more natural perspective, then crop as
    > necessary.


    Yeah, sure, I was just responding to the suggesting of using a longer
    focal length lens :)



    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 28, 2013
    #9
  10. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <kvila6$71q$>,
    David Taylor <> wrote:

    > On 27/08/2013 07:50, Sandman wrote:
    > []
    > > Yeah, well, I'm not sure what benefit an interchangeable lens would give
    > > me in this scenario. I mean, sure the lenses may be of differing quality
    > > and allow for different composition in terms of focal length and focus
    > > limits, but the entire idea here is for a camera that would replace my
    > > iPhone as a carry-on camera. This shot in particular was taken on a BBQ
    > > with friends, somewhere I might not always bring my Nikon D4, the
    > > 14-24/2.8, the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 and the 50/1.4 just to be
    > > covered in all aspects of image capture.
    > >
    > > Plus, this is the kind of shot where you are always left with "take it
    > > or leave it" since it's a impulsive "bring up the camera and click" kind
    > > of situation, not the "wait there, hunny, I'll just change the lens on
    > > my camera to optimize the parameters for this particular shot" kind of
    > > thing :)
    > >
    > > The entire point of my post was to show the tremendous quality you get
    > > from a seriously small compact camera when NOT setting up these
    > > parameters.

    >
    > A zoom lens would help, and need not be too large depending on the
    > sensor size. Read my "fixed" as both non-interchangeable and fixed
    > focal lens according to context. My Nikon DSLR most often has the
    > 18-200 mm on it, sometimes the 16-85 mm, for just such speed of reaction
    > as you cite, and my small camera (Sony HX200V) has 27-810 mm equivalent
    > zoom range. Great that you can get quality shots, and thanks for
    > posting, but my preference is coming down somewhat on the side of "get a
    > good enough quality shot", but with the framing etc. that /I/ want, not
    > what is forced on me by the camera.


    Well, if I was to bring my DSLR to the same scenario, it would probably
    still just have the fixed 50/1.4 lens which is just perfect for these
    occasions. The 18-200 is too slow for my taste (and it's DX) and while
    it's adequately sharp, I still miss a big aperture.

    But I've got to ask, why the 16-85? Other than a slightly wider shot,
    what do you gain from changing to the 16-85? I always saw these as
    lenses excluding each other. Either you picked the 16-85 or the 18-200.
    The VR is slightly better on the 16-85 but that's probably because it
    doesn't have to deal with such a large zoom range. Other than that,
    they're the same lens more or less, cost the same and the 18-200 just
    has a wider range.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 28, 2013
    #10
  11. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <yu8Tt.193125$>, Mort <>
    wrote:

    > > > <http://sandman.net/files/DSC00124.jpg>

    > >
    > > The entire point of my post was to show the tremendous quality you get
    > > from a seriously small compact camera when NOT setting up these
    > > parameters.

    >
    > You possibly miss my point. Your "tremendous quality" is a sharp image,
    > but there is more to photography than a sharp image. Perspective is
    > important, for if a child's face is distorted to resemble a watermelon,
    > then where is the high quality?


    Well, to each his own - I don't really see the "watermelon" in the
    picture I submitted.



    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 28, 2013
    #11
  12. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/28/2013 1:22 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <xq8Tt.174711$>, Mort <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> Right, but this was an example of a picture taken with the Sony
    >>> DSC-RX1R, which is a 35mm fixed lens compact camera. So I don't have
    >>> that option.:)

    >>
    >> Yes you do; you can do it with your feet. Walk back from the subject,
    >> accept a smaller image with more natural perspective, then crop as
    >> necessary.

    >
    > Yeah, sure, I was just responding to the suggesting of using a longer
    > focal length lens :)
    >
    >
    >


    If you used a long lens, then the angle betwen you and the child would
    have decreased, and you would have had less distortion.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Aug 28, 2013
    #12
  13. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    PeterN <> wrote:

    > >>> Right, but this was an example of a picture taken with the Sony
    > >>> DSC-RX1R, which is a 35mm fixed lens compact camera. So I don't have
    > >>> that option.:)
    > >>
    > >> Yes you do; you can do it with your feet. Walk back from the subject,
    > >> accept a smaller image with more natural perspective, then crop as
    > >> necessary.

    > >
    > > Yeah, sure, I was just responding to the suggesting of using a longer
    > > focal length lens :)

    >
    > If you used a long lens, then the angle betwen you and the child would
    > have decreased, and you would have had less distortion.


    Uh, yes, but again; this thread is about the Sony DSC-RX1R and a test
    picture from that camera. It can not use a long lens, so there is no
    "if" unless the "if" also included me changing camera and posting about
    that in another thread.

    We all know that shooting with different lenses produces different
    perspective, but this like me posting about the awesome handling of my
    new Mazda Miata and people responding that I would go faster in a
    Lamborghini. :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 28, 2013
    #13
  14. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/28/2013 6:44 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> Right, but this was an example of a picture taken with the Sony
    >>>>> DSC-RX1R, which is a 35mm fixed lens compact camera. So I don't have
    >>>>> that option.:)
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes you do; you can do it with your feet. Walk back from the subject,
    >>>> accept a smaller image with more natural perspective, then crop as
    >>>> necessary.
    >>>
    >>> Yeah, sure, I was just responding to the suggesting of using a longer
    >>> focal length lens :)

    >>
    >> If you used a long lens, then the angle betwen you and the child would
    >> have decreased, and you would have had less distortion.

    >
    > Uh, yes, but again; this thread is about the Sony DSC-RX1R and a test
    > picture from that camera. It can not use a long lens, so there is no
    > "if" unless the "if" also included me changing camera and posting about
    > that in another thread.
    >
    > We all know that shooting with different lenses produces different
    > perspective, but this like me posting about the awesome handling of my
    > new Mazda Miata and people responding that I would go faster in a
    > Lamborghini. :)
    >
    >


    Whatever.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Aug 28, 2013
    #14
  15. Sandman

    David Taylor Guest

    On 28/08/2013 06:33, Sandman wrote:
    []
    > Well, if I was to bring my DSLR to the same scenario, it would probably
    > still just have the fixed 50/1.4 lens which is just perfect for these
    > occasions. The 18-200 is too slow for my taste (and it's DX) and while
    > it's adequately sharp, I still miss a big aperture.


    I would use my 35 f/1.8 if the situation demanded, but with today's
    camera operating so well at high ISOs, aperture (for sensitivity) is
    much less of an issue. Depth of field is a different issue, of course.

    > But I've got to ask, why the 16-85? Other than a slightly wider shot,
    > what do you gain from changing to the 16-85? I always saw these as
    > lenses excluding each other. Either you picked the 16-85 or the 18-200.
    > The VR is slightly better on the 16-85 but that's probably because it
    > doesn't have to deal with such a large zoom range. Other than that,
    > they're the same lens more or less, cost the same and the 18-200 just
    > has a wider range.


    I recall buying the 16-85 mm as a wider and more versatile "kit" lens,
    before I got the 18-200 mm. I find the wider angle useful, and the lens
    is a little smaller and lighter than the 18-200 mm and hence slightly
    more convenient, so I didn't sell it when I got the 18-200. Having a
    smaller zoom range, the image quality may be a little better on the
    16-85. With my 24 MP D5200 quality is now even more lens limited than
    it was with the 12 MP D5000, although both are more than adequate for my
    image display devices.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Aug 29, 2013
    #15
  16. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <kvmrpg$u51$>,
    David Taylor <> wrote:

    > > Well, if I was to bring my DSLR to the same scenario, it would probably
    > > still just have the fixed 50/1.4 lens which is just perfect for these
    > > occasions. The 18-200 is too slow for my taste (and it's DX) and while
    > > it's adequately sharp, I still miss a big aperture.

    >
    > I would use my 35 f/1.8 if the situation demanded, but with today's
    > camera operating so well at high ISOs, aperture (for sensitivity) is
    > much less of an issue. Depth of field is a different issue, of course.


    Yeah, I mean the DOF above.

    > > But I've got to ask, why the 16-85? Other than a slightly wider shot,
    > > what do you gain from changing to the 16-85? I always saw these as
    > > lenses excluding each other. Either you picked the 16-85 or the 18-200.
    > > The VR is slightly better on the 16-85 but that's probably because it
    > > doesn't have to deal with such a large zoom range. Other than that,
    > > they're the same lens more or less, cost the same and the 18-200 just
    > > has a wider range.

    >
    > I recall buying the 16-85 mm as a wider and more versatile "kit" lens,
    > before I got the 18-200 mm. I find the wider angle useful, and the lens
    > is a little smaller and lighter than the 18-200 mm and hence slightly
    > more convenient, so I didn't sell it when I got the 18-200. Having a
    > smaller zoom range, the image quality may be a little better on the
    > 16-85. With my 24 MP D5200 quality is now even more lens limited than
    > it was with the 12 MP D5000, although both are more than adequate for my
    > image display devices.


    Fair enough :)




    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 29, 2013
    #16
  17. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/29/2013 3:04 AM, David Taylor wrote:
    > On 28/08/2013 06:33, Sandman wrote:
    > []
    >> Well, if I was to bring my DSLR to the same scenario, it would probably
    >> still just have the fixed 50/1.4 lens which is just perfect for these
    >> occasions. The 18-200 is too slow for my taste (and it's DX) and while
    >> it's adequately sharp, I still miss a big aperture.

    >
    > I would use my 35 f/1.8 if the situation demanded, but with today's
    > camera operating so well at high ISOs, aperture (for sensitivity) is
    > much less of an issue. Depth of field is a different issue, of course.
    >
    >> But I've got to ask, why the 16-85? Other than a slightly wider shot,
    >> what do you gain from changing to the 16-85? I always saw these as
    >> lenses excluding each other. Either you picked the 16-85 or the 18-200.
    >> The VR is slightly better on the 16-85 but that's probably because it
    >> doesn't have to deal with such a large zoom range. Other than that,
    >> they're the same lens more or less, cost the same and the 18-200 just
    >> has a wider range.

