[shoplink 43460]
[/shoplink]
DxOmark (Click here) posted the full Sony RX1rII sensor review. And as expected the performances more or less matches the one of the A7rII. DxO writes:
It isn’t any surprise to see that the 42-Mpix sensor in the [shopcountry 43460]Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II[/shoplink] is related to the unit in the Sony A7R II; however, the performance improvements over the earlier models are significant and help regenerate some the interest lost to the superb Leica Q. In terms of sensor dynamics, the Sony has the upper hand, but whether that and the inclusion of a built-in EVF is enough comes down to personal choice.
While the two models adopt equally impressive lenses, it is the focal length, and thus the field of view, that’s likely to be most important single determining factor when choosing between the two. If you like the 35mm focal length, then the upgraded sensor in the Sony RX1R II makes a compelling case.
Additional note: It’s still not clear why Sony delayed the RX1rII shipment in Japan. And it’s not clear if that affects all countries or not.
RX1rII store links: [shopcountry 43460]
74 Responses
According to their charts, the best sports camera is a7s. I’d take their objectivity with quite a few grains of salt…
DXO’s Sport category has nothing to do with it being a great sports camera, it is their definition for the best high ISO performer. It’s a weird naming method but it refers purely to ISO.
In a way it make sense – the most important aspect of a sport camera is high shutter speed and that usually means high ISO. I mean, it’s not the only consideration and saying ‘low light’ is probably more accurate but I understand the decision to split it into Scenic / Portrait / Sport.
You can’t rate image quality objectively, and we shouldn’t. Once we start buying based on that, everyone’s going to try to just create super sharp, no character lenses and cameras to beat out the competition ratings.
The RX1RII is a dream camera but with a nightmare inducing price. However, if I have to choose between that and the A7RII I’m not so sure if the RX1 makes sense.
It’s one of those cameras that is easy to desire but difficult to justify 🙂
Exactly!
The FE 1.4/35 fits that bill too, looking at who buys it, and then how much they actually shoot it wide-open once they own it, its actually a far greater waste of capital. Most would probably be better-off buying the RX1Rll for $3300, learning to carry it around, and shoot with it more often in places they normally wouldn’t normally even have a camera. They’d actually become better and more productive photographers by spending more on one camera like this and foregoing all the accessorized crap.
Merry Christmas to all on SAR.
I agree with that, but I also agree with the guy you responded to. It’s a dilemma.
Everything’s a compromise, those who tell you they know all the answers actually know Jack…..IMHO, of course.
RX1+EVF at launch prices: $3250.
I don’t see where the nightmares come from.
Well, the nightmares already started with the original RX1; they just continue. I’m not saying it’s not worth it. I’m saying that it is a lot of money for me.
I hope I didn’t cause any offence. I just saw it from the original launch perspective as a “continuing tradition” of price matching. At least with the original one you got a discount for opting the out of the EVF.
No offense taken at all. You are of course right that the launch price is nothing strange. However, compared to other cameras it can appear to be expensive for what you get. I can only imagine that it is a special camera in a class of its own, recently accompanied by the Leica Q.
It is. If you were 35mm obsessed, this would be it. But if not, many alternatives apply.
If the second generation drops to the current price of the first, in the same amount of time, it’ll be a very good choice. I never thought of generation one as a really good choice because of the lack of an EVF or even tilt LCD.
Well, I thought of it but the price in combination with the slowish AF and fixed LCD made it a tough proposition and I never could buy one. The Mark II is a different proposition.
Why can’t you see it? The price for that thing is outrageous. 3000 is insane for a prime. I would love to own one buy not at that price
$3300 for a complete camera with the best 35mm available today in that size category.
Let’s see, for similar IQ from other 35mm (prices from B+H)
A7rII+ 35mm 1.4 FE: ~$4,800 – keeps AF, similar IQ but not there (really) larger size, same excellent sensor
A7rII+35mm Loxia: ~$4,500 – MF only, lens not as good, similar size
A7rII+35mm ZM 1.4: ~$5,500 – MF only, IQ similar, but not there (needs mod for best IQ +$400) a bit larger
A7rII mod + 35mm 1.4 ZM: ~$5,900 – MF only, IQ excellent, bit larger
A7r mod + 35mm 1.4 ZM: $4,100 – MF only, IQ excellent, previous gen body saves some money used, a bit larger
A7r + 35mm 1.4 FE: ~$3,100 – Keeps AF, IQ similar but not there, larger size, previous gen body saves money used
A7rII + 35mm Cron: ~$6,000 – MF only, similar size, lens not there yet unless body gets modded (adds $400 for best results with that combo)
The M mount options above do not include the price of a good adapter (if you want to pay for premium lenses, might as well pay for a good adapter) and even then, the performance of the RX1 lens is not reached.
Yes, you can buy ANY 35mm lens you want, but you don’t get the performance of any of the lenses above which are rightfully considered the top 35mm lenses around. Sigma, you say? VERY BIG and stops being in the size category similar to what the FE 35mm 1.4 ends up giving you.
None of those lenses give you leaf shutter either.
I don’t see it like that. It might sound great for someone with alot of money or someone who plan on sticking to one focal length. Outside if that, it’s kind of a hard sell and I think it was created just for attraction and not for high volume sales. Having a fixed system like that lacks versatility and growth. With lens purchase you are able to grow with the lens when a new system comes along. You’re stuck with whatever you have in the rx camera. Rx we are talking about is great for now and for a long time but if you needed another focal lenghtn, you’d be forking out at least another 3k. 35mm length is a cheaper focal length to create too. If I already own a camera, then I’d be paying half the price for the 35mm. That extra you mentioned are nice, bit not necessary for all, therefor it will stay a niche.
I have been working with an RX1 for magazines, clients and my own for 2.5 years. Rarely did I need another focal length.
Does it limit me? No. It actually helps me because in my work I am working mostly inside people’s homes documenting their lives and the leaf shutter helps me keep my presence at a minimum.
For me, it’s not about having a lot of money, but about helping me achieve what I want to achieve. Like I mention elsewhere here: if 35mm is your thing and most of your work is on that focal length, this is it.
What’s a leaf shutter? I have no idea what that is honestly. I would love to invest in these rx cameras if they had all the focal length I needed. Infact I’d get one for 3000 if it was a 70-200 zoom, but 3k is too much for a lot of people who needs different lengths. Its like. Buying new bodies over and over again.
RX100m3 or m4?
A leaf shutter is a shutter which is usually placed inside the lens assembly. It opens and closes similarly to aperture blades.
The advantages of leaf shutters over focal plane shutters (like the ones in most interchangeable lens cameras) is that leaf shutters are relatively silent and flash sync is available at all shutter speeds.
All RX have leaf shutters if I’m not mistaken (because I don’t know RX10)
RX is not meant to cover everyone’s needs. They are flagship concept cameras. All RX cameras started market segments that did not exist before: large sensor, compact, high quality cameras.
The rx10 and 100 are small sensors. I’m planning to get one to shoot videos and just a carry along travel camera, but it does not replace a full frame sensor.
So, only price should be considered. I’ve spent more than $3000 for a prime, because I’m a value shopper. I’ve purchased many lesser lenses, but in each case I based my purchases on my lens requirements and budget.
Everyone wants a Rolex at a Timex price.
The truth Rolex and RX obviously are different
Happy Christmas!
For people like me, to who 35mm represents the vast majority of their photography, this is an end-game camera.
When the point in time comes to where it’s physically too much to carry a full sized or multiple lens kit, this is exactly what I want. I’ll look back with no regrets.
My plan is to try any sort of teleconverter and wide angle converter (actually, a mod on Sony’s own 0.75 wide angle converter for 28mm works well) to maximize the flexibility of this camera.
That’s an excellent idea, something Sony should think about.
Been saying that since original RX1 but no candy.
Check the Ricoh GR wide converter.
Seen that. I originally wanted to get it, but Sony’s own UWA adapter may work better because: 1) made for FF coverage, 2) seen some posts with it on FM and it looks good and 3) bayonet mounting gives it much better usability.
