Congrats...I can understand how you came to this decision. I'm the unfortunate one and cannot decide...so I bought both instead
If you free, can do some comparison shots with both your cameras?
RX1R versus A7/Zeiss 35 2.8 FE Comparisons
- Thread starter Oly5050
- Start date
If you free, can do some comparison shots with both your cameras?
Congrats...I can understand how you came to this decision. I'm the unfortunate one and cannot decide...so I bought both instead
Where got ppl with such deep pocket is unfortunate
Well, it's more of a personal preferences.
Firstly is the image quality, I like what I see from rx1r comparing to A7R.
Secondly is the build, the Rx1R is fine piece of engineering, solid yet small in my hand.
Thirdly, I'm more of a 1 lense 1 body type of shooter, prefer wide angle view.
Fourthly, made in japan.
Fifthly, the shutter sound of A7R turns me off, it's so loud
Where got ppl with such deep pocket is unfortunate
Unfortunately I have to sell my 50 Summicron to fund one of these...must quickly go water my money tree and wait for it to grow
Well, it's more of a personal preferences.
Firstly is the image quality, I like what I see from rx1r comparing to A7R.
Secondly is the build, the Rx1R is fine piece of engineering, solid yet small in my hand.
Thirdly, I'm more of a 1 lense 1 body type of shooter, prefer wide angle view.
Fourthly, made in japan.
Fifthly, the shutter sound of A7R turns me off, it's so loud
Agree on points #2,#4 & #5...but for me the main selling point is the beautiful Zeiss lens. Love the versatility of my A7R but hate the loud slap of the shutter...and the poison snakes here are so very active! Just my personal opinion of course...
Last edited:
I'd like to highlight some mistakes you might have made
You missed the focus in the first image. How do I know? Because the background reflection at f/2.0 and f/2.8 from the RX1R (which I assume are the left and center images) is actually more in focus that the pic with the A7. With the same focal length and depth of field there cannot be such a difference in the amount of background blur, unless the focus point was not the same across all 3 images. The background on the A7 @ 2.8 is even more defocused than the RX1R @ f/2.0! The focus must have been off by a rather significant amount. With the difference in focus points the text on the bottle of the A7 is more in-focus that with the RX1R images hence the rather large difference in the sharpness of the images
The second set of images further confirms my guess. In this image, the centre shot (I'm assuming RX1R at f/2.8) actually outperforms very slightly and captures more detail in the texture of the chopping board(?) than the A7 on the right. Being a nearly flat 2D surface in this picture, it was far easier to nail the focus here across all 3 images, and when you did, the RX1R seems to be superior. The differences are really minor, but to my eyes they certainly exist
Anyone else notices this or is it just me?
I'll acknowledge that with the differences in the size of the focus box, issues like this can arise. OP, did you actually MF the images or did you rely on AF (which can be inaccurate)
I'd strongly suggest shooting another set of images on a flat surface, manual focused with a good dose of peaking so that you can assess it again. With such minor differences, nailing focus is especially critical. Nonetheless you efforts most appreciated. Would have loved to do the same if I had my hands on an A7.
You missed the focus in the first image. How do I know? Because the background reflection at f/2.0 and f/2.8 from the RX1R (which I assume are the left and center images) is actually more in focus that the pic with the A7. With the same focal length and depth of field there cannot be such a difference in the amount of background blur, unless the focus point was not the same across all 3 images. The background on the A7 @ 2.8 is even more defocused than the RX1R @ f/2.0! The focus must have been off by a rather significant amount. With the difference in focus points the text on the bottle of the A7 is more in-focus that with the RX1R images hence the rather large difference in the sharpness of the images
The second set of images further confirms my guess. In this image, the centre shot (I'm assuming RX1R at f/2.8) actually outperforms very slightly and captures more detail in the texture of the chopping board(?) than the A7 on the right. Being a nearly flat 2D surface in this picture, it was far easier to nail the focus here across all 3 images, and when you did, the RX1R seems to be superior. The differences are really minor, but to my eyes they certainly exist
Anyone else notices this or is it just me?
I'll acknowledge that with the differences in the size of the focus box, issues like this can arise. OP, did you actually MF the images or did you rely on AF (which can be inaccurate)
I'd strongly suggest shooting another set of images on a flat surface, manual focused with a good dose of peaking so that you can assess it again. With such minor differences, nailing focus is especially critical. Nonetheless you efforts most appreciated. Would have loved to do the same if I had my hands on an A7.
Last edited:
Thanks for your comments. Your points are totally valid. My purpose when I do these tests is not to replicate the studio type controlled conditions that dpreview does. Its already clear to me that in these tests, the A7 outperforms the RX1R. What I wanted to do was to determine, as far as possible, in real world settings, what people claim to say that the RX1R is sharper than the A7 or that the RX1R lens/body combo outperforms the A7 with the 35 2.8. I am assuming that people who say that the RX1R is sharp, despite what dpreview claims, are probably basing on real world comparisons. As such, when I do my test, I do not MF but rather use AF because that is what I would shoot in. Also, MF and focus peaking...in my opinion...is not that reliable. I have shot images with MF and focus peak and still, the image is out of focus. I believe the AF algorithm on the RX1R is more reliable than my MF efforts. The only thing that I controlled for in this test was :
1. I shot it on a tripod (which I normally would not)
2. I used a 10 sec shutter delay to remove any motion blur as a result of me pressing the shutter. In other words, I removed as much of the human element as possible, leaving only the camera to do what it was designed and manufactured to do.
So, I do agree that your comment about the size of the AF box could be a contributing factor resulting in the less sharp image in the RX1R in the top series. However, in the bottom series, if you look at the top IKEA logo, I think it is sharper, just by a hair, than the RX1R images. Again, it can be argued that the larger AF box of the RX1R could be the reason. But then again....isn't that what most people who use the AF function in the RX1R will encounter? Unless Sony can make the RX1R AF box as small as the A7/R, this may be a reason why the RX1R will always be less sharp than the A7 in real world situations. In totally controlled situations done by professionals....we already know that the A7/R already outperforms the RX1R from dpreview comparisons. No need for me to replicate that.
Same thoughts. Both are great cameras, and both with followers claiming best IQ from each camera.
Just buy one of them based on needs. Can't go wrong.
Or buy both if got enough moolah. Then use different one for different usage.
Just buy one of them based on needs. Can't go wrong.
Or buy both if got enough moolah. Then use different one for different usage.
I think RX1R and A7R are different type of players , even thought u can compare with a similar lense.
It's like rugby players also wear football boots.
Last edited:
Oly,
While you are entitled to present your test in any which way you wish, ultimately the aim is to compare apples to apples, this is simply not possible if you cannot hold the focus point constant. If you wanted to highlight the differences in AF performance, there is another set of tests you can apply to present that. As I understand this is a comparison of image quality, which will require all other variables, including focus points to be held constant otherwise you cannot draw any meaningful conclusion.
Based on what I am seeing from your test images and your testing methodology I would disagree that the A7 has outperformed on the RX1R to be honest. The first set of images you posted cannot be used because basic variables were not held constant, and in the second one, to my eyes, where variables appear adequately controlled, the RX1R has outperformed the A7 at f/2.8.
I am absolutely certain the A7 outperforms the RX1R in AF performance. There really isn't a need for that test. To me the real question is image quality. Unfortunately because of your testing methodology, this question still hasn't been answered yet.
Out of curiosity could I see the links to the exact images on dppreview which gave you the impression that the A7 has outperformed the RX1R in image quality?
While you are entitled to present your test in any which way you wish, ultimately the aim is to compare apples to apples, this is simply not possible if you cannot hold the focus point constant. If you wanted to highlight the differences in AF performance, there is another set of tests you can apply to present that. As I understand this is a comparison of image quality, which will require all other variables, including focus points to be held constant otherwise you cannot draw any meaningful conclusion.
Based on what I am seeing from your test images and your testing methodology I would disagree that the A7 has outperformed on the RX1R to be honest. The first set of images you posted cannot be used because basic variables were not held constant, and in the second one, to my eyes, where variables appear adequately controlled, the RX1R has outperformed the A7 at f/2.8.
I am absolutely certain the A7 outperforms the RX1R in AF performance. There really isn't a need for that test. To me the real question is image quality. Unfortunately because of your testing methodology, this question still hasn't been answered yet.
Out of curiosity could I see the links to the exact images on dppreview which gave you the impression that the A7 has outperformed the RX1R in image quality?
