fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5              7              12       13       end
  

Archive 2016 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions

  
 
Chad Wadsworth
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #1 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Zony_user wrote:
As for the files, I find the Q files just as workable as my RX1R files. I found this odd at first, but when DXO came out with their Leica Q test it all made sense. Even though the RX1R has a DR advantage of 1 stop at base ISO, the Q sensor matches the performance of the RX1R sensor at ISO 400 and surpasses it at ISO 800. So for a lot of my street shooting (including indoors and night) the Q files are equal to my RX1R files.


I took some side by side images indoors last night with the two cameras and confirmed everything else I experienced regarding depth of the Q files from my previous shoots - one covering a three day music festival. I have over 10 years experience editing those types of dynamically lit scenes and during the fest, the Q would clip and crush where the a7RII would recover and push. The difference was easily identified.

The RX1RII files feel identical in range to the a7RII files so I couldn't in good conscience claim the Q files were on the same level. We will have to agree to disagree and that's ok We are back to subjectivity.

Best,
Chad












Jan 06, 2016 at 09:59 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #2 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Zony_user wrote:
I could care less if the final product is superb.



Agreed, if the final image looks good, does it matter how it was corrected ?

I look at the lighting, composition, subject matter, transition from in to out of focus, overall rendering etc when appreciating a photograph. Never really has crossed my mine if the lens has some distortion, provided its corrected to a degree that it doesn't detract from the final image.

Some of my favorite lens like the 35/2 Sonnar on the RX1, and the 28/2 FE are both software corrected to varying degrees and I love the images taken from them.

Perhaps we need a a new style of photography, where we just shoot grid based architecture and share pure sensor data to show off how well corrected a lens is



Jan 06, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Spyro P.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #3 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


it's just that if the image is heavily corrected it can't technically be that good, especially towards the corners because digital correction essentially all it does is stretching pixels.

That's for those who need the ultimate sharpness across the frame (I don't by the way)



Jan 06, 2016 at 10:16 PM
serhan_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #4 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Actually I notice the m43 lens corrections on people shots, not the architectural shots I don't use distortion corrections with people shots, but that is impossible with Adobe for m43... Maybe Q is different, but I shot m43 for last 6 years to know it.

millsart wrote:
Perhaps we need a a new style of photography, where we just shoot grid based architecture and share pure sensor data to show off how well corrected a lens is





Jan 06, 2016 at 10:18 PM
Chad Wadsworth
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #5 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Chad Wadsworth wrote:
I have over 10 years experience editing those types of dynamically lit scenes...


Reading that line it sounds like braggadocio but it wasn't meant to be.

Every new camera and sensor requires a slightly different (or even vastly different) workflow in post. Comparing a Fuji X-trans sensor to a Sony Bayer or a Leica M9 CCD is like comparing three different kinds of your favorite desserts. For my workflow, the Sony sensors have been the easiest to work and push in post. The Q hasn't changed that opinion but perhaps for a different style of workflow the Q is equal or even better.



Jan 06, 2016 at 10:26 PM
Joshua Lowe
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #6 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Zony_user wrote:
This talk is similar to the never-ending Made in China vs Made in Japan debate..... ie why does a Chinese made product cost xxxx amount of dollars?

I could care less if the final product is superb.


I agree but there is absolutely truth in some of the criticisms about the Q's correction. You can't make something from nothing. Stretching the corners to correct distortion is a loss of quality. If you're mostly shooting in the center of the frame then it's not a big deal. If you're shooting landscapes then it's potentially a big deal. But I would also point out that if you're shooting perspective critical landscapes with a 28mm fixed lens pocket camera then you're using the wrong tool for the job.



Jan 06, 2016 at 10:27 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #7 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


serhan_ wrote:
Actually Leica uses the m43 approach... That is what I don't like about m43 as I needed to use rawtherapeee... The Q raw image that I processed in rawtherapee shows 6008x4008 pixels with dark corners, only 24MP.... M43 lenses at least cover the full image. Only Canon gx7/Panasonic FZ1000 P&S with 1" sensors have dark corners at 24mm equiv.



I originally thought that as well but then saw the actual spec for the sensor shows 26MP's. Still, I can't explain your finding... I wonder why there is an extra 2 MP's (as compared to a typical .4 or so MP's extra) and how they are used.




Jan 06, 2016 at 10:29 PM
Nanh
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #8 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


millsart wrote:
Agreed, if the final image looks good, does it matter how it was corrected ?

I look at the lighting, composition, subject matter, transition from in to out of focus, overall rendering etc when appreciating a photograph. Never really has crossed my mine if the lens has some distortion, provided its corrected to a degree that it doesn't detract from the final image.

Some of my favorite lens like the 35/2 Sonnar on the RX1, and the 28/2 FE are both software corrected to varying degrees and I love the images taken from them.

Perhaps we need a a new style
...Show more

Are there any correction applied to RX1 which you can't turn off?



Jan 07, 2016 at 01:07 AM
Viramati
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #9 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Let's face it they are both excellent cameras and amazing pieces of technology. Personally I would like the Q to have the tilting screen and maybe the the better DR of the Sony and the Sony to have the analogue controls, AF speed, MF focussing of the Q. In the right hands both will produce astounding images and really it just comes down to a matter of personal preference.
I carry the Q with the A7rII with either the FE55 or Loxia 50 most days when out and about and if I want just something in my trouser pocket I carry the RX100 mkIII

As to the distortion issue I find the 28/1.7 summilux combined with the Q sensor to be one of the best lenses I have ever used. I get an astonishing pixel level of sharpness (I find the Q files need a lot less sharpening than my files from the A7rII to reach the same level of clarity) and even when stopped down to only f2.8 I get clarity across the images into the corners, The rendering wide open gives gorgeous bokeh for environmental portraits and I would challenged anyone to see any problems with the image due to digital correction when viewed as a print (even on screen at 1:1 I can't see any problems). In fact I get sharper images across the frame than I used to get with my M240 and summicron 28 asph (both now gone to new owners). If you want 35mm and 42mp then the Sony will of course produce stunning images

Edited on Jan 07, 2016 at 06:18 AM · View previous versions



Jan 07, 2016 at 04:47 AM
rattymouse
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #10 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


millsart wrote:
Agreed, if the final image looks good, does it matter how it was corrected ?



Again, what are you paying for? Is the several thousand dollars in excess pricing a payment to have some elf take your files, digitally correct the distortion, crop them a bit, and then apply some sharpening?

The issue raised was NOT the final output quality. The question was, why the high price tag? Clearly this lens does not use high end (costly) lens manufacturing techniques to maintain optical quality. Instead it allows defects to end up in the final image which then need digital correction.




Jan 07, 2016 at 05:12 AM
rattymouse
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #11 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Nanh wrote:
Are there any correction applied to RX1 which you can't turn off?


No. And the level of distortion found in the RX1 is <2% if I recall correctly. Or move than 5 times less than the Leica Q.




Jan 07, 2016 at 05:13 AM
Zony_user
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #12 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Chad Wadsworth wrote:
Reading that line it sounds like braggadocio but it wasn't meant to be.

Every new camera and sensor requires a slightly different (or even vastly different) workflow in post. Comparing a Fuji X-trans sensor to a Sony Bayer or a Leica M9 CCD is like comparing three different kinds of your favorite desserts. For my workflow, the Sony sensors have been the easiest to work and push in post. The Q hasn't changed that opinion but perhaps for a different style of workflow the Q is equal or even better.


Do you mind sharing the RAW files that you took last night? I'd like to see how your files react to my workflow in post.



Jan 07, 2016 at 05:23 AM
Zony_user
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #13 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Joshua Lowe wrote:
I agree but there is absolutely truth in some of the criticisms about the Q's correction. You can't make something from nothing. Stretching the corners to correct distortion is a loss of quality. If you're mostly shooting in the center of the frame then it's not a big deal. If you're shooting landscapes then it's potentially a big deal. But I would also point out that if you're shooting perspective critical landscapes with a 28mm fixed lens pocket camera then you're using the wrong tool for the job.


I see your point as well, but I've never seen such degradation or loss of quality in the corners. Please feel free to post some examples. Or anyone else for that matter. In my opinion the IQ is equal to the RX1 series.



Jan 07, 2016 at 05:26 AM
petermendelson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #14 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Here's my two cents as a current Q shooter (I used to use the RX1R version 1 and currently also use the A7RII).

I agree with Chad that the ideal would be a melding of the Q and RX1RII. I tend to print and sell large photos (mostly 40" x 60"), so the added resolution and cropability of the RX1RII over the Q is tempting, but I have to remember that my most popular print is a 40" x 60" taken with my RX1R that has lots of detail at that enlarged size, so the resolution of the Q should be adequate for most if not all of my needs. The other point for me is the dynamic range, and I agree with Chad that the Q seems less malleable in post-processing, although I can't recall deleting any photos I liked from the Q because of DR issues.

On the other hand, I love the output from the Q, the AF is super fast, and I much prefer the simplicity of the menus and ergonomics of the Q. For street shooting the Q has been great - I really don't find it to be any more conspicuous than the RX1R was, and the super fast AF has gotten me some shots I would not have been able to get with a slower focusing camera.

I may rent the RX1RII for an upcoming trip to see how it performs, but frankly it's really hard for me to imagine giving up the Q. I wish they were further apart in focal length and I could justify keeping both! Speaking of focal length, I tend to shoot wide most often, so from that perspective the 28mm focal length may work a bit better for me (and I like being able to use the back button on the Q to crop to 35mm when needed - many of my photos don't require all 24mp, especially casual photos I take of friends and family, so the smaller file sizes are even easier to process). Also, I love the Q touch screen and ability to both focus on a point and immediately activate the shutter just by touching wherever you want to focus).






Jan 07, 2016 at 01:00 PM
rhawidantas
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #15 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Is there a technical reason why Sony does not implement true manual focus (as Leica) for the lens?

I much prefer the MF feeling than the super sensitive fly by wire. Also, distance scale a la ricoh gr would be awesome.



Jan 08, 2016 at 06:08 AM
waterden
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #16 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions




Joshua Lowe wroteI agree but there is absolutely truth in some of the criticisms about the Q's correction. You can't make something from nothing. Stretching the corners to correct distortion is a loss of quality. If you're mostly shooting in the center of the frame then it's not a big deal. If you're shooting landscapes then it's potentially a big deal. But I would also point out that if you're shooting perspective critical landscapes with a 28mm fixed lens pocket camera then you're using the wrong tool for the job.


Absolutely. I dont think that either camera is optimal for considered landscapes. I imagine the RXIR2 might be ok for hiking shots but neither is ideal if filters and long exposures are required. In my view corner sharpness is only really necessary for landscapes and architecture. For other reasons, neither camera is optimal or suitable for portraits, wildlife, sports either- all subjects where corner sharpness is irrelevant. But for street or travel work both are brilliant. Both are amazing cameras - choice between them is subjective; for me fast AF and ergonomics wins over small form and tiny buttons. As for software correction, I simply don't care - just one more link in the pp chain and if the resulting strain in the corners bothers you then crop it out.



Jan 08, 2016 at 07:07 AM
dandrewk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #17 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


waterden wrote:
I imagine the RXIR2 might be ok for hiking shots but neither is ideal if filters and long exposures are required. In my view corner sharpness is only really necessary for landscapes and architecture.




I can't imagine why you would think the RX (or Q, for that matter) would not be ideal if filters and long exposures are required. I use both, frequently, and the results are quite good. Ronnie Olsson has dozens of long exposures posted in this forum using his RX1R, and they are spectacular.



Jan 08, 2016 at 04:46 PM
fishjump
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #18 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


I agree with waterman. I mean, what was Fred thinking when he took this landscape shot?

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1406113



Jan 08, 2016 at 10:10 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #19 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Just a bit of FYI regarding something I discovered with the AF and point selection. As you may have read, I complained about how you can't use the shutter butter half press to re-focus when you have touch AF point selection chosen. If you use the back button for AF it works well though, and this usually works for me no I personally have no issue.

However, I know some people do like using the shutter half press to AF, and maybe want that rear button for changing the frame lines. Just for fun, I was messing around with the touch AF + Shutter option, where you touch the screen and it both focuses on that point and also takes the shot. FAST!, Still blown away by how quick this camera is.

Anyways, what surprised me is that once it takes a shot, that spot where you touched the screen remains where the active AF point is, and future half presses of the shutter will continue to focus, so basically this more or less means the touch AF point selection works the way I think it should of all along, with the small catch of you'll get an exposure taken each time you touch the screen to move the point around.

So basically, we've now got 3 pretty good ways to move the AF point around on the fly with this camera

1- just use the D-pad, which is always assigned to moving the AF box around.
2- use the rear button for AF-On paired with the touch screen to move the AF box
3- use touch AF/Shutter to move the box around and then continue to activate focus with the half press of the shutter.


I'm actually finding the touch shutter to be pretty cool though, because for something like where I want to focus on my dog's eye, I do like using the touch point, since its quicker than just the D-pad, and really, for that type of shot, being able to touch the eye on the LCD and also have the shot taken is quicker than selecting the point and then trying to confirm focus and press the shot.

So anyways, at least for those with a Q, or that are thinking of trying one, give the touch AF/shutter mode a try, its a way to get some functionality I think the camera needs back, and its actually pretty cool in its own right.

Hopefully we might be able to see some more functionality through firmware updates too. For example, one thing I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE is if I could move the AF point around in the EVF by touching the LCD, like Panasonic (and now Olympus) allowing, basically using the LCD screen as a touch "trackpad" for moving the AF. Love that feature on my Panny camera's.



Jan 09, 2016 at 12:18 AM
petermendelson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #20 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions


Millsart, if I understand you correctly, I think you CAN use the LCD screen on the Q as a touch trackpad for moving the AF. If you select AF mode - One Point in the menu, and then touch and HOLD your finger down on the AF point on the screen, you can move your finger around the screen to move the AF point. Is that what you wanted to do?


Jan 09, 2016 at 09:17 AM
1       2       3              5              7              12       13       end




FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5              7              12       13       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account