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

[lucerne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

With all your resources and critical eye, it would be great if you could share examples of what is great and what isn't.  Can we see some images that illustrate the problems?

[bernie.lcf]

I think the new RX1R-II will only appeal to those, for whom the Leica Q's 28mm has been a compromise. Equally, if you are a 28mm person the RX1R-II is going to be a compromise that you accepted because you were persuaded by whatever feature the RX1R-II has to offer. It really comes down to this, doesn't it?

[Advertisement]

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

[bernie.lcf]

 The Zeiss is one of the best corrected 35mm lenses ever.  I even find it superior to my 35 FLE.

 

The Zeiss f1.4 Distagon for M is an excellent lens and probably superior to the Leica offerings depending on where your personal focus is. The RX1 series uses a Sonnar design, but can one compare the two? For what I have seen so far, the Zeiss f2.0 on the RX1 camera is reasonably well corrected for distortion but suffers quite a bit in the corners (CA, etc.)

[Mr.Q]

With all your resources and critical eye, it would be great if you could share examples of what is great and what isn't.  Can we see some images that illustrate the problems?

 

It really doesn't take a critical eye to notice the vignetting, color cast, or smearing.

 

Here's a good example that illusrates the problems of the 28 Elmarit asph.

http://thaiphotos.blogspot.jp/2013/12/sony-a7r-leica-28mm-f2.8-elmarit-asph-review-corner-sharpness-vignetting-color-fringing-edge-smearing-test-sample-images.html

 

Here's another comparison of the 50 Lux on a M240 vs A7R

http://www.dirkahlgrim.com/wordpress/?p=1637

 

Search online and you'll see tons of examples. The list on the previous page is my finding of what I've learned over a span of 2 years, both from experience and reading online. Good luck!!

[Mr.Q]

I think the new RX1R-II will only appeal to those, for whom the Leica Q's 28mm has been a compromise. Equally, if you are a 28mm person the RX1R-II is going to be a compromise that you accepted because you were persuaded by whatever feature the RX1R-II has to offer. It really comes down to this, doesn't it?

 

That's a good point. The Q's 28mm has been a compromise for me.  But the AF speed of the original RX1 was an even bigger compromise.  Not sure if the improvements (AF speed and tilt screen) on the RX1R II will tip the scales in favor of Sony for me.

[Mr.Q]

The Zeiss f1.4 Distagon for M is an excellent lens and probably superior to the Leica offerings depending on where your personal focus is. The RX1 series uses a Sonnar design, but can one compare the two? For what I have seen so far, the Zeiss f2.0 on the RX1 camera is reasonably well corrected for distortion but suffers quite a bit in the corners (CA, etc.)

 

I can't comment on the new 35/1.4 ZM as I've never used one.  As for the Sonnar on the RX1, I feel it is well corrected for CA as well.  It does suffer from a bit of vignetting wide-open, but what wide-angle lens doesn't?

[lucerne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It really doesn't take a critical eye to notice the vignetting, color cast, or smearing.

 

Here's a good example that illusrates the problems of the 28 Elmarit asph.

http://thaiphotos.blogspot.jp/2013/12/sony-a7r-leica-28mm-f2.8-elmarit-asph-review-corner-sharpness-vignetting-color-fringing-edge-smearing-test-sample-images.html

 

Here's another comparison of the 50 Lux on a M240 vs A7R

http://www.dirkahlgrim.com/wordpress/?p=1637

 

Search online and you'll see tons of examples. The list on the previous page is my finding of what I've learned over a span of 2 years, both from experience and reading online. Good luck!!

Dirk

Thanks for these links that clearly demonstrate what you are saying.  I'm very surprised to see the colour cast. It reminds me of the well publicised  problems with the NEX7 coupled with a voigtlander 15mm.  I dumped that kit and didn't expect to see magenta stripes again, - especially on a 28mm lens. As for vignetting, I rarely examine grey images for even sensor coverage, but again I agree that you have been able to reveal that something isn't as good as it should be.    I'm using a M9-P (and Q), and various Leica lenses from 21SEM to 90 Chron  and don't think I've noticed the problems you've mentioned.  That doesn't mean that they aren't there!  I process from Raw and sometimes overcook but still haven't noticed edge irregularities.   I'll certainly try to be more observant, and I'll be looking at my 50lux images more objectively.

 

nice work on your photo websites by the way!

Edited October 20, 2015 by lucerne

[Mr.Q]

Glad you liked the links, but those are just some random webpages I found through a quick google search! 

 

I'm sure those lenses work great on your M9-P.  As I pointed out, most M lenses work best on M bodies    

[tgm]

The Zeiss f1.4 Distagon for M is an excellent lens and probably superior to the Leica offerings depending on where your personal focus is. The RX1 series uses a Sonnar design, but can one compare the two? For what I have seen so far, the Zeiss f2.0 on the RX1 camera is reasonably well corrected for distortion but suffers quite a bit in the corners (CA, etc.)

