Is the Sony RX1R II a Leica Q killer ?

Is the Sony RX1R II a Leica Q killer ?

  • No Way - the cameras are substantially different

    Votes: 88 63.8%

  • Definitely - why buy the more expensive Q now?

    Votes: 50 36.2%
  • Total voters
    138
CameraQuest said:
The Sony FF mirrorless cameras are hilarious in a way.

Sales wise they are extremely successful so the Sony execs imagine they are doing great.

Still, imagine how they well the FF Sonys would be doing if Sony corporate just knew how to properly design cameras and how to market them - KINGS OF THE CAMERA WORLD.
Click to expand...

It is quite possible that, outside the realm of certain aficionado groups, they are the kings of the camera world.
 
Leica Q release is a genuine attempt by Leica to reach a broader market. A full frame sensor with a fast 28mm Leica lens and an EVF at $4200 seems like a bargain compared to other Leica digital cameras - at least for those who like 28mm focal length (the most common starting focal length in kit lenses).

So, those who love Leica still may go for Leica Q, but with a slight cognitive dissonance thanks to Sony's bold RX1R II and its DXO-chart-topping-42mp sensor.

Personally I like the Sony offering because I have no emotional relationship to digital devices, I buy a digital camera for its sensor, not its shell.
 
Godfrey said:
I don't know, and I really couldn't care less. Why does it matter?

I don't own stock in either company, so why should I care about anything other than the specific products that might be of interest to me that they produce?

G
Click to expand...

so why post in a thread that you don't care about?

that is not discussion, its just being grouchy
 
Certainly not!

Certainly not!

....but it sure speaks well for the Sony RX!(R) that the new edition which is largely unchanged from the original is worthy of this question/thread. RX1 is a fine camera, capable of producing beautiful images.

All of these digital cameras require some getting used to. Some are worth the effort and I would say either of these fall into that category.

David
 
They might be both cameras, but one is a from a camera company, the other from an entertainments company.

Now Leica has dropped the ball a few times since they went digital but they still are miles ahead of Sony when it comes to cameras, imaging, customer service and vision.

Disclosure: I'm far from a Leica fan, wouldn't touch them with a bargepole either.
 
I love the A7x series of cameras for their output, but agree with others who have mentioned that their control schemas/interfaces are terrible. The RX1R is not a Q killer, because while I would suspect that both Q and RX1R will be quite close in terms of image quality (as close as a 24 and 42MP camera can be to one another that is), the Q is about more than just image quality. It's also about experience, and the joy of using a well-designed, well-made piece of equipment as much as it is high ISO performance and sharpness and blah blah blah.

And I suspect that the word "joy" couldn't have come up much in the design priorities of Sony's camera control schemes/user experiences...unless Sony's design teams are full of sadomasochists.
 
I want the Sony. Never had any interest in the Leica. The price is one matter. The focal length is the second matter. But maybe more important is the image quality I've seen from the first Sony. It has a 'magic' about it. I haven't seen anything from the Leica q that does anything for me. And the lesser (and worse) bokeh of the 28mm makes the q's images look closer to the 'constant DOF' look you get out of phone cams and small sensor cameras.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
I want the Sony. Never had any interest in the Leica. The price is one matter. The focal length is the second matter. But maybe more important is the image quality I've seen from the first Sony. It has a 'magic' about it. I haven't seen anything from the Leica q that does anything for me. And the lesser (and worse) bokeh of the 28mm makes the q's images look closer to the 'constant DOF' look you get out of phone cams and small sensor cameras.
Click to expand...
You have a point about dof although, there is a "real time" quality to the Q images that smartphones usually do not have. Yes, .... Usually. I have seen some nicely realistic smartphone images. They do always lack that subject isolation that a shallow dof can give. This is where the Rx1 will always beat the Q!
 
It is interesting that this new camera can be described as "largely unchanged from the original." I see changes in key areas--AF, VF--that make this a fully-realized camera in ways the predecessor was not. Reminds me of the difference between the Fujifilm X-E1, whose EVF I found unusably sluggish, and the X-E2, which I own and whose EVF I never even think about.

I, too, want the Sony and have not been drawn to the Leica. These sorts of attractions are personal and idiosyncratic, and influenced by he mix of gear we already own.
 
CameraQuest said:
so why post in a thread that you don't care about?
that is not discussion, its just being grouchy
Click to expand...

Why is everyone so touchy about this camera?

I'm interested to know if the RX1r II might be a better performer than the competition, and why—what would make that so. Not whether it will rob sales from other camera brands; that's unimportant to me.

Sorry that you did not understand my question. It was asked in good faith.

G
 
Matthew Runkel said:
It is interesting that this new camera can be described as "largely unchanged from the original." I see changes in key areas--AF, VF--that make this a fully-realized camera in ways the predecessor was not. Reminds me of the difference between the Fujifilm X-E1, whose EVF I found unusably sluggish, and the X-E2, which I own and whose EVF I never even think about.

I, too, want the Sony and have not been drawn to the Leica. These sorts of attractions are personal and idiosyncratic, and influenced by he mix of gear we already own.
Click to expand...

Mathew,

I stated the new Sony was "largely unchanged" to emphasize the reason one would pay the kind of money a person paid to own an RX1 when it was introduced....image quality. Yes, the new RX1 camera has faster AF and a pop- up finder (albeit at the expense of on-board flash) but for me those are not a huge deal. That is not to say they aren't important to someone else out there.
With the XE 2, coming from the XE 1, there were changes in refresh rate and sensor, larger LCD and a host of other "improvements".

In any case I hope you get a new RX1RII and enjoy it!

David
 
DwF said:
I stated the new Sony was "largely unchanged" to emphasize the reason one would pay the kind of money a person paid to own an RX1 when it was introduced....image quality. -- -- With the XE 2, coming from the XE 1, there were changes in refresh rate and sensor
Click to expand...
I think the sensor update from RX1R to RX1RII is more significant than the sensor update between those Fuji X series versions.

While I agree the delta we see now is rather small considering the average camera product cycles, the new camera addresses many of the weak points of the original version (at least on paper and in marketing talk). It may be a worthwhile upgrade for many users and bring in many new customers. I am certainly considering the upgrade, although it may not work for me financially.
 
I have had a used RX-1 for two years now, I got to borrow a Q for two hours. The Q is better in the hand, the autofocus is great next to the RX-1. However I prefer a 35mm lens, to me the files out of both cameras were fine, I felt the Zeiss lens was better then the Leica but that is splitting hairs. Both the RX-1RII and Q are too expensive for me, but if I had the money it would be the Sony.

Having a RX-1 has stopped any GAS for the last two years, that may be coming to a end with the new improvements, I keep thinking of adding a A7-SII I really like the RX-1 and being able to shoot in very little light with it, and would like to try a A7-SII with my 50mm Summilux.

wbill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom