DxOmark published the Leica M-E test and suddenly the RX1 really looks like a real bargain 🙂
The $2800 (or 3100 Euro) Sony RX1 outperforms the twice as expensive Leica M-E camera! And Focus Numerique compared the even more expensive (and newer) Leica M with the RX1 and once again the Sony is better. Don’t know what will happen with Leica the day Sony comes out with the NEX-9 FF…
RX1 links roundup:
RX1 at [shopcountry 15824].
RX1 Gariz accessories:
1) They made a new half leather case in Black and Brown ([shoplink 16437 ebay]Click here to see them on eBay[/shoplink]).
2) The new lens cap ([shoplink 16439 ebay]Click here to see them on eBay[/shoplink]).
3) The new entry is the anti loose button(!) ([shoplink 16438 ebay]Click here to see them on eBay[/shoplink]). Don’t know if that will be really useful for you RX1 owners. Someone has it and call it how it works? Thanks!
4) And this is the really first time I see that. A special Leather skin hood! ([shoplink 16441 ebay]Click here to see them on eBay[/shoplink]).
113 Responses
I wait for the M240 comparison! Steve Huff said they are on the same level!
Leica’s are for the people who would buy the Hasselblad Lunar.
Pro photographers use DSLR (let’s say 99%)!
Real enthusiasts use DSLR/DSLT and high end mirrorless as they like all the new technology and like to experiment, without sacrificing IQ.
Sorry, but from all beautiful landscape or portrait pictures I’ve ever seen very few are taken with Leica camera (primary street portraits).
LOL. Are you for real?
so elliott erwitt is not a pro?
You give one example and think this would stand as an argument?
+1
Comparing the latest & greatest from zony against more than 4 Year old leica-Technology can be misleading.
In other words: Look, how brillant Leica was Even back then. Leicas last gen camera is stll able to compete with zonys latest release…
Yea? look at the PRICE and compare.
Uhm, the Leica above is not even a year old. And it certainly doesn’t compete by being several stops behind in every measurement. And when we get to the features…
It is a rebranded, slightly modified M9. The sensor is the same. An interesting comparison would be the M240 and the monochrome.
hey really wake up , Steve is a hard core Leica fanboy and you have to take all of what he has said about Leica with a bag full of salt, the sensor in the Leica M is not as good as the sensor in the RX1 or A99v, is obvious in many Leica itself provided samples , the Leica M has banding issue and it is as bad as the sensor of the 5DMK2.
hahah even MFT cameras outperform Leicas 🙂
In DXO mark. That’s where it ends. 😉
So true.
Definitely continues in the real world too.
A full frame with a low light ISO of 787? Really?
And yet – Canon just now, with 5D Mk. III managed to catch up with 4 years old CCD (!!!) sensor from Leica.
Fail.
Canon really needs to either re-vamp all their sensors or buy stuff from Sony, cause it’s hard to believe how they’re lacking.
Nah… no edit option :/ I was about to say: in terms of dynamic range.
1dx stfu
Which hit the stores when… half a year ago?
And please: no curse words here.
1DX is pretty crap DR too.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41976502
sky and jon ..yea keep dreaming with a crap99, in the meanwile i go shoot sport with my 200f2 ^_^
canon 1dx can blow your head out … w my sony playstation99
Is that what banding and shadow noise in general does? Blow one’s head?
“Canon really needs to either re-vamp all their sensors or buy stuff from Sony, cause it’s hard to believe how they’re lacking.”
Yes, if you take all your photos at low ISO. Further up the ISO range, there is not much in it between Canon and Sony in terms of DR. That is true of both Canon’s ageing APS-C 18MP sensor in comparison to Sony’s newer 16/24MP sensors, and Canon’s 5D Mark III sensor in comparison to Sony’s 24MP FF sensor.
That’s true. And moreover: they’re in front of Leica as soon as you push the ISO above base.
I find it remarkable how Canon has managed to get away for so long with appalling DR. Do people just not take landscapes photos with Canon DSLRs?
Research a bit and there is evidence that the marginal improvement in ISO performance from the 5dii to 5diii has also come at the cost of color fidelity.
In a lot of ways I prefer Canon to Nikon, but the latest models are really let down by their sensor tech.
With a few exposures you get easily above anything that any printer or monitor is able to display. A lot of landscape photographers do HDR anyways which easily compensates for any lack of DR from any manufacturer.
Right but why do HDR if it’s unencessary? Modern SONY sensors give more than 3 stops providing enormous control in RAW over shadow detail and highlight recovery.
Not really a substitute in large dynamic range scenes that involve movement and quick responses. It’s a simple fact that there’s little room in the shadows from Canon RAW files, especially if you take banding into account, which isn’t even expressed by the DXO numbers(read: limits DR even further).
The problem is what do you mean by “so long”? 2 years?
you are wrong here , the Leica M has CMOS not CCD.
The Leica sensor in question at DxO is the 4 year old CCD of the M9 and not the new M. The new M is closer to the performance of the RX1. The Focus Numerique link shows the newer M. If you download the files you will see a clear advantage of Leica’s better jpeg output (sharper although a bit grainy) but the if you download the RAW files (clicking on the links provided below the crops) you will see that the Sony sensor actually is 1/3 of a stop better in the noise department.
What is left in the comparison that we cannot see clearly is the Dynamic Range difference.
Lets hope DxO can review the new 240 soon enough.
That sensor is much much older, derived from sensors inside Kodak dSLRs. Nothing new really, actually very usable considering its age.
The Leica M-E camera was announced last Sept 2012 same time as RX1 http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/17/Leica-M-E-18MP-stripped-down-full-frame-rangefinder
You don’t get it. The sensor inside the M-E is the same as the one in the M9. Anywhere you read (even DxO) will confirm this. The shell may have been announced yesterday but the insides are aging.
And? Stil Leica’s problem. Selling old technology for exorbitant prices.
leica is with interc. lenses and the best in the world… sonuy with his 35 mm ….. facepalm sony
facepalm from grammar nazis
You do understand that many here are not native English speakers?
Oh well, I couldn’t care less if I had the money for Leica lenses + body. I guess only people who can’t even afford a RX1 care about it.
no worry about Leica fanboys and Leica snobs likes of Steve Huff and other BS Masterbators, they do not know what they are talking about.
the old ancient tech of rangefinder or DSLR should go and only should only be displayed at camera museums in Stockholm and Tokyo.
and never trust people who call themselves reviewers or their sites as “real life reviews”.
they are all idiot, I always trust DXO more than Steve Huff or likes of him.
In the end, you should only trust yourself. It is you who will use the Cannes for you, not Steve or DX0. Both of them could help you make a decision, but in the end its your preferences. Do you care about size? If not, there is not much sense with a Leica. For some people film is better than digital, despite all the advantages with digital, personally I love both. PS I have no Leica.
When shooting JPG (not so often anymore) I use my cameras (A900, A99 and RX1) set with +2 on the sharpness (scale goes from -3 to +3) and the results are really nice. I don’t understand all these complains about JPG been soft out of a Sony…
It’s a mushy mess.
To me, it is not soft, it is patchy in the shadows (a “watercolor” effect?).
Sorry guys but that’s not my experience. I had those problems with the Minolta 7D…
If you are happy, then that’s all that matters.
I’m really happy about it, no doubt.
99 is quite an upgrade wrt 7D! But I like Minolta JPEGs.
Agree with you: I still love my Minolta 7D but, damn, the difference is so big among the 7D, A900 and A99. JPGs are nice, yes, but RAWs are still a better option from the 7D (my taste).
Yeah, I’ve noticed that the a99’s colors are SO different from preceding cameras. Compared to the a850 — which had vibrant, glowing colors — the a99 has a strange brownish tone to its images. Better dynamic range, sharpness, and detail by far, but still… I miss those old colors. There doesn’t seem to be a way to get those colors back, either. WB and creative style adjustments don’t come close, and even in post it’s very hard to replicate.
I haven’t noticed that “brownish cast” you’re talking about. Colors from the A900 and those out from the A99 seems (to me, of course) close enough to each other; sure the DR, sharpness and details are really good with the new sensor in the A99 and RX1, but I think that new sensor in those cameras produces the best blues, reds and greens (and variations in tone of them) I’ve ever seen from a camera. I think I know what you mean when you say you’re missing those colors, as a matter of fact I still pick up the A900 for shooting as long as I don’t have to use it above ISO800 or 1600 (in very desperate cases) and the results are still awesome. I think the A900 has a more “film” kinda looking result, more “old days”, more “soft” (not in the meaning that the image is lacking definiton): it’s hard to explain.
I just love taking pics with my cameras.
The nikon 800 blow away the competition:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D800-Review/Sensor-performance
Until you realize that the difference with the RX1 is within DXO’s marging of (measurement) error.
yeah and the Nikon is ugly and huge, DSLRS as with RFs are all things of the last century that no rational people even care a bit about any more.
The Reason why the leica have that bad ISO-Rating is because DxO decrases points for not having an ISO Setting.
The Maximum for the leica is afaik 1600 oder 3200 so the RX1 (with 25600) outperforms it for sure.
In reality there is only a bit difference in Leica and RX1 in terms of noise (the Leica is at the A99 niveau or smiliar)
> (the Leica is at the A99 niveau or smiliar)
I’d rather say A99 is at the Leica M-E level!
The new RX1 number is helpful for seeing the effect of the mirror in the A99. The RX1 scores 2534 and the A99 1555 in the ISO test. This is a difference of 0.7 stops. The delta between the A77 and the NEX 7 is only 0.34 stops, the difference between the NEX 7 and the A65 is 0.5 stops (what would be expected from a 30% light loss from the mirror). So it looks like there is more difference between the A99 and the RX1 besides the mirror or the mirror is reflecting 38 percent of the light.
I took pics with both A99 (with a 24/70 Zeiss) and RX1: set both at 35mm f3.5 and I don’t see all that difference numbers are talking about. Stop looking at pure number and enjoy the cameras! ANY type of camera we use: from the most technological advanced beast to the classic film camera.
Personally (I’m not really a big fan of this DXO thing) I don’t think they got it right on the A99, but that’s only my real world experience talking… 😀
Finally some reason! +1
The studio tests that are controlled do matter. Just because you find a certain scenario where the sensors appear to produce the same IQ doesn’t mean that this will be everyone’s experience. Many photographers will shoot in different settings and under different circumstances and the 1/2 stop or 3/4 stop differences can play out. Other photographers are quick to use a flash as the light gets lower or shoot in better light much of time and the differences are minimal. But the tests do matter because there are people who are testing the ISO limits quite often and every fraction of extra light, detail, and less noise can make a difference in the final image quality.
Ok, that’s your opinion and I do respect that. My certain scenario is no flash always (never used it in my life) and pictures taken from bright sunlight to deep night: I just talk about what I’ve experienced. I love tech and numbers (generally speaking), but I think that this DXO stream’s getting everybody a little bit out of track from everyday picture taking activity. Well, I’m no “pro” living on what the selling of mi pics can provide so what do I know? 😀 That’s my own thinking.
Well, there’s a joke: If you want to make Canon fanboy furious: link tests from DXO.
Sky_walker, I might do it sooner or later: together with the phrase “at my command, unleash hell!” 😀
The trouble is a controlled test only tell you how two product perform on a specific test… a bit like the EPA gas mileage figures that are plastered on car windows. No one ever expects them to be that accurate and they aren’t. Frankly I wouldn’t buy either of these cameras… The Leica is over priced for what it is, the RX1 is a fixed lens… neither one seems a good bargain to me regardless of their scores.
Which studio tests are you referring to? Surely not the Dpreview ones where light varies, nominal ISO differences aren’t factored in, visible exposures are different, processing often differs too.
Totally agreeing with you Michelle! Feels like most ppl on these forums only care about the items and how they’re described on paper… instead of real life usage and resuts… reading such stuff too much made me want to sell my a77, although I’m incredibly happy with using it and the results it produces!
Well, Emir, just keep using whatever makes you happy with the result. I like to read around the web as well and everywhere (also on Nikon and Canon sites) you can find people looking at merely at the numbers while others are more “usage oriented” and the fight’s always on! 😀 As long as there’s respect among each other I’m open for any discussion, unluckily some people (not today in this thread I must say, and the thing is pleasant) do lack that: I’ve been reading comments in other blogs that if only I could I would have banned the writers.
Finally, a real comparaison and some reason +1
And finally i also approve ,some real comparaison and reason !
One thing the RX1 can’t change lenses…
Doh!
it doesn’t matter if you can life with 35mm lens 😀 some people can life with that and the other can’t, it’s up to you 🙂
The increased whhining from the Leica camp can only mean Sony is really closing in. Go Sony!
Leica are a prestige maker, Sony are not.
If Sony wanted to play that game they could have made a camera with a viewfinder!
I can tell you what will happen to Leica if Sony launches the Nex 9FF. Nothing! Why? Very simple, because of Summilux, Summicron and Elmar… That’s what really matters.
yes…this!!! Something that Sony still doesnt get …. top notch glass that is evolving and forms a foundation for the cameras you sell. Sony is just acting like the electronics company that it is, pushing out new small camera bodies all the time and not wanting to deal with the system (whether A- or E- mount as a whole).
Valid point.
Not to mention that Sony is only Sony, and Leica is Leica. One hardly affects another.
those lenses dont have AF, so… you can use them on a FF Nex body without any major penalty, and you still get a TTL viewfinder
Those lenses already work pretty nicely on some of the NEX cameras. A fullframe NEX would be the ultimate platform camera offering Leica lens compatibility via a simple adapter with all the modern Japanese conveniences such as EVF and peaking.
They doesn’t seem to work well with 24Mp sensor: tons of smearing with SE 21, e.g.
No need for peaking if you have a RF 😉 Honestly if I spent € 15k on decent lenses I don’t want to mount them with an adapter on a Nex.
But you are right, my point is more that Sony should focus more on an entire system than on a single body! If they want to make money (which they need to survive) they need to sell lenses. Selling a body and leave the lens sales to Leica won’t be very sustainable….
I think Leica and most of it’s users would beg to differ. Or else they wouldn’t be touting focus peaking and live view as one of the major new features of the new M
I guess it depends on your favourite focal length. You need focus peaking for tele lenses (leica R; probably the 135mm), but for standard lenght not really…
the sad part is that none of the current leica cameras are equipped wiht sensors to harness the full potential of those great lenses. The lenses belong to the best without doubt. I still got some old R glass that works beautifully on digital sensors.
Yeah, Minolta knew how to build lenses :-p
But I haven’t got money for Leica priced lenses! Sony is producing amazing quality for the Mass Market, cannot compare it to Leica.
If you have loads of money then you still have the option to get native e mount Zeiss lenses or even Leica lenses with adapter.
But dissing Sony because they don’t produce ONLY Leica like lenses is silly…
let me smack my 100-400 on my rx1!! oh but rx1 is a compact…. okay ;_(
maybe you can with a 400 f2.8? its a compact.. okay ;_(
How many DXOMarks or whatever did the RX1’s viewfinder get?
DXO tests only sensors.
If they’d test a camera though – I’m quite sure they’d test both optional viewfinders: optical and electronic.
Omg. Obvious. Sony clearly frustrates all the rich Leica owners. And they end up fighting about it with their comments on blogs.
Good old Leica and Hasselblad… No need to complete this sentence.
Buy a Leica M (the new one) and I buy a RX-1. We switch any day – ANY DAY. Read Steve Huff!
oh 🙂 We all have quit reading Steve Huff after finding out he talks to dead people. I am not kidding.
google steve huff dead people.
Hahaha. Must be those Leica fanatics, shouting from the other side there can be only one brand: “Leicaaaa…. LEICAAAAAA…..”
🙂
🙂
Is RX1 rangefinder? No.
Can you change lens? No.
Nothing to compare here.
Of course there is, DxO compares sensors not cameras!
+1
Even you change lens, it won’t change the results 😉 Sony demolished Leica on this one.
Sony demolished a 3-4 year old CCD sensor that wasn’t top notch when it came out… you do realize that’s not really something to brag about right? I love my NEX-6 but lets not get carried away.
FYI: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-vs-leica-reloaded-rx1-vs-8000-leica-m-will-sony-kill-leica/
I guess the Leica fanboys will have some busy time explaining why inferior colours, dynamics and noise is worth a multiple price tag.
sony can demolish only his fake mirror ahha turn to play call of duty on my rx1
if you cut the lens you can trow rx1 away… its the better option
so what ?
range finder and DSLR are things of the last decade.
Lieca is just like a fashion brand, if it is not a EU brand , nobody really takes it seriously.
With Sony’s idea of pricing lately I guess they think everybody can afford a Leica priced camera as well…. Funny.
The M-E is only “twice as expensive”? I thought the summicron 35 alone is like $2k. Anyway, the Sony is a great camera and no need to compare. The m240 is clearly superior because you can swap lenses, but it’s also the price of a small car, unless you buy more lenses, in which case it’s the price of a regular sedan.
My one criticism of the RX1 is the focus by wire aspect of manual focusing.
how could a crap camera like an rx1 cost 20310′ dollars and have a crap focus like that? mmm sony is only good making bravia tv
I own a Leica M8 with an even more outdated sensor. I also own a NEX-6. The NEX-6 blows away the M8 on specs and on every conceivable measurable metric (except perceived sharpness). That said, I like the images the M8 produces more. I enjoy shooting it more. People who compare my files and prints side-by-side invariably choose those made with the M8. I’d give up the NEX-6 before the M8 no questions asked.
Not here to bash Sony – I love their cameras, which is why I use one. But people who trash Leica based on a DXOMark score without having even shot the bodies and lenses do not know what they are talking about.
Nobody trashes Leica just on a sensor score, but rather on the pricing. And it is well deserved.
Leica M240 crap as crappy as Canon 5DMK2 and Nikon D700.