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
I've not seen these poppy-up view finders (EVFs) in person. I'm asking as I'm wondering how robust this type of design is over the longer term (a consideration given the price of the new RX1R version 2). Are they spring-loaded affairs, or motor-driven? The smaller RX100 IV has one, do other cameras?
 
conyon said:
I've not seen these poppy-up view finders (EVFs) in person. I'm asking as I'm wondering how robust this type of design is over the longer term (a consideration given the price of the new RX1R version 2). Are they spring-loaded affairs, or motor-driven? The smaller RX100 IV has one, do other cameras?
Click to expand...

The one in the rx100iii I tried was lousy. By appearences Sony has improved it for this new model. We'll find out.
It's definetly a more gadgety and less elegant design. I say clunky even.
 
This is off the Sony technical page for the RX1R II in regards to digital zoom

Digital Zoom

[Still Image] 42M approx. 4x/18M approx. 6.2x/11M approx. 8x, [Movie] Approx. 4x

Looks like the "crop mode" to me. No so far off from the Q as far as I can tell.

Q= 35mm @ 15M, 50mm @ 8M

Again, if I am reading all of this correctly.
 
I think the Q is only an essay for an improved new system.

Leica never gives you the whole thing when it comes to P&S, they always keep something in the sleeve for not making problems to their M line.
I hope they move forward and make finally a camera system with competitive AF, interchangeable lens and FF sensor.
There are some rumours about a new SL system will it be horrendous like the sony a7? or will it be beautiful like the Q?

Sony on the other hand can make this appealing and popular decisions with out any risk.

For the time being i´m still happy with my m9 and redscale elmar, i see no reason to change it.

🙂
 
Both are niche cameras, and in my opinion the RX1R II occupies some of the Q's original niche, crowding it into a smaller niche. The Q was released at a time when it seemed that long-rumored updates of the RX1 would not be happening. If the two cameras had been released at the same time, I suspect most in the market for such a camera would have chosen the Sony.

For me, the Sony just seems closer to the "digital Contax T3" I have long wanted, a (jacket) pocketable digital that gives up nothing to system cameras and can also be a point-and-shoot. Carrying a T3 loaded with fine-grained film, I always feel I am "covered" and will be able to do a lot with any worthwhile resulting images. I think the Sony will make me feel more that way than the Q, partly due to the file size (which I typically don't need). And I strongly suspect the AF and high-ISO edges are very much in Sony's favor. I believe the Q has a very fast and refined contrast-detection AF system only, not PDAF on the sensor. Sony's latest cameras supposedly have object-tracking and eye-focus that work really well, which would be nice. The Q's EVF is better, but the Sony's is likely as good as or better than other EVFs I find totally usable, with a faster clock speed / refresh rate.

I do think my current take on the two cameras is highly idiosyncratic. As an M9 shooter, I look at the Q and think "wouldn't selling my M9 toward a used M240 or M-P make more sense?" I look at the Sony and think "That could be the only digital/AF camera I need to carry, so I'll have room in the bag for a medium-format film camera."
 
i think what you say makes sense, but is not always that simple. if you are really into the 'style' of result you get from the m9, i would be willing to bet you will not ultimately be pleased with the 'style' result you get from the sony. ive done both. nothing beats the rx1 resolution (til now). but thats not the end of the story, at least for me. i love looking at the kind of results i get from ccd, so while it blew me away for awhile, ultimately the surgical sony resolution left me cold and i sold it. i thought it would be as you said, the last digital i'd buy. instead it just unexpectedly turned me off sony's look and told me in very stark terms what was important to me.
 
Ive argued for and against this argument of handling, but I will say now, that my experience with the Leica Q is that it really is such a joy to behold, and joy to use and in many ways is a digital M body that the digital M's just are not (to qualify; all of the digital M bodies are physically larger than the film M's and though this might seem picky, it matters to me). The Q on the other hand seems refined and possibly where id jump off the Leica M film train and into Leica Digital. Its a logical step as far as Im concerned.
As far as the Sony is concerned, well I think that most of the established master photographers out there go, they have pretty much either expanded out into other 35mm equipment or abandoned Leica completely, so Sony will probably pique interest for them.
I could well imagine, that whats been delivered here (if the IQ is solid, obviously), this camera will be picked up on by a lot of serious photographers, especially in the fields of journalism and documentary work), I wouldnt be surprised is in 5 years time a handful of interviews with masters will reference this camera as being a part of, or indeed the only camera they are/were using at the time. Similar to how the Fuji X100 series has done in the last 3-5 years or whatever.
I see this is, logically, a strengthening of an already existing milestone with lots of refinements and lots of innovation without much risk for either Sony or the user.
I think its going to be a big hit. If I had the money to buy either a Q or this, I would have to have them both for a week to find out.
 
rbelyell said:
i think what you say makes sense, but is not always that simple. if you are really into the 'style' of result you get from the m9, i would be willing to bet you will not ultimately be pleased with the 'style' result you get from the sony. ive done both. nothing beats the rx1 resolution (til now). but thats not the end of the story, at least for me. i love looking at the kind of results i get from ccd, so while it blew me away for awhile, ultimately the surgical sony resolution left me cold and i sold it. i thought it would be as you said, the last digital i'd buy. instead it just unexpectedly turned me off sony's look and told me in very stark terms what was important to me.
Click to expand...

It is definitely possible I will like the Sony results less than those from the M9, but I do also shoot the A99 (often with Leitaxed R lenses) and like those images, so there is some hope. I think where I am more likely to be dissatisfied is with the user interface of the new Sony. At one time I thought some of the same AF wizardry would sell me on the RX100 Mk IV, but the handling left me cold when playing around with it in the shop. I would give the RX1R II more of a chance to grow on me, however.

The larger size and extra $1000 for the Q makes me think of it and the M240 / M-P somewhat as substitute goods: if I'm going to pay that much for something that size, why not go a little further in both directions and get a camera that takes all my M lenses. The Sony strikes me more as a supplemental camera. If I were to get one, I would still want to keep my other systems.
 
Looks like they have improved the camera.

But is the manual focus still so funky? I'd bet so.

Maybe the AF is OK now.

It's a nice camera no doubt with big numbers. As with all Sonys the question arises: is it more fun than a colostomy to shoot?
 
I really love 28mm, so personally I'd prefer the Q.

Removing the consideration of focal length, I'd look at the specs, and the Sony towers above.

I suspect I'd even be tempted to go for the Sony in place of the Q if I was in the market, simply because you get a lot more for a lot less. I'm quite sure that when the Q was announced the Sony engineers had a little chuckle to themselves knowing what they were about to release

However I think the pricing on both is hilarious and won't be buying either.
 
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.
 
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...

Way too true, sir 🙂

They wouldn't even need to change them all, just one nice variant with film lens friendly sensor and Q-like ergos.

I expected much more hollering at the Q EVF, but people seem fine with it. But it's the very best on any camera to date, including any sony, if I'm not mistaken.

The basic A7 EVF really wears on you after awhile. Not everywhere. Not always. But it gives me headaches fairly often.
 
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...

That's the truth...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom