Yet another M240 v RX1 review

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The rest is subjective criteria intended to justify the cash laid out for an inferior product by objective standards.

 

The rest isn't subjective criteria to justify the cash I laid out for the M. I own both. I like both. It is simply subjective.

 

The list of your measures and functionality is just YOUR subjective view of some measured, some personal, and some just flat out untrue points that all have nothing to do with why, in the end, the M makes better looking photos IMO. I will agree that technologically, the RX1 is a marvel.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[macjonny1]

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Sorry barjohn but I've owned the RX1 and it has great IQ but too bulky with EVF, poor AF, poor battery life. It needs at least integrated EVF then I would buy it again. Right now it's too much P&S and too lacking in many areas. It's a good first attempt...the value will drop like a rock when the new one comes.

[Rick]

Sorry barjohn but I've owned the RX1 and it has great IQ but too bulky with EVF, poor AF, poor battery life. It needs at least integrated EVF then I would buy it again. Right now it's too much P&S and too lacking in many areas. It's a good first attempt...the value will drop like a rock when the new one comes.

 

Did you sell yours? I thought you really liked that camera.

[Guest tanks]

...

 

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.

 

Well, I can take better portraits, and head shots with my 90/135mm on an M system, than I can on a RX-1:p

 

In other words, apples and oranges. You are lauding a fixed lens point and shoot, and comparing it to a camera system. As others have mentioned a proper comparison would be to X-2.

[macjonny1]

 

Did you sell yours? I thought you really liked that camera.

 

It was a nice cam but I sold it because I originally got it in a trade and I am using my DSLR more this summer for sports. Needed the money for something else as well. Rather than let it sit and depreciate while not using it I figured I would pick up one later when it's a bit cheaper. Fantastic IQ though...fun to use. Battery is annoying and I need to get some more for my pocket when/if i get another. I did keep my 49mm clear and ND filters though! What I would really like is one with integrated EVF as it was a bit clunky in my bag that would be awesome. Even if AF stays the same. That's just my preference though!

[digitalfx]

anyone that claims they bought the RX1 over the M purely because it was a better camera is full of sh*t. They bought the RX1 because it was cheaper, period. The RX1 although a fine fine camera is still a point a shoot. It does not compete with the M system at all. The RX1 vs X2 is the comparison that should be made. These are competing cameras.

The RX1 should be considered a complement to an M system, not a competitor. As others have pointed out, it makes a great second camera for an M owner.

[Ozkar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

anyone that claims they bought the RX1 over the M purely because it was a better camera is full of sh*t. They bought the RX1 because it was cheaper, period. The RX1 although a fine fine camera is still a point a shoot. It does not compete with the M system at all. The RX1 vs X2 is the comparison that should be made. These are competing cameras.

The RX1 should be considered a complement to an M system, not a competitor. As others have pointed out, it makes a great second camera for an M owner.

 

I fall somewhere in between. I bought the RX1 to complement my M9 for my 35mm focal length. The lens on the RX1 is without a doubt the best 35mm lens I have owned on this format. And I have owned every 35mm lens for the M mount that is worth owning (CRONS IV and ASPH, LUX PRE and FLE, HEX UC and many more). Some M mount 35's get somethings right and somethings wrong, but the lens on the RX1 is near perfect. It's sharp from wide open, sharp across the frame from f4, and the bokeh is sublime. I sold my 35 FLE for $5k and bought the RX1 for a bit over half the proceeds, and it is a much better lens in every way.

 

Now, while I don't see the RX1 as an all out replacement for an M240. Having both the RX1 and an M9 means that I have little interest in the M240.

[Rick]

It was a nice cam but I sold it because I originally got it in a trade and I am using my DSLR more this summer for sports. Needed the money for something else as well. Rather than let it sit and depreciate while not using it I figured I would pick up one later when it's a bit cheaper. Fantastic IQ though...fun to use. Battery is annoying and I need to get some more for my pocket when/if i get another. I did keep my 49mm clear and ND filters though! What I would really like is one with integrated EVF as it was a bit clunky in my bag that would be awesome. Even if AF stays the same. That's just my preference though!

