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

[kmak817]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No it's not. I find the Leica Q anywhere from 2 to 5 times faster than the RX1 in varying conditions.

 

 

The Q locks focus in less than 0.1 sec. The RX1 back-focuses then locks. Maybe 0.3 seconds. That is 300%.

 

Very objective and compelling, thank you.

[kmak817]

Worth a read: 

 

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/round-ups/camera_comparisons/sony-rx1-r-ii-vs-leica-q-typ-116-63084

 

Cliff notes:

 

Sensor - Sony is 42.4 vs 24.2, and has variable low pass filter

VIewfinder - Q is higher resolution, Sony retracts

Screen - Q has slightly less dots but is a touch screen; Sony tilts

Lens - Q is half stop faster and has OIS

Autofocus - Q is faster

Sensitivity - Native range of Q is broader, except Sony has "option" to expand to a broader range than Q

Shutter speeds - Q range is broader

Continuous shooting - Q is faster

Wifi - Sony can add "Playmemory" apps

Size and weight - Sony is smaller and lighter

Battery life - both could be better

Price - Sony is marginally less expensive

 

I am happy with my Q

[Advertisement]

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

[prk60091]

Indeed!  A grip accessory - a Thumbs-Up and/or the Leica accessory grip for the Q would absolutely be essential for my long-term comfort with a Q!  That leather covering is lovely but hard to get a firm grip with. 

 

Ditto with the RX1R II.  It has little grippy patches on the front and a tiny patch on the back (I believe) but it can certainly benefit from a Thumbs-Up and/or a fnger grip.  On that basis the two cameras are virtually neck-and-neck.

The thumbsup adds quite a bit of usability to the Q

[hexx]

Any reliable source for this, please?

"Probably" is the word that implies that I don't have any reliable source

[algrove]

No it's not. I find the Leica Q anywhere from 2 to 5 times faster than the RX1 in varying conditions.

 

 

The Q locks focus in less than 0.1 sec. The RX1 back-focuses then locks. Maybe 0.3 seconds. That is 300%.

This proves one thing. A 3 year old camera can be beaten by a 2015 camera. The real proof comes in what you started talking about and that was that the new RX-1R2 is a lot slower than the Q. It might be, but I just want to see hard evidence not conjecture AND a test done by a independent agency instead of one of us using terms like "Maybe 0.3 seconds". No one is talking about the A7R2 being slow at focusing which has the same focus system as the RXR2. 399 points sure must be plenty.

Edited October 16, 2015 by algrove

[ricky1981]

The difference between the A7Rii and RX1Rii in terms of AF is that the 35mm Zeiss hasn't changed and the AF motor was pretty slow (quite loud too) so even with better AF tech in-camera the limiting factor is going to be the lens.

 

It's the same reason that the A7Rii is much faster with some lenses than others even though the camera is the same.

 

In terms of image quality I think the RX1 wins out but it's hardly like the Q is bad! It's like moaning about dating Scarlett Johanssen because Jennifer Lawrence is hotter (personal preference).

 

I'm just pleased to have the choice, I'll be going for the Q because AF and ergonomics are a bigger factor for me than MP and extra DR but I wouldn't knock anyone for picking the RX1Rii as I had the original and still miss its size/image quality ratio once in a while!

[Guest VVJ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always wanted the Sony RX1 but I never bought it, mainly because of the lack of a built-in viewfinder.

 

Came along the Leica Q and I love it!

 

In the meanwhile I also tried the Sony A7s and no way that I would ever go back to Sony.  I prefer the handling of the Leica so much more.   

[pulliam5555]

Sony is all about the specs and it has them, but it is really lacking in the design.  I find the sony to be much more built like a camcorder, furturistic dials and sharp corners.  The design of the Leica Q Is just great, feels great, looks great, and overall this translates to a better experience.  It's a camera that makes me want to use it.  I just wouldn't have the same feeling with the Sony. I liked the Fuji x100t for its design and use, however I love the Leica Q.  But that's just me. 

[Mr.Q]

Man this is a tough decision because I can't justify keeping both. This new RX1 clicks so many boxes for me --- 35mm, tilt screen, and the new Sony sensor (although I don't need 42MP, I would take it in a heartbeat if included) I don't mind the RX1 controls at all --- in fact, I feel it's great given the miniature size of the camera!

 

But I love my Q too much for it's speed, MF controls, and because... it's a Leica lol Will have to wait for more reviews but if the AF is snappy and usable, I may end up selling the Q and original RX1R.

[Belle123]

Man this is a tough decision because I can't justify keeping both. This new RX1 clicks so many boxes for me --- 35mm, tilt screen, and the new Sony sensor (although I don't need 42MP, I would take it in a heartbeat if included) I don't mind the RX1 controls at all --- in fact, I feel it's great given the miniature size of the camera!

 

But I love my Q too much for it's speed, MF controls, and because... it's a Leica lol Will have to wait for more reviews but if the AF is snappy and usable, I may end up selling the Q and original RX1R.

Are you happy with the Q?  You love it?  Yes.  Keep it.  I go thru this and about to go thru it again with the upcoming new Leica camera system.  I have to sit back a minute and ask myself if I am not happy with what I have?  Yes I am.  Chasing specs, better specs, is it worth it?  For me, not.  And if I had a Q and traded it in for a Sony with an inferior lens and ergonomics, I would feel sick.  More pixels doesn't make a better image.  Not saying the Sony is not a good camera as am sure it is.  But Sony over a Leica? 

[algrove]

I understand why my Q has a 28FL lens (which can be used as a 35 and 50). Why directly compete with the RX1 (any version) when you can offer a 3 in 1 camera with no pop up EVF. I bought it for its AF and it is plenty fast for me. My RX-1 barely hunts, but since getting the Q it is collecting dust. If the new RXR2 had IBIS I could perhaps be persuaded to carefully consider it. Thank gosh it does not have IBIS so I will stay on the sifelines until I see plenty of reviews and afterwards can possibly form an unbiased consensus (which is nearly impossible with reviews these days).

 

The Q is my perfect M companion. Now the question is for street do I only take the Q or do I also bring along the M246 with say 35 (my favorite street lens) and 50? One camera is simplicity and 2 can be a handful (or bag full).

[algrove]

 

Are you happy with the Q?  You love it?  Yes.  Keep it.  I go thru this and about to go thru it again with the upcoming new Leica camera system.  I have to sit back a minute and ask myself if I am not happy with what I have?  Yes I am.  Chasing specs, better specs, is it worth it?  For me, not.  And if I had a Q and traded it in for a Sony with an inferior lens and ergonomics, I would feel sick.  More pixels doesn't make a better image.  Not saying the Sony is not a good camera as am sure it is.  But Sony over a Leica? 

Bag lady

Agree, chasing pixels is crazy, but sadly that's what many manufacturers want us to do.

 

I quickly went with the M (from the M9) for many reasons, but first and foremost my failing eye sight meant it would keep me in the Leica M some more years. Then again, being at the unveiling "ceremony" that night before Photokina opened just made my purchase all the more special. Most Leica employees at Photokina kept asking me how I got the first MM so fast as they had never seen one in use other than in the factory. I joked with them saying it helps to know the boss. My boss that is.

 

Edited October 17, 2015 by algrove

[Mr.Q]

Are you happy with the Q?  You love it?  Yes.  Keep it.  I go thru this and about to go thru it again with the upcoming new Leica camera system.  I have to sit back a minute and ask myself if I am not happy with what I have?  Yes I am.  Chasing specs, better specs, is it worth it?  For me, not.  And if I had a Q and traded it in for a Sony with an inferior lens and ergonomics, I would feel sick.  More pixels doesn't make a better image.  Not saying the Sony is not a good camera as am sure it is.  But Sony over a Leica? 

 

Thanks for your input.  You're right about GAS, but this is more about the right fit.  I prefer the 35mm focal length, always have.  So even after 3 months of use and thousands of shots, the 28mm still feels a bit foreign to me. I initially bought the Q because I wasn't happy with the RX1R's AF performance, but I still carry both cameras due to the FL.  Honestly the other features (42MP, IBIS, tiltscreen, touchscreen, Wifi) are nice to have but aren't a deciding factor. 

 

And I'm not sure that the Zeiss is an inferior lens.  You have to remember the Summilux has tons of distortion prior to correction, and as a result it suffers in the corners.  The Zeiss is one of the best corrected 35mm lenses ever.  I even find it superior to my 35 FLE.

[algrove]

Thanks for your input.  You're right about GAS, but this is more about the right fit.  I prefer the 35mm focal length, always have.  So even after 3 months of use and thousands of shots, the 28mm still feels a bit foreign to me. I initially bought the Q because I wasn't happy with the RX1R's AF performance, but I still carry both cameras due to the FL.  Honestly the other features (42MP, IBIS, tiltscreen, touchscreen, Wifi) are nice to have but aren't a deciding factor. 

 

And I'm not sure that the Zeiss is an inferior lens.  You have to remember the Summilux has tons of distortion prior to correction, and as a result it suffers in the corners.  The Zeiss is one of the best corrected 35mm lenses ever.  I even find it superior to my 35 FLE.

Mr.Q

I am debating whether to start taking the Q for wider needs and the RX-1 for my favorite FL needs and then I have 2 AF cameras with me. Then again I could just hit a button on the Q and get a 35mm image from the Q. Nice to have choices. 

[Mr.Q]

Yes, it's nice to have choices. The problem is that I regularly carry 3 cameras lol  (A7Rii with Leica WATE, 50AA and 90AA)  Perhaps I will just upgrade the RX1R for now and see how it compares against the Q.

[algrove]

Yes, it's nice to have choices. The problem is that I regularly carry 3 cameras lol  (A7Rii with Leica WATE, 50AA and 90AA)  Perhaps I will just upgrade the RX1R for now and see how it compares against the Q.

I have heard the WATE performs well on the a7's. But from your post I now assume the AA50 performs well too. Does it perform better/same on the M though? For many months I have heard the longer Leica M lenses work well such as 75 and longer, but was not sure about 50mm Leica lenses.

Edited October 18, 2015 by algrove

[jdlaing]

WATE works okay on the a7II.

[Mr.Q]

I have heard the WATE performs well on the a7's. But from your post I now assume the AA50 performs well too. Does it perform better/same on the M though? For many months I have heard the longer Leica M lenses work well such as 75 and longer, but was not sure about 50mm Leica lenses.

 

Most lenses 35mm and wider do not work, exhibiting all sorts of nastiness (severe color casting and vignetting, smearing, soft corners)  Here's what I've gathered from shooting with the A7's and M240, and also from studying a ton of images online.

 

Works better than M --- WATE

Works equally as good as M --- 50 Cron IV, 50AA, 75AA, 75 Lux, 90AA, 90 Tele-/Elmarit, 135 Tele-Elmar

Works but slightly worse than M --- 21 Lux, 24 Lux, 35 Lux

Unusable --- 18 SEM, 21 SEM, 24 Elmarit, 28 Cron, 35 Cron

Edited October 19, 2015 by Mr.Q

[algrove]

On another forum there are specific comments on how Leica lenses work on ther new A7R2 and it seems some good comment regarding the wides like the 21/1.4.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Mr.Q]

Yeah the 21 Lux works really well, just not as good as on a M240