Sony RX1 RAW ISO test. Impressive!!!
Focus Numerique (translation here) just posted the RX1 JPE. FN noted that the Sony RX1 has significant overexposure (about 2/3 EV in too). They are surprised with the high image quality: ” Even ISO 3200 images retain an excellent outfit with a little grain present, light-colored and very gentle smoothing. ” and “Even at ISO 12800, there or Alpha 99 start to lose its pixels, the RX1 is still very powerful, even if smoothing is naturally more sensitive.It is possible to push the compact with up to 25600 ISO image quality quite amazing. ”
And Imaging Resource posted the RX1 studio test too and you can use the comparometer to compare th image quality with other cameras. I have to say I am impressed and you? I am very tempted to buy the RX1 now…very tempted! Problem is the price in Europe is much higher than in US 
Today Sony finally started to ship the RX1! It is in Stock right now at Amazon Japan! The RX1 can be pre ordered at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Wex UK ,Wex Germany, Sonystore DE-UK-FR-IT-ES-NL-SE-FI-CH and more links at Alphacameradeals.
Join Slidoo (and login to change settings) to get notified when the RX1 will be on auction on eBay.
FreXxX
7 months ago |The links to the pictures don’t seem to work. thanks anyway for that post, the RX1 looks really awesome!
admin
7 months ago |Removed them. IR doens’t accept direct links on their images…
emopunk
7 months ago |Using the comparometer on IR I can see more detail in the A99 red swatch, when compared to RX1. Both have amazing output. I would have been considering impossible these performances two years ago. I think both cameras owners will be very happy and be able to shoot great images, as long as they have skills to deserve such high grade tools.
Denis
7 months ago |No, the RX1 is closer to the actual texture: take a look at the D800/D800E output.
emopunk
7 months ago |I did like you said. Still I think it’s too subjective to be meaningful in real life. What matters is that A99 is there with the best. If you compare the red swatch @6400 you’ll see it’s even better than Mark III.
Denis
7 months ago |Didn’t you notice the A99 completely lost the red swatch texture, while the RX1 shows signs of it (but not resolves well). Anyway, RAWs must be used.
Here is how the D800E sample looks like (top left): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/samples/Screenshot%20from%202012-10-30%2022%3A39%3A34.png
Meeran
7 months ago |From IR comparison, I just compared ISO 6400 of RX1 and Fuji X-E1. the red swatch texture is completely lost on the RX1. But Fuji keeps it much better.
I did not compare it with A99 to see how it compares against A99.
Now I can imagine what image quality Fuji can produce if they turn RX1 sensor into X-trans sensor.
Denis
7 months ago |@Meeran, check the link above (where the D800E at the top left). The Fuji is bottom right here, it’s base ISO. You can see it suck and looks as good as NEX-5n at ISO800 at best. XTrans trades low ISO resolution and colors for high ISO resolution.
At the high ISO the RX1 has higher resolution, of course, just, the OOC jpeg of Sony isn’t the best. With proper NR it shows better resolution than Fuji with much better colors.
Meeran
7 months ago |Why some people hear what they want to hear??
I know RX1 perform better at base ISO and it should, because it is a bigger sensor. What I was stating that Fuji APSC X-trans sensor keeps the image quality very well in terms of noise and details when you push the ISO. But RX1 is losing it against Fuji at ISO 6400 for the red details and this has nothing to do with out of focus area, this is a lab test and all of the objects are almost on the same plane. If you look at a different object RX1 might do better than Fuji on the same Image at ISO 6400.
So I still repeat Fuji keeps the image quality very well when you push ISO, but RX1 is not keeping it that well. Which is a shame.
Denis
7 months ago |@Meeran, I repeat, the RX1 has higher resolution than Fuji at base ISO. Just, judging on jpegs is not the best idea. Fuji jpegs provides the best quality available for this camera. Sony’s ones aren’t. Check for example Nikon D600 (the same sensor as on RX1) vs Fuji X-Pro 1: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/samples/d600vXpro-6400.zip
Denis
7 months ago |oops, I mean “higher resolution than fuji at ISO 6400″
emopunk
7 months ago |I agree that RAWs would give more informations to distinguish between these, I repeat, otherwise all excellent cameras.
Frank_B
7 months ago |Guys! Just get out of the lab and shoot pictures! You see what you want and capture what you want. Waste of time comparing and pixel peeping all the time. . .
RVN
7 months ago |look like in ISO 50 a99 more better than RX1
Denis
7 months ago |They are using different FL lenses, and RX1 seems to suck at borders, although center resolution is incredible, where it’s definitely outresolves more than A99
Sky_walker
7 months ago |More then A99 with which lens?
I guess you forgot that A99 has interchangeable lenses and a lot depends on which one you pick
Besides – what’s the point comparing workhorse with street photo camera again? It’s not like that’s “this or that” choice. More like: “if I do that I’ll pick that, otherwise I won’t”.
Denis
7 months ago |Yes, it means RX1 with its sonnar T* 35/2 has higher resolution in center than Sony A99 with its used lens. I have no doubt A99 with crappy 35/1.4 G will suck even more. But, anyway, border quality of this lens (of RX1) is mediocre and not better than one of Fuji X100, which is a shame.
BTW, the A99 is a BAD “workhorse”.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |Denis, on what basis is the A99 a ‘BAD workhorse’?
Unsubstantiated claims annoy me, where is your evidence?
Beaur
7 months ago |troll
GreenLens
7 months ago |To my eye, resolution is similar to A99 but the noise pattern is more even.
When is FF NEX coming? Or rather a square sensor FF compact?
Mike
7 months ago |Comparing the RX1 with the Nikon D600, @3200 ISO, the RX1 does very, very, well. The D600 exhibits more colour noise in the gray background (look near the yellow 1/2 brush) and crisper details overall – at the centre and edges (check the fabrics).
I find the RX1 noise rendition looks better than the A99 in that same area but both do a find job.
Likewise at ISO 12,800 the RX1 still outpaces it’s big brother and the D600 although the Nikon seems to hold together the reds in the fabric better.
At any rate the sensor performs very well on all these cameras and I’m delighted to pick up the smallest of the three.
Rurik
7 months ago |No surprises. Translucent tax.
RX1 performance should be on D600 level.
Taking in account latest Sony financial news, I don’t believe there will be next FF SLT camera. Might be no next A77 as well.
Sony will be happy to make sensors for Nikon/Pentax, NEX lines, RX models. Something where is does very well.
Sky_walker
7 months ago |Taking their financial report I’m certain they’ll continue SLT line, including FFs.
What they’ll try to drop are low-end and/or small-sensor compacts.
No idea how did you came out to any other conclusion.
emopunk
7 months ago |He must be some kind of clairvoyant
Neo NiGHTS ®
7 months ago |You’re right. Sony should stop making advanced amateur/professional cameras altogheter and just focus on the entry level and cheap P&S. They’re cheap to produce and will sell more. Just like Kodak did and……. OH WAIT!
;D
Stewe
7 months ago |It raises the questions. SLT is good for low-mid priced aps-c, but for top notch semi-pro or pro FF you need to use dslr, because image quality must be as best as possible. Furthermore, sony should listen us, buyers. Especially when we listen all those news about financial reports.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |Rubbish!!! Look at A99 images on any of the comparison websites! Your comment is both ludicrous and unfounded.
At least present links and show evidence when you make such claims!
Stewe
7 months ago |Proof me wrong. Give me image samples where slt camera makes better quality then dslr. Just look at the image sample above.
The Lotus Eater
7 months ago |http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a99-raw-comparison-with-other-ff-cameras-220-euro-less-for-the-a99-in-uk/
Dave Cox
7 months ago |Stewe, see the comment below this one. See all the comparison sites. Sure, SLT might be 0.5 stops behind but unless you are printing at A0 size it just doesn’t matter. You are like the TV enthusiast bemoaning the demise of the cathode ray oscilloscope. Get over it and embrace the future!!
Stewe
7 months ago |Hey, i am a33 user myself! So don’t you lecture me about shenanigans. If your FF semi-pro/pro camera sucks hard from your own, not even interchangable lens camera, then what’s the point?
john
7 months ago |stewie, go back in your corner with your a33. my filters cost more than your camera alone. I’m a pro and i have invested 15k into sony and i’m glad that i did. Go out of your cave and go take some pictures, you’ll then realize that these pixel peeping is nonsense. Fact is sony matched image quality to those cameras even more expensive than it’s own and did it with a crippling “slt”. I invested in zeiss glass which are top notch over L series or nikkors. Glass don’t change over years but bodies do.
The Lotus Eater
7 months ago |Stewe, I guess you failed to notice that the A99 is doing fine against its competitors when it comes to image quality. For pros working in the real world, the image quality is great, although maybe not for verbally incontinent pixel peepers spouting rubbish on message boards.
Stewe
7 months ago |Listen, if tomorrow sony would announce a950 dslr ff then what excuse you invent for a99 iq?
