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.

Carsten, I think it must be more than a tiny difference since, not only do we have the official measurements but you have fairly Pro-Leica reviewers mentioning how the difference is noticeable in their reviews. It's the number one difference mentioned by Huff for instance:

"Let me put up a list of the things that are different over the M9, just off the top of my head:

1. The body is slightly larger and thicker – wish it was M6 sized as that body is perfect IMO"

...it is also the first noted Con in that review:

"Cons

Camera is thicker than the M9 and the M9 is bigger and thicker than an M7. I would prefer M6 size but just not possible."

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/03/11/the-leica-m-240-real-world-camera-review-2013-by-steve-huff/

Hmm, that is really disappointing.

At the 25 minute mark in this video (scroll down the page to "New: Interview with Stefan Daniel on the floor of his office") Daniel states "the overall size of the new M is exactly the same as the M9, the length, height and width, but the top cover has become one millimeter bigger."

rscheffler wrote:
At the 25 minute mark in this video (scroll down the page to "New: Interview with Stefan Daniel on the floor of his office") Daniel states "the overall size of the new M is exactly the same as the M9, the length, height and width, but the top cover has become one millimeter bigger."

Yeah, I believe he said it. Maybe what some of the reviewers are experiencing when they hold it is this top cover increase in combination with the rear projections which makes an already thick camera feel even thicker.

Just had to check the thread title, then go back over a page to find something other than Leica ;-)

Well, while we are solidly on the L brand as to be measuring minutiae regarding dimensions and thumb rests and the like, and it's all very interesting and of vital importance to Leica users I am guessing...DxO released the data for the M240 model.

It provides some interesting insights into the RX1 as it happens.

The M240 is much better than the M9 in a rather important measure called colour depth - the ability to separate colour tones at a given ISO - it is now 1.5 bit better than the M9 and only lags the RX1 by a full bit (1.1 actually), in statistical terms given linear data Leica closed the gap by around 60% witgh respect to the RX1 levels.

Now the critical dynamic range measure - the new Leica actually approaches the RX1 to within a half stop or so at low-ish ISO levels, ISO 150-400. From there it is in graphical terms, all downhill for the M, as by the very useful ISO 5000 range (for a street or available light camera) the RX1 is out to 1.4 stops better...put another way, the RX1 has about the same DR at ISO 12800 as the Leica M has at an actual ISO 4800.

[The RX1 shades or betters the M240 in the other measures as well.]

Why are these two measures important? Colour separation and colour subtlety, in a nutshell. Much of the colour that evades narrow gamut colour spaces is actually occurring at high tones, exactly those ones that high DR sensors can deliver. Colour separation is vital for photorealism, dimensionality, depth...it is why microcontrast and midtone separation are a primary aim.

DR of course gives us a lot of latitude in exposure, the ability to capture meaningful data at very low and very high levels of LV, and to provide finer gradation of tonality in a high contrast scene.

philip_pj wrote:


The M240 is much better than the M9 in a rather important measure called colour depth - the ability to separate colour tones at a given ISO - it is now 1.5 bit better than the M9 and only lags the RX1 by a full bit (1.1 actually), in statistical terms given linear data Leica closed the gap by around 60% witgh respect to the RX1 levels.

Now the critical dynamic range measure - the new Leica actually approaches the RX1 to within a half stop or so at low-ish ISO levels, ISO 150-400. From there it is in graphical terms, all downhill for the M, as by the very useful ISO 5000 range (for a street or available light camera) the RX1 is out to 1.4 stops better...put another way, the RX1 has about the same DR at ISO 12800 as the Leica M has at an actual ISO 4800.

[The RX1 shades or betters the M240 in the other measures as well.]

Why are these two measures important? Colour separation and colour subtlety, in a nutshell. Much of the colour that evades narrow gamut colour spaces is actually occurring at high tones, exactly those ones that high DR sensors can deliver. Colour separation is vital for photorealism, dimensionality, depth...it is why microcontrast and midtone separation are a primary aim.

DR of course gives us a lot of latitude in exposure, the ability to capture meaningful data at very low and very high levels of LV, and to provide finer gradation of tonality in a high contrast scene.

We were just discussing this over in the thread about DxOMark and Leica.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1195324/11

You know, none of us pay attention to the thread titles around here!

To carry on the Leica focus, do the M240 and M9 sensors bottom out at ISO 200 and 160 respectively?

I ask as the Sony 24Mp sensor delivers its best at ISO 100 (actual measured value of ISO 81 according to DxO), at which ISO level it is very strong for several of the metrics they report.

This is very important in real world shooting for RX1 users because it means that you will be getting a giant boost (as compared with slightly higher ISO levels) in SNR, dynamic range and tonal range, and to a lesser extent colour sensitivity by using ISO 100. It also means its superiority over the Leica sensor is most strongly evidenced at both ends of the ISO range...

The M240 goes better against the SLT-handicapped a99, but still loses out on these two measures of DR and colour depth..actually it loses out on all the measurements in absolute terms except maybe ISO sensitivity, again due to the high ISO floor value.

They are closely matched through the ISO values that are comparable given the restricted ISO range of the M240 in these tests.

It may also be that Sony gave a99 users an ISO 50 option to bring it closer to the RX1 on DR and Tonal Range. Good to see the sensor has still more in it at such low values. Enough staring at graphs - good though they are, esp. the mouse over readouts.

And a good thing, too Tariq, these rambling threads are usually the best...

That's true Philip. Btw, between you and Ron, I'm starting to really feel the itch to get one of these RX1's. I really with you would stop with all the RX1 accolades as I really want the price to drop!

As well as being bigger the Leica M is 100g heavier then the M9.
With a lens it's more then twice the weight of the RX1.
The weight and size were a big disappointment for me.
It's practically the same as a Canon 6D, which is more versatile.

The RX1 is very small. This is a USP. If you don't like small of course get something else, e.g. a Nikon D600 and Zeiss lens.

The RX1 has a silent shutter. The Leica is not silent.

The RX1 has replaced my ME and 35mm.
For me it is better then the new Leica M for everything except the quality of the RF focus.
I will use the OM-D for telephoto.

colonelpurple wrote:
As well as being bigger the Leica M is 100g heavier then the M9.
With a lens it's more then twice the weight of the RX1.
The weight and size were a big disappointment for me.
It's practically the same as a Canon 6D, which is more versatile.

The RX1 is very small. This is a USP. If you don't like small of course get something else, e.g. a Nikon D600 and Zeiss lens.

The RX1 has a silent shutter. The Leica is not silent.

The RX1 has replaced my ME and 35mm.
For me it is better then the new Leica M for everything except the quality of the RF focus.
I will use the OM-D for telephoto.


Are you using the Optical or EVF finder with the RX1 (since I would guess you're used to one).

Tariq Gibran wrote:
colonelpurple wrote:
As well as being bigger the Leica M is 100g heavier then the M9.
With a lens it's more then twice the weight of the RX1.
The weight and size were a big disappointment for me.
It's practically the same as a Canon 6D, which is more versatile.

The RX1 is very small. This is a USP. If you don't like small of course get something else, e.g. a Nikon D600 and Zeiss lens.

The RX1 has a silent shutter. The Leica is not silent.

The RX1 has replaced my ME and 35mm.
For me it is better then the new Leica M for everything except the quality of the RF focus.
I will use the OM-D for telephoto.


Are you using the Optical or EVF finder with the RX1 (since I would guess you're used to one).


Hi
I have been using neither up to now
I finally ordered the EVF which is coming next week
The EVF I think is better for holding the camera steady during landscape shots.
Rgds

Thanks. I was just curious. The lack of a proper built in finder is the biggest drawback of this camera for me, particularly since I don't get along with EVF's too well. The expensive OVF from Zeiss is a very good one but, unfortunately, gives no feedback whatsoever (focus, exposure, etc.).

Tariq, earlier you were saying how the DP1M outperformed the RX1 at low iso's and now you are thinking about getting a RX1 now?
And you said that everyone was in agreement about the DP1M outperforming the RX1 when in the DP1M thread Alundeb proved that there was not extra detail in the DP1M shots but instead extra processing in camera that looked like LCE in photoshop. Also the Suede mentioned how Foveon sensors are more inaccurate rendering colors due to less blue channel light being collected by the sensor. Users in that thread are reporting banding at iso 200 even.IMHO the DP1M images look harsh, over sharpened like images which look which look harsher than the usual difference between FF and cropper images.
And this obssesiveness about detail sharpness at infinity of a landscape image is silly as most decent landscape images have foreground subjects as well as distant background and thus focus is not set usually at infinity but closer to get best sharpness on the foreground object and thus the distant background should be rendered less sharp like we see in order to portray far distance between them.
The top notch Sony sensor and Zeiss 35/2 lens combination has been there since it was introduced in Dec but it takes some awhile after seeing DXO test results before they believe it or after reading enough of Philip's praising posts.
Meanwhile others can keep talking pages on pages about ergonomic issues. I wonder what these people will complain against next because I doubt any camera will be perfect or good enough for them.

Hey Wayne. If I ever ended up with an Rx1, it would b. for a different use than the Dp1m or Dp2 m I own. I have not seen banding at ISO 100 where I shoot them at. I'm also happy with their advantages over bayer sensors for what I use them for. Resolution is better for that use over 24MP Bayer as well.

That said, the Rx1 appeals to the gadget freak in me. The lack of an integral finder though is a deal breaker given the price and alternatives.

I reckon, being purely practical and resisting enthusiasm for once, the sheer versatility of the thing wore me down.

I was trying to hang out for an integrated EVF version too. Or an ILC version, as the rumours site had something a while back to the effect that Zeiss were working on a set of three 'expensive' lenses due June 2014 for the 'NEX FF', and that they were going to use a prototype body to do so.

It's vapourware for now though. Three months in, the RX1 price has not budged one dollar. They have had trouble keeping EVFs in the shops.

philip_pj wrote:
I reckon, being purely practical and resisting enthusiasm for once, the sheer versatility of the thing wore me down.

I was trying to hang out for an integrated EVF version too. Or an ILC version, as the rumours site had something a while back to the effect that Zeiss were working on a set of three 'expensive' lenses due June 2014 for the 'NEX FF', and that they were going to use a prototype body to do so.

It's vapourware for now though. Three months in, the RX1 price has not budged one dollar. They have had trouble keeping EVFs in the shops.



Actually, the price is down here in the U.S.

$150 off here:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/rx100-for-599-150-savings-on-the-rx1/

and possibly up to $500 off here (I'm waiting to hear back since if this goes very close to 2K, it starts making sense!)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/03/17/act-quickly-big-savings-on-canon-nikon-sony-cameras-and-lenses

The RX1 design mission was to create the smallest high quality FF camera ever made. Were an EVF to be added, the camera likely would have been more Leica-sized. I think Sony imagined being a leader in a segment that didn't exist would give this tiny fixed lens camera more of a chance to succeed than being launched as the low cost Japanese brand Leica imitator that can't even change lenses... which would probably cost $400+ more if the EVF was internal... so would also guess Sony marketing advised engineering dept. that camera cost had to be kept sub-$3K in the U.S. at launch. In fact, there are many elements of the camera design to indicate Sony clearly was not trying to mirror a Leica experience.

Now that we got out of the way my theory why the RX1 is what it is from a design standpoint here are the top 3 reasons in my opinion for having and not having an integral EVF/OVF:

Integral EVF/OVF:
- Systematic user experience - every shot always feels the same to the user
- More stability allowing for lower shutter speed
- Easier/more accurate composition

Optional EVF/OVF:
- Smaller form factor camera allowing for increased camera portability/availability
- Incognito non-threatening appearance when used without EVF/OVF
- More camera angle flexibility when utilizing articulating EVF

In summary, if the user can overcome not having a systematic user experience, there is other benefit gained with an optional EVF that could not be had with an integral EVF. Unless I know I will purposefully be shooting, I usually do not use the EVF, as the RX1 remains compact and when photographing human subjects, they seem to be more relaxed posing, or better yet, ignoring someone shooting from their LCD. After several months of using the LCD 70% of the time, I am getting pretty used to it.

Also, due to the amazing ISO performance of the RX1, I use Manual mode and Auto-ISO and do not hesitate to have shutter speed at 1/125 or higher because I find most files usable up to ISO 6400 and higher. Of course if I'm shooting landscape, I have my tripod and EVF and ensure I shoot at ISO 100.

In other words, the RX1 provides some interesting flexibility not achievable with any other camera on market... but most owners agree it is a unique camera that takes significant time to understand, appreciate, and get the maximum potential from.

-Tom

colonelpurple wrote:

For me it is better then the new Leica M for everything except the quality of the RF focus.



That's a pretty big exception, considering that's the major draw of the whole M system. M stands for Messucher, which is German for rangefinder.

The lack of a built-in EVF and tilt LCD was the main reason I never considered the RX-1. I mean, that's what everyone was waiting for with the NEX-7.

I suspect, knowing what Sony is capable of, the size would have been closer to the NEX-7 rather than the Leica M had they built in the EVF!