robgo2
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions | |
RoseandCharles wrote:
robgo2 wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote:
robgo2 wrote:
Jeff Kott wrote:
robgo2 wrote:
The former has improved AF over the RX1, but still nothing to boast about.
Just for the record, there's nothing to complain about regarding the RX1Rii's AF. Have you actually tried it?
No I have not, but I have read reports from users that it remains sluggish, although it is improved from the RX1. In any event, there seems to be fairly broad consensus that it is not close to the Q in terms of speed and accuracy.
Rob
I don't find the RX1RII AF sluggish and EyeAF is just as accurate/fast as with my A7RII + fast lens.
It's way better than the original RX1/R. My only complain about the RX1RII is price but IMO if compactness and high IQ is the main goal, it's definitely worth it.
I cannot dispute what you say, Fred, having never tested the RX1RII myself. I was just repeating what I had read elsewhere. That said, I never enjoyed the handling and ergonomics of my RX1, and I don't know if that aspect has changed much with the speedier Mark II version. In contrast, one of the near constants that one finds in reviews of the Q is how much people love using the camera and how it inspires them to go out shooting with it. I can't say that I ever felt that way about my RX1, even though it gave me many great images. As I said previously, I will find out for myself if it really is that good.
Rob
It could also just be the Leica red dot. I would imagine that spending nearly $1k more to get worse performance would probably make people hype up the "intangibles" that much more. The "shooting experience" where you just "love" the "superior brand" camera that is technically worse in specs and has the same angle of view as almost every smartphone cameras nowadays. How inspirational is the same angle of view as every other 28mm lens? It is one of the reasons I couldn't get myself to really love the FE 28 and don't shoot often with smartphones.
But different strokes for different folks, and people have different opinions. OVF vs EVF, analog vs. digital, mirror vs. mirrorless, and there are fervent, passionate advocates on either side.
Look, I am totally open to being wrong about my choice of the Q over the RX1RII. I haven't even received the camera yet. And if I am wrong, the choice is not irreversible. However, I am fairly confident that the user experience will be different, given the Q's better handling, superior EVF, lightening fast AF, and straightforward menus. As far as focal length is concerned, that is a matter of personal taste. 28mm has both advantages and disadvantages compared to 35mm, and it is the FL used frequently by some eminent street photographers (e.g. Alex Webb.) And the fact that 28mm is the same FL as cell phone cameras means absolutely nothing in terms of artistic creativity. Just think of the legions of 35 and 50mm camera lens shooters over the years. Isn't there a certain sameness to their images, yet who really cares?
Now, does the red dot sway users to overrate their cameras and lenses? In some cases, yes, but in others it may raise expectations to a level that is not actually reached and thus results in disappointment. Finally, technical specifications are not the only determining factor in image quality. Sometimes, lenses and cameras with lower specs deliver more pleasing IQ than those with higher ones. How else to explain the fact that so many FM members lust after technically imperfect older lenses? That world is not for everyone, but its denizens are, for the most part, very astute.
I really do not want to engage in a battle over which camera is better. Both are undoubtedly great, and its up to users to get the most out of them.
Rob
|