You also have to remember that because it produces 42mp razor sharp images you can easily crop anywhere from 35-70mm and still get amazing results.
I just received mine and combined with the Eye-AF and the Apps it feels like a next generation camera over anything else I’ve used.
This is why you don’t look at Dx0 ratings to determine your camera…the Leica Q is absolutely stunning out of camera, sharp gorgeous files with character. The A7R II is a good camera paired with the 35 1.4 ZA, but that’s the same price as the Q and a lot bulkier.
But, sharpness doesn’t matter, right?
Regards
It’s one of many things. But these rating systems are looking at objective sharpness- microcontrast, how busy the bokeh is, the “3D” rendering of a lens will make an image look sharp even if it’s not objectively sharp on a chart
The RX1Rii is also stunning out of camera. And all the head to head matchups show they are very comparable in everything except DR (which Sony obviously is much better at).
Also the Leica Q is massive compared to the RX1Rii (if you want to talk about bulky).
Massive is a huge overstatement, pun intended 🙂 Do you own a Leica Q? I own one, it’s similar size to the A7R II. With most FE lenses attached, the Q is smaller than the A7r + lens. The RX1r v1 is maybe 10% smaller, but not much.
Only by owning one that explains why you are that shortsighted.
Yup, I own a Leica Q, Sony A7r II and RX1r. That makes me more shortsighted than you, who only owns Sony? Seriously.
It’s a considerable difference:
Then you need to be prepared to call the A7r II “massive” :). In real world use its negligible. Add touch screen, fast accurate AF, and a better wifi functionality, the Q is a better buy.
A7 series and Q are roughly the same size. Add massive FE lenses and the Q is smaller
There are plenty of compact lenses for use with the A7’s if that’s a priority, making the sized difference between the A7 & the Q negligible. The RX1rII will always have a size advantage compared to the other two.
Which lenses? I only know of one that’s compact and decent (28 F2). Cropped lenses don’t count 🙂
Loxia’s are nice and there are others, plus the A7’s have the advantage of using virtually any lens with an appropriate adaptor.
Can’t really compare manual focus lenses. Manual focus lenses are always going to be smaller because no focus motor. The Q and Rx1r lenses are exceptional because they AF while being compact. The Q is f1.7 so the size is remarkably small. But you can’t call the Q massive if you don’t want to call the A7 series massive.
If you can’t focus a manual wide angle lens you need a different hobby.
Didn’t realize I was having a conversation with Donald Trump 😉
I guess the 70-80% that choose an AF lens should all choose a different hobby. And I should choose a different profession. Now that we’ve dispersed that, everyone should buy a manual focus lens, because those are currently the only compact lenses Sony offers. Oh wait, Sony doesn’t even make them…
I’m glad you are happy with the Leica Q, it’s certainly a beautiful camera. I would buy the A7rII or the RX1rII over the Leica mainly for the superior sensor, more compact size (RX1rII) and the choice of lenses A7RII. The Leica is nice but is bettered in both cases by the Sony offering. And I stand by the manual focus comment, any photographer worth his salt can achieve great results with a manual lens, and even a beginner using the excellent focusing aids that are automatically triggered using the Loxia lenses. If you cannot, you definitely need to find a different hobby because you are totally lacking any photographic skills.
Putting it another way, any stellar image that someone can get on a manual focus lens they can get on an auto-focus lens. So using the same logic, choosing AF over manual focus does not make you a worse photographer. So manual focus needs to add something (AF or IQ). In the case of the Loxia, you can get just as good IQ from an AF lens.
The Leica Q was made to compete with the RX1 Series, by comparison it is a lot bigger. You can not compare it to the the A7 series, it does not have an interchangeable lens. If you want to compare a Leica to the A7 use the Leica SL which also by comparison is huge. And if you need to know of a small auto focus FE lens with autofocus its the Sony/Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8. PS the 28mm F2 FE is a full frame lens.
The context was based on a comment that the Leica Q is “massive.” My point is that the Leica Q was not big, bigger than the RX1R II, but about the size of an A7, which is considered a compact full frame. I already mentioned the 28 F2 as a good compact option. But compact is relative, an A7 + 28 FE is the same size as a Leica Q. Yet the commenter stated the Leica Q was “massive.”
You said the 28mm F2 is a cropped lens. Its not.
No I didn’t. Read it again. I asked what lenses were available that were compact and good outside of the 28 F2. I said not to include cropped lenses in that list.
Ah, it read like it was part of the same comment. My mistake.
No worries 🙂 I’m seeing the confusion now. Point taken on the Q being a Rx1r competitor not an A7. But I do think it’ll garner a similar group of buyers.
That comment happened because you initially said the A7Rii was “a lot bulkier”.
This was a fight you started, and now you’re in full damage control mode.
Just give up, the equivalent Leica camera will always be “a lot bulkier” than the equivalent Sony camera.
Also just for your information, the Zeiss 35mm F2,8 is a lot smaller and more compact than other lenses in its class, especially due to its special inwards lens hood design.
So you don’t think the A7R + 35 1.4 FE is bulkier than a Leica camera with 35 1.4? I don’t need to argue that, it’s just true. Any compact system is smaller than the 35 1.4 FE- don’t misquote people- I said the combination of a a7r + 35 1.4 FE is a lot bulkier. Lots of politicians here that twist words.
That’s the because the A7Rii should be compared to the Leica SL. They are the ilc flagships of either brand.
You’re quite the politician yourself, and you don’t even see the error of your own comparison.
Honestly, the people who point out your hypocrisy are in the right.
That’s just one comparison. But not the one DxOmark is comparing. The error is stating the Leica camera equivalent “will always” be bulkier. Until a few weeks ago, the flagship was the Leica m240 + 35 1.4 summilux. Which would be less bulky than the a7r II + 35 1.4. Not saying the Sony can’t be smaller in certain situations. But that “always” statement is incorrect.
DXO compared a fixed lens vs fixed lens camera. They compared the Leica Q vs RX1Rii, nothing wrong here. As usual the Leica Q will be far more bulky.
Leica SL vs A7Rii, again, the Leica comes out far more bulky.
“The error is stating the Leica camera equivalent “will always” be bulkier. Until a few weeks ago, the flagship was the Leica m240”
Even here you are arguably wrong.
The Leica m240 is larger than the A7Rii in 2 out of 4 dimensions if we count the 3 lengths + weight.
Second of all, that Summilux can be used on the A7Rii as well, so Leica has no advantage here, you could just replace the A7Rii with something like the old A7, and the Leica would still just be more bulky and have less features.
I’m just trying to balance out your superlatives about “always.” I agree that in some comparisons and situations the Sony will be smaller.
Not some, most.
Because of physics. The old M-mount and R-mount have flange distance that will make the system more bulky when all else is equal.
Secondly, you should realize that your comparisons are downright dishonest. Especially when you initially tried to compare a fixed lens camera Leica Q to the A7Rii.
Wow, cool it with the overstatements and superlatives man. And the conspiracy theories. No one is trying to be dishonest or purposely mislead anyone. I own the A7rii and the Leica Q and plan on selling the A7R because it’s somewhat redundant. There will be people choosing between those two. And I wasn’t even comparing the two- I was answering a comment that the Q is “massive.” Using a logical argument, unless you can call the A7R II massive, neither is the Q. I’m not sure what part of that logical statement doesn’t make sense, but if what I just said leads to another response with superlatives and accusations, I give up.
35mm f2.8? Voigt 40mm f2.8?
“but that’s the same price as the Q and a lot bulkier”BS, why the 35mm? Sony have the affordable 28mm f/2 and paired with that it is just 2cm longer, and other dimensions are smaller than the Q.
This is definitely my next camera. The only caveat is the lack of 4K video. But compared to the A7RII, there are very few differences with the tradeoff – outside of one prime lens on the RX1RII. It’s been pre-ordered hopefully it ships 1/7 from newegg
I am sure the next rx1 will have that curved sensor.. Hence the lens will be smaller and sharper and the overall end to end sharpness will be awesome.. We can probably see that sensor in all of sonys fixed lens lineup
Used a7R with FE35/2.8 will meet these scores.