Digital BW, The Print

I briefly tested a Sony RX1. I was looking at some specific performance criteria that I deemed critical for my large (22x28 inch) B&W display print work. I sent it back due to defects, but it is an interesting camera and has a few attributes that are an exciting glimpse of the future.  

There are a number of reviews on line, most of which are very positive.  The fact that I will not be re-ordering one indicates that for me and my type of B&W work, it was not going to be what I need.  My previous medium format Technical Pan film work sets the bar for me, and only the best full frame (and larger) digital cameras can reach that.  Currently, the Leica M9 is what I use for most of my shooting. 

The good news:

The electronic level that one can make visible in the viewfinder is just fantastic.  Now I don't want any camera that does not have that feature.

The M9 with a my favorite Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Biogon lens is a very capable outfit, and was much more expensive than the Sony.  So, comparing these two might be a bit unfair.  However, just looking at the technical data that is published, it appeared the Sony was going to be able to beat the M9-Biogon combination.  I have posted the MTF curves for the optics involved, as well as the DxO sensor summary.  See http://www.paulroark.com/Leica-Zeiss-Sony-RX1-MTF-DxO.jpg  The objective information on this Jpeg suggests remarkable performance.

I have also uploaded a Sony RX1 image taken at f/2.8, but reduced in size to what might show on a typical monitor (for example mine; many on this list have much better).  See http://www.paulroark.com/RX1-28-defaults_DSC0002.JPG 

Again, the initial impression is that this is a very sharp, edge-to-edge outfit.


The bad news:

I make large B&W prints.  So, the most important MTF curves are those at 40 lp/mm.  Sony only tests to 30 lp/mm.  I appreciate the remarkable brightness of the Sony-Zeiss optic as shown in the MTF graph and also apparent in the full frame photos.  But, for my work, I need sharpness at the pixel level.  So …

I've posted a Jpeg of the left edge of the RX1 compared to my Leica M9 with the Zeiss ZM f/2.8 Biogon, both at 2.8 and both with no sharpening.   See http://www.paulroark.com/RX1-v-ZM-at.28.jpg 

At 100%, the Sony optic may be bright, but at least the sample I had was not a high resolution lens down at the pixel level.  The usual assembly defect I see in my test shots is evidence of decentering; the left and right edges are obviously different.  Here, they were the same, which I believe indicated good centering.

Looking at the center of the image and stopped down to f/8, the 24 MP Sony CMOS sensor did not seem to be able to capture quite as much fine detail as the M9's 18 MP CCD.  I am probably spoiled by the M9's lack of a diffusion screen (AA filter) over the sensor.  For landscapes, I see no point is such filters.

An interesting surprise is that the noise and ISO advantage of the Sony CMOS does not totally transfer to my B&W shooting.  The green and blue channels of the CMOS image have way less noise at iso 1600 and 3 stops down into the shadows.  However, the red channel of the CCD appears to be as good as that of the Sony CMOS.  I don't know if this is typical of CMOS v. CCD or just these samples.  In my actual landscape work with the M9, the red-channel, dark skies are a weak point that I had hoped CMOS would help, but it appears this may not be the case.

I have posted a comparison of the red channel noise at 1600 iso.  See http://www.paulroark.com/1600iso-red-channel.JPG 

The Sony manual focusing isn't close to what I like.  I did not have the electronic viewfinder, however, so I can't say if there is potentially a way to get more accuracy out of the system.  The "peaking" feature has way too much DOF; it is simply insensitive to seemingly significant moves of the focusing ring.  Manually opening the lens to f/2 should not be necessary.

Note that the battery showed 3/4 full when I received the camera.  I could not charge the battery (defective USB port) and the third party battery did not fit. When I returned the camera it was still running, but the battery indicator showed empty.  I had taken all of 16 shots.  True, I had the camera on a fair amount of time while I went through the  menu and learned some of the operations, but still, this battery life issue is not trivial.


I don't want to give the impression that the Sony RX1 is a bad camera, but it did not have the performance that that I expected from the published technical data and some reviewer reports.  At least for my large B&W work where high resolution all the way to the pixel level is needed, it is not competitive with what I have.

The Sony does give an interesting glimpse of the future.  Sony is, of course, not targeting people like me.  If 8x10 and the monitor is where most photos are seen, then the Sony at its default raw processor sharpness setting makes impressively bright and sharp looking images.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com