Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review

airplane mode on helps a lot but yes would be cool if that battery life could get doubled somehow.....

@tbcass

U are right !
personal I would not want IS since I feel in a way I wanna stay in control and sometimes I even want shaky photo :)

@cityofdust

In addition I can't help but feel an extra movable lens must have some negative effect on image quality. I can't see how it can't. Can you tell me any of the highest quality primes other than telephoto that have OS?

@tbcass - my point exactly.

Bend your knees and make like a human gimbal. Easy :-)

@Hernan1304 and cityofdust

AP mode was on and I did keep my spare in my pocket...

It's a unique camera, but it doesn't make it right.

>> I don't know how you came to deduce poor optics for this camera

I said it clearly above (quote: 'look at studio comparison of RX1R II and A7R II'):
1) Go to the Image Quality page of the review
2) Compare RX1R II and A7R II.
You will see a huge difference. The sensor is the same but optics are not. While A7R II is sharp RX1R II looks like either completely out of focus in comparison or more likely it is that the optics do not have the resolution.
You do not get those 42 megapixels and the images are far from sharp at 100%. I reckon it is poor quality optics on RX1R II as that is what is different.

The reason I reckon it is of about 15 megapixels optical resolution is completely unscientific. The image looks as soft as the image on A7R II with 24-70 F4 lens that has optical resolution of 15 megapixels as measured by DXO.

P.S. and go anywhere off the center (e.g. text in color palletes) in studio comparison too to see how bad it is as center looks closer to A7R II than corners.

Dylthedog, do you seriously believe that optical resolution will improve with non-flat scene? I reckon not. It will still show noticeably poorer resolution than you can get with the same sensor on A7R II with a good lens.
Flat or not flat... the problem is with poor quality optics and the scene will not change that. Optics on this camera do not fit the sensor resolution.

RMGoodLight,
1) What you present is just another angle of poor quality optics. Thanks for bringing that into an argument to prop up my point of view.
2) You do not need to go far from the center to see sharpness deterioration. If you look at raw in the studio comparison you will see that EVEN THE VERY CENTER is not as sharp on RX1R II as on A7R II. So your argument that it is all down to field curvature breaks on its head - sorry but you touched on the wrong angle to prove that optics are not as bad as they are.
Jpeg clearly applies some sharpening as it is sharper than raw.

Also remember that even A7R II does not yet have any native mount lenses (let us hope G Master line be such) that match the sensor resolution. So from that point of view even A7R II is not yet the ultimate sharpness benchmark but we have no better right now ON THE SAME SENSOR and RX1R II loses in sharpness.

Thank you for propping argument that RX1R II has poor optical quality lens.

>> have no glue!

RMGoodLight, sorry to disappoint and part company. I am not a glue sniffer. ;-) Good luck in your personal adventures! :-)

Deckstein,

If you are saying it is class leading you must not have seen truly good lenses from Sony's competition. I am sorry for you.
DXO mark clearly indicates that Sony does not have any native mount lenses to match A7R II's 42 megapixel resolution. The best Sony has is 90mm F2.8 that resolves only 32 megapixels. While competition has plenty of lenses that are of equal or higher resolution than the best of Sony. Sony is behind the competition on this front and we are yet to see if G Master line up will or will not finally catch up with the competition.

So your words about Sony's class leading lens are frankly laughable. I am sorry you did not see any better in this life yet.

P.S. By the way I have Sony A7R II (RX1R II) and frankly am not happy with it on quite a few rather mundane angles including lack of good lens line up to match the competition. It is not what it should have been at such high price point.

Dylthedog,
If I am to pay the consequences of 42 megapixels I at least want to have the full benefits (this is wrt pixel pipping). The problem with A7R II is that its fallacies only start with lens availability and cover many other aspect of a camera system.
It will yet take Sony years to catch up with the competition though Sony is clearly moving in that direction but does not yet seem to get it right.

Primitivelamps,
I am sorry for your experiences that unfortunately mean that you were unlucky to not experience anything better if you claim bad version and perfect camera.
If it is just bad version then every reviewer has got a bad one including dpreview as can be seen from studio comparison tool. Sony's quality control must be really awful if every reviewer except you gets a bad one!

As for me... If you were an attentive reader you would have seen above that I have A7R II that is better than RX1R II. While A7R II has the same sensor it allows me to use better (which by the physics nature also means larger) lenses than RX1R II. But even A7R II does not yet have lenses that fully match its resolution and hopes are only for upcoming G Master lens line up. Otherwise DXO Mark clearly indicates Sony does not have native E-mount lenses with resolution to match 42 megapixel sensor. Best one can do to exploit sensor resolution is to use Canon FE-mount lenses via an adapter.

If you look at miksto´s posting history you´ll see that all he does is whine about and come up with clearly exaggerated statements regarding all things Sony.

Don´t feed...

>> Show me all the complaints on the web about the "poor optics"?

Look at DXO Mark measurements. Complaints are subjective. Measurements are not. DXO Mark did not measure RX1R II lens but it measured Sony E-mount lenses and none of them come close to 42 megapixel resolution in sharpness. And you can see complaints about the soft Sony lenses if you look around but that does not matter.

>> Are you that poor a photographer that you have to reference DXO for everything

This is just a stupid statement. Next you will claim that those who did studio comparison shots at dpreview are poor photographers or got a bad sample.
Measurements do not replace photography and vice versa. That was a rather stupid assumption to make on your side. We talk about a tool here - camera. That is checked by measurements. Silly statement.

>> come up with clearly exaggerated statements regarding all things Sony

Sorry, but there is nothing exaggerated in plain facts. You better face reality than stay blind.

Thx to Utterlyotter. Your right I will stop feeding!

Miksto: I love a good debate but I am losing interest because you are clearly just trolling and really not very good at it.

Since you like to quote DXO so much I will leave you with this.

"While the two models adopt equally impressive lenses."

"The new RX1R II achieved an excellent DxOMark score of 97 points, with individual scores of 25.8 bits for color sensitivity, a wide 13.9 EVs dynamic range at base ISO (albeit slightly lower at base than the best tested), and a very good low-light ISO score of 3204 ISO."
This came right from your boys on the RX1Rii. Funny didn't read anything about "poor optics". You would think they would comment on the "poor optics".
So, even though the camera has "poor optics" (according to you) they still say this. Hmmm.
Don't bother responding as Utterlyotter posted you will just be showing your colors even more. Have a nice day. :)

>> This came right from your boys on the RX1Rii. Funny didn't read anything about "poor optics"

And that is because those are SENSOR ONLY tests if were reading carefully. They do not test optical resolution and other optical qualities at all. It is only ISO performance, dynamic range and depth of color - that is what DXO does for cameras. Understood now your fallacy in DXO quotation?

DXO uses different metrics for lenses (sharpness, distortion, vignetting, transmission, chromatic aberration) and in fact DXO Mark has not tested the lens of RX1R II at all. But DXO has tested lenses for Sony E-mount. Now. Here are two facts:
1) No E-mount lens comes close to the sensor resolution.
2) In dpreveiw Studio comparison test we see A7R II gives better sharpness than RX1R II which means RX1R II has worse optics.

Conclusion from the two verifiable facts? RX1R II does not resolve what the sensor resolves since none of E-mount lenses do that and RX1R II clearly has worse lens.

..Continued.
DXO has not tested RX1R II lens yet but it has tested RX1R lens:
http://www.dxomark.com/best-lenses-for-sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx1r-(894)

That lens was only resolving 20 megapixels which is within my guessed range of 15-20 megapixel optical resolution. 20 megapixel optical resolution is close enough for 24 megapixel camera and not much of a loss. If they left the same lens on 42 megapixel sensor then bad... Not enough. Studio comparison clearly shows softness across the field for RX1R II. Irrespective of whether this is caused by poor optical resolution or plane of focus curvature (or more likely both) it is poor optics.

And it is not only optical resolution that is bad on RX1R lens that was tested by DXO. Chromatic aberration is awful 13 micrometers. That is a few pixels wide on 42 megapixel sensor

1) putting long lenses on the a7R range is simply missing the point of the cameras IMHO. If you go that route, buy the extra grip?

2) the reviews I have read tell that the sensor and the lens are a match made in Heaven.

As well you say, the DxO team have not teated this lens yet, so why quote the outgoing combo' ? Simply daft.

>> putting long lenses on the a7R range is simply missing the point of the cameras IMHO

But none of the small lenses have the optical resolution for 42 megapixel camera if you check DXO. So 42 megapixels beg for larger new G Master lenses that hopefully will resolve it fully.

>> If you go that route, buy the extra grip?

Yes but even with that grip Sony A7R II is not as comfortable as Nikon's or Canon's with larger lenses and without a vertical grip.
I wish Sony matched camera and optics better. For RX1R II that would mean smaller resolution but the same sensor technology (should help low light as well). For A7R II that means larger camera with full grip.

>> the reviews I have read tell that the sensor and the lens are a match made in Heaven

This is just not technical enough. The technical tests indicate the resolution was not a match even for 24 megapixel predecessor. We are yet to see proper test for new 42 megapixel successor.

APSC is actually 2/3-frame. MFT is half-frame.