    >
    > I recall buying the 16-85 mm as a wider and more versatile "kit" lens,
    > before I got the 18-200 mm. I find the wider angle useful, and the lens
    > is a little smaller and lighter than the 18-200 mm and hence slightly
    > more convenient, so I didn't sell it when I got the 18-200. Having a
    > smaller zoom range, the image quality may be a little better on the
    > 16-85. With my 24 MP D5200 quality is now even more lens limited than
    > it was with the 12 MP D5000, although both are more than adequate for my
    > image display devices.


    And there is the difference. For display, the 18-200 is fine. I like to
    do heavy crops, and print, usually at 12x12, or more often 12 x 18.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Aug 29, 2013
    #17
  18. Sandman

    Mort Guest

    PeterN wrote:
    > On 8/28/2013 6:44 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> PeterN <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>> Right, but this was an example of a picture taken with the Sony
    >>>>>> DSC-RX1R, which is a 35mm fixed lens compact camera. So I don't have
    >>>>>> that option.:)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes you do; you can do it with your feet. Walk back from the subject,
    >>>>> accept a smaller image with more natural perspective, then crop as
    >>>>> necessary.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yeah, sure, I was just responding to the suggesting of using a longer
    >>>> focal length lens :)
    >>>
    >>> If you used a long lens, then the angle betwen you and the child would
    >>> have decreased, and you would have had less distortion.

    >>
    >> Uh, yes, but again; this thread is about the Sony DSC-RX1R and a test
    >> picture from that camera. It can not use a long lens, so there is no
    >> "if" unless the "if" also included me changing camera and posting about
    >> that in another thread.
    >>
    >> We all know that shooting with different lenses produces different
    >> perspective, but this like me posting about the awesome handling of my
    >> new Mazda Miata and people responding that I would go faster in a
    >> Lamborghini. :)
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Whatever.
    >

    I really do not understand what all the static about cameras is about.
    The picture is the important thing, and the camera is just a means to
    take the picture. If a child's face is pictured from too close a
    point,and its perspective is distorted , then to me it is not a good
    picture, whether made by a Ferrari-equivalent camera or a
    Miata-equivalent camera.

    Mort Linder
    Mort, Aug 29, 2013
    #18
  19. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    On Monday, August 26, 2013 4:09:17 AM UTC-4, Sandman wrote:
    > <http://sandman.net/files/DSC00124.jpg>
    >
    >
    >
    > Just a quick pull and shoot picture, the focus is slightly off from her
    >
    > left eye and is probably more on her nose than on her right eye. Even
    >
    > so, I love the dynamic range, the bokeh and the temperature. This is an
    >
    > totally unedited out of the camera shot. And this is a camera JPG image,
    >
    > not RAW.
    >
    >
    >
    > I got flak for not getting a Leica M9, and while the Leica is
    >
    > undoubtedly a better camera, the quality this little camera can deliver
    >
    > is just astounding.
    >
    >
    >
    > Something that is bothering me a bit is that the focus area is so huge
    >
    > on the LCD, that focusing on eyes is a bit tricky. I thought face
    >
    > detection would make this easier because the software should be able to
    >
    > determine where the eyes are, but I've not seen any difference there.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Sandman[.net]


    Decent-looking shot, but I think Sony painted themselves into a corner withthat camera. They're possibly going to have to charge $4K for a FF NEX because of that fixed lens model and who will spend that money in N. America over a $2000-$3000 FF DSLR? If they only charge say $2500 for a FF NEX body, why would anyone buy a fixed lens model for the same money?
    RichA, Aug 30, 2013
    #19
  20. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > Decent-looking shot, but I think Sony painted themselves into a corner with
    > that camera. They're possibly going to have to charge $4K for a FF NEX
    > because of that fixed lens model and who will spend that money in N. America
    > over a $2000-$3000 FF DSLR? If they only charge say $2500 for a FF NEX body,
    > why would anyone buy a fixed lens model for the same money?


    Yeah, you could be right, but do NEX cameras come with optics, or do you
    buy only the camera? It could come with inferior and cheaper optics to
    alleviate the price difference, or no optics at all. That's how DSLR's
    have worked since forever.

    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 30, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. NYC XYZ

    Again??? AGAIN????

    NYC XYZ, Apr 21, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    525
    NYC XYZ
    Apr 23, 2006
  2. Sandman

    RX1R test shot

    Sandman, Aug 22, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    158
    Robert Coe
    Aug 24, 2013
  3. Sandman

    RX1R: Adobe Camera RAW and Lightroom

    Sandman, Aug 23, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    280
    Sandman
    Aug 24, 2013
  4. Sandman

    Some more RX1R test pictures

    Sandman, Aug 24, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    154
    Sandman
    Aug 24, 2013
  5. Sandman

    Sony RX1R video import to Aperture

    Sandman, Nov 6, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    218
    Sandman
    Nov 6, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page