ePhotozine posted a new RX1R review.
The Sony Cyber-shot RX1R is a very slightly improved camera compared to the original RX1 with the AA filter removed it has the potential to deliver slightly sharper images, although with the added risk of moiré appearing. The difference is quite subtle and you would be hard pressed to see the difference without comparing results side by side.
And SAR reader Jedi compared the RX1R with the Canon 5DmarkIII at ForcePhotos.fr. The RX1R images looks way sharper don’t you think?
New RX orders:
RX1 at Amazon, BHphoto, Adorama, WexUK, Sonystore US, Sony Canada, Sony Deutschland, Sony UK, Sony France, Sony Italy, Sony Netherland, Sony Belgium, Sony Austria, Sony Sweden, Sony Finland, Sony Spain.
RX100MII at Amazon, BHphoto, Adorama, WexUK, Sonystore US, Sony Canada, Sony Deutschland, Sony UK, Sony FR, Sony Italy, Sony Netherland, Sony Belgium, Sony Austria, Sony Sweden, Sony Finland, Sony Spain.
24 Responses
RX1R looks sharper indeed.
well worth the money, quality is top notch and makes me (only a little) envious of it over my RX1. let the poor people drool in envy 😀
i do agree that the prices of the accessories are a bit on the higher side, i’ve chosen to use a olympus m43 35mm equiv OVF which i bought second hand for $50 which works jsut as well for 1/10th of the price.
i wish there was a ultra wide version of the RX1 (or at least a ultra wide adaptor by sony/zeiss) similar to the VCL-ECU1 or fisheye adapter on the RX1… i’ll see how the FF NEX pans out though
Unfair test. The Sigma was shot f1.4. The RX1 at f2. Both lenses wide open. Stop that Siggy down for a fair fight.
I don’t understand why the crops are same size. Are they 100%? It doesn’t say, but the Canon crops should be just a tad smaller. Did tester rez up the Canon files to match the Sony? In fact, the spider in the tree looks to be cropped even tighter than the Sony.
I don’t understand why the article states the Canon “on paper” should eat the Sony with much to spare. The Sony has more mp and no AA. How does that favor the Canon?
Not knocking the RX1R. And I’m no fan of Canon. But this comparison seems obviously slanted.
Both should be shot wide open and at f4.
Of course the Sony RX1 mk II even the Mk I will be sharper, cause there is no space between the lens and the sensor. The problem with DSLR is the empty space for the miroir, this space make each ray of light spead out a little bit ( less precise ) at the end of the glass before hitting the sensor, It like a projector at 2 feet will give a crispier image on the screen compare to the same projector at 4 feet away. Pure physics ! That’s why miroirless will always be sharper cause of this fact ! Even in the time of film ,the Leica M System benefit of that Fact it was not just a matter of very good lens made by Leica.
Miroirless System will also need Less good quality of lens than a DSLR needs to achieve the same sharp image… $$$. The fact that the lens is so close to the sensor is the FIRST reason why DSLR will die one day ! But before we need very good EVF and Phase detection autofocus on Miroirless camera … and after bye bye DSLR !
That’s a good reason why Nikon and Canon don’t want to make Pro miroirless camera, cause people will need to spend less money on lenses, to get same sharp images.
Yup the RX1R is sharper and it also seem to capture more light and more details than the 5DM3
To compare a fixed 35mm lens to a professional camera is pointless. I can’t shoot sports @ 35mm, so who cares? I can’t shoot raw video with the Sony. Game, set, match = 5d3.
The comparaison was about sharpness not about the ability to shoot sports ! But one day people will shoot sports with a FF Pro mirorless camera that have EVF with a 2X magnification ( like looking thru a medium format DSLR ) and a tracking autofocus as good as a DSLR … you’ll see ! But the difference is the lenses will be smaller and cheaper for the same sharpness !
The futur Pro newbiss buyer will starts to invest in masses for this sony\minolta FF pro system and after Canon \ Nikon will have to wake up. And then the DSLR will start to die., cause there will be no purpose anymore ! Is in it good ?
I should have said Sony\Minolta\Olympus Pro FF Miroirless system ( without Translucent Mirror Technology ) ! Please Sony you can do it ! 5 axis image stabilisation, wheathersealed body, and 2x EVF with no lag .
Not to forget , Zeiss Lenses !
All agreed there is not room for choosing between 5d mk3 or other DSLR and RX1R. Clearly these are very different cameras. 5d mk3 is is moly useless in almost all situations RX1 would feel at home and vice versa. If you are out shopping for one of them the other will not appeal at all.
So the comparison only shows that RX1R is a good camera that produces IQ on par or better than 5D mk3 which is good to know. Similarly it shows that an old school DSLR with compromise lens can still hold its own against top of the line Zeiss lens purpose build for best in class sensor.
I knew you would feel hurt.
They are trying to compare image quality, sharpness and details that can be captured here. As far as I can see the RX1R wins hands on.
Clearly @Shawn you seem to lack basic intellect. Stop being an obvious canon fodder. The point was not how versatile the cameras are.
Strange comparison. At first, why the 5d3 + Sigma is better on paper? At dxomark RX1 and it’s lens bests canon+sigma combo in every aspect of IQ: better DR, better color separation, better sharpness at equal apertures, etc.
On paper – P&S vs DSLR? But to be fair, this p&s uses FF sensor from Sony and a lens of ZEISS.
Its an interesting camera, but i will wait for RX 3 or 4.
becos to me this is waste of investing that many on primitive camera.
About the 5DMkIII comparison… I noticed that all 5D shots were at ISO-200 and RX1R shots are at ISO-100. This is not a proper comparison at all.
The RX1R is currently out of stock. Sold out already?
brb going to compare a bus to a ferrari. oh wait… it doesn’t make any sense -.-“””””””””