Sony RX1 Lens Distortion

I also use my lenses without filters. But if you can't imagine shooting without protection, I wonder if a step up ring might work...like a 49-58 and then a 58mm filter. If the problem is only the edges, just move the edges out of the frame. It's just a thought and I don't know if it would work, but it's good to know it's not the camera.
 
is there some reason i dont understand where a stepup ring is better than a small hood? the hood i use adds vortually no bulk to the rig and provides pretty complete protection. what protection does a stepup ring offer that some might value more highly?
 
oh i see, thank you, i honestly didnt understand it as id seen a couple of stepup recommendations as what i thought were alternate to the hood suggestion.

imo, this thread provides pretty overwhelming evidence in the perennial 'filter vs non filter' debate. unless designed to achieve a particular effect, i find no convincing argument for shooting the highest quality, most highly engineered optics through another, by definition, low quality nonengineered simple piece of glass. like wrapping your turbo engine in plastic, it just aint gonna perform to its spec.
 
Personally I find the argument that it's better to scratch or break a filter than the lens itself pretty convincing (doubly so on a fixed lens camera), especially if using the camera regularly as a "take everywhere" tool. I'd definitely only use a high quality filter on the RX1 though.
 
I don't wish to hijack the thread, but there's some interesting links on this page that show the negligible effects of lenses with scratched front elements. Do small scratches on lens effect IQ? . In the end, people need to make the choices they are comfortable with. Some feel better with an extra piece of glass in the way. Others will trust all the modern high-tech protective coatings on modern lenses. Regarding the original post, if you plan on placing a human on the edge of the frame, best to take off the filter for the shot.
 
I get that argument if I thought it was effective, but if you hit something hard enough to break a filter that's no more than a few mm from the lens, you're still likely to hit the lens and add a bunch of broken filter glass to whatever else is hitting the lens. Which may or may not make it worse, but it could make it worse and couldn't make it better... I've been walking around with lenses protected by lens hoods and no filters for years and have yet to have any problems. I've ended up with some nicks and scratches on the edges of my lens hoods, but not on the glass. And when I'm not shooting for long periods or when I put the lens back in the case, I put the cap on it...

-Ray
 
It's all right tool for the job, that's all. If you're sitting in front of a waterfall or hiking through brush getting spray or crud on your lens, a filter is a lot easier to clean. On the other hand, for what I shoot (urban and eastern woodlands camping) I can get by just fine with a hood for protection when I'm shooting and a lens cap when it's in the bag.

IMO nobody is right or wrong in the "filter debate" per se.

Some lenses act oddly or poorly with certain filters, and some setups exacerbate the effects. The RX1 is quite flare resistant normally, but my experience with putting a simple ND filter on the front was that it created some ugly reflected flare & haze shooting towards the sun that disappeared without the filter. In other cases, a filter on the front of a lens might have a negligible effect and be effectively impossible to notice.

Also, Ray mentioned this earlier but for the RX1 I also highly recommend the Hoocap. It's both bayonet hood and lens cap in one, so it protects my lens all the time as a cap and with a simple pull it turns into a hood, ready to shoot. Plus I no longer have the constant problem of trying to figure out what I did with the lens cap :D
 
Yeah, I'm starting to see why some people are against filters. But strangely I have never noticed anything with the Canon 35 mm prime and its filter (same type as I use in my RX1), although I've never done Filter on/off test with the canon (I'm curious, maybe I should).

As jloden mentioned, it could be the way the RX1's lens is physically constructed, combined with the filter ring size creates some kind of 'photonic resonance', like the swaying and crumbling bridge effect in an earthquake .... sounds like a star trek weapon

By the way I deleted the test result images as the conclusion has been reached.

Thx for the hoocap, looks interesting and worth trying.
 
Yeah, I'm starting to see why some people are against filters. But strangely I have never noticed anything with the Canon 35 mm prime and its filter (same type as I use in my RX1), although I've never done Filter on/off test with the canon (I'm curious, maybe I should).

As jloden mentioned, it could be the way the RX1's lens is physically constructed, combined with the filter ring size creates some kind of 'photonic resonance', like the swaying and crumbling bridge effect in an earthquake .... sounds like a star trek weapon

[...]

One thing that's different with the RX1... if you've ever seen the exploded view, the lens assembly takes up more than half the camera body depth, and the lens is very close to the sensor. This is presumably similar to the Leica design with microlenses that are expecting a very specific & straight-on approach to the sensor. With that being the case, it's possible a filter on the front bending the light has more optical impact than on an SLR setup with a much larger flange back distance .

Just conjecture on my part, I'm very much not an expert or even particularly well versed in optics :D
 
Well this has been a very enlightening thread and I've been following it the last few days.

I'd like to thank moiler for having the courage to post the original question and then follow it to a conclusion.
I have a similar if not identical filter on my DP2 Merrill also bought in a similar fashion as moiler's.

I do wonder where the issue is, and why just adding a simple filter has caused the image to distort laterally seems odd? I am just speculation but does this filter contain some kind of nano particles in the glass?
I will do some testing with my DP2M to see if I can detect anything. I also have an ancient genuine Olympus Zuiko 49mm from 1980 that I will try also. Perhaps they made filters different back then?
 
i dont know, im really not at all surprised. look at the difference removing an AA filter makes on resulting images. filters are foreign objects that are designed to make money for filter makers, not to enhance your gears image making ability. it seems axiomatic in the world of the reproduction sciences that the more 'stuff' you put between the equipment scientifically engineered to reproduce and the source to be reproduced, the more degraded the reproduction. therefore, to the extent there is an effect from these foreign objects, it can only be negative.
 
The idea for me was to use the filter as a kind of clear lens cap.
Like a lens cap it would offer some dust protection but enable me to leave the camera without lens cap on, ready to be used.
I could then quickly power up and shoot if I saw something.

This is what the auto lens shade shutters on cameras like the Ricoh GR offer.
If it affects IQ in any way then it goes, this is where opinions seem to differ.
 
i use a lens hood without a cap when im shooting. it fully protects the lens, except from a projectile, and can be used the same way you want--power up and shoot, without possibility of effect on IQ.

there is no 'dust protection', in that dust per se does not damage a lens by alighting upon it. it will alight upon a filter and effect a picture exactly the same way as if it alights upon a naked lens.

now, if youre in a dust storm or a windy beach or desert or some extreme condition, then sure, the lens needs protection. but everyday, dont see it. ive never scratched a lens in thirty years of photography.
 
Back
Top