jrp Posted May 20, 2013 Share #1 Posted May 20, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sony RX1 v Leica M 240 | Tobinators 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 Hi jrp, Take a look here Yet another M240 v RX1 review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
michali Posted May 20, 2013 Share #2 Posted May 20, 2013 Nicely written review; I recently bought myself an RX1 which I carry on trips as a back up for my M9. The RX1 is a neat little camera and it delivers amazing results. I took it on safari with me to Botswana this month and used it for some landscape shots around sunset and very early mornings, I'm impressed! The RX1 files needed very little tweaking in low light, unlike the M9 files. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted May 20, 2013 Share #3 Posted May 20, 2013 Gotta love a review of a new camera tethered to the dealers store. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJB Posted May 20, 2013 Share #4 Posted May 20, 2013 Pretty fair review though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted May 20, 2013 Share #5 Posted May 20, 2013 Pretty fair review though. Well that depends, I would rather read a review from someone that spent more than 30 minutes tethered to a dealer. How can you "fairly" review anything under those conditions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted May 21, 2013 Share #6 Posted May 21, 2013 Trying out the camera in the shop can only tell you so much -- but it's still a useful comparison. I think this bit is revealing: "Above you can see that the RX1 missed focus slightly and the focal plane is on the chap’s shirt rather than on his face where I positioned the focus square. I was using the centre focus point option and then recomposed, so it’s possible the focus & recompose caused the issue but I did the same with the Leica so I think it’s the very bright background which spooked the RX1 which is looking for contrasty edges. I usually have the camera in DMF mode and should have checked the focus using the focus peaking feature – I’ll have to remind myself to do that against bright backgrounds in future. I found that I could focus with the Leica a bit, though not much, slower than the RX1 would focus. And with the Leica you know if you’ve got it right so no chimping required...." For me, focus is crucial. With people I try to focus on the eyes. Not always easy. Would AF be better? Hmm...perhaps not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted May 21, 2013 Share #7 Posted May 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Trying out the camera in the shop can only tell you so much -- but it's still a useful comparison. I think this bit is revealing:"Above you can see that the RX1 missed focus slightly and the focal plane is on the chap’s shirt rather than on his face where I positioned the focus square. I was using the centre focus point option and then recomposed, so it’s possible the focus & recompose caused the issue but I did the same with the Leica so I think it’s the very bright background which spooked the RX1 which is looking for contrasty edges. I usually have the camera in DMF mode and should have checked the focus using the focus peaking feature – I’ll have to remind myself to do that against bright backgrounds in future. I found that I could focus with the Leica a bit, though not much, slower than the RX1 would focus. And with the Leica you know if you’ve got it right so no chimping required...." For me, focus is crucial. With people I try to focus on the eyes. Not always easy. Would AF be better? Hmm...perhaps not. Again, your going to base this on someone shooting review pics out the front door of the store? There is no way you can properly evaluate any camera in a few hours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted May 21, 2013 Share #8 Posted May 21, 2013 No, I am not taking it as final proof, more like an indication of fundamental differences between the two cameras. AF vs. MF focusing would be a major area to evaluate. I agree this review is cursory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billo101 Posted May 22, 2013 Share #9 Posted May 22, 2013 I prefer RX1. b Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pop Posted May 22, 2013 Share #10 Posted May 22, 2013 The RX1 is a nice camera, no doubt. Sony would have had a much bigger success on their hands, in my opinion, if they would have put an integrated viewfinder in it like the Fuji X100 or X20 even. Despite being full frame, this would have been possible within the same basic footprint; as a fixed lens camera this makes sense. The RX1 optical and electronic viewfinders are after-the-fact affairs (which is also why I'm not a big fan of the X1 and X2...) and they detract from the compact design. No camera that has this cost and capability should ever be held away from your face like an iphone to take pictures. It's completely ridiculous. Everything else about the Sony is great; this one feature (or lack thereof) is a complete deal breaker for me. It shows Sony's bias as a consumer electronics manufacturer rather than a camera manufacturer (and the consumer electronics mentality is sadly dominating the camera business now...arguments about the 'necessity' of live view and debates over incremental differences in sensor size are proof of this). 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanetomlane Posted May 22, 2013 Share #11 Posted May 22, 2013 I thought this was a fair and well written review. I'm still waiting for the elusive M but do have an RX1. I do love the RX1 but find it slow to come alive from sleep and also the autofocus is by no means the fastest. I don't have the limited battery capability issue that other people have mentioned, but there again, coming from film, I don't use a camera like a machine gun. I have had two M8s and currently have an M9 (which I intend to keep when the M arrives) and certainly appreciate that Leica feel when using the rangefinder. Unlike a lot of people I am happy to have both the Sony and the Leica and feel there is room for both in my photographic world. I love the Leicas for serious photography and find that the Sony is the first compact camera I've had for travel (read business travel) photography which can produce outstanding results. Other compact camera I've had, such as the D-Lux 4 are just incapable of producing large enough prints for my needs. I found the Sony's evf strange at first but I'm slowing getting used to it (I only use it for composition) and much prefer the Leica's rangefinder. Will be interesting to see how I get on with the M's evf (I'll probably get one) compared with the Sony. I think I've read that most people rate the Sony one higher than the Olympus and so my expectations are not too high. Please appreciate that all of the above is just my humble opinion. ______________________ Regards, Tom Photography by Tom Lane 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1JB Posted May 22, 2013 Share #12 Posted May 22, 2013 The RX1 is the type of camera that the M should have been with the rangefinder and Leica glass as the icing on the cake. Why Leica couldn't do this is beyond me. Throw in an autofocus lens with the ability to interchange the Lecia glass and the waiting list for the M would have been endless. Instead we deal with no firmware upgrades for the M9, color issues for the M and lugs falling off cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 22, 2013 Share #13 Posted May 22, 2013 Please, guys, the RX1 is a camera with the lens designed as a unit with the sensor, which gives huge scope for corrections. How anybody can think that this concept of the ultimate compact - which it possibly is- is in any way transferable to a system camera like the M is quite beyond me. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1JB Posted May 22, 2013 Share #14 Posted May 22, 2013 Please, guys, the RX1 is a camera with the lens designed as a unit with the sensor, which gives huge scope for corrections. How anybody can think that this concept of the ultimate compact - which it possibly is- is in any way transferable to a system camera like the M is quite beyond me. Obviously there must be serious technical hurdles when it comes to compact cameras with full frame sensors and interchangeable lenses but the M isn't that much of a system camera to begin with. Realistically you're going from 28mm to 90 with perfect adjustment. I can shoot with a 35 or 50 all day long and crop for everything except the largest prints even with the 18mp sensor of my M9. So the limitation of a fixed lens isn't that big a disadvantage in comparison to the range of lenses available for the M "system." When you consider the cost of the M "system" with 3 lenses you could use something like the RX1 with a 35 and another with a 90 and still not spend as much as you would on the M body alone. If the RX1 was available with a 90 or 135 I'd sooner buy it than a 90 or 135 M lens. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michali Posted May 22, 2013 Share #15 Posted May 22, 2013 (edited) I've used Leicas continuously since the early 1970s. After having used the RX1 on my last African safari,and having seen the results, I can't wait for Sony to bring out an RX** with the ability to change lenses, or it may be a full frame successor to the NEX7. This combination with Leica glass would be a killer! For a couple of years now I've been using my R lenses converted with Leitax mounts, on a Sony Alpha 850 with great results. Given Sony's new sensors it can only get better- there is talk of Sony releasing a FF camera with no anti-aliasing filter in the near future. Edited May 22, 2013 by michali 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michali Posted May 22, 2013 Share #16 Posted May 22, 2013 Unlike a lot of people I am happy to have both the Sony and the Leica and feel there is room for both in my photographic world. I love the Leicas for serious photography and find that the Sony is the first compact camera I've had for travel (read business travel) photography which can produce outstanding results. Other compact camera I've had, such as the D-Lux 4 are just incapable of producing large enough prints for my needs.Photography by Tom Lane Exactly my feelings on this Tom! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 22, 2013 Share #17 Posted May 22, 2013 Warning: Rant ahead. Shoot me now. The RX1 does not compare well at all against the M240, M9, or a current DSLR. It does compare well to a point and shoot. Images and the ability to obtain images are superior on any of the three listed cameras to the Sony RX1. For example, if you shoot a day's worth of pictures with the M and with the RX1, when you get home and look at them you will find many more outstanding photographs from the M. The M photos will have the pop (contrast) and color and the wow factor compared to the more mediocre and average looking photos from the RX1. The M lenses may not have quite as perfect sharpness in the edges as the 35mm Zeiss designed as an integral system with the RX1's sensor, but the image will, overall, still look better than the RX1. There really is something about the Leica lenses that create better photos. The M will catch more photos in focus and the RX1 will flat out miss photos because of the auto focus and the camera's inability to easily change manual focus when needed. The RX1 is not designed to be shot manually any where near as competently as the M. The M is at the ready, hold it up to your eye, make a small correction of DOF by bumping the focus tacitly, and shoot instantly - no lag. You can put an M lens on other cameras, but they still find themselves lacking