 

It was fun to own for a while wasn't it? I agree with you. I am now starting to see that the EFV that clips onto a camera like the M and the RX1 is going to be looked back at in the near future as a kludge. How cool will it be when the state of the art allows for this to easily fit into the body of the M or the RX1?

 

At some point if I can get a camera the size of the RX1 with interchangeable, autofocus Zeiss lenses - I'll be done with Leica. But, the lenses will need to be as good as the Zeiss RX1 and the current Leica lenses catalog - that probably won't happen soon.

 

By the way, the bokeh of the Zeiss lens in the RX1 is really smooth. The only thing a don't like about the Leica 35FLE is the background specular highlight OOF rendering. Hate it. Avoid it.

 

Cheers

[charlesphoto99]

anyone that claims they bought the RX1 over the M purely because it was a better camera is full of sh*t. They bought the RX1 because it was cheaper, period. The RX1 although a fine fine camera is still a point a shoot. It does not compete with the M system at all. The RX1 vs X2 is the comparison that should be made. These are competing cameras.

The RX1 should be considered a complement to an M system, not a competitor. As others have pointed out, it makes a great second camera for an M owner.

 

I seriously doubt anyone buys the RX1 because it's cheaper than an M. It's actually quite expensive if compared to Fuji and even Sony's other cameras. If spending almost $3K on a fixed lens p&s style camera then going for an M probably isn't that much of a stretch. They buy it because there's this whole new market of well heeled amateurs with disposable cash that buy (and then often sell) whatever's the latest greatest. Of course even in film days this was the case but now with product cycles in months vs years the camera companies are cashing in. The r&d they have to invest in gets forwarded into the next best/better thing. I'm sure the RX2/3/4 ad nasuem will have some selling off their M240's like hotcakes (and that might be the time for me to pick one up). It doesn't really matter what's better/cheaper/faster - it's our current state of never being happy with what is. Just see the thread(s) about Huff buying and selling again and again and again.... btw I can be as guilty as the best though quite happy sticking with my M9's for a long while. I do have my eye on the new Ricoh though.

[digitalfx]

I seriously doubt anyone buys the RX1 because it's cheaper than an M. It's actually quite expensive if compared to Fuji and even Sony's other cameras. If spending almost $3K on a fixed lens p&s style camera then going for an M probably isn't that much of a stretch.

 

Thats not what I meant. My comment was in response to several people saying the RX1 is a direct competitor to the M. I was saying if you bought a RX1 because you felt it was equal to an M, then price was a factor in that decision.

 

BTW- 3k vs 9-10k for an M system is a bit of a stretch. An M purchase is 3X the price.

[colonel]

I am now starting to see that the EFV that clips onto a camera like the M and the RX1 is going to be looked back at in the near future as a kludge.

 

 

disagree

the clipon EVF is ideal. Firstly its not bulky, it fits in the tiniest of bags (whilst connected to the RX1). Secondly, it can be detached when you want an even smaller device. the option is wonderful. A built-in EVF would either make the entire top, or side of the camera bigger.

 

I find this discussion quite purile.

The RX1 is one of the best cameras currently in existence, a real all time classic, just face it.

also the AF comments are simply wrong, the AF is very accurate, its just appreciably slower wide open in lower light.

And the shutter is completely silent, etc.

 

But it doesn't have interchangeable lenses, f1.4, MF as good as a Leica RF (which no camera does IMHO), etc.

 

I am not sure that a comparison with the M240 is useful - its apples and oranges.

