Ron, thank you first of all. Before I start on my customary quibbles, is there any compelling reason not to use the EVF focus magnification for mid aperture images on the RX1? This feature (the camera has both 5.9x and 11.7x) is a great escape from focus shift should any exist, reason being the EVF and perhaps LCD are bright enough and adjsutable either via exposure comp or EVF brightness. This is the a99 experience, maybe the RX1 lacks these controls, since the EVF is a 'bolt on goodie'.

Your notion of image centre and mine look to be quite different ;-) That's an awfully hazy scene on which to base such fine level analysis. I know it's hard in most cities these days.

I understand it is a Leica-centric review and why this is so. For say, a $4000 body and a $1000 lens, both bottom end figures in the Leica M universe from what I understand. A *new* RX1 and EVF is $3250, this is 65% the cost of a used body and ZM Biogon. Hoods for the RX1 can be obtained cheap, not much else is needed in the way of accessories, even spare batts/charger are cheap.

Dimensionally these are also very different cameras - the RX1 is 80-85% the size of the M9 + Biogon 35/2 in each dimension.

With respect to weight, the RX1 is 485 grams with battery (and lens); the M9 (with battery) and Biogon 35/2 is 830 grams; the RX1 is 58% the weight, a little over half.

Putting these data in summary form, the RX1 is 82% of the size, 58% of the weight, and 65% of the cost of the used Leica M9/ZM lens.

Smaller, (much) lighter, (much) cheaper. Given 'similar overall IQ', little wonder it is a winning formula, not even counting the myriad other features, things like AF, video, etc. We can add much quieter shutter too, opening up more possibilities vis-a-vis the Leica Ms.

How does the M9 go at high ISO? I have read differing reports of the new M regarding high ISO, some say better than RX1, some not quite as good...it also occurs that Sony could not have had anywhere near as good a camera if they had used something like the a900/D3X sensor, that would give up a lot of the wonderful high ISO performance.

Thanks Tariq! Yes, the differences in angle of view also really surprised me. Maybe the Sonnar is more of a 30-32mm lens? One reason might be they designed it a bit wider so that when distortion correction is active, the resulting angle of view is right around 35mm? It has a fair amount of barrel distortion, so this could make some sense. Anyway, for this kind of camera, I'd personally prefer a 28mm lens for how I would probably use it, so it's a bit of a lean in that direction in reality.

zhangyue wrote:
Ron, thanks for the effort. somehow, I can't see the results from Zeiss biogon and VC35 as for now.

I did a similar test between VC35f1.2, Zeiss biogon f2 and Leica summicron V1. And found out VC35 not as strong performer as other two at infinity at all aperture. and Leica is better at f2. about same at f2.8 and worse than Zeiss at f4 and f5.6 cross frame and about same again after f8.

I feel Zeiss biogon might be extreme good at f4 or f5.6 that out-solve most of the portion of leica M9's sensor. But Summicron V1 is adequate for me for all the situation I needed.

Rx1 has very decent performance at infinity though I can't say it is the best judge from 100% crop from you and JC. But we are really reach max pixel PP level here and it almost has nothing to do with real world image to me.



Thanks Michael. I'm not sure I follow you - are you unable to view the Biogon and Voigtlander images? The only way to do so is to download the batches. I haven't posted the actual comparison images in the body of the review because it's kind of pointless when the template for my blog restricts image width to 600 pixels.

Thanks for the info about the Cron. I hope to redo some of these with Andrew G at some point, tapping in on his bountiful Leica collection. IIRC, the 35/1.2 you owned was the first version? I'm using the second version and I was surprised how good it was at infinity. It's quite possible there is some difference between the two. Some claim there is, others that there isn't. Not having had a chance to try the first version, I can't say.

This was the first time I've really used the Biogon and have to admit it didn't really blow me away. Wide open performance is not on par with what I see from my fast Leica glass and I think overall I like the look from the C Biogon better.

I agree with you about the RX1 - it's not perfect at infinity when pixel peeping, but it's very strong and better than many other 35mm lenses I've used.

Thanks Philip - I realize that I'll never be able to satisfy everyone. One reason I didn't refocus for each aperture was because I actually found manual focusing via the EVF to be indeterminate. Meaning, I was never 100% sure I was actually focused at the absolute best point and I didn't want to leave it to AF and later find out it muffed a few images from a sequence. I partly blame it on the electronic focusing ring and the disconnect between how you turn it and how quickly the lens focuses. And I don't find Sony's peaking implementation to be that great either (compared to Ricoh's mode 2 'predator' option on the GXR). Also, the time I had available, along with the changing weather conditions that winter afternoon, meant if I refocused each image, the entire test would have taken a lot longer. As it was I was already losing time by backing up many of the sequences by also shooting with a ND filter for three of the four lenses just to be sure I'd have usable wide open images.

Yes, the center crop is not from dead center, but it's along the lines of the boat crop by Luka in that 35mm lens discussion thread.

Really, my interest in the comparison was the lenses. Not to determine if the RX1 as a camera is worthwhile, how it compares to others, etc. I'm not going to dispute it brings some attractive and useful features to the table, but for me, the lack of lens interchangeability is probably the strongest factor against it. When I go out with the M9, it's usually with four lenses, and I very frequently use all four.

I just wanted to see how it stacked up against a few decent M-mount lenses. If the results would have been dramatically superior, then I might have found a compelling reason to budget for one. But it's not so clear-cut, and for me, considering I've invested so much already in M lenses, not really the direction I want to go in. That said, I can completely understand the attraction of this camera. I've been using it for some social meetings with friends and am really impressed with it at ISO 3200 and 6400 while getting really sharp results thanks to the great lens. But sometimes the AF just won't lock (even with the assist light) and I've missed a couple shots because of that. That I find annoying and at least with the M9 I can quickly get focus in the ballpark and shoot whenever I want to.

The M9 is by far not a high ISO demon. Maybe Leica did this on purpose to force more Summilux lens sales. Based on some recent analysis here, a few of us in the M thread have modified our shooting habits to either stay at base ISO 160 and push accordingly in post, or go only as far as ISO 640 and then push accordingly. Results are actually not bad and definitely not worse than setting higher ISOs in camera, though won't be on par with current gen cameras. From the M results I've seen so far, it looks quite clean and competitive to ISO 3200. At ISO 6400 it's not too far off the D600, though requires greater chroma NR. I would be surprised if the M's sensor matched the performance of the latest Sonys. But then, the sensor is only one aspect of the package.

The ZM 35/2 at f5.6 still has these swathes of colour engulfing whole branches in magenta CA in the extreme top right corner ('near4' I am looking at). Still there at f11, much reduced though. Frankly it's horrible wide open.

The RX1 at same aperture same place shows very little CA. Much more controlled bokeh as well, kind of soft and smooth, very natural. By f11 CA is almost as good as my CY 21/2.8, you have to look closely for it.

The 35C f2.8 does about as well at f5.6 with CA as the RX1, and is a better choice for landscape going on this result, quite a yellow/green cast however. By f11 it is exemplary, a very nice lens.

The CV lens is also well-behaved if a little dead, good CA control except the very extreme, don't go much on the fuzzy bokeh. It fades badly at f11, CA still clearly there, poor greens. Just some reactions.

Just had a quick look at the f2 images in 'far' (dark tree and manor house): that is the sensor at play (RX1), brighter highlights and snappy contrast, excellent shadow detail. The fine branch detail is phenomenal, typical vignetting. Better shaping of the building/seat. I would feel much more comfortable doing post on these files than the others in this set. It's a great result really from what I saw so far.

Ron, My bad. I thought you gonna give a thumbnail look for all of them since you left a bar under each image

Anyway, I just download the infinity test and your VC35 is incredible well behaved. (Mine is pretty good, but definitely not these close to Biogon) You should hold it for sure after f5.6, I still feel Zeiss biogon and c-biogon are slightly better, have more contrast. I feel Biogon is slightly better than c-biogon at f8, though difference is extreme small.

One thing I notice before is Biogon has focus shift. given Leica has no LV, I am not sure either I or you reach its full potential or not. I planed to test it on NEX7 but sold it since then. Judge from f5.6 and f8 center, it seems definitely reaching infinity though.

Your test also confirm M9's IQ is still very high even compare with Latest sensor. hopefully, this can mute some sound of Leica basher The detail is just incredible. This kind of test remind me why is justified for high price Leica or Zeiss lens. They perform as should be most of the time. not like a lottery pick for Canikon pro lens.

I agree Sonnar is the strongest performer at f2 at infinity by quite a large margin. but after that, it seems doesn't reach Zeiss m twin performance for infinity landscape shot. But I want reinforce that is pure technically difference, not as much important for real world images. But at f2 OF rendering is the selling point of this lens, which should be more important for most people for real world shooting.

