Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Yeah, my only gripe with the Q is the TowerJazz sensor, which is not ISO-less. I wish Leica would just buy sensors from Sony and stop messing with 2nd rate manufacturers like CMOSIS and TowerJazz.  It hampers an otherwise perfect camera.

Edited by Mr.Q
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, my only gripe with the Q is the TowerJazz sensor, which is not ISO-less. I wish Leica would just buy sensors from Sony and stop messing with 2nd rate manufacturers like CMOSIS and TowerJazz.  It hampers an otherwise perfect camera.

 

Short of banding at extreme ISOs in darkness (where no digital Leica prior to the Q, and most cameras short of the newest Alphas has ever been able to produce results), I find it hard to complain about the Q's sensor.  Surprised others find so much fault in what I consider to be one of the best sensors on the market.  Calling CMOSIS and TowerJazz a 2nd rate manufacturer is laughable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Short of banding at extreme ISOs in darkness (where no digital Leica prior to the Q, and most cameras short of the newest Alphas has ever been able to produce results), I find it hard to complain about the Q's sensor.  Surprised others find so much fault in what I consider to be one of the best sensors on the market.  Calling CMOSIS and TowerJazz a 2nd rate manufacturer is laughable.

 

Incorrect, all the current Nikon's (Sony sensor) and Fuji's show no sign of banding at high ISO.  And fyi, banding shows up in the shadows when post-processing as well....  http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-q-typ116/6

 

When it comes to FF sensors, Sony sensors are 1st rate, then there is everyone else. Sony sensors have the best ISO and DR performance by far.  And they are ISO-invariant. So what are you finding laughable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect, all the current Nikon's (Sony sensor) and Fuji's show no sign of banding at high ISO.  And fyi, banding shows up in the shadows when post-processing as well....  http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-q-typ116/6

 

When it comes to FF sensors, Sony sensors are 1st rate, then there is everyone else. Sony sensors have the best ISO and DR performance by far.  And they are ISO-invariant. So what are you finding laughable?

 

Considering most Leica's couldn't produce competent results at 3200, and even then it required b/w to hide color noise, in Leica's world, the sensor is certainly the best they have ever used.  Yes, I do see the banding when pushed, but generally speaking unless you're shooting in extremes, I have not encountered it enough to make an issue of it.  Studio tests are interesting but real world results are where cameras prove their capability.

 

2nd rate is stil amusing considering CMOSIS and TowerJazz both do a significant business in the imaging industry, even if not so much in the consumer photography space.  You make them sound like some fly by night operation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

yes i agree 100%, if  Q would be 42mp also 28mm would be perfect allowing a 30+ mp 35mm crop 

It is also a question if the lens is sharp enough. Dpreview has now added  their studio scene taken with the Sony RX2. Interstingly the image quality in terms of details is sharpnes not better than that ot the Leica Q.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also a question if the lens is sharp enough. Dpreview has now added  their studio scene taken with the Sony RX2. Interstingly the image quality in terms of details is sharpnes not better than that ot the Leica Q.

Is see a Q wiping the floor with the Sony. Either there is user error or huge sample variation involved in DPR`s studio scene. If you add a Sigma Merrill to the comparison it`s not even funny any more. Besides superior sensors up to iso 400 the Sigmas lens corner and edge performance are so much better (and not because of software correction).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As DPreview explains in their testing, this kind of field curvature is pretty typical with wide-angle lenses.  The soft areas are simply out of focus. The Q does better, because as we all know, the curvature is fixed in-camera for a flat field.

 

I never shoot brick walls at close range (or any kind of fine art photography) so I could care less about these results 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As DPreview explains in their testing, this kind of field curvature is pretty typical with wide-angle lenses.  The soft areas are simply out of focus. The Q does better, because as we all know, the curvature is fixed in-camera for a flat field.

 

I never shoot brick walls at close range (or any kind of fine art photography) so I could care less about these results 

I disagree, I think you should also care. Both, the RX and the RXII have the same problem. It is not a question of shooting a brick wall at close range. You will exprience the same problem at infinity, e.g. landscape. Surrisingly, overall the imagequality of the Q is clearly superior despithe the smaller pixel number.

Edited by tgm
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't correct for field curvature in software. There may be lots wrong with the dpreview test, but unfair Q manipulation it isn't.

 

You may be right or the Q may just have a different field curvature characteristic.  Either way I agree that it's a flawed test (they test cameras with different focal lengths ie 55mm for A7RII, 85mm ) and I'm not that interested in corner performance at MFD unless it's macro lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right or the Q may just have a different field curvature characteristic.  Either way I agree that it's a flawed test (they test cameras with different focal lengths ie 55mm for A7RII, 85mm ) and I'm not that interested in corner performance at MFD unless it's macro lens.

Why do you think that the dpreview test is flawed?

What is MFD, macro focus distance? The test scene measures  roughly 160x120 cm, so with a full frame sensor it results in a demagnification of 44, or in other words you place the lens in 44 focal lengths distance. Usually optical designer takes this as infinity.

Edited by tgm
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the Q outperforms the RX1rII what surprised my a lot:

http://bit.ly/1NFvr8t

To be fair that test does not tell much. The Sonnar 35/2 lens has stronger field curvature at close range when compared to infinity at f/5.6. So I would not read too much from this test, unless you tend to shoot brick walls at close range :) If you would focus to corners, the result would be very different

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair that test does not tell much. The Sonnar 35/2 lens has stronger field curvature at close range when compared to infinity at f/5.6. So I would not read too much from this test, unless you tend to shoot brick walls at close range :) If you would focus to corners, the result would be very different

Why? The test is performd at roughly 50 focal length at f/ 5.6, would you call that close distance?

 

p.s. there is one point I can agreee, if you focus to the corners the result will be very different: the center is blured.....

Edited by tgm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? The test is performd at roughly 50 focal length at f/ 5.6, would you call that close distance?

 

p.s. there is one point I can agreee, if you focus to the corners the result will be very different: the center is blured.....

Well, you are right that is not that close distance. But I don't know what do you want to hear? Yes, the Sonnar 35/2 has some field curvature. Just like Summilux-M 50mm ASPH has, yet it remains my favourite 50mm lens of all time. Does it make it worse a lens than the Q's Lux 28/1.7? Absolutely no, in my opinion. No lens is perfect. The Sonnar 35/2 has some field curvature, while Summilux 28/1.7 has the heavy distortion (corrected in RAW files where corners tend to degrade corners). But I still think the Sonnar 35/2 is still possibly the best 35mm lens I ever seen. At f/8 to f/11 when focused at infinity I never seen a unsharp image. I still think the choice between Q or RX1 II should be made based on focal lenght preference, and not on a studio test like this one. Nor I would make the choice based on the company logo (Sony vs Leica). But that is just me :)

Edited by Tmuussoni
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you are right that is not that close distance. But I don't know what do you want to hear? Yes, the Sonnar 35/2 has some field curvature. Just like Summilux-M 50mm ASPH has, yet it remains my favourite 50mm lens of all time. Does it make it worse a lens than the Q's Lux 28/1.7? Absolutely no, in my opinion. No lens is perfect. The Sonnar 35/2 has some field curvature, while Summilux 28/1.7 has the heavy distortion (corrected in RAW files where corners tend to degrade corners). But I still think the Sonnar 35/2 is still possibly the best 35mm lens I ever seen. At f/8 to f/11 when focused at infinity I never seen a unsharp image. I still think the choice between Q or RX1 II should be made based on focal lenght preference, and not on a studio test like this one. Nor I would make the choice based on the company logo (Sony vs Leica). But that is just me :)

I completely agree, I would not make the choice based on the logo,  the preferecne of focal length (28  versus 35mm) is even more important . In practice, for a digital camera filed curvature is a much more serious issue  than distorsion because distorsion can be corrected by software. Anyhow, I think the RXii does not benefit to much from the new 42 Mpixel sensor. For Leica Q it migh be different, here I would see a reald advantage, you have more pixel for cropping, e.g. 50  mm would give 13 Mpixel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see how the field curvature in the DPR test (which is present in 99% of wide-angle lenses) is a real world issue, unless you shoot brick walls or fine arts at close range (which you should be shooting with a telephoto lens anyway)  It is well documented that the RX1 has sharper corners than the Q at infinity, and the Q is sharper in the center.  I have both cameras, and honestly, both have very sharp lenses. This test is pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see how the field curvature in the DPR test (which is present in 99% of wide-angle lenses) is a real world issue, unless you shoot brick walls or fine arts at close range (which you should be shooting with a telephoto lens anyway)  It is well documented that the RX1 has sharper corners than the Q at infinity, and the Q is sharper in the center.  I have both cameras, and honestly, both have very sharp lenses. This test is pointless.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...