 

Of course if you only buy the M240 with one lens ever, a 35mm Summicron (which I have known people to do) and fancy AF then you should consider whether you should buy the RX1 instead, but for everyone else its a needs/wants/means/requirements discussion.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

- Douglas Adams

[charlesphoto99]

Thats not what I meant. My comment was in response to several people saying the RX1 is a direct competitor to the M. I was saying if you bought a RX1 because you felt it was equal to an M, then price was a factor in that decision.

 

BTW- 3k vs 9-10k for an M system is a bit of a stretch. An M purchase is 3X the price.

 

I see what you mean. But of course all cameras are a direct competitor to the new M because one can walk into a camera store and walk out with any of those (or press buy online) and one can't with the M, maybe for even upwards of a year. I just think that there's a big stretch for most people to go from $1k or less to $3K for a standalone camera vs $3K to $10K for a system camera. People willing to spend $3K on a RX1 probably aren't pinching their pennies.

 

Personally I find the Ricoh GR or the Nikon Coolpix A more appealing, not only from a price standpoint, but also from a true pocket ability one (otherwise I'll just take my M9 or MM). Actually one of the funnest cameras I own is the Nikon J1 with its 10mm pancake lens. Not the world's greatest iq but not bad either and the AF is blazing fast and it's great for snapshots and family movies. No EVF, but EVF's make me seasick.

[Rick]

disagree

the clipon EVF is ideal. Firstly its not bulky, it fits in the tiniest of bags (whilst connected to the RX1). Secondly, it can be detached when you want an even smaller device. the option is wonderful. A built-in EVF would either make the entire top, or side of the camera bigger.

 

I find this discussion quite purile.

The RX1 is one of the best cameras currently in existence, a real all time classic, just face it.

also the AF comments are simply wrong, the AF is very accurate, its just appreciably slower wide open in lower light.

And the shutter is completely silent, etc.

 

But it doesn't have interchangeable lenses, f1.4, MF as good as a Leica RF (which no camera does IMHO), etc.

 

I am not sure that a comparison with the M240 is useful - its apples and oranges.

 

Of course if you only buy the M240 with one lens ever, a 35mm Summicron (which I have known people to do) and fancy AF then you should consider whether you should buy the RX1 instead, but for everyone else its a needs/wants/means/requirements discussion.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

- Douglas Adams

 

I disagree. Who will want a clip on EVF when the technology will allow it to be in the camera with no size penalty. Actually, the technology exists now in a camera that has an optical viewfinder that changes into an EVF.

 

I don't think the conversation here is childish (puerile - I believe that is what you meant) at all. Nobody is saying the RX1 isn't an amazing camera - quite the opposite. I believe people (myself) are just stating that it is not realistic to compare it to the M they are too different.

[macjonny1]

An integrated VF wouldn't take up much more space, and it's already small enough. The lens is still fairly big and it's not fitting in my pocket anyway so may as well get rid of the external VF. Plus, I'm already compromising size because i always had the hood on which makes it bigger but also made me look Eurocool (most important).

[Rick]

An integrated VF wouldn't take up much more space, and it's already small enough. The lens is still fairly big and it's not fitting in my pocket anyway so may as well get rid of the external VF. Plus, I'm already compromising size because i always had the hood on which makes it bigger but also made me look Eurocool (most important).

 

Yes, I can understand that you certainly don't want to look like Euro-trash in Eastern Washington.

[colonel]

. I believe people (myself) are just stating that it is not realistic to compare it to the M they are too different.

 

I agree, my point too

 

However I think an inbuilt EVF would make the RX1 appreciably bigger

Just think about the eye glass and where they would put it. It would be at least the size of the X100

[Rick]

I agree, my point too

 

However I think an inbuilt EVF would make the RX1 appreciably bigger

Just think about the eye glass and where they would put it. It would be at least the size of the X100

 

I wouldn't mind a viewfinder in the RX1 if, it stayed small. By the way, I love my RX1. I have been using it the last 3 weeks a lot while my M is in Solms. I stated some time ago that I came to Leica M8 from my GRX in 2007. I actually hadn't heard of Leica cameras for the most part before that. I saw the M8 and 28 Cron as a small digital camera that would give me better and at least acceptable image quality in a small form factor. So, I jumped to the M8 and figured a FF was right around the corner.