Same as you, I wish they can bring us a M version of this lens, I will be the first on the line. assuming it is in biogon price range.

rscheffler wrote:
Here's my RX1 vs. M9 & ZM35/2, ZM35/2.8 and CV35/1.2 comparison, including links to the high rez files at various distances: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=188

I think the RX1 does pretty well at infinity, but it's not the best. It definitely, from my observations has some mid zone dip in resolution/sharpness:

Is this the end of the world? Of course not, just depends on what your expectations are from this camera and the type of work you use it for.

I am still not convinced there in anything different at infinity.
1. I don't know how or if you are correcting distortion. Some distortion prevention algorithms blur detail
2. f4 is hardly the right f stop for landscape infinity, even at 35mm (or wherever the RX1 is in fact at). I can see things not close to the center veering off at this aperture
3. I have plenty of indistinct infinity at the pixel level with the D800E, ME and OM-D, especially at f4. It also depends where focus is,

I am not sure this pixel level gazing is that useful.
At the end of the day, if you dig too deeply you can also be drilling into sample variation, which produces confusion.
Its better to think of "zones" of lens/sensor competence. The RX1 is definitely in the top zone, where it is exactly is just masturbation!

BTW I like your blog, the comparisons are crisply written. And I prefer examples anytime to words

best rgds

philip_pj wrote:
Your notion of image centre and mine look to be quite different ;-) That's an awfully hazy scene on which to base such fine level analysis. I know it's hard in most cities these days.

I understand it is a Leica-centric review and why this is so. For say, a $4000 body and a $1000 lens, both bottom end figures in the Leica M universe from what I understand. A *new* RX1 and EVF is $3250, this is 65% the cost of a used body and ZM Biogon. Hoods for the RX1 can be obtained cheap, not much else is needed in the way of accessories, even spare batts/charger are cheap.

Dimensionally these are also very different cameras - the RX1 is 80-85% the size of the M9 + Biogon 35/2 in each dimension.

With respect to weight, the RX1 is 485 grams with battery (and lens); the M9 (with battery) and Biogon 35/2 is 830 grams; the RX1 is 58% the weight, a little over half.

Putting these data in summary form, the RX1 is 82% of the size, 58% of the weight, and 65% of the cost of the used Leica M9/ZM lens.

Smaller, (much) lighter, (much) cheaper. Given 'similar overall IQ', little wonder it is a winning formula, not even counting the myriad other features, things like AF, video, etc. We can add much quieter shutter too, opening up more possibilities vis-a-vis the Leica Ms.

How does the M9 go at high ISO? I have read differing reports of the new M regarding high ISO, some say better than RX1, some not quite as good...it also occurs that Sony could not have had anywhere near as good a camera if they had used something like the a900/D3X sensor, that would give up a lot of the wonderful high ISO performance.



Yes, the RX1 vs Leica is not an Apples to Apples which we know. A more apt comparison for this type of subject matter - Infinity, good light, base ISO - would be the more similar Sigam DP1M. At 1/3 the price of the RX1 and with a similar soap bar, stripped down body with no built in finder, I'm betting it would noticeably outperform the RX1 under this scenario. Of course, at higher ISO's and other situations, the RX1 would be the more versatile choice between the two...but at more than three times the price.

Ron,

Thanks for the excellent write-up. I was awaiting your results, especially comparing the ZM and CV lenses on the M9 in my case. As you may remember, I have used these lenses for awhile on the GXR and more recently on a NEX-6. On the GXR I preferred the C-Biogon to the CV35/1.2II at all equivalent apertures for anything other than shooting people. The story is different on the NEX-6, where the ZM edges and corners are a bit smeared with the C-Biogon even when stopped down, while the CV is excellent across the frame pretty much from f/4 onwards. Centrally the ZM is a touch better up to f/5.6 or so though, and of course the global contrast is greater with the ZM.

I can't wait to shoot these lenses on a Leica down the road, as I prefer that field of view to the cropped experience. I bought the lenses with the intent of moving that direction in the future. I have to say that after reading the review, the RX-1 is very, very enticing for people who like the 35mm perspective and field of view.

Thanks Matt, I too really prefer the ZM lenses on the GXR. There's something about the higher contrast of these lenses that seems to work well with the camera compared to other lenses. For example I wasn't all that blown away with the 50 Lux ASPH or the CV50/1.5 on it, but love the look of the ZM50/2.

