jarski
Veteran
The usual suspects:
- better low light capability
- more pronounced DOF separation
- some enthusiasts like also adapt and use vintage lenses as they were intended by their designers
Archlich
Well-known
Adapting legacy lenses.
Otherwise crop sensors today are extremely competent.
Yes.
Same-generation APS-C vs 135 format sensors show little practical performance difference; measurable yes, but not practical.
As far as DOF is concerned, I've never shot a very shallow DOF photo with APS-C where I was disappointed that it wasn't instead shot with a 135-format sensor. The difference is trivial and only visible in side-by-side comparisons.
Same-generation APS-C vs 135 format sensors show little practical performance difference; measurable yes, but not practical.
As far as DOF is concerned, I've never shot a very shallow DOF photo with APS-C where I was disappointed that it wasn't instead shot with a 135-format sensor. The difference is trivial and only visible in side-by-side comparisons.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes. Actually, to get the focus zone control I wanted for ultra-wide photography like I had with my Hasselblad SWC, FF was insufficient. It's much of what motivated me to buy the Hasselblad 907x: the additional size of the sensor format allows more focus zone control with short focal length lenses like the 21mm. For wide-normal and longer lenses, the APS-C cameras are quite sufficient in focus zone control with f/2 or f/2.8 maximum apertures.
G
aizan
Veteran
The “best” image quality at the price point.
Travel and vlogging/video are the two main uses for compacts right now. I expect the Fujifilm X-E4, Panasonic GX10, and Canon M6 Mk3 will have the same form factor: RF-style EVF + fully-articulated screen.
jmilkins
Digited User
I've had a GR since film days and still think it is the best pocket camera I've ever used. I'm comfortable with 28mm as a result. I've had a couple of failed bodies due to knocks on the lens assembly (I think) or drenching in orange juice (don't ask).
So along with the film GR1s I use the first version RX1 because :
-that lens!
-the price
-that lens!
Improvements would be welcome as identified above, but I don't want the MP. A small form factor is becoming more important to me such that I'm considering M43 instead of honking DSLRs / mirorrless, or more aptly, the FF lenses they require at the long end.
So along with the film GR1s I use the first version RX1 because :
-that lens!
-the price
-that lens!
Improvements would be welcome as identified above, but I don't want the MP. A small form factor is becoming more important to me such that I'm considering M43 instead of honking DSLRs / mirorrless, or more aptly, the FF lenses they require at the long end.
DwF
Well-known
It is interesting how on this and other forums, older cameras that we may have overlooked or simply rejected for this or that reason back when gain praise in retrospect (and I include myself in this observation) . So seen over decades it is for example easy to praise the Contax T2 to a greater extent than it received at issue- it of course had serious competition with the Konica Hexar. And that camera so beautifully designed lacked a shutter speed of even 1/500th of a second.
While the Sony Rx1R II is not perfect by any stretch, it deserves and my bet is it will receive similar, and well deserved praise as time goes on.
That said, and while I am sure Sony have moved on, the changes that come to mind for me and off-the-cuff are:
-Chimping with magnification is a cumbersome process
-Deleting images is also cumbersome as "delete" has to bee reset after each deletion and it requires two presses.
-I'd be okay with slightly larger body to avoid pop-up EVF gain space for bigger battery
I get that form factor alone on this camera is not for everybody, but image quality certainly speaks for itself and holds-up! The RX1R II is capable of providing beautiful images that (IMHO) need be not quantified in numbers for competitive purposes.
David
While the Sony Rx1R II is not perfect by any stretch, it deserves and my bet is it will receive similar, and well deserved praise as time goes on.
That said, and while I am sure Sony have moved on, the changes that come to mind for me and off-the-cuff are:
-Chimping with magnification is a cumbersome process
-Deleting images is also cumbersome as "delete" has to bee reset after each deletion and it requires two presses.
-I'd be okay with slightly larger body to avoid pop-up EVF gain space for bigger battery
I get that form factor alone on this camera is not for everybody, but image quality certainly speaks for itself and holds-up! The RX1R II is capable of providing beautiful images that (IMHO) need be not quantified in numbers for competitive purposes.
David