the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / A tale of two cameras, part 3

A tale of two cameras, part 3

January 26, 2013 JimK 1 Comment

Here‘s a link to the layered psd file with all the images in this post.  As before, I recommend that you look at it if you wish to form your own judgements about these images.

At f/2 in the upper right corner, the NEX-7 is substantially sharper, but has lower contrast:

ur1f2

RX-1 f/2

 ur7f2

NEX-7 f/2

 

Both cameras pick up sharpness as we move to f/2.8, with the NEX-7 remaining ahead:

ur1f28

 RX-1 f/2.8

 ur7f28

NEX-7 f/2.8

 

It’s pretty much a wash at f/4:

ur1f4

RX-1 f/4

 ur7f4

NEX-7 f/4

 

There’s a big improvement in the RX-1 at f/5.6, with the NEX-7 staying about the same. The RX-1 is now delivering substantially superior performance:

ur1f56

RX-1 f/5.6

 ur7f56

NEX-7 f/5.6

 

At f/8, the NEX-7 is about the same as at f/5.6. So is the RX-1:

ur1f8

RX-1 f/8

 ur7f8

NEX-7 f/8

 

At f/11, the NEX-7 is getting mushy. The RX-1 is softening, too, but not nearly as badly:

ur1f11

RX-1 f/11

 ur7f11

NEX-7 f/11

It’s interesting that the two worst images in the series, the NEX-7 at f/11 and the RX-1 at f/2, offer about the same image quality. Could the RX-1’s soft corners wide open be caused by field curvature? Possibly. If I get the time, I’ll run a test.

My take is that the RX-1 offers better image quality than the NEX-7 at the apertures you’re likely to use most – a couple of stops to four stops down from wide open – but that the differences, while consequential,  aren’t striking until you get past f/8.

The Last Word

← A tale of two cameras, part 2 A tale of two cameras, part 4 →

Comments

  1. Tommy says

    January 28, 2013 at 7:28 pm

    Once again… comparing the RX1 wide open (and f/1.4 crop sensor equivalent) to the NEX 24mm not wide open (and f/4 FF equivalent) seems to make me scratch my head what you are trying to show here? At a minimum you could show both wide open and work up from there. No wonder the 24mm seems to compare best vs. the RX1 at the wider apertures and then falls apart vs. the RX1 at the smaller apertures. If an appropriate comparison was done, starting at f/1.8 for the 24mm and f/2.8 for the RX1 through the spectrum, the RX1 would clean the floor with the Zeiss 24mm/NEX combo.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

February 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Brian Olson on Fuji GFX 100S exposure strategy, M and A modes
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.