The Sonnar on the RX1 is really sweet. It might be enough of a reason alone to get the camera if that focal length is one of your favorites. Judging from comments in the RX1 images thread, it would seem at least a few have found the RX1 sufficient to replace their DSLRs.

philip_pj wrote:
The ZM 35/2 at f5.6 still has these swathes of colour engulfing whole branches in magenta CA in the extreme top right corner ('near4' I am looking at). Still there at f11, much reduced though. Frankly it's horrible wide open.

The RX1 at same aperture same place shows very little CA. Much more controlled bokeh as well, kind of soft and smooth, very natural. By f11 CA is almost as good as my CY 21/2.8, you have to look closely for it.

The 35C f2.8 does about as well at f5.6 with CA as the RX1, and is a better choice for landscape going on this result, quite a yellow/green cast however. By f11 it is exemplary, a very nice lens.

The CV lens is also well-behaved if a little dead, good CA control except the very extreme, don't go much on the fuzzy bokeh. It fades badly at f11, CA still clearly there, poor greens. Just some reactions.

Just had a quick look at the f2 images in 'far' (dark tree and manor house): that is the sensor at play (RX1), brighter highlights and snappy contrast, excellent shadow detail. The fine branch detail is phenomenal, typical vignetting. Better shaping of the building/seat. I would feel much more comfortable doing post on these files than the others in this set. It's a great result really from what I saw so far.

Thanks for your feedback Philip. I agree the RX1 files are very pliable. As I think I noted, I shot duplicate sequences with ND filtration because the sunny ISO 100 1/2000 f/2 images looked really blown out on the camera's display, but in LR it was no problem to pull them back and they looked absolutely 'normal' compared to the properly exposed images in the sequences. Same can't be said for the M9 files. For those I could recover around .5 to .7 stops but beyond that there was no point. I also think the Sonnar is really impressive for its out of focus qualities at stopped down apertures, not just wide open, though of course with it being a 35mm lens, once stopped down there is much less background separation.

As for colour casts to images, please don't read too much into that. I had to pick a baseline towards which to normalize the images and for some viewers it might be too much on the yellow/cyan side. This might be in part because I'm somewhat 'visually allergic' to strong magenta tint shifts, which I find the RX1 biases towards, as do my Canons, especially in environments with a lot of greenery.

The magenta CA in the Biogon 'near 4' scene is purple fringing. If you look closely, it's also evident, though to a much lesser degree, in the Sonnar files and all the others as well, The C Biogon seems to handle it the best once stopped down a ways. I think the infinity scene is a bit better from which to judge CA. All of the lenses are really good and the CV is the weakest.

zhangyue wrote:
Ron, My bad. I thought you gonna give a thumbnail look for all of them since you left a bar under each image

Anyway, I just download the infinity test and your VC35 is incredible well behaved. (Mine is pretty good, but definitely not these close to Biogon) You should hold it for sure after f5.6, I still feel Zeiss biogon and c-biogon are slightly better, have more contrast. I feel Biogon is slightly better than c-biogon at f8, though difference is extreme small.

One thing I notice before is Biogon has focus shift. given Leica has no LV, I am not sure either I or you reach its full potential or not. I planed to test it on NEX7 but sold it since then. Judge from f5.6 and f8 center, it seems definitely reaching infinity though.

Your test also confirm M9's IQ is still very high even compare with Latest sensor. hopefully, this can mute some sound of Leica basher The detail is just incredible. This kind of test remind me why is justified for high price Leica or Zeiss lens. They perform as should be most of the time. not like a lottery pick for Canikon pro lens.

I agree Sonnar is the strongest performer at f2 at infinity by quite a large margin. but after that, it seems doesn't reach Zeiss m twin performance for infinity landscape shot. But I want reinforce that is pure technically difference, not as much important for real world images. But at f2 OF rendering is the selling point of this lens, which should be more important for most people for real world shooting.

Same as you, I wish they can bring us a M version of this lens, I will be the first on the line. assuming it is in biogon price range.

Thanks Michael. Sorry for the confusion.

I agree I might not have given the Biogon a fair chance by not predetermining whether focus shift is an issue. You and Edward say it has it, so it's very likely. But by testing it in this manner, without focus compensation, it's how the lens would initially respond for a new owner. Maybe more can be eked out of it with some care, but I doubt it would be a significant improvement. I'm not that thrilled with it wide open, especially compared to the 28 Cron. In hindsight I'm glad I started with the C Biogon when I first got into the M system because it's much more of a no nonsense type lens, like the 50 Planar or 21 Biogon.

Yes, the M9 files hold their own. But I do wonder how much of that snap and sparkle is related to false details and sharpness.


rscheffler wrote:
Here's my RX1 vs. M9 & ZM35/2, ZM35/2.8 and CV35/1.2 comparison, including links to the high rez files at various distances: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=188

I think the RX1 does pretty well at infinity, but it's not the best. It definitely, from my observations has some mid zone dip in resolution/sharpness:

Is this the end of the world? Of course not, just depends on what your expectations are from this camera and the type of work you use it for.

colonelpurple wrote:
I am still not convinced there in anything different at infinity.
1. I don't know how or if you are correcting distortion. Some distortion prevention algorithms blur detail
2. f4 is hardly the right f stop for landscape infinity, even at 35mm (or wherever the RX1 is in fact at). I can see things not close to the center veering off at this aperture
3. I have plenty of indistinct infinity at the pixel level with the D800E, ME and OM-D, especially at f4. It also depends where focus is,

I am not sure this pixel level gazing is that useful.
At the end of the day, if you dig too deeply you can also be drilling into sample variation, which produces confusion.
Its better to think of "zones" of lens/sensor competence. The RX1 is definitely in the top zone, where it is exactly is just masturbation!

BTW I like your blog, the comparisons are crisply written. And I prefer examples anytime to words

best rgds


Thanks Colonel.

Regarding a couple of your points:

1) I believe I stated in my write up that LR was used at standard defaults and extra corrections such as CA and distortion were disabled. What I may not have mentioned was that I also disabled these corrections in the camera just in case they might have been baked into the RAW files. I'm not sure if the RX1 does that and wanted to avoid any possibility it might.

2) The effect can be seen at f/5.6, f/8, f/11. It never improves to a uniform result, though slightly diminishes as the lens is stopped down. I chose f/4 because the effect is somewhat more visible, as is the case when I wrote about this same problem with the Leica 21/1.4 at middle apertures. I agree it's pixel peeping to an extreme, but did jump out at me quite early on in my image evaluations, perhaps because I was used to seeing it with some of my Leica lenses.

While it would seem to be common knowledge that one should stop down more for infinity shots, it depends on the lens. Many peak in absolute sharpness already at f/4-5.6 and when wanting to preserve as much fine detail as possible, would be a logical aperture to use. But I guess it's also a matter of balancing across-frame performance against absolute sharpness. Some lenses are also surprisingly good wide open at infinity. For example the Leica 50/1.4 ASPH is very impressive, so it's not necessarily unheard of to shoot infinity scenes at or near wide open (will be interesting to see how the new Zeiss 55/1.4 fares).

I agree with you about sample variation. It was definitely on my mind but didn't comment on it in my write up and I only had access to one copy of each. The results could very well be different with another camera, which I found when doing my 21mm comparison when I had access to a second ZM21/2.8. Unfortunately I don't have the resources of Roger at lensrentals at my disposal!

While we are in Leica-RX1 mode in this long running thread, two items of interest to RX1 users and to Ron's fine work, from our friends (yes, yes I know!) over at DxO:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-rx1-outperforms-the-twice-as-expensive-leica-m/

and

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-vs-leica-reloaded-rx1-vs-8000-leica-m-will-sony-kill-leica/

Some decent comments for a change too. I have to say, given the pace of Sony's sensor technology, any ILC version of this camera will cause problems for Leica's M market. The mystique will remain, but for how long, and will it be enough to sustain them?

We have seen so many wonderful cameras exit the scene in the changeover period between film and digital...I and others are using a swag of lenses from one such line and would not be without them - the Contax Yashica from Zeiss. Leica R too.

A further comment is that entering into a close technical partnership with Carl Zeiss was a marketing master stroke by Sony. Not just against the big makers, now look at who else is in the frame.

Supposedly, we will see DxOMark sensor scores for the newer Leica M 240 very soon, which will probably be much more competitive to the current Sony sensors. I'm curious about how it ranks, though I have come to my own conclusions based on the images I have seen thus far (which is that it has much better color and dynamic range than the M9/ 220 CCD sensor but that it offers no real gain in resolution).

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Supposedly, we will see DxOMark sensor scores for the newer Leica M 240 very soon, which will probably be much more competitive to the current Sony sensors. I'm curious about how it ranks, though I have come to my own conclusions based on the images I have seen thus far (which is that it has much better color and dynamic range than the M9/ 220 CCD sensor but that it offers no real gain in resolution).


the leica m scores: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Leica-M-How-does-the-new-24-megapixel-CMOS-sensor-in-Leica-s-latest-rangefinder-perform/Measurement

18MP to 24MP is really not a big difference. I would be happy with either. The other factors are more important here. I am breathlessly awaiting the colour performance of the M.

carstenw wrote:
18MP to 24MP is really not a big difference. I would be happy with either. The other factors are more important here. I am breathlessly awaiting the colour performance of the M.

it's there. slightly better than canon slightly worse than sony/nikon.

carstenw wrote:
18MP to 24MP is really not a big difference. I would be happy with either. The other factors are more important here. I am breathlessly awaiting the colour performance of the M.

Yes, I agree it's not that big a difference. But in a few one to one comparisons which I have played around with, the lower 18MP M9 sensor actually showed more resolution/ detail than the new M 24MP sensor...but it is so close that it's not worth sweating. The color and DR differences were much more obvious.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
carstenw wrote:
18MP to 24MP is really not a big difference. I would be happy with either. The other factors are more important here. I am breathlessly awaiting the colour performance of the M.

Yes, I agree it's not that big a difference. But in a few one to one comparisons which I have played around with, the lower 18MP M9 sensor actually showed more resolution/ detail than the new M 24MP sensor...but it is so close that it's not worth sweating. The color and DR differences were much more obvious.

Maybe they should introduce some false detail and do some loam sharpening on the RAW image in order to keep up with the Merill's! Lol!
Some people would think that a sensor like Foveon which sucks at iso's over 400 would be a more limiting big difference than the difference in MP between 18 and 24.

Ron, I have taken test shots with my RX1 of the Stanford church at near infinity distances and I don't see a mid zone drop off in resolution like you mention. Maybe you could take some planar side of a building type comparison shots? Also RX1 sensor has higher DR like myD800E and so you need to apply more contrast curve to image to get same punch as a less DR sensor, of course depending on the image. You need to upsize to compensate for the difference in MP and also need to frame the scene the same to account for slight differences in focal length.
Comparing lenses on two different camera platforms has too many different variables. Exposures should be matched in the field and not in LR.
Would be nice if the comparison crops were posted together side by side so I did not have to download the whole images.

I have a variety of Canon speedlights, none of which work with this camera. I do not expect to use an external flash often but will have occasion to use on.
I am interested in using a Yongnuo flash with this camera. Any advice on external flashes?

sebboh wrote:
carstenw wrote:
18MP to 24MP is really not a big difference. I would be happy with either. The other factors are more important here. I am breathlessly awaiting the colour performance of the M.

it's there. slightly better than canon slightly worse than sony/nikon.

To be honest, I want better than Nikon. I have Nikon, why would I want worse Nikon colours are fine, but Fuji colours are better. I wish Nikon would spend some development cycles here.

My vote for infinity goes into the shots I am getting from the RX1, seems like a landscape backup is no longer necessary either:



I have heard the Fovean thing mentioned many times
This is an extraordinary sensor (at ISO 100 only) but only slight exceeds the definition of the Sony FFs but not the lenses.
saying that the DP Merrills are certainly extraordinary cameras at the APS-C level.
I was thinking of the new DP3 (75mm equiv) to accompany my RX1 for portraits and telephoto landscape

wayne seltzer wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
carstenw wrote:
18MP to 24MP is really not a big difference. I would be happy with either. The other factors are more important here. I am breathlessly awaiting the colour performance of the M.

Yes, I agree it's not that big a difference. But in a few one to one comparisons which I have played around with, the lower 18MP M9 sensor actually showed more resolution/ detail than the new M 24MP sensor...but it is so close that it's not worth sweating. The color and DR differences were much more obvious.

Maybe they should introduce some false detail and do some loam sharpening on the RAW image in order to keep up with the Merill's! Lol!
Some people would think that a sensor like Foveon which sucks at iso's over 400 would be a more limiting big difference than the difference in MP between 18 and 24.


hmm, I was drawing the comparison between the DP1 Merrill and the RX1, not the Leica's- and specifically mentioned the specific subject/ limited ISO criteria. In any case, there is a real resolution advantage with the Sigma when it comes to infinity/ distance shots at base ISO that objectively surpasses a bayer 24MP sensor. Pretty much to a person, ,all that have experience with both will admit this (and many who have used the RX1 and DP1M say this). As far as versatility, what more can you ask for at $800 (a tool that, for certain uses, is only outperformed by a D800, and there not by a huge margin!). But yes, if it was a $2700 RX1, I would expect more. The Leica M9 vs M240 was a totally different discussion and when I read "false detail", I actually thought that was were you were going with the M9!