Last edited:
He should be referring to this website. The A7/R is using Carl Zeiss 85mm for the test though, and the test comparison is mainly on sharpness. Image Quality is more than just sharpness, but based on the studio test on sharpness from DPReview, A7R is much sharper than the rest, followed closely by A7.
Just change the 4th camera selection to RX1-R instead of D610.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/7
Just change the 4th camera selection to RX1-R instead of D610.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/7
Last edited:
Thanks Zoomz, I just took a look myself and was only able to find the exact same page you linked too.
As you mention, in the dpreview test the A7 is using a very high quality 85mm f/1.4 zeiss lens against the RX1R system, apertures at f/5.6. I can see a small advantage in contrast (maybe a little in sharpness in some parts of the frame) but we're comparing a very expensive, high end lens to the RX1R system. I'm actually pretty impressed with how the RX1R came out in the comparison. They are pretty much indistinguishable in the centre and even the portraits at the edges show no clear winner. It's only in some of the black and white drawings where I see the contrast advantage of the 85mm zeiss. In real life these little differences would be completely meaningless.
Honestly I see nothing there which allows one to draw the conclusion that the A7 produces better image quality conclusively when compared to the RX1R. I'd even venture to say that with the 35mm f/2.8 I'd bet the RX1R edges out the A7 at comparable apertures (i'm drawing this conclusion from the OP's second set of test images). Which is why I find the OP's initial statement about the depreview comparisons showing the A7 to be clearly superior to the RX1R to be a little puzzling. Better AF from the A7, for sure, but image quality? Honestly, doesn't look like it so far, and I haven't seen anything that proves it yet
As you mention, in the dpreview test the A7 is using a very high quality 85mm f/1.4 zeiss lens against the RX1R system, apertures at f/5.6. I can see a small advantage in contrast (maybe a little in sharpness in some parts of the frame) but we're comparing a very expensive, high end lens to the RX1R system. I'm actually pretty impressed with how the RX1R came out in the comparison. They are pretty much indistinguishable in the centre and even the portraits at the edges show no clear winner. It's only in some of the black and white drawings where I see the contrast advantage of the 85mm zeiss. In real life these little differences would be completely meaningless.
Honestly I see nothing there which allows one to draw the conclusion that the A7 produces better image quality conclusively when compared to the RX1R. I'd even venture to say that with the 35mm f/2.8 I'd bet the RX1R edges out the A7 at comparable apertures (i'm drawing this conclusion from the OP's second set of test images). Which is why I find the OP's initial statement about the depreview comparisons showing the A7 to be clearly superior to the RX1R to be a little puzzling. Better AF from the A7, for sure, but image quality? Honestly, doesn't look like it so far, and I haven't seen anything that proves it yet
Last edited:
Speaking strictly for myself, while it is certainly interesting to moot, compare and split hairs about the performance among these two blood brothers born a couple of years apart...the simple fact is that the capability of these two full frame machines will most likely far out stripped my ability to extract every hair out of their potentials.
So the questions I have for myself is that which camera I would most likely take out on a daily basis? 80% of the time it is more likely to be my RX1 rather than my A7R. I'm a "one camera-one lens" kinda guy so RX1 suits me more. However I'm also a sucker for lens that shows character (rather than being a pixel peeper) and that's why my Rokkor 58/1.2 or my FD85/1.2L is on my A7R most of the time.
So while this might not answer the OP's question, I felt it's a simple decision that (1) if the budget is no concern, get both. (2) if 35mm FOV or f2.0 is good enough for you, get the RX1/R as it is of better value & convenience (3) if you need lens other than 35mm, or that you would like to have the ability to play with several different lenses, then there is only one answer for me. Test charts means nothing to me...the hardware ability is already aplenty, it is the user that needs upgrading. Now the ability to take pictures that moves me is far more important than counting pixels.
Just sharing my thoughts on a slow night! ;p
So the questions I have for myself is that which camera I would most likely take out on a daily basis? 80% of the time it is more likely to be my RX1 rather than my A7R. I'm a "one camera-one lens" kinda guy so RX1 suits me more. However I'm also a sucker for lens that shows character (rather than being a pixel peeper) and that's why my Rokkor 58/1.2 or my FD85/1.2L is on my A7R most of the time.
