p.12 #2 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Matt Grum wrote:
Exactly the same way I get tack sharp images with the 40+ megapixels sensor in my A7RII - by using an appropriate shutter speed. No tripod required.
I saw this complaint on dpreview as well, do people not go out in the day time any more? I'm regularly shooting at 1/200s and above during the day...
Especially with a leaf shutter. No shutter shock issues there.
p.12 #4 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Jeff Kott wrote:
Faster shutter speeds?
I've seen this type of comment with every resolution bump since 11 mp. All I can say is I have no problem getting tack sharp images hand holding 24 mp aps-c sensors which obviously have higher pixel density.
If you are looking at shutter speeds in terms of equivalent focal length then you have already factored in the higher pixel density of the APS-C sensor. All three of the following have similar "blur potent":
1/75s exposure @ 50mm on a 24MP APS-C (75mm equivalent)
1/50s exposure @ 50mm on a 24MP FF
1/75s exposure @ 50mm on a 54MP FF (same pixel density as the 24MP APS-C)
Due to the use of the equivalent focal length we are choosing a higher shutter speed to implicitly account for the higher pixel density of the APS-C sensor. If we use a higher density FF sensor we need to make the shutter speed faster by a similar factor.
p.12 #5 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
taran wrote:
Pixel density of cell phones is much much greater, by my calculations, and nobody complains about sharpness with those.
Again, the same story as my comment above. A 12MP cell phone sensor doesn't give us any more potential for sharpness loss than a 12MP FF sensor. Yes the pixel density is much much higher on the cell-phone sensor, but it also has a lens with a tiny focal length (something like 5mm). So when we use say 1/30s shutter speed with it, we have a speed which is say 6 times faster than 1/FL. If you were to make an FF sensor with the pixel density of the cell phone sensor then you will have to also choose a shutter speed which is say 6 times faster or something like that to retain similar pixel level sharpness.
p.12 #6 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
melcat wrote:
It's a clever solution to the problem they must have faced in having to produce two low volume models, one with and one without an antialiasing filter.
The technology is impressive, but...
... most folks who use a camera without an AA filter (or with AA filtering cancelled) end up simply feeling that they don't need AA filtering. This impressive bit of virtuoso technology is likely to not actually be used much at all.
So far, in pretty much every case I can think of, when a company introduced two versions, one with AA filtering and one without, the AA filtered version was no longer seen as being necessary and a) the non-filtering model took off and the filtering model languished, and/or b) the company did away with the AA-filtering model (i.e. — Nikon D810 replacing D800 and D800e), and/or c) the company simply switched to no AA filter (Pentax, Fujifilm) and the customers were happy.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That really depends on the minimum shutter speed you use. The good news is that the new sensor is capable of much cleaner high ISOs.
"Sharper" isn't the only potential advantage of higher MP sensors, though people focus on that* – and for some users it is the main thing. Other potential advantages include smoother gradients and smaller "noise grain" size.
Specifically regarding sharpness, there is no bad news when moving to a higher MP sensor. In the worst case you'll get the same sharpness you got with the lower MP sensor — plus smoother gradients and less visible noise. In the best cases where you manage to stabilize the camera enough, through use of higher shutter speeds or camera operating skill, you may get somewhat sharper images, to the extent that it matters.
Dan
* OK, I admit it. That is a truly awful pun... ;-)
p.12 #7 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Matt Grum wrote:
We haven't had enough iterations of either full frame fixed lens or full frame mirrorless to draw any conclusions. The first A7 bodies were all replaced relatively quickly, but with fairly substantial upgrades, it would be very difficult to repeat this feat next year. I think Sony were just desperate to strike while the iron was hot.
Realistically what could Sony offer in an updated A7RIII to tempt people into upgrading? Faster AF... fix a few software quirks, dual card slots, maybe a better viewfinder. That wouldn't be enough for me, whereas the mark II fixed some more glaring problems with the original A7R.
I fear people holding out for the III versions which they assume are coming next year are going to be disappointed. I think after the initial trial balloon of the first A7/R/S Sony will fall into a more standard release schedule.
Anyone who thinks Sony releases bodies too frequently should talk to an A-mount user ...Show more →
I agree with what you're saying about the RII, UHS-II was a major hardware shortcoming, but don't think we'll see an update in another year. But there's still room for the A7II and A7sII to get the new sensor and PADF - which is the reason I didn't even consider the SII. I know this time next year the BSI version will be getting ready to ship. I bet the A7III will be announced at the end of this year with the new tech and finally we get the A7s with BSI/PADF that should have dropped this year. No thanks, I'll stick with the RII for now.
A-mount users must be really frustrated - a compact RX camera gets all the latest and the A99 is left twisting in the wind.
p.12 #8 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
I can assure you I will never buy the latest piece of Sony gear. They have so many you can't count them and they go obsolete in six months or less. I am quite happy with my Phase One IQ180 and always shoot on a tripod.
p.12 #9 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
gdanmitchell wrote:
The technology is impressive, but...
... most folks who use a camera without an AA filter (or with AA filtering cancelled) end up simply feeling that they don't need AA filtering. This impressive bit of virtuoso technology is likely to not actually be used much at all.
So far, in pretty much every case I can think of, when a company introduced two versions, one with AA filtering and one without, the AA filtered version was no longer seen as being necessary and a) the non-filtering model took off and the filtering model languished, and/or b) the company did away with the AA-filtering model (i.e. — Nikon D810 replacing D800 and D800e), and/or c) the company simply switched to no AA filter (Pentax, Fujifilm) and the customers were happy.
"Sharper" isn't the only potential advantage of higher MP sensors, though people focus on that* – and for some users it is the main thing. Other potential advantages include smoother gradients and smaller "noise grain" size.
Specifically regarding sharpness, there is no bad news when moving to a higher MP sensor. In the worst case you'll get the same sharpness you got with the lower MP sensor — plus smoother gradients and less visible noise. In the best cases where you manage to stabilize the camera enough, through use of higher shutter speeds or camera operating skill, you may get somewhat sharper images, to the extent that it matters.
Dan
* OK, I admit it. That is a truly awful pun... ;-)...Show more →
I'm also a bit surprised at the effort placed in this crazy AA/noAA system. I don't see any outcry about the Nikon 810 only coming without an AA. In fact, I recall Sony itself recently releasing a popular high resolution camera without a AA option....
I just wonder whether an engineer came up with this and the product designers went, "sure, why not, it looks pretty cool." Sony does seem a bit more engineer focused than most camera companies.
The burst-mode thing doesn't really solve the problem of "what AA mode should I use," since most moire issues happen when shooting fabrics under strobes.
p.12 #10 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
DougDolde wrote:
I can assure you I will never buy the latest piece of Sony gear. They have so many you can't count them and they go obsolete in six months or less. I am quite happy with my Phase One IQ180 and always shoot on a tripod.
Apologies that you can't count very high-- such as to 2 or 3, in the case of the RX1 series.
I don't think there are many folks saying to themselves, "Hmmm, I'm either gonna get a Phase One IQ180 to shoot foliage on this tripod-- or an RX1rII... which to buy?"
But hey, glad you've got what works for you. That's all any of us can really hope for.
p.12 #11 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Dave McGaughey wrote:
I'm also a bit surprised at the effort placed in this crazy AA/noAA system. I don't see any outcry about the Nikon 810 only coming without an AA. In fact, I recall Sony itself recently releasing a popular high resolution camera without a AA option....
I just wonder whether an engineer came up with this and the product designers went, "sure, why not, it looks pretty cool." Sony does seem a bit more engineer focused than most camera companies.
The burst-mode thing doesn't really solve the problem of "what AA mode should I use," since most moire issues happen when shooting fabrics under strobes....Show more →
Sony has a problem with moire because their lens are so sharp...many of Nikon lenses don't exhibit moire on the 810 because of a lack of acuity.
p.12 #12 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
DougDolde wrote:
I can assure you I will never buy the latest piece of Sony gear. They have so many you can't count them and they go obsolete in six months or less. I am quite happy with my Phase One IQ180 and always shoot on a tripod.
Obsolete? Not really. Not the latest and the greatest? Possibly, but still better than a lot of solutions.
p.12 #13 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
gdanmitchell wrote:
The technology is impressive, but...
... most folks who use a camera without an AA filter (or with AA filtering cancelled) end up simply feeling that they don't need AA filtering. This impressive bit of virtuoso technology is likely to not actually be used much at all.
So far, in pretty much every case I can think of, when a company introduced two versions, one with AA filtering and one without, the AA filtered version was no longer seen as being necessary and a) the non-filtering model took off and the filtering model languished, and/or b) the company did away with the AA-filtering model (i.e. — Nikon D810 replacing D800 and D800e), and/or c) the company simply switched to no AA filter (Pentax, Fujifilm) and the customers were happy.
"Sharper" isn't the only potential advantage of higher MP sensors, though people focus on that* – and for some users it is the main thing. Other potential advantages include smoother gradients and smaller "noise grain" size.
Specifically regarding sharpness, there is no bad news when moving to a higher MP sensor. In the worst case you'll get the same sharpness you got with the lower MP sensor — plus smoother gradients and less visible noise. In the best cases where you manage to stabilize the camera enough, through use of higher shutter speeds or camera operating skill, you may get somewhat sharper images, to the extent that it matters.
Dan
* OK, I admit it. That is a truly awful pun... ;-)...Show more →
i think the main point of the variable AA filter is so it will function well for video which requires a strong AA filter and still allow landscape photographers to extract the most from the sensor.
fwiw, i find the regular (non R) rx1 with it's weak AA filter to still be pretty prone to moire, so i can certainly imaging wanting to use this option for certain cityscapes and clothing types.
p.12 #14 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
gdanmitchell wrote:
So far, in pretty much every case I can think of, when a company introduced two versions, one with AA filtering and one without, the AA filtered version was no longer seen as being necessary and a) the non-filtering model took off and the filtering model languished, and/or b) the company did away with the AA-filtering model (i.e. — Nikon D810 replacing D800 and D800e), and/or c) the company simply switched to no AA filter (Pentax, Fujifilm) and the customers were happy.
Perhaps the singe exception to this is in fact the original RX1. Some folks actually prefer it to the non AA "r" version. When I first saw this version with an "r", I was a bit worried about the lack of an AA filter. As is, I think they should have just named it "RX1" on the body without the "r".
p.12 #15 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Like other posts this is what Sony should have offered in the beginning. I too am disappointed in the price - agreed that at 2499. I'd be all in! Sell my current RX1 and it'd be a real nice upgrade.
The flip side is the Leica Q. I'm on a couple waiting lists and even though the RX1II is less than the Q by a decent amount I really miss having an M. For me the Q is a less expensive venture to get back into a Leica. So I'll still sell my RX1 and when I get notice that someone has a Q for me hopefully I will have made up my mind!!!
p.12 #16 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
philber wrote:
While I am probably going to get this camera, I am struck by the price relative to the Leica Q. The Q goes for some 20% more (sticker price in France). But, for that, you get in-body stabilisation, plus a wider and faster lens, and 4K video, and you give away some resolution. Which means that you aren't paying nearly as much for the "red dot factor" as ever before. Leica bringing the price of the Q down a bit, and Sony commanding high prices has brought both of them on a price convergence I thought I'd never see. Let's hope that it is also the case tomorrow with the SL....Show more →
I have both the Q and RX1R. A couple of corrections --- The Q does not have 4K and the stabilization is in the lens, not the body. And Leica has been quoted multiple times that the stabilization degrades IQ. They strongly advise to turn it off.
Having cleared that, the biggest strength of the Q is it's usability and ergonomics. It's much more user-friendly than the RX1/R. However, there's a trade-off. It's basically the same size as the M and bigger than the A7 series.
It's second strength is the AF speed. It's faster than my A7 II. Almost on par with the A6000. I'm quite sure the new RX1R II will still be noticably slower.
Everything else, the RX1R wins. It just takes better pictures. Much better noise control in the higher ISO's. The dynamic range is ridiculous and can't be compared with the rather pedestrian Leica sensor. And don't even think about shooting JPEGs with the Q because they are horrible. I've never seen such bad JPEGs straight out of the camera.
The RX1R II adds a tilting screen, which is huge because there's no way to shoot at an angle with the Q. The new sensor will further widen the gap in performance.
I am definitely replacing my RX1R with the II, but I may also sell my Q. Truthfully, it offers nothing that my A7 II doesn't. The RX1 series will always have the size advantage.
p.12 #17 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
THD1 wrote:
Like other posts this is what Sony should have offered in the beginning.
I don't really get this statement. How could Sony have offered this in the beginning?
The RX1 was released September, 2012-- roughly 3 years ago. I fail to see the logic in Sony having been able to release a 42mp BSI RX1 w/ adjustable AA filtering and fast AF... before any of those features existed. The pop-up EVF got added to the RX100m3 two years after the first RX1 was released.
I think there's a sort of collective amnesia among gearheads when it comes to camera-tech releases. I see it this way: The RX1 was a remarkable thing for its time (and it holds up still, even if AF isn't great), combining a super FF sensor with arguably the best 35mm lens of the modern era-- in a tiny package. Like Matt has mentioned, I think it was something of a prototype to test the waters (and compared to the A7(r) prototype-betas, it was more, though not totally, polished).
The RX1rII is analogous to the A7r->A7rII (2 years) transition: After 3 years of watching how the market has responded, and after 3 years worth of tech advances, it's an even more serious contender.
I really don't see how Sony could have offered the RX1rII "in the beginning," given all of its parts that simply did not exist 3 years ago...
p.12 #18 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
sebboh arote: i think the main point of the variable AA filter is so it will function well for video which requires a strong AA filter
I was not aware of this—can you elaborate? The X-100s does not have one, AFAIK, and while its video is difficult to use, if exposed correctly is perfectly acceptable. I use Panny G6 bodies for all my video, and they do have AA filters, but I was not aware of the requirement for them re. video. TIA.
p.12 #19 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Kit Laughlin wrote:
sebboh arote:
I was not aware of this—can you elaborate? The X-100s does not have one, AFAIK, and while its video is difficult to use, if exposed correctly is perfectly acceptable. I use Panny G6 bodies for all my video, and they do have AA filters, but I was not aware of the requirement for them re. video. TIA.
I've never found any of the Fuji video very good-- it's all jaggies all the time.
But I think Fuji XT has more issues going on than just no AA filter when it comes to video, so it's probably not a great comparison to make since the XT CFA and its de-mosaic process is a huge variable that we can't really untangle.
