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
YYV_146 said:
And the RX1rII is the best reflection of that. It's designed as a dedicated backup camera, ideally for someone who already has an A7rII.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way at all (as someone who has one on order). I see it as a serious camera that I can take with me anywhere without any serious weight / size commitment.
 
jsrockit said:
Well, I picked up a used RX1R II for a really good price and I'm shocked at how much I like it. Top notch sensor and lens. Ergonomically, it's not the best, but wow.
Click to expand...

Thats interesting. How far 'off' are the ergonomics for you? Is it something in particular? Did it take long to get used to it?
 
conyon said:
Thats interesting. How far 'off' are the ergonomics for you? Is it something in particular? Did it take long to get used to it?
Click to expand...

Well, I just got it. It's a little too small IMO. And it's the typical Sony remote control feel. I prefer classic camera shapes like a Leica M or a mechanical SLR shape. However, like I said... it's worth dealing with.
 
CameraQuest said:
Will the newly announced Sony RX1R kill Leica Q sales?
Click to expand...

Nope. Anyone with the money and the desire to own the Q will not be buying a Sony, just like anyone who can afford and wants a Leica M won't "settle" for a Canon or Nikon full frame model, unless they can afford both.

The new Sony RX1R probably has more potential of hurting sales of their own A series.
 
jsrockit said:
Well, I just got it. It's a little too small IMO. And it's the typical Sony remote control feel. I prefer classic camera shapes like a Leica M or a mechanical SLR shape. However, like I said... it's worth dealing with.
Click to expand...

I had the RX1R - it was one of my favorite cameras I've owned. I thought the same thing about ergonomics until I added the Fotodiox grip. It made a world of difference.
 
jsrockit said:
Well, I just got it. It's a little too small IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree these cameras are too small. The RX1R is the only camera I have ever bought a half case for, and it is a huge improvement. It simply makes the camera a bit more bulky and easier to grasp. That's it, nothing more to it. I first thought that I would remove the half case when I absolutely wish to travel with the tiniest possible kit, but in practice I have never bothered. With the big lens, you are not really saving any space by removing the half case (or perhaps this is a one-third case). The one I have is a Gariz, and it's very functional and provides a good size for improved handling. The only issue is the offset tripod mount.
 
I can't say I'm getting on with the camera at this point. Tried the grip, tried the case, etc. Just not my thing. X-Pro2 feels so comfortable and fun to use, RX1R II... not so much. Oh well, its only a camera.
 
I can relate with that. The RX1 series are simply not great cameras, they are very average point and shoots. They are great imaging products, though. Some of the very best. I keep and use mine for the image quality and the leaf shutter. All that in a very small package.


Off topic:

I am also looking at the X-Pro2, but it is simply too much money for me for what it brings to the table. I would probably just get the 35/2 (which on the other hand is quite the bargain) and be done with it for a while. If the camera had 4k video, I might spend the money and even get an extra lens or two mainly for video use. With the current offering, I'm waiting at least for 35% off locally - or a US trip and 20+% off. Even then, I would be spending more than three times what I already paid for the Sony A6000 months ago (which provides the same performance). But the hybrid viewfinder and nicer ergonomics are certainly worth something. However, the thing about time is that it not only brings down the prices but it also moves up the bar.

The X-Pro2 is a bit of a missed marketing opportunity really. Apparently Fujifilm marketing decided that they can skip the 4k update (for which the hardware is capable of!) because only a minority of their existing X-Pro1 users found use for the abysmal video on that rig. I'm sure they can sell additional cameras to some of their existing customers through this differentiation, but this is a good example of how not to lure in new demanding customers. I have tried every single X mount Fuji with a viewfinder (except the new X-Pro2) and none of those cameras provide what I want. The X-Pro2 may be it. If I did go the X-Pro2 route, I might also get a 24-megapixel upgrade of the X100 series cameras at some point to replace the need for the RX1R. They are not bad products as is and the user experience kills the Sony, but they are not quite at the performance level I'm looking at.
 