 

Had the RX1 been around I would have never got myself into the Leica M rabbit hole. I love the optics of the M, but I could see myself getting back to something like an interchangeable RX1. And, by the way, I can shoot the RX1 at 12800 ISO and that at least matches my old M8 at 1200! The RX1 is amazing. And, I don't have a problem with the AF, either - it is fast in good light and a little slow and hit and miss in dim light, but so am I with my M.

[douglasf13]

As a one time Nex-5n w/ EVF, NEX-7, M9 owner, as well as being someone seriously considering the RX1, I have mixed feelings about the detachable EVF vs. a built-in EVF.

 

detachable EVF Pros:

1) Being able to remove the EVF makes the camera smaller, so it's nice to have the camera as small as possible when out and about during my day, when the EVF isn't a necessity. When I go out for more deliberate shooting, when size isn't as much of an issue, I can just clip on the EVF.

 

2) The tilt feature of the EVF is a huge plus. I really like shooting with it at 45 degrees, like my Hasselblad prism finder. It is also great for using either eye.

 

3) I think that the optics of my NEX-5N's EVF were a little better than in my NEX-7, since they have more room to work with the design.

 

4) Sony could potentially release improved EVF models, so one could upgrade to newer tech without replacing the whole camera, which is particularly useful when the camera is fixed lens, future proofing it a bit. Who knows if Sony would actually do that, though??

 

5) At least in Sony's current cameras, they've been leaving off the EVF on/off button on the built-in models, forcing you to menu dive for that feature. It may not continue like that in the future, but it annoyed me with the NEX-5N vs. NEX-7.

 

integrated EVF pros:

1) The detachable EVF can catch on things, since it is a bit of an appendage, so the integrated EVF is smoother and cleaner.

 

2) The integrated EVF gives a camera profile that is easier to pack.

 

3) The detachable EVF just seems a little flimsy.

 

 

Even though the detachable EVF has more pros in my list, I think they balance pretty evenly in overall use. I was excited to move from the NEX-5N to the NEX-7, partly because of the built-in EVF, but found that it wasn't as big of an advantage as I expected.

 

I think the bigger issue to me is that Sony left out a tilt LCD on the RX1. That is super handy.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IWC Doppel]

I have not been convinced by the rendering of the M240 yet, but the Sony looks even more in the 'wrong' direction to me. The M240 looks part M9, Part Sony in rendering. I know some will talk about set up white balance, saturation etc. But the shots I took with the M240 missed the rendering I love from the CCD sensor and no amount of torturing in LR4 could bring the files to look as 'filmic'.

 

I really don't mind how 'sharp' or smooth (characterless?) the bokeh is of the Sony, on side by side shots, I'd take the M240 every time.

[Appmax]

Waiting to get my new M has been quite expensive. I have bought a couple of lenses, including a Leica 35mm FLE. Yesterday I bought a RX-1. I haven't opened it yet. My thinking was that I would take it with me to many places I might not take my M (whenever it arrives). I actually like that it uses a USB to charge. That way I can grab, go and charge in the car, etc.

 

I also thought that I may like to have two cameras in my bag. The RX-1 and a camera with telephoto. I definitely want the M for my Noctilux, The soft bokeh can't be beat. I may by the Olympus EP-5 so I can turn my 135 3.4 into an iS 270 lens.

 

Can anyone using the RX-1 comment on the portrait bokeh? I know that f2 35mm limits the natural bokeh. However, you can focus the RX-1 much closer. At close in range, the bokeh seems impressive.

 

Thoughts? Should I open the box and keep or return?

 

P.S. the Sony store has a promotion taking 15% off the RX-1 if you bought the EVF. Thus, the EVF was free. I figured I should snap the deal up and can return unopened later if I change my mind.