The A6000 is great indeed, but a FF 28mm on it of course makes little sense when there is the Zeiss 24mm F1.8 Sonnar specifically designed for that, or the 20mm F2.8 pancake if you want something pocketable at a bargain.

@Carey Rose

You make a good point. The most useful function of a touchscreen, when using a mobile-camera.

@Tungsten

Also a fair point. I generally prefer mechanical controls, and would like them to stick around as well. But on smaller cameras without much room for them, I see the touch screen is an acceptable alternative.

Wishing for a touch screen and saying the lack of one is a negative, I see as two different things in a review

It appears we are at an impasse.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/rx1r-ii-review/8

35mm is so long most folks must step back through walls to get the shot (or rock, or off a ledge, off a cliff, etc)
or compromise, and get an uncomplete shot (cropped out details)

distortion is relative; we live in a spherical world, where rectalinearity is normalized even if we never ever see it in reality with our bare eyes (only through lenses)

the lens glass may be bigger, but not necessarily a bigger camera body.
+aperture diameter near identical (24/1.4 ~ 35/2)

anyone remember Fujifilm's Natura S 24mm f1.9 135 format film camera?
it was hardly a 'big camera' (tinier than sony's cybershot RX1RII 35 f2)

the issue is you can't clean it yourself, you need to bring it to the service center, which they will charge you with a ridicolous amount of money just to clean it.

@Camley, yes I think it would be more troubling in a smaller sensor, but a larger sensor has more area to catch dust. Hopefully they have sealed the lens really good.

Dust has been an issue on cameras like the RX100 and LX100 series cams.

I worried about RX-1 dust but it has not been an issue for >2 years. I try to not abuse the cam too much but it is used frequently in the wilds and often kept in a pocket instead of a case.

@Bryan

I'm not sure that's a super compelling argument.

Historically, fixed lens cameras (be they folders, rangefinders, or SLRs) have always been less expensive, not more. Think of the huge popularity of quality fixed-lens cameras like the Kodak Retina and its ilk, Yashica Electro 35, or Canonet QL17. Far fewer people could afford SLRs (and the lenses to go with them) or the screwmount rangefinders available at the time.

Even on the medium format side, the Fuji fixed G(x)645 series or newer fixed GF670 cost a small fraction of their interchangeable lens cousins. Compare a Fuji GF670 with its high quality built-in 80mm/f3.5 to a Mamiya 7ii, which costs nearly twice the price for a used body with no lens at all...

Androole;

Your argument is flawed. The true resolution of a smart phone is much less than the advertised number because so many pixels are packed into such a small area that extreme amounts of noise reduction are necessary even at low iso. While 1" sensors suffer from this as well they do so at a much lesser degree than the minute cell phone sensors. Also the lenses of smart phones are poor and very limited in focal length.

Next there's the law of diminishing returns. As sensor size increases the improvement in IQ is not a 1:1 ratio but get's less and less. Then there's the IQ threshold beyond which improvements in IQ are less relevant to most people because the photo has to be magnified more and more to see the difference. For example I find the IQ of cell phones unacceptable but my RX100 is acceptable. In fact for me any sensor of 1:1.7 size and smaller is unacceptable. For my uses APS-C is the sweet spot while FF is a bit overkill.

I don't find the lens + body pricing argument relevant because the focal length is fixed at something that is way too limiting for me. I have a 35mm lens that I rarely use. For that reason it negates the $1000 premium you are putting on the lens. Con you shoot sports with this camera? NO. Can you shoot macro? No. Can you shoot most wildlife, BIF? No. It's a lot of money for a camera that can do so little.

If you can live with the 35mm lens limitation and have enough expendable funds to afford the price for what is in reality a second camera then go for it. For me, never.

Terry, if I had a pound for every time I saw a comment along the lines of yours I'd be rich.

It happens in all walks of life but the best example is with sports teams where the comment in defence of a coach is along the lines of "That is why he is the coach and you aren't" or "Why don't you apply for the coaching job if you are such an expert?"

Comments like this (and yours) are pointless. Just because people are in positions of authority (CEO, sports coach) it doesn't mean they are always right or that anyone questioning them has to be a CEO or sports coach or have ambtions to be one!

add the Quattro to the studio display and the images are crisper and sharper than anything else comparable.

i'm interested in that dp3 if u sell.

For me less important is digital or not. I just want back times with classic dof from 35 mm with 35, 50, 80, ~110 lenses. For films cameras I had good camera and big set of lenses, I even not trying to count, how much money it need today.

Most important is final effect, photos. I not need sophisticated lighting system and thousands AF points, because I had great final effect without this all, and last I need is video camera in my photo camera.

Not mention magic in lightroom