Any Thoughts on How the New Sony RX1R II with 42mp Will Compare?

[Viv1857]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is a much better discussion of the dpreview test on the Fred Miranda forums.

 

I think the conclusion was that it makes a difference only if you shoot flat objects at short distances. Rishi from dpr defends the test on SAr but also notes that it is not representative of what one would experience at infinity - ie landscapes.

 

In any case the test doesn't help people like me who remain on the fence until i see some in-the-field comparative reviews. Pixel peeping in corners was never a consideration when I first ordered the q (actually the corrected distortion looks a little unattractive if you do peep) and it isn't now either.

[tgm]

There is a much better discussion of the dpreview test on the Fred Miranda forums.

 

I think the conclusion was that it makes a difference only if you shoot flat objects at short distances. Rishi from dpr defends the test on SAr but also notes that it is not representative of what one would experience at infinity - ie landscapes.

 

In any case the test doesn't help people like me who remain on the fence until i see some in-the-field comparative reviews. Pixel peeping in corners was never a consideration when I first ordered the q (actually the corrected distortion looks a little unattractive if you do peep) and it isn't now either.

Interesting. I 'believe' in 'real pictures' as well in test shots, I think the dpreview test are serious, as mentioned shooting at 50 focal lendth distance give meaniful resulst. Anyhow, do you have a  link to the discussion at Fred Miranada forum? Thanks.

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr.Q]

I think you didn't got the point.  All shots from the dpreview test scene are shot INDEPENDTLY of focal length at rougly 50 focal length distances, at least for full frame. So if a lens shows field curvature in the test scene,  it will show field curvature at infinity, the corrction at 50 focal lengths is identical with infiinity.

 

So are the RX1R/II test shots cropped to 50mm? This doesn't make much sense, as the A7RII (55mm) and RX1RII (35mm) 42MP RAW files are roughly the same size.

 

Or do they have test charts in different sizes for different focal lengths?  This would make a bit more sense, but would not be a fair test as the print for wide angles would be larger with more dpi.

 

At any rate, DP reviewers have stated that infinity shots were tack sharp in the corners, as I previously mentioned.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Mr.Q

[tgm]

So are the RX1R/II test shots cropped to 50mm? This doesn't make much sense, as the A7RII (55mm) and RX1RII (35mm) 42MP RAW files are roughly the same size.

 

Or do they have test charts in different sizes for different focal lengths?  This would make a bit more sense, but would not be a fair test as the print for wide angles would be larger with more dpi.

 

At any rate, DP reviewers have stated that infinity shots were tack sharp in the corners, as I previously mentioned.

The studio scene is placed at different distances, for 28mm I expect 140 cm, for 35 mm 175 cm, for 100 mm may be 500 cm. In practice 'infinity' is not a a fixed number. As already mentioned I would guess that 500 cm for 100 mm or 140 cm for 28 mm is very close to infinity.  Under this conditions the Zeiss lens is already very sharp in the extrem corners  but in between from 10 - 20 mm from it is somewhat soft ( at f/ 5.6), there no benefit from 42 Mpixel sensor compared to 24 Mpixel. 

 

Could you please give a link to the statement of the DP reviewers that the the infinity shots are tack sharp in the corners, that would contradict thier whole methology.

[Mr.Q]

The studio scene is placed at different distances, for 28mm I expect 140 cm, for 35 mm 175 cm, for 100 mm may be 500 cm. In practice 'infinity' is not a a fixed number. As already mentioned I would guess that 500 cm for 100 mm or 140 cm for 28 mm is very close to infinity.  Under this conditions the Zeiss lens is already very sharp in the extrem corners  but in between from 10 - 20 mm from it is somewhat soft ( at f/ 5.6), there no benefit from 42 Mpixel sensor compared to 24 Mpixel. 

 

Could you please give a link to the statement of the DP reviewers that the the infinity shots are tack sharp in the corners, that would contradict thier whole methology.

 

Yes, obviously they shoot at different distances,  Could you then please explain what you meant by "500 cm for 100 mm or 140 cm for 28 mm is very close to infinity?"  That makes no sense.  Infinity (critical focus) for the RX1R is further than 15 meters. 

 

On the DPR test, the RX1RII shows slightly better resolution than it's predecessor, so the Sonnar definitely benefits from the 42MP sensor.  Again, I have no idea what you are referring to here.

 

As for their rudimentary testing, Rishi@DPR has stated the following:

 

"Let me be even more clear: our studio scene is not a replacement for a proper lens test. We're looking at re-implementing a much larger target for proper lens tests, that will be placed at much further distances, to simulate near infinity results.  Our studio scene is more for assessing noise (ISO performance), color, noise reduction/detail retention, etc"

 

" but I certainly wouldn't write off a camera simply b/c of some off-center sharpness in our studio scene -  our studio scene was never meant to be a comprehensive lens test."

 

And here's one from Richard@DPR:

 

"Ultimately, you're only likely to see this curvature of field if you shoot flat subjects at relatively close distances with high-contrast detail in the corners. Most real-world situations are less demanding and the level of detail being argued over is irrelevant."

 

So yes, like I've been saying repetitively, this argument is irrelevant.

[tgm]

Yes, obviously they shoot at different distances,  Could you then please explain what you meant by "500 cm for 100 mm or 140 cm for 28 mm is very close to infinity?"  That makes no sense.  Infinity (critical focus) for the RX1R is further than 15 meters. 

 

On the DPR test, the RX1RII shows slightly better resolution than it's predecessor, so the Sonnar definitely benefits from the 42MP sensor.  Again, I have no idea what you are referring to here.

 

As for their rudimentary testing, Rishi@DPR has stated the following:

 

"Let me be even more clear: our studio scene is not a replacement for a proper lens test. We're looking at re-implementing a much larger target for proper lens tests, that will be placed at much further distances, to simulate near infinity results.  Our studio scene is more for assessing noise (ISO performance), color, noise reduction/detail retention, etc"

 

" but I certainly wouldn't write off a camera simply b/c of some off-center sharpness in our studio scene -  our studio scene was never meant to be a comprehensive lens test."

 

And here's one from Richard@DPR:

 

"Ultimately, you're only likely to see this curvature of field if you shoot flat subjects at relatively close distances with high-contrast detail in the corners. Most real-world situations are less demanding and the level of detail being argued over is irrelevant."

 

So yes, like I've been saying repetitively, this argument is irrelevant.

If you focus a 35 mm lens it makes of course a big difference if you focus to 170 cm but or 15 meters. The optical correction, however, between 50 focal length (170 cm) and at ínfinity is almost identical. The DPR studio sence is certainly not a comprehensive lens tests but makes weakness of lenses visible. Most wide angle lenes suffer from field curvature, of course you can only see it if you take a picture of a flat subject. If you have an extende object with a large depth, parts will be blured anyhow, so you may not regonize field curvature. If DPR implements a new, large test scene we will see if the Sonnar improves if you go to larger distances. Then, as Richard from DPR wrote, "Most real world situations are less demanding and the level of details being argued." So in practice it may not matter, but in practice you may also argue that it may not matter if you shoot with a 24 or 42 Mpixel sensor. 

Edited November 24, 2015 by tgm

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

tgm, sorry but you are incorrect on two counts.

 

1. Field curvature behavior can vary by distance. A lens may exhibit a flat field at close range, yet show significant field curvature at or near infinity, and vice-versa. For the last time, no one can conclude how the RX1 performs at infinity from these studio tests. Close range shots and infinity shots are NOT related.

 

2. The RX1Rii clearly out-resolves the original RX1R in the center, and even in the off-center areas that are out-of-focus.  So how would anyone argue that the RX1 lens does not benefit from the higher resolution sensor?

 

You are settling on conclusions that are based on very rudimentary assumptions.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Mr.Q

[tgm]

tgm, sorry but you are incorrect on two counts.

 

1. Field curvature behavior can vary by distance. A lens may exhibit a flat field at close range, yet show significant field curvature at or near infinity, and vice-versa. For the last time, no one can conclude how the RX1 performs at infinity from these studio tests. Close range shots and infinity shots are NOT related.

 

2. The RX1Rii clearly out-resolves the original RX1R in the center, and even in the off-center areas that are out-of-focus.  So how would anyone argue that the RX1 lens does not benefit from the higher resolution sensor?

 

You are settling on conclusions that are based on very rudimentary assumptions.

I am also sorry, what we definitly know, the results for the RX1ii in the studio scene are at most marginal better than that of the RX1. Everybody is invited to have a look:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-q-typ116/5, you can compare with the RX1 or RX1II, look for the bundles of hairs  almost in the center, or the 20 Schilling and finally in the corners, the colored tubes

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii/5

 

In most areas, the  Leica Q with a 24 Mpixel sensor is at least par. Now compare  with the Sony A7RII with the 55 mm lens. This is a big difference,  no question, here we cleary see the advantage of a 42 Mpixel sensor. Now you may argue, if we go from 170 cm to 15 m, the situation will significantly change. Finally, we will only know that if we see images.

 

p.s. look at the raw files at ISO 100 or 200

Edited November 25, 2015 by tgm

[Mr.Q]

Seems you conveniently avoided the field curvature argument.

 

A 42MP sensor has a pixel pitch of 4.53um and a 24MP sensor has a pixel pitch of 5.97um. Some may consider that "marginal" as you admitted above.  However subjectively big or small, improvement is evident when both scaled to 24MP. The DPR testers state that this is not a test for resolution anyway, so I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point. 

[fastcar888]

Seems you conveniently avoided the field curvature argument.

 

A 42MP sensor has a pixel pitch of 4.53um and a 24MP sensor has a pixel pitch of 5.97um. Some may consider that "marginal" as you admitted above.  However subjectively big or small, improvement is evident when both scaled to 24MP. The DPR testers state that this is not a test for resolution anyway, so I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point. 

 

Not arguing with you. I know what I see. My Leica Q pictures, are significantly better IMHO than by Nikon D800e (35 plus megapixels) with an 85mm 1.4 G, or 24mm 1.4 G. I examined DPreview, and thought the Leica Q excelled when compared to the Sony RX1rii. 

 

Even my wife noticed the Leica look of some photos without my prompting her. She said it was much better than my (Nikon D800e) "other camera."   To those of us married, we know that is one of our litmus tests for spending many thousands of dollars without push back. Happy Thanksgiving! 

[@McLeica]

 To those of us married, we know that is one of our litmus tests for spending many thousands of dollars without push back. Happy Thanksgiving! 

 

Never a truer word spoken or written! 

[Mr.Q]

LNot arguing with you. I know what I see. My Leica Q pictures, are significantly better IMHO than by Nikon D800e (35 plus megapixels) with an 85mm 1.4 G, or 24mm 1.4 G. I examined DPreview, and thought the Leica Q excelled when compared to the Sony RX1rii. 

 

Even my wife noticed the Leica look of some photos without my prompting her. She said it was much better than my (Nikon D800e) "other camera."   To those of us married, we know that is one of our litmus tests for spending many thousands of dollars without push back. Happy Thanksgiving! 

 

No problem with that and I value your opinion.  I prefer the images from my Q to many of my Nikon images as well. I just don't like false information being spread as facts.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Mr.Q

[tgm]

Seems you conveniently avoided the field curvature argument.

 

A 42MP sensor has a pixel pitch of 4.53um and a 24MP sensor has a pixel pitch of 5.97um. Some may consider that "marginal" as you admitted above.  However subjectively big or small, improvement is evident when both scaled to 24MP. The DPR testers state that this is not a test for resolution anyway, so I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point. 

Let me start with your argument that the improvement is evident when both images are scaled to 24 MP. This is really strange argument. A comparison with a 42 Mp sensor and a 24 Mp sensor is meaningless if you downsize, you loose all th advantage of the high pixel sensor. Either you  print the image or you upsize with  sqaured integers, 3^2 and 4^2 giving in both cases huge files with 380 Mp, which you then view from some distance. This sound strange but it is the only fair comparison. 

 

Now to field curvature. The RX1 and RX1II both show almost identical details close to the center and across the whole field, while the A7Rii with same 42 Mp sensoras the RX1ii shows significantly more details, also more than the Leica Q. 

This loss of details of both RX1 may be due to field curvature, it may improve if you focus to a different plane, it may also improve if you work at infinity.This is all specultion. I am sceptical, please read all my argument given above.  The Summilux of the Leica Q shows excellent performance, if you like the 28 mm it is the optimum package. If you prefer 35 mm than I don't see a strong point to go for the RX1ii because the improvement in image quality compared to that of the RX1 is marginal, this what we can learn from Dprview test, at least if you agree that they are indended to give information on sharpnes ( Why otherwise have the dpreview guys put resulution charts in the scence?). Yes,  the RX1ii I may show better results under different conditions, but this is speculation. This is my final contribution, I think all arguments are given.  

Edited November 25, 2015 by tgm

[ricky1981]

For me the 24>42MP bump isn't the reason to pick the RX1Rii over the original, it's the EVF and improved AF that are the meaningful improvements. (I still won't be buying one as I prefer the 28mm and handling of the Q)

[40mm f/2]

There were rumors that Sony will replace the RX1 with a camera using a spherical sensor and with the potential to eliminate spherical aberration and vignetting. That would have been a major advance in camera  and optical design but instead they just replaced the sensor with the one of A7RII. I see optically an advantage for the Q but dynamic range wise Sony is clearly state of the art!

[ricky1981]

I think I read the curved sensor is (or maybe has by now) going in mobile phones first. It would be a real gamble to put it in a camera as you rule out compatible with any existing lens so would need some pretty staggering performance gains to convince people to jump into a new and initially very limited collection of lenses.

 

You have to understand that the RX1Rii (like the Q) is only ever going to appeal to a very small subset of people and Sony would be crazy to sink excessive R&D into it. With the original they were using it as a bit of a test for the A7 but that's not the case this time around.

[40mm f/2]

I think I read the curved sensor is (or maybe has by now) going in mobile phones first. It would be a real gamble to put it in a camera as you rule out compatible with any existing lens so would need some pretty staggering performance gains to convince people to jump into a new and initially very limited collection of lenses.

 

You have to understand that the RX1Rii (like the Q) is only ever going to appeal to a very small subset of people and Sony would be crazy to sink excessive R&D into it. With the original they were using it as a bit of a test for the A7 but that's not the case this time around.

The curvature of the sensor has to be designed with a specific lens. So a fixed lens camera like the RX1 or Q would be the prefect target for that technology. Also spherical aberration is more pronounced with wide angle lenses. I never have seen any discussion of spherical aberration in mobile phones cameras. 

Edited November 26, 2015 by 40mm f/2

[stevenhacker]

I am a pro shooter who recently completely switched systems from Nikon to Sony. Let me also add that when shooting for my own enjoyment I shoot Leicas exclusively but they are not suited for the event photography that is my professional specialty. That said, I have attached the first test shot I captured today when my newest Sony/Zeiss lens arrived, the 35 mm f 1.4. The image was shot with my Sony A7RII. I think it is a pretty darn good image that rivals anything I've ever seen come out of my M-9. My Q is due to arrive on Monday and I will do some comparisons between it and the A7RII. I am curious to see if anyone agrees with my evaluation.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jakontil]

what is the definition of Dynamic Range? 

 

please some advice

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[stevenhacker]

Dynamic range refers to a sensors ability to capture details that might otherwise be lost at both ends of the light spectrum, white and black. The higher the DR the more detail can be captured.