Dave Cox
7 months ago |They are not going to announce a 950. You know they aren’t. The question, and the idea, is nonsense.
If you don’t like SLT go buy a Nikon system. You 4k+ investment will buy you a maximum of 0.5 stops high ISO IQ, poor menu system, poor AF and crappy colours. Good luck to you!!
Stewe
7 months ago |>They are not going to announce a 950. You know they aren’t.
So you are protect this s*it because it is only flagship. Well that’s exactly my point. Sony shoudn’t refuse dslr in high end camera.
lorenzino
7 months ago |Mhh, this is funboyism at its best: so the Nikon system, which is only marginally more expensive than the Sony, and has an array of lenses the Sony system will never have, plus better IQ (at least in resolution) etc. etc., would be a bad investment because the menu system is crappy (??? when – ever – Sony cameras had better menu than any single competitor around?), jpg colors (huh, as if Sony jpgs were famous for their quality… I mean… are you kidding or what?), poor AF (??? Nikon has poor AF? Are you smoking heavily?).
Now, I am not supporting any kind of Sony A99 bashing (apart for the price, which is far too high), but pleas stick to the facts…
The Lotus Eater
7 months ago |What? Why would there need to be an excuse? If there was an A950 announced tomorrow, the image quality would be better by 0.5 stop max. If you think that is hugely significant, then you’re not a photographer, you’re a technology geek.
Beaur
7 months ago |Dont worry these haters are trolls. I have an a99 and its the best 35mm ff digital camera ive ever used (better than the m9, 5d3, d800) It just handles better,theres nothing like holding an a99. I even use it for street photography! Sony delivered in a big way.
emopunk
7 months ago |Owner’s opinions like Beaur’s one are the best advertisement for A99 and the most effective cure against trolls.
LifeStoryImages.com
7 months ago |You’ll go blind if you keep doing that, Stewe.
Frank_B
7 months ago |Stewe, john is right. I’ll repeat what I posted earlier. . . Just get out of the lab and shoot pictures! You see what you want and capture what you want. Waste of time comparing and pixel peeping all the time. . .
Frank_B
7 months ago |Stewe, john is right. I’ll repeat what I posted earlier. . . Just get out of the lab and shoot pictures! You see what you want and capture what you want. Waste of time comparing and pixel peeping all the time. . .
Jules
7 months ago |Go to ISO 12800 and compare A99 vs RX-1,if there is some difference ,it is very very small (and probably the advantage is for the RX-1 ,because better focusing???)
But in real live it’s really not usefull!
Mars Observer
7 months ago |Looks impressive – we’re *finally* starting to see what this camera can do!
Looking forward to when this gets into the hands of some real-world photographers.
JustAPhotog
7 months ago |Can’t help to post this…..for someone who said, “The A99 a bad workhorse”, you’re having a nightmare, my friend. I own it and its a “thoroughbred workhorse”….. damn, wish I had it ten years ago. Btw, I own the A77 & A65 and didn’t disappoint me as well. Bye now, back to work!!
Jack
7 months ago |Yes! Let’s do some pixelpeeping!
havingFun@Japan
7 months ago |I have just spent 10 hours combined @ various camera and electronic stores in Tokyo and Osaka and this country is such a heaven for gear head. I have tried pretty much everything. The A99 handled like a dream for me. I have never had a dslr, my camera handling experience comes mostly from my Nex 5 n nex6. The a99 was the easiest to pick up and start using for me compared to the d600 and 5dmk3. I also like it the best, everything just seem so fast. I wish my Nex 6 has the A99 AF system!
Also tried the rx1 today and I love the form factor, build quality and control. I do find that the AF system is a bit slow, it hunts a bit even in department store lighting and you can hear the AF motor. I tried the nex6 with the power kit zoom under the same condition (hybrid AF on)and the nex6 definitely focus faster and there no hunting. Both using center point focus.
Kerry
7 months ago |Its by far the best Full Frame COMPACT! no arguments.
Kerry
7 months ago |from my observations with the RX1 vs D600 on Comparometer; RX1 is much more sharper and less noisier at 1600 and 3200. And for me I never user ISO any higher than 1600 before. Same goes for RX1 vs A99 at ISO3200 RX1 has an advantage. So I’m impressed with what I see.
Troj
7 months ago |Again, this is not a RAW comparison. They focus on the out of camera jpegs but do provide links to the corresponding RAW files in case anyone is compelled to do their own conversions…. with a RAW converter that actually supports the RX1.
This goes both for Focus Numerique and Imaging Resource.
I did a comparison between the Imaging Resource RAW files from the RX1 and A99 at ISO 12800 using Lightroom. I tricked the Adobe converter into thinking the RX1 files were A99 files (using Exiftool), so Lightroom would be able to open them.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50299052
andy
7 months ago |Based on the Focus numerique images:
Some heavy pincushion distortion going on with the RX1. I suppose those are the limitations of making a FF lens that small.
Pretty good otherwise, but I think I like the look of the jpgs from the 5D3 and D800 better at high ISO. It’s probably all down to the jpg engine.
Denis
7 months ago |I keep wondering why people think these 0.5 stops of light is the only sacrifice of SLT. It’s not. Another huge problem is the reflective angled surface in the light path. It causes image degradation such as flaring, lose of contrast, etc. This is what people immediately see when comparing images with SLT and DSLR/mirrorless and why they tend to avoid this crap technology.
Back to the topic: Sony clearly shows it treats its customers as idiots. The lens itself is what samyang could easily do: sharp in the center, with almost no CA. But lots of distortion, field curvature, border smearing. So the lens price should be about $300-$400. The body should cost $1200 at maximum: it’s very easy to build comparing to DSLR and lacks many parts that needs highl assembling precision: bayonet, focusing screen, prism, PDAF sensors array.
So the real price is about twice less than it is traded by Sony. So what: I wish Sony got bankrupt and photo division will be sold to company that understand about how photography tools should progress, without these “hybrid” gimmicks and translucent mirrors.
Troj
7 months ago |No controlled test has shown the “huge problems” you suggest with recent SLT’s.
Seems more like your usual FUD.
KP
7 months ago |There are raw samples from A99 on dpreview comparison. I don’t see there any advantages for A99 in comparison with A900… Look at the colors in raw images at ISO 3200. It’s a huge step back from A900. And that looks even worse with Nikon D600. It’s true D600 have some extra detail, but colour accuracy is simply awful.
If you need great colours, buy A900 from amateur that kept it safe in the box for past 4 years. New cameras are made for pixel peepers, not for photographers.
Adam
7 months ago |Wassup with all these Sony hates yo. The last I check this is called Sony Alpha Rumours and not Hate Sony Alpha Rumours
Look, Sony has decided to go with SLT for their DSLRs, probably in the future the glass will be removed and it’ll be a true mirrorless-DSLR like camera. The advantage gain by moving to such method is huge compared to sticking to old technology that works. Sony doesn’t have any real advantage over Canon and Nikon, and by doing this (moving to SLT), they actually do, it’s just that many people wont consider Sony camera cause of the WTH stuffs they do before SLT. That’s something the PR department has to solve.
Moving on, there’s also a lot of people complaining about Nikon move in creating the CX mount, sure it is just a 1″ sensor and that Nikon is not taking the mirrorless market seriously. But Nikon has committed to a whole new mount system for their mirrorless market, and I’m pretty sure they are not going to abandon it anytime soon. Cause doing that will pissed of a lot of customers who bought a Nikon 1 camera and its lenses. Similar to how Canon users got pissed off early on when Canon switched to EF lenses. Except in this age, competition between camera makers is so intense that they would want to avoid doing such a move again and with internet, any bad (or good) news will spread in a matter of hours.
As for the RX1, I believe it will sell really well cause not everyone wants to invest in a whole new lens camera system and would just want a very high quality compact camera. Fuji proves this with the X100, so I don’t see why wont a camera that is just as large as a LX7, except comes with a Full Frame sensor and fitted with Carl Zeiss optics, specifically designed for the RX1 sensor will not sell well.
Denis
7 months ago |No advantage but only disadvantages so far IMO.
The EVF is still not good enough to be a clearly better option, so I mark this as draw. But with SLT we have 0.3-0.5 stops worse high ISO performance and another chunk of glass in the light path that degrades IQ (contrast reduction, additional flares).
Troj
7 months ago |Seems like you haven’t done much research on the subject you make bold claims about. It’s not glass, let alone chunky.
Denis
7 months ago |Sorry dude. Learn some optics please, especially about reflection and refraction.
Troj
7 months ago |I learned my optics, “dude” and I also know how in this case Sony proved to have controlled reflections in practise with the current coatings used. Try to substantiate your FUD with some proof from the subject at hand for a change.
wayne summers
7 months ago |I am saving up for the rx1 and the only thing that will stop me from getting one is death or if they come out with a rx2 with eye piece and movable screen and maybe a 24-50mm lens.
Karl
6 months ago |here is a nice description how to operate the RX1 RAW files:
http://rx-1.tumblr.com/RX1-RAW-english