FYI - from serious compacts - rx1 impressions from Ray Sachs

[GaryLH]

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f38/day-city-rx1-17632/

As I mentioned yesterday, Ray has posted his comments about the rx1. Man those Picts look good..

Gary

 

[danielsterno]

Gary- Thanks for sharing. I know of Ray from DPReview and follow his work on Flickr- he can make most camera's sing- I almost bought a OMD because of Ray's endorsement of the it....-dan'l

 

[back alley]

impressive images...he's very good.

 

[GaryLH]

impressive images...he's very good.

Yep.. I would tend to agree he can make any camera sing. I wish I was even half as good as he is. His reviews are really from a photographer's perspective.

Gary

 

[awilder]

It's the digital version of the Contax T3, at least in terms of IQ.

 

[Keith]

Great images and really shows the competence of the camera. Though I have to say I don't particularly like his post processing of the black and white conversions ... a couple of them border on an HDR look.

 

[awbphotog]

I'll have to agree with Keith. I don't even find his images that compelling, and am completely turned off from them when I see over processing. How could anyone think that this looks good?

sorry, not your image to post...mod

 

[Samouraï]

Looks a bit more like a pencil drawing than a photograph. But yes, excessive manipulation.

 

[jsrockit]

Looks a bit more like a pencil drawing than a photograph. But yes, excessive manipulation.

What is a photograph supposed to look like? Like this only forever?

😉

 

[Keith]

What is a photograph supposed to look like? Like this only forever?

😉

I don't get your point at all John?

 

[jsrockit]

Keith, that is the first photograph made... I think you get that. My point is that everyone assumes photography is supposed to look like what they prefer in photography. Photography can look like whatever anyone makes it to look like. If we only stuck with what photography original was supposed to be, then we'd all look like Niepce perhaps. 😉

 

[Keith]

Keith, that is the first photograph made... I think you get that. My point is that everyone assumes photography is supposed to look like what they prefer in photography. Photography can look like whatever anyone makes it to look like. If we only stuck with what photography original was supposed to be, then we'd all look like Niepce perhaps. 😉

Oh ... I see your point now but in this case I think people aren't looking to see some individual's interpretation of how a digital black and white image should look to their eyes. We're dealing with the output from a very expensive camera here and people expect to see what it can do in certain situations ... not what some over enthusiastic post processing jockey can do in lightroom or whatever.

I still think that particular example is godawful and nothing will convince me otherwise ... he shouldn't have posted it in the review.

 

[jsrockit]

Oh ... I see your point now but in this case I think people aren't looking to see some individual's interpretation of how a digital black and white image should look to their eyes. We're dealing with the output from a very expensive camera here and people expect to see what it can do in certain situations ... not what some over enthusiastic post processing jockey can do in lightroom or whatever.

I still think that particular example is godawful and nothing will convince me otherwise ... he shouldn't have posted it in the review.

I can understand that Keith. Sometimes, I think the best way to see what a camera truly looks like is to look at the worst photos on the internet from it. 😀

 

[Filson Back]

The processing has a lot of kinship with the high-contrast visual language that Japanese street photographers, Trent Parke, and many others have used. I don't like quite how he does it, but I see where it comes from.