So while this might not answer the OP's question, I felt it's a simple decision that (1) if the budget is no concern, get both. (2) if 35mm FOV or f2.0 is good enough for you, get the RX1/R as it is of better value & convenience (3) if you need lens other than 35mm, or that you would like to have the ability to play with several different lenses, then there is only one answer for me. Test charts means nothing to me...the hardware ability is already aplenty, it is the user that needs upgrading. Now the ability to take pictures that moves me is far more important than counting pixels.
Just sharing my thoughts on a slow night! ;p
Errz
Senior Member
Haha...in fact I have two of them one I can let go. If you would like to test and see for yourself, LINE me
Thanks for your comments. Appreciate that.
First and foremost....there is no way we can compare apples to apples in the real world. Literally, who would go and compare RX1R versus RX1R? All practical comparisons wrt cameras are never direct apple to apple comparisons because you cannot control for everything. As such, you can only remove as much as possible the human element and compare the equipment itself and how it performs to as close as possible and in a way that a normal person would use it. Also, I am not comparing the sensor only, or the lens only, or the sensor/lens combo only. If you want that, please refer to DXO. I am comparing the two cameras as the are made in a package and that includes any differences which may include the size of the AF box, AF performance, shutter shock, exposure settings algorithm etc etc. As for the focus point, it IS held constant in all images. There is no difference in where I aim the center of the AF box The only difference is that the AF box on the RX1R is larger than that of the A7. As such, the RX1R focus could possibly be averaged over a larger area than the A7.
Finally, the first test is done on a non-flat subject. In the real world, many of the images that we shoot, the AF is not on a flat plane. Faces are not flat too. That will have the same implication on the larger AF box of the RX1R. Of course at this point, there is no conclusive evidence that the softer images in the RX1R are due to the AF box, but I would acknowledge that this is a possibility. The second set of images is done on a flat surface, so what you see is what you get. I leave it up to the reader to decide which is sharper because clearly, it's not so clear which is better. Haha.
If the argument that the images are out of focus resulting in it being softer, then I would blame it on the AF mechanism for not being reliable or accurate enough. FYI, I only took 1-2 shots per image. I did not take like 10-20 shots and choose the best. Of course one can argue that there is a chance that there is a misfocus with so few comparison shots. But I am not a professional tester and its not my aim to test professionally. I do not have that much time to test and shoot so many images and to choose one to post. This is really a case of shoot and see what you get kind of test. Which in the real world, is what I would do. I would take at most 1-2 shots of the scene or subject and move on. I do not take 10 shots and hope 1 is sharp. So I am trying to shoot this in a manner that would as close as possible replicate the real world performance. Of course, I did say that in the real world, I would not use tripod and I would not use the 10 sec shutter release.
So the images, first and second set, are as good as the way that they are tested in as real world situation as possible in the setting in which they are tested.
Any, in IQ comparisons, there will always be a never ending debate on whether the tests are valid. Even dpreview professionally tested comparisons they do acknowledge that and not everyone agrees with the testing methodology.
Also, I have no agenda other than to share what I have shot. The RX1R is the more expensive purchase for me compared to the A7 kit. But it is what it is and my results do agree with DPReview results that the A7 is sharper than RX1R. You can argue that the 85mm lens on the A7 tested by dpreview is very sharp. But it could also be said that its a different focal length lens and it should not be used to compare against the RX1R. BTW, did they have to use an adaptor for that lens? Does an adaptor make no difference or degrades IQ? Again another issue. But perhaps we are starting to split hairs here and its not really my intent to do that.
Last edited:
Actually, there are a few more things besides what you mention :
1. Wifi function only on the A7
2. EVF only on the A7 - if you need EVF on RX1R, its another 350-600 depending on what you get which could make the RX1R package less value. Personally, I think its too expensive. If you MUST have EVF, might as well go for A7.
3. Tiltable LCD - this might be useful for low shots that RX1R cannot do
4. Grip
5. Size of AF box - if you need very accurate and precise AF, the RX1R AF box, even at its smallest, is still bigger than the A7.
6. Stealth - the RX1R wins here with its totally quiet electronic shutter - also implies that there is no mechanical shutter causing potential shutter vibration
There could be a few more other differences which others may pick up
Thought this comparison of lenses will answer some question that TS asked:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-35mm-F28___1196_0_1251_0
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-35mm-F28___1196_0_1251_0
Similar threads
