JNK100 Posted July 16 Share #21 Posted July 16 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) The Q3 is the one to have still of course- Sharper and higher mag. EVF OIS Not plastered with buttons everywhere! Note that a lens hood isn't included which is odd. Edited July 16 by JNK100 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 16 Posted July 16 Hi JNK100, Take a look here 35mm FF FL - a year late. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Qwertynm Posted July 16 Share #22 Posted July 16 this camera is approximately three years late with its specs. Also not having a tilt screen in such a camera is a really weird omission. I would have taken interest if it would have either a tiltable (external) EVF or a tiltable screen. This could've been the ultimate dad-camera imho. Much too late, The Q3 has been out for two years now and still looks more appealing than this little Sony even at the higher price. BTW, no weather-sealing for a travel camera? Disappointing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smogg Posted July 16 Share #23 Posted July 16 2 hours ago, JNK100 said: The Q3 is the one to have still of course- Sharper and higher mag. EVF OIS Not plastered with buttons everywhere! Note that a lens hood isn't included which is odd. You forgot to mention the tilt screen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted July 16 Share #24 Posted July 16 10 hours ago, frame-it said: amazing thread.. nobody cares about how good the quality of the Rx1R images were, [though its AF was total shit and that's why i sold mine] seems like most people are heavily dependent on high res EVFs and love high MP but don't mind paying a Red-Dot premium for bad AF [and still love their M OVFs] On the contrary, the quality is pretty much a known quality. It is the same sensor that has been in multiple cameras for years, including Sony's own, and the lens is the same lens as last time. It is very good, but not as good as, for example, the 43mm APO in the Q3 43. Of course, this is going to be a camera capable of spectacular images. That has been true of almost any high end camera in the last ten years. Once 24mp cameras became low light monsters and 40-100mp cameras became the norm for high resolution cameras, image quality was not really the choke point for most cameras. It has been features, lenses and ergonomics/form factor. The only reason I criticized this camera is because I can't see choosing it right now based on the features it has or are lacking vs the competition now in 2025. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNK100 Posted July 16 Share #25 Posted July 16 58 minutes ago, Smogg said: You forgot to mention the tilt screen. True and the lack of weather-sealing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted July 16 Share #26 Posted July 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said: On the contrary, the quality is pretty much a known quality. It is the same sensor that has been in multiple cameras for years, including Sony's own, and the lens is the same lens as last time. It is very good, but not as good as, for example, the 43mm APO in the Q3 43. and i was talking about the image quality of the original Rx1R..."nobody cares about how good the quality of the Rx1R images were, [though its AF was total shit and that's why i sold mine] " Edited July 16 by frame-it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted July 16 Share #27 Posted July 16 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 26 minutes ago, frame-it said: and i was talking about the image quality of the original Rx1R..."nobody cares about how good the quality of the Rx1R images were, [though its AF was total shit and that's why i sold mine] " As many posts here show, most people buy a camera on more than just one feature (including image quality). You appeared to find that 'amazing' - seriously?. Edit. I was very attracted to the original, but never quite bought it - not quite right in a number of respects - I got a Ricoh GRD4 instead for pocketability. Edited July 16 by LocalHero1953 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted July 16 Share #28 Posted July 16 Yes, so I guess I don't get your point then? The image quality of the new RX1R is going to be great...I doubt anyone is questioning that. Just as the image quality of either Q3 will be great. That does not seem to be the point where there will be the deciding factor. The deciding factor is more on form, viewing style, features and price. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
costa43 Posted July 16 Share #29 Posted July 16 I think it is a real missed opportunity from Sony. No flip up screen, low res EVF, no lens stabilisation or IBIS are all big omissions. I get they wanted to keep the design the same size but a small increase in dimensions on such a small camera would have been well received in my opinion if it came with a higher spec. The high price would have been a little more justified also. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smogg Posted July 16 Share #30 Posted July 16 (edited) 4 minutes ago, costa43 said: I think it is a real missed opportunity from Sony. No flip up screen, low res EVF, no lens stabilisation or IBIS are all big omissions. I get they wanted to keep the design the same size but a small increase in dimensions on such a small camera would have been well received in my opinion if it came with a higher spec. The high price would have been a little more justified also. The size of the new Sony (with hood) still doesn't allow you to put it in your pocket like the Ricoh. So I also don't understand why they wouldn't make it a little bigger so as not to lose important functionality (IBIS) and a high-quality EVF. Edited July 16 by Smogg 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tseg Posted July 16 Author Share #31 Posted July 16 (edited) The image quality of the RX1 is sharp, but still has a significant CA / fringing issue. This is a 13 year old lens. No APO qualities. BTW, the nearly $200 hood price was about the same 13 years ago, and the EVF was something like $450. But the original did have a pop up flash. Mine now has a lot of sensor spots, but “cleaning” by Sony costs over $1K because their process involves replacing the lens. 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! Edited July 16 by Tseg Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/423086-35mm-ff-fl-a-year-late/?do=findComment&comment=5834306'>More sharing options...
Smogg Posted July 16 Share #32 Posted July 16 I bet that in a year the Sony will cost half as much as the Q3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted July 16 Share #33 Posted July 16 26 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said: As many posts here show, most people buy a camera on more than just one feature (including image quality). You appeared to find that 'amazing' - seriously?. Edit. I was very attracted to the original, but never quite bought it - not quite right in a number of respects - I got a Ricoh GRD4 instead for pocketability. amazed > as the first few posts were all talking about the silly EVF, and not the great quality of a camera from 2012 q came in 2015 q2 came in 2019 and by the way the lens is not the same as the original it has new elements: [AA] Advanced Aspherical Lens Advanced Aspherical (AA) elements are an evolved variant, featuring an extremely high thickness ratio between the centre and periphery. AA elements are exceedingly difficult to produce, depending on the most advanced moulding technology available to consistently and precisely achieve the required shape and surface accuracy. The result is significantly improved reproduction and rendering. its nice to get used to new tech, but it doesn't mean nobody got great pics with old tech certain people, not you, but others need to know that leica wont kill their warranty or service if they speak the truth about their terrible AF 33 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said: Yes, so I guess I don't get your point then? 2nd time over the last 30 days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted July 16 Share #34 Posted July 16 (edited) . Edited July 16 by LocalHero1953 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 16 Share #35 Posted July 16 Similar price bracket but the Q3 43 is still about 40% more expensive than this new Sony and that will be significant for a lot of people. I personally can't get excited about either but I'm sure the Sony will be a big hit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
costa43 Posted July 16 Share #36 Posted July 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, Smogg said: The size of the new Sony (with hood) still doesn't allow you to put it in your pocket like the Ricoh. So I also don't understand why they wouldn't make it a little bigger so as not to lose important functionality (IBIS) and a high-quality EVF. Exactly my thoughts, you are not losing a USP by making it a touch bigger. If anything, you are improving it's handling a little. If this had the EVF it deserved and some kind of stabilisation it would be a much more attractive proposition. I hope it sells well so the line continues but it’s a bit of a half baked release imo. Edited July 16 by costa43 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted July 16 Share #37 Posted July 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, frame-it said: amazed > as the first few posts were all talking about the silly EVF, and not the great quality of a camera from 2012 q came in 2015 q2 came in 2019 and by the way the lens is not the same as the original it has new elements: [AA] Advanced Aspherical Lens Advanced Aspherical (AA) elements are an evolved variant, featuring an extremely high thickness ratio between the centre and periphery. AA elements are exceedingly difficult to produce, depending on the most advanced moulding technology available to consistently and precisely achieve the required shape and surface accuracy. The result is significantly improved reproduction and rendering. its nice to get used to new tech, but it doesn't mean nobody got great pics with old tech certain people, not you, but others need to know that leica wont kill their warranty or service if they speak the truth about their terrible AF 2nd time over the last 30 days. Sorry, it is not my intention not to understand you! I had not realized that I had failed to do so before. I guess I just don't always follow your logic. It is nothing personal. I agree that there is no harm in calling out Leica's comparatively poor AF. I just have not really found it to be a burden for me. As for the EVF, I am not criticizing the EVF in the RX1R original camera...I don't think the others were either. I know that I was talking about the new one only being 2.36mp, vs 5.8mp (.79x) in the Q3. As for the lens, it was my understanding that it was unchanged. This is what PetaPixel reports: "While the RX1R III gets a new image sensor, processor, and autofocus system, one key component in the overall imaging pipeline has remained utterly untouched: the built-in Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm f/2 lens, which actually hasn’t been tweaked at all since the original RX1 was announced in 2012." "the RX1R III swaps the RX1R II’s pop-up EVF design for a rear-mounted solution. The viewfinder has 2.36 million dots and 0.7x magnification, which is the same resolution as the RX1R II’s EVF but less magnification. The RX1R II’s EVF has 0.74x magnification." https://petapixel.com/2025/07/15/the-sony-rx1r-iii-is-finally-here-whats-new-whats-not-and-why-now/ My opinion was based on it being a camera with a great sensor and surely great AF, but a lower resolution VF, no stabilization, and the same lens as the one in 2012, and a 5000 dollar price tag. For me, even though it is more expensive, the Q3 and Q3 43 look like they are better buys. But for someone who needs state of the art AF more than the other advantages the Q3 offers, then I can see how it could make sense. Again, I don't think anyone here would say this is a bad camera, but it seems like they made some compromises that I would not personally want. I would argue that the RX1 was a far more compelling option in 2012 than this camera is in 2025. Edited July 16 by Stuart Richardson 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
costa43 Posted July 16 Share #38 Posted July 16 Is it weather sealed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNK100 Posted July 16 Share #39 Posted July 16 34 minutes ago, costa43 said: Is it weather sealed? The spec. list and launch documents don't mention it , so I think not 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinj Posted July 16 Share #40 Posted July 16 Great camera, a bit overpriced. That Zeiss lens may be dated but its rendering is excellent. Good to have options. Lack of IBIS is a non starter for me, but then people shoot M11 successfully with no stabilization. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now