Trius said:
Fuji have stated that they are not implementing 4K in the X-Pro2 because of heat.
Click to expand...
There was also another story from Fuji saying that X-Pro1 users do not want video. This is the first I hear of heat being the reason.
 
Lss said:
I can relate with that. The RX1 series are simply not great cameras, they are very average point and shoots. They are great imaging products, though. Some of the very best. I keep and use mine for the image quality and the leaf shutter. All that in a very small package.
Click to expand...

True.

I am also looking at the X-Pro2, but it is simply too much money for me for what it brings to the table. I would probably just get the 35/2 (which on the other hand is quite the bargain) and be done with it for a while.
Click to expand...

I can understand how people would feel this way, but let's remember it IS unique. It is rangefinder sized and shaped (which I think is a plus), it has the hybrid finder, most likely the best high ISO IQ of any APSC camera (unless you hate X-Trans look), and has a pretty good lens lineup. I use more than my RX1R II and Df now.

The X-Pro2 is a bit of a missed marketing opportunity really. Apparently Fujifilm marketing decided that they can skip the 4k update (for which the hardware is capable of!) because only a minority of their existing X-Pro1 users found use for the abysmal video on that rig. I'm sure they can sell additional cameras to some of their existing customers through this differentiation, but this is a good example of how not to lure in new demanding customers.
Click to expand...

I'm one of those who doesn't care about video... I'm part of the problem.

I have tried every single X mount Fuji with a viewfinder (except the new X-Pro2) and none of those cameras provide what I want. The X-Pro2 may be it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I felt the same way...and the X-Pro2 is it for me.

If I did go the X-Pro2 route, I might also get a 24-megapixel upgrade of the X100 series cameras at some point to replace the need for the RX1R. They are not bad products as is and the user experience kills the Sony, but they are not quite at the performance level I'm looking at.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The X-Pro2 has the performance though. The new X100 should be nice.
 
+1 on grips to the RX1 series. They're pretty much required in my opinion. Hugely changes the ergonomics of it. My RX1R2 now feels great in my hands, while before it felt really awkward. I don't know if others have stated it but the AF-C mode focuses the lens much faster than AF-S. One theory is that it keeps the lens from returning to infinity focus after each engagement. Plus with eye-af for portraits, off center composition is a breeze.

The RX1R2 puts out the best quality I've ever seen from a 35mm digital right down to the pixel level. However, I'm no pixel peeper. I just think that 35 Sonnar renders like a dream! There is plenty of sharpness where it needs to be, and the highlights glow. I wonder if that kind of rendering (which I also get from my 50/1.5 C Sonnar), is why Zeiss refers to it as a Sonnar. I'm not sure I believe that it all comes down to the pure optical formula like it used to... The Q may be a lovely camera but a 28 is not a 35. That's all she wrote for portrait shooters.

Really and truly my only gripe is that manual focus is a drag. However, I bought this as an AF camera. If I want to enjoy manually focusing a 35 I'll use my 35/1.4 ZM.
 
Spanik said:
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.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more on the bolded parts.

In the area of photography I work big SLRs are the norm, many of us are sticking with a brand because we're invested in lenses, but even there the Sonys have been making inroads.

Imaging wise, Sony sensors are in the world's top FF cameras, the big Nikons (I say this as a Canon user) and the a7 series, are all Sony sensors, they're fantastic, and Sony has been really pushing up the ISO envelope too.

It's possible to say that they should have much more in the way of lenses and less bodies, but they seem to pick a particular purpose for each body and push each of them forward, I believe they just filed a curved sensor patent too. They definitely have vision.

Leica on the other hand, (and I say this as a Q admirer) everything they release is about a year or more behind the other companies in terms of capability, and they rely on their reputation and the "precision" and "porsche" comparisons, when honestly, on the wider stage, their products aren't competitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom