favourite RX1 quote of the week:

'Send it back..
It's a Sony.
It's too expensive.
The Internet says it has focus issues.
It's a Sony.
It looks like a WAR OF THE WORLDS spaceship with EVF on.
You can't change lenses.
It's a Sony.
It's a point and shoot.
You'll never get a shot off due to focus/lens hunting.
It says Sony on the camera.'

RRS are reportedly working on an RX1 base plate for their acclaimed Arca-Swiss system. Like this: http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=BPnS-S

Given the handholding issues, maybe someone will make something like this grip for the little fella:
http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=BM9-Grip&type=0&eq=&desc=

philip_pj wrote:

Given the handholding issues, maybe someone will make something like this grip for the little fella:
http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=BM9-Grip&type=0&eq=&desc=

Probably a HUGE market for something like that. Are there not already aftermarket grips for the RX1?

The images I have seen posted with the RX1 look amazing. I really want to love the camera but it is just way too small for my hands. Feels like a little cheap toy for some reason. Perhaps a grip may help? I actually find the form factor of the M8 & M9 to be really good. I am probably one of the few who actually prefer it to many DSLR's. For some odd reason, I like the feeling of "older" cameras.

EDIT - that RRS grip could help a lot!

I agree with Gary (really like the images from the RX1 and the M8/9 form factor is still more comfortable, for me).

carstenw wrote:
Yes, if they could get it down around M6 size with display and controls sticking out on the back, that would be just wonderful. At the moment they just feel chubby and clumsy to me.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's certainly possible given what Sony has demonstrated. Question is, is it possible for Leica? They are probably more limited with regard to both R&D and parts bin constraints (The can't just design/ make what they need like someone like Sony might be able to).


In this case Leica is facing a similar disadvantage as SLR systems because of the required flange distance of the M mount. The RX1 has no such problem because, as we know, the lens was designed to sit a few millimeters away from the sensor and the NEX system has a shorter flange distance. Therefore with the M, it will always be a matter of ~28mm from lens mount to sensor plus whatever thickness of the sensor and board, plus body shell, plus rear LCD and controls.

Also, from my understanding, the new M is within one mm of body thickness of the M8/9, but has some protrusions such as the thumb grip and LCD.

I had some time yesterday to wander around with both the RX1 and M9 in 'normal use' and didn't find the M9 to be all that much bigger in-hand. At least for me the size factor between the two is not a primary reason whether or not to get one over the other. The RX1, for me, does feel a bit on the small side, but I can live with it and an aftermarket grip would probably be a sufficient solution.

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.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
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.

wayne seltzer wrote:
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.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
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!


I've seen some DPM images where certain types of details in a given scene seem to be exaggerated. This was most obvious in shots with a mixture of natural elements, such as trees, and manmade objects, such as buildings. At a certain size in the image, straight-edged manmade objects had an exaggerated degree of sharpness while the organic objects seemed to be quite soft.

As for the Leica M and the marginal difference in linear resolution over the M9, there are subtle but still clear benefits of this additional resolution:

Over on LUF someone posted a couple comparison DNGs from the M9 vs. the M.

There are some slight differences in how fine details are rendered, which seems to boil down to the additional resolution of the M's sensor. But farther down in the thread, someone else posted conversions done with C1 where the degree of false detail in the M9 files was much less severe.

In the crops below from my conversion of these files with LR 4.3, you can see that the M9 creates a lot of false details, especially in the roof tiles crop. In the very small crop, you can see the difference in the vertical bank of windows, that I assume is correctly rendered in the M version. Also a lot more false colour and colour moire in the crop with the tree branches and shutters. Also, the crops were from the files viewed at 200% to make the differences more obvious.

For the comparison crops I resized the M file down to the M9's dimensions. Other than WB and tint adjustments to get them close, all other LR settings were the same, which implies to me it should be relatively easy to match up the two cameras in post for a unified look. But we'll need more samples to see how the two compare for skin tones, where I think there might be more differences.

M on the left side:

rscheffler wrote:

In this case Leica is facing a similar disadvantage as SLR systems because of the required flange distance of the M mount. The RX1 has no such problem because, as we know, the lens was designed to sit a few millimeters away from the sensor and the NEX system has a shorter flange distance. Therefore with the M, it will always be a matter of ~28mm from lens mount to sensor plus whatever thickness of the sensor and board, plus body shell, plus rear LCD and controls.

Also, from my understanding, the new M is within one mm of body thickness of the M8/9, but has some protrusions such as the thumb grip and LCD.

I think that may be true to a point. The M is 5mm thicker than the M9 but, as you say, some of that is due to rear protrusions (I don't know if it's 4mm though).
http://j.mp/S56OET

Good point also about the flange distance of the M, which is 27.95mm. On a Leica M9, for instance, it appears that there is maybe 8-9mm behind the sensor used for LCD electronics and so forth. I suspect, looking at assembly videos of the RX1, Sony only requires half that distance for the same type of electronics. Sony is of course a master of packaging/ electronics engineering and miniaturization. I suspect future M's will become slimmer.

wayne seltzer wrote:

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.


Thanks Wayne. I'm not sure I'll have the chance do another set of tests before the camera goes back this weekend. I understand it's less convenient to have to download the full-rez files, but then you can more easily flip between images in whatever imaging software you prefer to use and evaluate whatever portion of the scene is of most interest to you, rather than having to rely on my decision.

When I did the comparisons, I set both cameras to aperture priority and adjusted exposure compensation on the M9 to match what I know to be the correct sunny day exposure, then adjusted the RX1 for the same exposure value, give or take 1/3 stop. The results though were that the RX1 files were consistently brighter than those from the M9. Among the M9 sets, those with the ZM35/2.8 were also consistently about 1/5 stop darker than the other two lenses. Ideally I would have shot everything on manual exposure, but again, due to some time constraints and the number of sets I wanted to generate, it was much faster to do so on aperture priority. And in some of the scenes there were slight changes in light due to the very thin and variable cloud cover that day.

dovey wrote:
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?


This is an interesting question because I wonder whether the RX1's hot shoe is industry standard and how well it plays with various devices? I can mount my Canon 580 flash on it, set it to manual output and the camera will fire it. But, if I put my Pocket Wizard (the older hot shoe mounting 4-channel model) on it, it won't work most of the time. And it doesn't seem to be specific to that one unit, because I tried a couple others as well with the same results.

Ron, I'm not seeing your crops above.

One point about the Sigma, so much of what is posted has been severely over-sharpened as that is the default behavior of the raw processor, Sigma Photo Pro.

Ron, have you seen severe moire with the RX1? I noticed in the Imaging Resource review they mentioned it and I swear on the previous page, the windows look infected with moire in the building shot. Otherwise, I'm really impressed with the sharpness samples in the Imaging Resource review. The files do appear to rez up very nicely to even 40"x60".

Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think that may be true to a point. The M is 5mm thicker than the M9 but, as you say, some of that is due to rear protrusions (I don't know if it's 4mm though).


The M is 0.5mm thicker, not 5mm This is not counting protrusions, just the flat part of the body itself.

carstenw wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think that may be true to a point. The M is 5mm thicker than the M9 but, as you say, some of that is due to rear protrusions (I don't know if it's 4mm though).


The M is 0.5mm thicker, not 5mm This is not counting protrusions, just the flat part of the body itself.


How do you figure? On the link for camera size I posted, it shows the M9 at 37mm and the M at 42mm when you put the cameras on their backs.

That is probably with protrusions then? The flat part of the body is supposed to be 0.5mm thicker. 5mm is huge! I mean, that is what I was told, I haven't measured it. I really hope that the camera didn't grow that much!

Btw, camerasize.com has some errors in it. I wouldn't trust it by itself without further evidence.

Look at the relative sizes of the hotshoes. I do not think that there is an extra 5mm there. It would be visible.

There is a video somewhere of a Leica rep at Photokina, I think, stating the body thickness is within one millimeter, excluding the thumb rest and rear LCD of both cameras.

Tariq, I think there might be an issue with my web host at the moment as my email service is also down... hopefully it will be resolved shortly.

So, camerasize is not accurate? I don't know, that's what I was basing my info off of, as well as a few reviews which have noted the thicker body and how it was noticeable.

I guess this is more apt for the thread, though I don't know how accurate it is. Visually, the difference is quite remarkable.

carstenw wrote:
Look at the relative sizes of the hotshoes. I do not think that there is an extra 5mm there. It would be visible.

The actual specifications for the depth for both M9 and M are correct on camera size after looking up the specs elsewhere. There is 5mm difference between the two. As Ron mentioned, a lot of that is in the rear protrusions (though I doubt that's 4mm worth, but I guess it does not matter really).

rscheffler wrote:
M on the left side:

Tariq Gibran wrote:
So, camerasize is not accurate? I don't know, that's what I was basing my info off of, as well as a few reviews which have noted the thicker body and how it was noticeable.

I guess this is more apt for the thread, though I don't know how accurate it is. Visually, the difference is quite remarkable.

But look at that screenshot again. The M9 is noticeably taller as they are depicted, which is meant to be to scale. In other words, the measurements are of something other than total thickness, and at that point we no longer really know what we are comparing. I think someone needs to take callipers to the top plate to really sort this out.

carstenw wrote:
But look at that screenshot again. The M9 is noticeably taller as they are depicted, which is meant to be to scale. In other words, the measurements are of something other than total thickness, and at that point we no longer really know what we are comparing. I think someone needs to take callipers to the top plate to really sort this out.

Leica gives the same measurements for depth so the numbers themselves are official. There is 5mm difference which includes all rear protrusions.