KLManhattan Posted December 26, 2015 Share #1 Posted December 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Has anyone read this and if so, what do you think? As you can guess the ratings of RX1R2 were very close to those of the A7RII, overall rating of 97 vs 98. The Leica Q overall rating was 85. The results do not surprise me given that the Sony sensors are 42MPs compared to the 24MP sensor of the Q. IMHO I still would not be tempted to get new RX1 over the Q. I do not like the popup EVF, one more thing to malfunction, and the fact that at F2 your top shutter speed is only 1/2000th. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Hi KLManhattan, Take a look here DxO Compare of Sony RX1RII, A7RII, & Leica Q Sensors. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ramosa Posted December 26, 2015 Share #2 Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) I checked DXO, but can't see any results related to the Q. Do you have a link? That said, I wouldn't be surprised, as sensors on Leicas never seem to rank well there. Despite such dubious shortcomings, the Leicas still make great images. Heck, the M9, with a rating of just 69, has the best low-ISO images that I have ever seen. As you have intimated, Leicas, including the Q, tend to have huge advantages in other areas (e.g., user experience, lenses, haptics) ... at least per my needs and preferences. Edited December 26, 2015 by ramosa Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alee Posted December 26, 2015 Share #3 Posted December 26, 2015 For those that haven't seen it - http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX1R-II-sensor-review-Take-two/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX1R-II-vs.-Sony-A7R-II-vs.-Leica-Q-Typ-116-Excellent-high-ISO-DR You'd be crazy to dispute Sony's sensor dominance here. They do sensors better than anyone else - as they should. They've been making sensors for a long time. That said, the Q sensor is probably the best that Leica has ever put into their cameras, and for once, Leica even has a reasonably competitive ISO score. What's in the Q and SL is really good. 5 years ago, I would have bought for solely on specs and I'd be shooting an RX1r2 no question. These days I just want the camera to take the picture when I tell it to take the picture, the way I want it taken. The geek in me loves the idea of a magical BSI sensor with 14 stops of DR in the RX1r2. The curmudgeon in me can no longer be bothered with fussy menus and lag, whether it be AF, boot times or write times. For me, the overall Leica Q package is more compelling from a shooter standpoint - years of shooting Nikon and most recently Fuji, and I never wanted a red-dot camera until the Q came along. That said - while my heart is in mirrorless, whenever I pick up a Nikon D810 or a D4s, I'm reminded that mirrorless is still in a lot of ways, a step backwards. I still find myself renting DSLRs more often than I'd like to admit. My last adventure with a D810... wow. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted December 27, 2015 Share #4 Posted December 27, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the link. I'm not surprised by the results as I noted earlier. Well, I guess I am surprised that the Q sensor is only slightly better than the M 240. Anyway, as I said and you said, photography comes down to so much more than sensor ratings ... We're certainly spoiled by so many great options theses days. Edited December 27, 2015 by ramosa Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 27, 2015 Share #5 Posted December 27, 2015 (edited) Any normal person looking at the graphs would conclude that all 3 sensors have the same performance. Being able to do 180mph instead of 170mph doesn't get you anywhere faster if the speed limit is 70 ...... Marginal benefits at the extremes of processing but zero you could see on a print or an average digital display ....... These stats are more about selling cameras than what photographers really need. We have a washing machine with about 20 programs and multiple combinations therein ...... we use 3 of them ...... Edited December 27, 2015 by thighslapper 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckw Posted December 27, 2015 Share #6 Posted December 27, 2015 Any normal person looking at the graphs would conclude that all 3 sensors have the same performance. Being able to do 180mph instead of 170mph doesn't get you anywhere faster if the speed limit is 70 ...... Marginal benefits at the extremes of processing but zero you could see on a print or an average digital display ....... These stats are more about selling cameras than what photographers really need. We have a washing machine with about 20 programs and multiple combinations therein ...... we use 3 of them ...... Good points all! When a sensor is developed that never exhibits blown out highlights and unrecoverable detail, without noise, in the blacks it would be worth a person"s attention. Otherwise these graphs do not exhibit enough difference to warrant a decision based solely on one sensors performance over the other. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted December 28, 2015 Share #7 Posted December 28, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Any normal person looking at the graphs would conclude that all 3 sensors have the same performance. Being able to do 180mph instead of 170mph doesn't get you anywhere faster if the speed limit is 70 ...... Marginal benefits at the extremes of processing but zero you could see on a print or an average digital display ....... These stats are more about selling cameras than what photographers really need. We have a washing machine with about 20 programs and multiple combinations therein ...... we use 3 of them ...... But for 4k I want the engine under the hood which can do 180, without a sweat, as it`s competitor does. Or else I can buy the VW Jetta. Let`s face it, 24MP FF sensors performing at the Q`s level are cheap these days (A7, A7II, D750, D610). When it comes to sensors, Leica should put an effort into becoming competitive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
40mm f/2 Posted December 30, 2015 Share #8 Posted December 30, 2015 DXO just published their Q review http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Leica-Q-sensor-review-Leica-s-best-low-light-camera and also compared it favorably to any Leica they reviewed Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted December 30, 2015 Share #9 Posted December 30, 2015 I disagree. I have the Q rather than the RX but I do have the A7RII and the sensor is clearly better in significant ways, and this will, for certain significant portions of the shooting envelope, show in print. There's no point in believing otherwise. The strengths of the Q lie elsewhere. Thanks for the link. I'm not surprised by the results as I noted earlier. Well, I guess I am surprised that the Q sensor is only slightly better than the M 240. Anyway, as I said and you said, photography comes down to so much more than sensor ratings ... We're certainly spoiled by so many great options theses days. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted December 30, 2015 Share #10 Posted December 30, 2015 I disagree. I have the Q rather than the RX but I do have the A7RII and the sensor is clearly better in significant ways, and this will, for certain significant portions of the shooting envelope, show in print. There's no point in believing otherwise. The strengths of the Q lie elsewhere. Exactly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted December 30, 2015 Share #11 Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) No amount of technology is going to improve your photography. Only working with a camera you can trust and fits your style. I've got keepers from my Leica and Hasselblad film cameras which I am still proud of today. I've just completed a portfolio which was almost entirely based on medium format film and it prints up beautifully in a 12x12 inch coffee table book. And my Sigma Merrill cameras are sharper than my Sony A7R/S and my Q if you want to pixel peep. Personally, I have been very pleased with the sharpness of the Q at the pixel level which is better that I get from either my A7R or A7S. So, I totally agree about the dynamic range and other features of Sony sensors but if you feel bored or indifferent about using a camera it won't stimulate you to create compelling photographs. Just my two cents. LouisB Edited December 30, 2015 by biglouis 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted May 4, 2016 Share #12 Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) I disagree. I have the Q rather than the RX but I do have the A7RII and the sensor is clearly better in significant ways, and this will, for certain significant portions of the shooting envelope, show in print. There's no point in believing otherwise. The strengths of the Q lie elsewhere.What's funny is that I just found your reply today. By coincidence, over the last week, I had gone back to some images that I took with a Sony RX1r a couple years. Wow. I had forgotten how beautiful those images are. In fact, it sort of has me pining for another RX1, which would be my second. I wasn't in love with the camera's haptics and was disgruntled with Sony's stubbornness in not updating the firmware, but--darn--the IQ is superb. Edited May 4, 2016 by ramosa Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.