Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 04/05/2019 at 09:44, wiskerke said:

 

For that you need to put an adapter on it. Mine are from Lensmate. But there are other brands and solutions, including Sony's own.

I started out making my own like this one.

However I see no need for them anymore. I have used those for filters; close-up lenses; lens shades and wide and tele converters (1; 2), but now we have 24mm all the way to 200mm (ff equivalent). (Initially it was 28-100mm on the mk1 and 2.) Darkening of the sky is much easier and more controlled in post. The lens is not very flare prone. Just for looking through a window or a fish in a pond, one can easily hold a filter in front of the lens with 2 fingers. The RX100 is small enough.

 

wim

 

Wim,

 

Thank you for the info on mounting a filter to the RX100. The size of the RX100 is just right. I still would like to see a tube that encapsulates the telescoping elements of the lens as this is the biggest point of failure on these types of cameras. Sure it would add to the size, but for the protection I would take the trade off.

 

A polarizing filter is the only filter that can not be duplicated in post. A polarizing filter does more the darken the sky it also saturates the image by removing glare/reflections/haze.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dlmphotog said:

 

Wim,

 

Thank you for the info on mounting a filter to the RX100. The size of the RX100 is just right. I still would like to see a tube that encapsulates the telescoping elements of the lens as this is the biggest point of failure on these types of cameras. Sure it would add to the size, but for the protection I would take the trade off.

 

A polarizing filter is the only filter that can not be duplicated in post. A polarizing filter does more the darken the sky it also saturates the image by removing glare/reflections/haze.

 

David

 

You have to be careful about everything on a RX100 is my experience. The problem is that because of the size and the nature of the thing as the take always camera, it suffers most of my cameras. Scratches are most common, but also small nicks on the corners. The telescoping lens is far more vulnerable with a filter holder on it, which is the main reason why I don't use them any more. When the camera goes into sleep mode while you're holding it, the lens retracts and catches whatever is between the body and the lens holder. Which then forces the lens out of whack or tears off the adapter. My guess is that's worse with the grip because your finger will not have enough space to slip out quickly enough. I don't have a separate grip, but I do have this L plate that includes a grip and that would protect most of the camera. Would, because I don't use it unless I need the L part. It's a bit fiddly (in a very clever way) and it adds too much bulk to the camera.

A tube has been discussed in here somewhere.

 

I don't agree on the filter. There's only one thing that cannot be replicated in post: cutting the reflections on water; glass and metal. The haze slider in ACR is a bit of a blunt instrument, but it shows how the rest is done in post. Julieanne Kost; Youtube

The other thing: the polarized look is so eighties and has not come back into fashion since afaik. So yes I do use them once in a while, but they have not been part of my everyday kit for a long time.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

I don't agree on the filter. There's only one thing that cannot be replicated in post: cutting the reflections on water; glass and metal. The haze slider in ACR is a bit of a blunt instrument, but it shows how the rest is done in post. Julieanne Kost; Youtube

The other thing: the polarized look is so eighties and has not come back into fashion since afaik. So yes I do use them once in a while, but they have not been part of my everyday kit for a long time.

 

wim

 

I would very rarely disagree with the venerable wim but I would have to disagree in relation to this and specifically the word replicate which strictly speaking means produce a copy of something. A better word would be simulate which means produce something similar to something. I know that English is not wim's first language but his written English is pretty perfect so I hope he forgives me for this bit of pedantry 😀.

 

In relation to the dehaze slider in LR/ACR, it also idoes some pretty weird things to the colours and it is definitely a very blunt instrument. I find a better way of darkening skies (simulating a polariser) is to use the HSL sliders in LR/ACR, increasing the blue saturation and decreasing the blue luminance. 

 

I do like using polarisers for my landscape work (modern high quality polarisers that is).

Edited by MDM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I would very rarely disagree with the venerable wim but I would have to disagree in relation to this and specifically the word replicate which strictly speaking means produce a copy of something. A better word would be simulate which means produce something similar to something. I know that English is not wim's first language but his written English is pretty perfect so I hope he forgives me for this bit of pedantry 😀.

 

In relation to the dehaze slider in LR/ACR, it also idoes some pretty weird things to the colours and it is definitely a very blunt instrument. I find a better way of darkening skies (simulating a polariser) is to use the HSL sliders in LR/ACR, increasing the blue saturation and decreasing the blue luminance. 

 

I do like using polarisers for my landscape work (modern high quality polarisers that is).

 

Yeah.. uhh.. I meant replicate all right. Because indeed it's something you cannot do.

And you are right that we simulate the use of a polarizing filter. But we replicate the effect. I must admit I wrote that quite intuitively, but it is correct this way I think.

So we can replicate the effect the polarizers have on saturation and luminance. But we cannot replicate and even not simulate the cutting out of the glare off certain surfaces like shiny metal or green leaves. Let alone looking through a water surface or a shop window. Not without taking a second exposure under totally different lighting conditions anyway. So yes these filters are really useful for those purposes, and I indeed use mine for that. But they're gathering dust in my drawers. The largest one is a linear 125mm. Where the huge polarizers for my strobes are I have no idea. Different drawer maybe. Oh the miracles one can do with those and a polarizer on the lens!

 

Like you I still use the HSL sliders.

 

wim

 

Tiffen still makes the 125mm. For a price. I never paid that of course. Crazy, but not that crazy. And it was useless because the unevenness is just too big over the field of a 12mm lens. Post is better than the filter here.

 

Edited by wiskerke
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

Yeah.. uhh.. I meant replicate all right. Because indeed it's something you cannot do.

And you are right that we simulate the use of a polarizing filter. But we replicate the effect. I must admit I wrote that quite intuitively, but it is correct this way I think.

So we can replicate the effect the polarizers have on saturation and luminance. But we cannot replicate and even not simulate the cutting out of the glare off certain surfaces like shiny metal or green leaves. Let alone looking through a water surface or a shop window. Not without taking a second exposure under totally different lighting conditions anyway. So yes these filters are really useful for those purposes, and I indeed use mine for that. But they're gathering dust in my drawers. The largest one is a linear 125mm. Where the huge polarizers for my strobes are I have no idea. Different drawer maybe. Oh the miracles one can do with those and a polarizer on the lens!

 

Like you I still use the HSL sliders.

 

wim

 

Tiffen still makes the 125mm. For a price. I never paid that of course. Crazy, but not that crazy. And it was useless because the unevenness is just too big over the field of a 12mm lens. Post is better than the filter here.

 

 

I'd still argue (if I had infinite time) for simulation rather than replication in the case of blue skies as I don't think the effects can always be precisely replicated but it is subjective and difficult to demonstrate conclusively. For example, I think you get purer blue colours using a polariser but that is difficult to demonstrate. Increasing blue saturation and decreasing luminance in post can introduce or exacerbate the presence of a white line along the boundary between land and sky. Faint distant clouds may not be visible/captured at all without using a polariser.

 

But of course polarisers have disadvantages as well in darkening skies: they emphasise uneven blue colour in the sky especially if there are no clouds and they cut out some of the light (modern high quality polarisers are much better than the older ones).

 

I use the Kenko Real Pro ones nowadays which I find excellent optically - thin with minimal loss of light and neutral colour. I usually have a polariser on the lens when shooting landscapes - there is aways the option to turn it to no polarisation. One thing is for sure though - grad filters on camera are a thing of the past for me. Much easier to replicate (simulate?) in post. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wim is Dutch. His English is better than ours. It's a defence mechanism to minimise the possibility of having to listen to non-native speakers mangling his language. Alstublieft.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Wim is Dutch. His English is better than ours. 

 

I know wim is Dutch and his English is exceptionally good for a non-native speaker. The multilingualism of the  Dutch and many other northern Europeans is to be much admired.

 

I think monolingualism is a particularly English thing and not a good thing either. I strongly encouraged my English son to learn Spanish with me when he was in primary school and learning no foreign languages. His school in Peterborough was featured in a BBC programme at the time (around 2008) about multiculturalism. There were I think over 30 different first languages among the pupils but only English was taught in the curriculum.

 

I learned four languages growing up in Ireland and I had a rigorous training in English grammar. I would not wish that on anyone to be honest but years of not learning much if any English grammar at all in school is certainly evident in English society.

 

By the way - you dropped an apostrophe there. Should that ours be our's or ours'? 😀. Definitely not ours. It is a possessive so requires an apostrophe. I am going for our's. Let's ask wim. 

Edited by MDM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

By the way - you dropped an apostrophe there. Should that ours be our's or ours'? 😀. Definitely not ours. It is a possessive so requires an apostrophe. I am going for our's. Let's ask wim. 

I respectfully disagree, but in any case, definitely not our's. That's a butcher's.

I was having a joke at our expense.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I respectfully disagree, but in any case, definitely not our's. That's a butcher's.

I was having a joke at our expense.

 

OK - you are correct. My logic would say that it should be our's because it is replacing the term our English but I have just checked and find that our's should never be used. School days are a long time ago 😊

Edited by MDM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😀😁😚

It's not that good. Google translate and Dictionary.com are well worn buttons on my toolbar.

Pity we don't have PM any more.

 

wim

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/05/2019 at 02:07, wiskerke said:

...The other thing: the polarized look is so eighties...

wim

 

But the 1980s' was the BEST decade ! 😛

 

Big Hair, shoulder pads and mixed tapes!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dlmphotog said:

 

But the 1980s' was the BEST decade ! 😛

 

Big Hair, shoulder pads and mixed tapes!

Don’t forget disco...fun stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more vote for little Sony Rx100.    I got it mainly for hiking/backpacking (big SLR too bulky - save space for food!).   Yes, you can't compare small sensor with full-frame,  but it is still satisfactory.    I like the best 2 features:

 

1)  Auto pano stitching.   In Canon 6D I can't do it.  4 directions, tick-tick-tick and voila

2)  In camera HDR.  6D has this in too, but for me Sony beats it hands down.

 

Examples this evening.  I go for my usual walk, not photo shoot, but put Sony in pocket. Just in case.  And then I get this unreal light:

 

p3409005680-5.jpg

 

I was kicking myself for not having 6D, but this is good too, no?  Not much postprocessing too, and no grain at all. Small sensor and all.  Then the pano;  no effort at all:

 

p3409005679-4.jpg

 

 

And in-camera HDR toning:

p3409005672-5.jpg

 

 

Thank you Rx.   Cost me 499 CAD few yrs back.  Paid for itself in stock manyfold by now.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the other day I had a successful exchange in Andalusian Spanish. This man was waving a map in my face asking me something. I said, "Lo siento, no hablo Espanol."  He went away, all the way back to Madrid or Puerto Rico.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

1)  Auto pano stitching.   In Canon 6D I can't do it.  4 directions, tick-tick-tick and voila

 

Don't you find you get "stitching artefacts" in the RX100's auto panoramic stitched images? No matter what I try I often get "vertical ripples" (especially in foliage) towards the top or bottom of the frame where small features are repeated three or four times. It's worst when I hold the camera in vertical format and pan horizontally. I've tried various panning techniques and speeds (including trying tripod mounting and rotating about the lens nodal point), but have never managed to eliminate the possibility of these defects. They aren't noticeable when viewing the whole image, but are visible when looking at 100%. As result most of my Sony RX100 MkIII auto-stitched panoramas never make it to Alamy for fear of QC failure and I've reverted to taking several stills and combining in PS or LR which I find gives me much more reliable stitching, but is more tedious. The other advantage of using LR and PS of course is that the result is a 16 bit uncompressed images allowing greater flexibility fo tonal adjustments etc. whereas the Sony - Auto-stitched are 8 bit jpgs.

 

Here's an example crop of the ripples at 200% (not the clearest example as I'd already binned those...). I've put a ring round the most noticeable, but once you know what to look for, then there are quite a few more to be found in this crop

 

Screen-Shot-2019-05-09-at-09-33-09.jpg

 

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, yes.  Also in pano mode ("sweep shooting") you can't chose ISO;  minimum camera does is 125.   For rest I always shoot in Program Auto with ISO 80.  Bottom line is that small sensor is small sensor, and the less light the more performance degradation.  But given enough light and some post-processing Rx100 panos can still be acceptable for Alamy.   But of course from technical standpoint bigger sensor will always give better result.  Here are 2 almost identical shots

 

Rx100

p3380465953-4.jpg

 

Canon 6D

p3401924354-4.jpg

 

Even like this, it is clear second pano is better;  things become more obvious at 100%.   

 

My Rx100 is first gen;  I understand sensor is now different (improved) in later generations.  But of course that comes with the price.  Bottom line is that for under 500$  Rx100 Mk 1 is fantastic overall 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

One more vote for little Sony Rx100.    I got it mainly for hiking/backpacking (big SLR too bulky - save space for food!).   Yes, you can't compare small sensor with full-frame,  but it is still satisfactory.    I like the best 2 features:

 

1)  Auto pano stitching.   In Canon 6D I can't do it.  4 directions, tick-tick-tick and voila

2)  In camera HDR.  6D has this in too, but for me Sony beats it hands down.

 

Examples this evening.  I go for my usual walk, not photo shoot, but put Sony in pocket. Just in case.  And then I get this unreal light:

 

p3409005680-5.jpg

 

I was kicking myself for not having 6D, but this is good too, no?  Not much postprocessing too, and no grain at all. Small sensor and all.  Then the pano;  no effort at all:

 

p3409005679-4.jpg

 

 

And in-camera HDR toning:

p3409005672-5.jpg

 

 

Thank you Rx.   Cost me 499 CAD few yrs back.  Paid for itself in stock manyfold by now.  

 

These are fantastic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to try the sony A6000 because of the image quality.   I ordered it with the kit lens but plan to upgrade it once I'm sure I like the camera.  Will still keep my rx100 M1 to use when I want a really small camera.    Yippee, new gear! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MariaJ said:

I decided to try the sony A6000 because of the image quality.   I ordered it with the kit lens but plan to upgrade it once I'm sure I like the camera.  Will still keep my rx100 M1 to use when I want a really small camera.    Yippee, new gear! 


I had a Micro 4/3rds camera and compared what I got with it and a Sony a3000 (APS-C sensor) and ended up getting rid of the Micro 4/3rds gear and getting the a6000, which I still have.  I have one zoom (55-210mm) and primes (30mm macro, 35mm f/1.8, and the Sony Zeiss 24mm), and two adapted manual focus lenses.   I highly recommend the Sony/Zeiss 24mm if you can afford it.  It's the same angle of view as a 35mm on full frame and also focuses quite close.  The most fragile part of the camera turned out to the the pop-up flash which failed after around three or four years.  I'm not sure the little plastic gismos that point the pop-up flashes straight up are healthy for it (I did use them).  Best hot shoe flashes for it are either the smaller Godox shoe flashes or the Nissin i40 (what I have, though I have Godox for the bigger cameras and for OCF).   The camera will fit in a bigger lumbar pack (bum bag in UK) or in a large purse or tote.   I put wrist straps on my Sonys except for one that has the original neck strap.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MizBrown said:


I had a Micro 4/3rds camera and compared what I got with it and a Sony a3000 (APS-C sensor) and ended up getting rid of the Micro 4/3rds gear and getting the a6000, which I still have.  I have one zoom (55-210mm) and primes (30mm macro, 35mm f/1.8, and the Sony Zeiss 24mm), and two adapted manual focus lenses.   I highly recommend the Sony/Zeiss 24mm if you can afford it.  It's the same angle of view as a 35mm on full frame and also focuses quite close.  The most fragile part of the camera turned out to the the pop-up flash which failed after around three or four years.  I'm not sure the little plastic gismos that point the pop-up flashes straight up are healthy for it (I did use them).  Best hot shoe flashes for it are either the smaller Godox shoe flashes or the Nissin i40 (what I have, though I have Godox for the bigger cameras and for OCF).   The camera will fit in a bigger lumbar pack (bum bag in UK) or in a large purse or tote.   I put wrist straps on my Sonys except for one that has the original neck strap.

 

 

 

Thanks for the tips MizBrown!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/05/2019 at 01:01, MariaJ said:

I decided to try the sony A6000 because of the image quality.

Got two of them. One with 10-18 W/A zoom and the other with 18-135 zoom. Gives me 15-200mm in 35mm speak w/o lens change. Great for 99% of what I do. Got 55-210 zoom as well to give me reach to 315mm. A gear stored out of reach. RX100M3 for pocket and walk about. Never any fails with these cameras. All processing in Adobe Cloud Raw and PS. Don't see a need to upgrade now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hello All - I have found this thread very useful!

 

I shoot a lot of travel photography.

 

I have an RX100 MK II and my traditional DLSR gear of a Nikon D7100 + various lenses which cover a range of ultra wide 8MM through 300MM.

 

I love my RX100 MK II and shoot with it a lot more than the Nikon gear, purely due to the great ease of carrying it.

 

I have some significant trips scheduled later this year (Vegas, Zion National Park, Utah) and am struggling with the idea of carrying all (most) of my heavy Nikon gear or whether to go fully small scale.  

 

I am thinking of upgrading to an RX100 V + an RX100 VI.  This would give me good low light through 70MM and a range of up to 200, all with carrying only the two little Sonys.

 

However, I have severe FOMO (fear of missing out) and am worried about not having my ultra wide - I tend to shoot a lot of travel with my Tokina 11-17 and also have a Nikon 300 that comes in handy.

 

What if I upgraded to an RX100 V + the Lumix ZS200 (optical 24-360 f3.3/6.4)?

 

What would you do?  :)

 

ps.  i also tend to bracket/HDR a lot with the Nikon gear.  The RX100(s) don't bracket, do they?

 

Edited by amycicconi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, amycicconi said:

ps.  i also tend to bracket/HDR a lot with the Nikon gear.  The RX100(s) don't bracket, do they?

 

 

Mine do: mk V and VI. Not on Auto though - I use it in Av mode.

All features compared.

 

wim

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

Mine do: mk V and VI. Not on Auto though - I use it in Av mode.

All features compared.

 

wim

 

 

That's what I'm really leaning towards to be honest.  The RX100s are a known quantity for me that I know are quality cameras and great images.

 

Will I miss the 300mm vs 200mm?  Not sure.  I'm a bit worried about missing the 11-17mm range though.

 

Oh whoops - misread your post.  You were commenting on bracketing, not recommending the V + VI as the suggested combo.  :)  

Even though they do bracketing I'm guessing I'll have a harder time doing handheld bracketing on the RX100s vs the Nikon(I'm pretty steady).

 

Thanks

 

 

Edited by amycicconi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, amycicconi said:

 

That's what I'm really leaning towards to be honest.  The RX100s are a known quantity for me that I know are quality cameras and great images.

 

Will I miss the 300mm vs 200mm?  Not sure.  I'm a bit worried about missing the 11-17mm range though.

 

Oh whoops - misread your post.  You were commenting on bracketing, not recommending the V + VI as the suggested combo.  :)

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Oh but I do 😉

 

The widest end of the VI is mostly computational if you get what I mean.

There probably is some of that with the V going on too, but the result is cleaner in the corners.

In my experience Wifi connection is better in V. The buffer in VI is larger.

In general it can be frustrating using 2 different models side by side, because Sony loves to tinker with the menus. So it's in one panel in mkV, but in a different panel in mkVI.

I wish there was a 12-35mm and a 24-135mm (eq) version. 200mm is nice to have though.

For the wider stuff I carry a A7R2 with a Canon 17mm TSE on a Metabones.

 

wim

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.