p.45 #1 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
dandrewk wrote:
Can't speak about DOF scale, as I never owned the RX1.
However, the manual focus resets to infinity when the camera turns off.
I suspect that's just the way it is with focus by wire. I wish the RX had true manual focus, but that probably would have added size/weight. Compromises...
Hmm, OK thanks. It's back to the drawing board for me and I need to decide between the Leica Q and RX1R2 before Christmas. I am leaning slightly towards the Q right now.
p.45 #2 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
For me it comes down to 28 vs 35. If you don't have a preference to either, then it comes down to being able to manual focus easier vs being able to shoot wide open at f/2 at close distances against having the 1.7 stop down to 2.8.
p.45 #3 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Zony_user wrote:
Hmm, OK thanks. It's back to the drawing board for me and I need to decide between the Leica Q and RX1R2 before Christmas. I am leaning slightly towards the Q right now.
the Q definitely seems better for manual focus, but the rx1 lens seems better to me (and is a 35mm) and the size difference is significant.
there is a work around for maintaining focus when you turn the rx1 on and off – don't move the focus ring but focus with the macro/normal ring. if you do this focus will stay at the same location when you turn the camera on and off. this way you can have the camera zone focused and in your bag or off and around you neck and just turn it on and shoot.
unfortunately the macro/normal ring is rather short throw.
p.45 #4 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
TMaG82 wrote:
For me it comes down to 28 vs 35.
Which makes the RX1's somewhat interesting as you get neither but something close to being right in the middle of the two. Without digital correction (which you really don't need in most cases at all), it's probably around 32mm, maybe 33 (the focal length is a tiny bit longer than my Pentax 31Ltd on FF).
p.45 #5 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
If you let the camera sleep instead of turning if off, it will retain your MF setting. That is the best way to accomplish what you want.
You may think that letting the camera sleep for a while may have an impact on battery life, but that is a myth. Do a test. Let the camera sleep overnight and check the battery status in the morning. It will be the same.
p.45 #6 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Which makes the RX1's somewhat interesting as you get neither but something close to being right in the middle of the two. Without digital correction (which you really don't need in most cases at all), it's probably around 32mm, maybe 33 (the focal length is a tiny bit longer than my Pentax 31Ltd on FF).
Yes but the Q real FL may be also shorter than 28mm before correction.
p.45 #8 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes but the Q real FL may be also shorter than 28mm before correction.
Agree, it's a lot shorter. The Q must be corrected though as it has major built in distortion. Uncorrected, the image circle does not even cover FF. That's one reason (the strong digital correction) the sharpness suffers so badly with the Q at the borders/ corners in distant shots compared to the RX1. The native distortion on the RX1 is nowhere near this much and really does not require correction at all in the majority of cases. So, with the Q you must end up with 28mm's in all use (the lens is not useable uncorrected) but with the RX1, you most likely will not correct the distortion and end up with that 32-33mm focal length.
p.45 #9 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
fishjump wrote:
How do I set eye AF in the menus?
Go into the configuration page where you assign the custom buttons and select the one you want EF assigned. You need to hold the assigned eye AF button while your using it, so pick one that falls easily to hand, such as the center button on the back
p.45 #10 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Agree, it's a lot shorter. The Q must be corrected though as it has major built in distortion. Uncorrected, the image circle does not even cover FF. That's one reason (the strong digital correction) the sharpness suffers so badly with the Q at the borders/ corners in distant shots compared to the RX1. The native distortion on the RX1 is nowhere near this much and really does not require correction at all in the majority of cases. So, with the Q you must end up with 28mm's in all use (the lens is not useable uncorrected) but with the RX1, you most likely will not correct the distortion and end up with that 32-33mm focal length....Show more →
Incredible how much distortion the Q has. Only Leica can get away with that.
p.45 #11 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
sebboh wrote:
the Q definitely seems better for manual focus, but the rx1 lens seems better to me (and is a 35mm) and the size difference is significant.
there is a work around for maintaining focus when you turn the rx1 on and off – don't move the focus ring but focus with the macro/normal ring. if you do this focus will stay at the same location when you turn the camera on and off. this way you can have the camera zone focused and in your bag or off and around you neck and just turn it on and shoot.
unfortunately the macro/normal ring is rather short throw.
Well the RX1R2 definitely seems to have better technical image quality. The 42MP Sony sensor has an advantage of 1-1.5 stops worth of DR and ISO performance seems at least 1 stop better. And the Leica sensor is said to exhibit banding when the shadows are pushed in PP. I own the RX1R and I know how magical the Sonnar lens is. However, I rarely print so 42MP is overkill for me. All it does is slow down my workflow. I don't necessarily enjoy post-processing (although I do shoot RAW)
I got to play around with the Q at the Leica store and operation/handling was so intuitive and snappy. OIS kind of makes up for the inferior ISO capability in low light, and 1/16000 e-shutter is intriguing in day light. It made me feel like I'd get more keepers shooting with it. And when I'm done shooting, I get to spend less time in front of my computer processing the smaller files.
But the versatility of the tiltscreen tips the scale back to the Sony. 28mm vs 35mm does not matter because for my usage even the 35mm crop of the Q gives me enough resolution (15MP) Size is also a nonfactor because I always carry a bag that will fit both. My brain is telling me to get the Sony but my heart is telling me Leica. There is no clear winner and I am torn.
p.45 #13 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Zony_user wrote:
Well the RX1R2 definitely seems to have better technical image quality. The 42MP Sony sensor has an advantage of 1-1.5 stops worth of DR and ISO performance seems at least 1 stop better. And the Leica sensor is said to exhibit banding when the shadows are pushed in PP. I own the RX1R and I know how magical the Sonnar lens is. However, I rarely print so 42MP is overkill for me. All it does is slow down my workflow. I don't necessarily enjoy post-processing (although I do shoot RAW)
I got to play around with the Q at the Leica store and operation/handling was so intuitive and snappy. OIS kind of makes up for the inferior ISO capability in low light, and 1/16000 e-shutter is intriguing in day light. It made me feel like I'd get more keepers shooting with it. And when I'm done shooting, I get to spend less time in front of my computer processing the smaller files.
But the versatility of the tiltscreen tips the scale back to the Sony. 28mm vs 35mm does not matter because for my usage even the 35mm crop of the Q gives me enough resolution (15MP) Size is also a nonfactor because I always carry a bag that will fit both. My brain is telling me to get the Sony but my heart is telling me Leica. There is no clear winner and I am torn....Show more →
Follow your heart, it sounds like the Q would lend itself to the better shooting experience for you. Between the smaller file size, the better manual shooting, and it seems like you enjoyed handling it more. The camera can be technically the best in the world, but if it doesn't feel good in the hand, chances are it won't be in the hand all that often. In your case you say you think you'll get more keepers with it. So take 100 shots, if your keeper rate is say 75%, you have 75 quality shots. Take 100 shots with the Sony, and if your keeper rate is lower, the file space taken up may be the same.
I know for me I'm avoiding even looking at the Q and avoiding holding it like the plague out of fear that I'll want it. Luckily for me none of my friends are photographers and I don't know any dentists or lawyers, so chances are slim that I'll run into it.
p.45 #14 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
TMaG82 wrote:
Follow your heart, it sounds like the Q would lend itself to the better shooting experience for you. Between the smaller file size, the better manual shooting, and it seems like you enjoyed handling it more. The camera can be technically the best in the world, but if it doesn't feel good in the hand, chances are it won't be in the hand all that often. In your case you say you think you'll get more keepers with it. So take 100 shots, if your keeper rate is say 75%, you have 75 quality shots. Take 100 shots with the Sony, and if your keeper rate is lower, the file space taken up may be the same.
I know for me I'm avoiding even looking at the Q and avoiding holding it like the plague out of fear that I'll want it. Luckily for me none of my friends are photographers and I don't know any dentists or lawyers, so chances are slim that I'll run into it....Show more →
Thanks for the great advice. And yes, you should probably stay away from any Leica store
I'm guessing the reason why I keep drifting back to the Sony is because it's the safer choice. I know that it will produce gorgeous images just like my RX1R. I know exactly what I'm getting, and it's a natural progression, so expectations aren't that high to begin with. With the Q on the other hand, I feel as though there's a greater chance that I'll regret the decision. It goes against the if it ain't broke don't fix it line of thinking. So I went to the Leica store for the second time yesterday just to make sure if I wasn't getting too caught up in the moment. Unfortunately it felt even nicer in my hands. And they had one in stock from a cancelled order. I have until tomorrow to give them a call.
p.45 #15 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
Zony_user wrote:
Thanks for the great advice. And yes, you should probably stay away from any Leica store
I'm guessing the reason why I keep drifting back to the Sony is because it's the safer choice. I know that it will produce gorgeous images just like my RX1R. I know exactly what I'm getting, and it's a natural progression, so expectations aren't that high to begin with. With the Q on the other hand, I feel as though there's a greater chance that I'll regret the decision. It goes against the if it ain't broke don't fix it line of thinking. So I went to the Leica store for the second time yesterday just to make sure if I wasn't getting too caught up in the moment. Unfortunately it felt even nicer in my hands. And they had one in stock from a cancelled order. I have until tomorrow to give them a call....Show more →
What dicourages me most about the Q, other than price, are the noise and banding issues at high ISOs. Clearly, it's sensor is significantly behind the Sony's. Also, the size of the Q makes it less likely for me to carry it in an almost casual fashion than the more compact Sony.
p.45 #16 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
I went from the RX1R to the Leica Q. No clear winner between the Q and the RX1R II in my mind from what I have read about the II. While for me I much prefer the simpler menu system and usability of the Q, as well as the wider 28mm focal length, I also tend to crop and wouldn't mind the higher resolution of the Sony, as well as the smaller size and a higher dynamic range. They both have fantastic lenses and I haven't noticed any banding or noise issues in the Q. The AF of the Q is also really quick - I haven't compared it to the RX1R II but the RX1R I was too slow for me.
It's really down to personal preferences. Once I reach a certain level of image quality (and I think both are extremely high), then what becomes even more important is how enjoyable and fun the camera is to use, and for me the Q wins hands down. But would I be thrilled with the RX1R II as well for the IQ and resolution you can get in such a small package? Yes.
p.45 #17 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
robgo2 wrote:
What dicourages me most about the Q, other than price, are the noise and banding issues at high ISOs. Clearly, it's sensor is significantly behind the Sony's. Also, the size of the Q makes it less likely for me to carry it in an almost casual fashion than the more compact Sony.
Rob
Yes, the noise/banding issue above ISO6400 is a legitimate concern, but the Q sensor is an above average performer when compared to all other mirrorless/DSLR sensors. It's just that the current Sony sensors are head and shoulders above everyone else. The Q sensor isn't that bad. In fact it's much better than Canons. Sony makes them look bad.
p.45 #18 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
petermendelson wrote:
. Once I reach a certain level of image quality (and I think both are extremely high), then what becomes even more important is how enjoyable and fun the camera is to use, and for me the Q wins hands down.
This is an excellent point and exactly how I feel right now. Thanks for posting.
p.45 #19 · Announced: RX1R II with 42MP sensor and EVF
I haven't shot with the Q, and it does have its drawbacks (price and size being up there for me) but I will say I really am impressed with its overall rendering.
In particular, it seems to produce fantastic subject separation for a 28mm lens, more so than I'd expect from that focal length, and with a very characteristic "Leica" look to the rendering.
Slightly less smooth than the Sonnar, but visually pleasing.
I see little mention of things Face Detect on that Q, though know it offers it. Perhaps it doesn't work as well as with the Sony's ?
Also, little attention seems to be paid to the touch screen, which is a feature I quite enjoy, and wish the RX1rII offered. Having owned m4/3 bodies in the past, the ability to just touch the screen to move the focus point anywhere you want is simply brilliant and I'm surprised it hasn't become standard on all cameras.
Pressing a button or two to move a point around certainly gets the job done, but you just can't beat simply touching the screen and "boom", done. Perhaps the Q didn't implement this very well ?