the M's ability to focus quickly and accurately. M lenses may well work on other bodies, but they are not RF coupled. You are going to have to rely on EVF focusing and peeking - ok, but no thanks. The RX1 also doesn't compare to the top of the line DSLR cameras because a DSLR has a wonderful optical view and excels in instant autofocus. The RX1 doesn't even come close. Add all the system lenses from the DSLR catalogue and the RX1 falls behind again. So, IMHO, you can't compare the RX1 to the M or a DSLR - the RX1 just gets trounced. But, it does make wonderful DxO charts (second best sensor) and the RX1 takes wonderful (the best) photos of brick walls and it makes beautiful MTF charts. But, remember, it is called the Cybershot RX1. It is a point and shoot. It is the best PAS. And, when you don't need fast focus, system lenses, and conditions favor a PAS - it can often edge past all 35mm cameras, including the M and D800, and produce just amazing photos. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted May 22, 2013 Share #18 Posted May 22, 2013 agreed, and i think you can add the m9 to that argument as well.......i really don't understand the rx-1 vs m comparison -- isn't the correct one rx1 vs leica x2? fixed 35mm lens, similar price, etc? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 22, 2013 Share #19 Posted May 22, 2013 agreed, and i think you can add the m9 to that argument as well.......i really don't understand the rx-1 vs m comparison -- isn't the correct one rx1 vs leica x2? fixed 35mm lens, similar price, etc? Agreed. And, I did include it at the beginning of the post. Also, I should mention that I have owned the RX1 since January. I can get better pictures with it at higher ISO and sometimes I get technically better pictures than my M240. But, I wouldn't use it as my primary, for example, on a travel holiday where I would want 3-4 lenses with me. The M240 is better suited for that and I would take better pictures with the M system. If, however, I went out to dinner with a group while on vacation and we were walking around at night - I'd take only the RX1. Or, if I primarily used a DSLR maybe with long lenses, the RX1 would probably make a better second camera with its excellent 35mm fixed focal length, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted May 22, 2013 Share #20 Posted May 22, 2013 Warning: Rant ahead. Shoot me now. The RX1 does not compare well at all against the M240, M9, or a current DSLR. It does compare well to a point and shoot. Images and the ability to obtain images are superior on any of the three listed cameras to the Sony RX1. For example, if you shoot a day's worth of pictures with the M and with the RX1, when you get home and look at them you will find many more outstanding photographs from the M. The M photos will have the pop (contrast) and color and the wow factor compared to the more mediocre and average looking photos from the RX1. The M lenses may not have quite as perfect sharpness in the edges as the 35mm Zeiss designed as an integral system with the RX1's sensor, but the image will, overall, still look better than the RX1. There really is something about the Leica lenses that create better photos. The M will catch more photos in focus and the RX1 will flat out miss photos because of the auto focus and the camera's inability to easily change manual focus when needed. The RX1 is not designed to be shot manually any where near as competently as the M. The M is at the ready, hold it up to your eye, make a small correction of DOF by bumping the focus tacitly, and shoot instantly - no lag. You can put an M lens on other cameras, but they still find themselves lacking the M's ability to focus quickly and accurately. M lenses may well work on other bodies, but they are not RF coupled. You are going to have to rely on EVF focusing and peeking - ok, but no thanks. The RX1 also doesn't compare to the top of the line DSLR cameras because a DSLR has a wonderful optical view and excels in instant autofocus. The RX1 doesn't even come close. Add all the system lenses from the DSLR catalogue and the RX1 falls behind again. So, IMHO, you can't compare the RX1 to the M or a DSLR - the RX1 just gets trounced. But, it does make wonderful DxO charts (second best sensor) and the RX1 takes wonderful (the best) photos of brick walls and it makes beautiful MTF charts. But, remember, it is called the Cybershot RX1. It is a point and shoot. It is the best PAS. And, when you don't need fast focus, system lenses, and conditions favor a PAS - it can often edge past all 35mm cameras, including the M and D800, and produce just amazing photos. All of your rants about AF vs MF is like a politician answering a different question than the one asked. When it comes to IQ, the RX-1 wins on ALL of the important measures: 1. Better dynamic range 2. Better color depth 3. More accurate color 4. Cleaner ISO at any ISO including ISO levels the M(240) can't reach 5. Better detail/resolution center to corner at its focal length of 35mm Then looking at the camera functionality: 1. AF is faster for changing subjects changing distance with more keepers than the MF M(240) or M9 2. LCD is superior for live view use with faster refresh and better resolution, contrast and overall performance 3. EVF is far superior for live view and focusing use 4. Video is far superior 5. NONE of the build quality problems yet less than 1/3 the cost 6. None of the sensor problems such as banding, pixel row or column failures, dirty sensors on new, etc. 7. More modern electronics and processor with higher performance 8. No SD card issues and problems Those are all simple factual differences that favor the RX-1. The rest is subjective criteria intended to justify the cash laid out for an inferior product by objective standards. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now