You can find a direct comparison between Leica Q and Sony DSC RX1R on the dpreview site.  The 1.7 Summilux is clearly superior to the 2.0 Sonnar, in the corners the resulution of the Zeiiss/Sony combo is already clearly limited by the 24 Mpixel sensor.

[riswanc]

The biggest complaint I had with the Q was it's lack of a tilting screen. I am rather tall and I always had to bend down quite a bit to shoot level with my subjects. This feature alone is a game-changer for me. And with this new Sony I could crop the images to 50mm and still retain 18MP... that is too good to be true.

 

But miss the DOF when cropped mode

[Mr.Q]

I'd say a DOF of f3.0 at 52.5mm is pretty decent.

[algrove]

The Zeiss f1.4 Distagon for M is an excellent lens and probably superior to the Leica offerings depending on where your personal focus is. The RX1 series uses a Sonnar design, but can one compare the two? For what I have seen so far, the Zeiss f2.0 on the RX1 camera is reasonably well corrected for distortion but suffers quite a bit in the corners (CA, etc.)

So do you actually own an RX series camera? My images show nothing of the sort in the corners.

[Mr.Q]

The IQ comparison is pretty well documented.by multiple credible sources.

The Q is sharper in the center and midrame, the RX1 is sharper in the corners.

[serrada36]

I was able to spend a few minutes with the RX1R II at the PhotoPlus Expo last week.  Here are my very subjective thoughts.

 

It is a decent package.  If felt well put together but It doesn't feel as solid as the Q. Overall the camera felt very small but I do have huge hands. 

 

I was surprised at the quality of the pop-up viewfinder when looking through it.  It was large and easy to read.  I was a little hesitant about the operation of it though.  You depress the slide button release, the viewfinder pops up and the eyepiece extends toward you. "CLACK!".  It was really loud and could heard above the clamor of the busy photo show.  To put it back, just press down and the eyepiece collapses inward and the assembly nestles back in to the body flush with the top of the camera.  I wasn't crazy about the overall look of the camera with the viewfinder extended.  Again subjective.  

 

Auto focus was a disappointment.  Faster than the original RX1R (I'd say 30% faster is accurate) but it had a really hard time locking on to anything.  This may have been due to early firmware or something but wow...bordering on unusable. 

 

I'm sure the RX1R II will sell well.  Probably much more than the Q.  However, I think Leica has done themselves a disservice by not filling the demand for the camera in a timely manor.  I also think that not filling that demand before releasing a new model (SL) was a mistake.  Sony is releasing the RX1R II at the right time.

 

I didn't get to spend a whole lot of time with the Sony.  There was a growing crowd behind me filled with sighs and groans.  So, I relinquished control.  However, I wasn't at all sad when I put it down.  I had my Q which feels much nicer, more solid and faster. So off I went.  Still very satisfied with my overpriced "red dot" p&s.

 

Cheers!

[40mm f/2]

I am interested in both but I am disappointed that Sony did not make a major step forward with a camera where the sensor part of the optical design (like our eyes): curved sensor eliminating spherical aberration and vignetting. With a camera like that I could ignore all the stupid and complicated UI Sony implements. It is for me much easier to understand the Q but I would prefer as a general walk around camera a 35mm lens (urban architectural excepted).

Edited October 27, 2015 by 40mm f/2

[atvrider]

I've owned the sony RX1 and now own the Q?  They are both excellent fixed lens camera's but I think the difference can be described in one word - Refinement.  The Leica Q is the epitome of refinement, which is defined as 'cultured elegance in behavior or manner'.

The RX1R ii I doubt will be much different in this respect.

[matlep]

I tried the RX1RII yesterday. And i must say that I am spoiled by Leicas in my opinion superior way of making cameras. The RX1 is to cluttered with buttons and such. And the EVF does not match the one on the Q.

 

So when it comes to handling and feel the Q wins. Regarding image quality I can't say anything. But I really do like my Q and I can't see that the RX1 offers anything that I miss.

 

The Q feels like a mini M, the RX1 feels like a Sony.

[ricky1981]

I view the RX1Rii a bit like an Ariel Atom, it offers crazy performance for the size and you can't help but be impressed with it. Then you try to use it everyday and you're still impressed but it's not comfortable and you don't enjoy the experience as much as you did the first time even though you get everywhere faster than everyone else.

 

The Q is more like an Aston Martin and I know which I would prefer to drive each day (if I win the lottery).

 

I really loved the raw (RAW?) performance of my RX1 but never enjoyed the experience. So far, the Q has been a pleasure to use and the images are fantastic although they won't be technically as good as the RX1Rii. 

[microview]

 

 

 the Q ………. images are fantastic although they won't be technically as good as the RX1Rii. 

Why not?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[ricky1981]

Why not?

 

42MP vs 24MP and a higher DR, also likely to be less banding at high ISO.

 

As I said, they are "technically" better which doesn't necessarily equate to "subjectively" better, a lot of that is down to rendering preference and how/when/where you shoot.