Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review

You are partially correct. Still, its a brutally expensive camera with a cheap buttons and average handling. I agree with the author because I tried one

You are missing the point mermaidkiller. Many photographers love fixed prime lens shooting, and, a camera of this kind forces you to familiarise yourself with the aspect ratio/ field of view of the lens. It weighs less than 500 grams and is built like a tank, the lens is gorgeous, it has every function and mode of an A7R ii bar the interchangeable lenses, but that is also its appeal. For people like me who mainly shoot street and urban, it provides stealth, quiet operation, and it is every bit as easy and a lot more fun using your feet to zoom in and out. It is actually a marvel in miniaturisation, and that cannot be overstated enough. Battery life certainly is not great, but, the dimensions of the camera are so right, who cares: especially as the replacements are not expensive (I carry 5 on me for all possibilities covered for). Fabulous little camera and, having tested both, better than a Leica Q (which is even more expensive still).

If you use proper technique a good photographer doesn't really need IS with a 35mm lens.

It's a flat scene. That is not its strength. DPR repeat this statement a few times.

If you want to take pictures of wallpaper, it's not the camera for you.

You don't seem to know what field curvation means. It means that the corners in the test scene are not unsharp because the lens is soft. they are unsharp because they are out of focus. The in focus area is not flat but shaped like an umbrella with the center as the middle. It does not say that you will get blury images off center. You can put your subject at a 1/3 line with the Zeiss 35mm F2.0 and it is tack sharp. Done that several times with the RX1R and were never disappointed.
I experienced the Zeiss Sonnar 35mm F2.0 as an excellent lens that rivals the Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8. The field curvation makes it not the first choise for flat subjects but its sharpness wide open is great and you will have a hard challenge to find a better 35mm lens. Look at the Sony Zeiss 35mm F1.4. It is soft at F2.0 and needs to be stopped down to F4.0 to achieve similar sharpness as the RX1RII at F2.0. Bad optics? You have no glue!

@miksto:
poor optics... lol ;-))
The RX1R and RX1RII festure the same lens which is class leading, stunning and ultra-sharp even wide open and has very nice contrast and bokeh.

I recommend using the camera instead of writing nonsense.

miksto - sounds to me like you didn't do your research up front. I hear the A7R II does a good job of focusing Canon lenses...

Or you could just stop pixel-peeping. Probably not gonna happen though, is it?

First of all do you even own the RX!Rii? If you do then there are only two reasons you could come up with a statement like "poor optics". 1. You unfortunately got a bad version which I would immediately send back to who ever you purchased it through. 2. You have no clue how to use the camera.
I am guessing since you are here it is option 1. Or you may just be trolling i guess that could be a third option.
Would you agree in this day and age people are more likely to bitch about something online than take the time to praise it?
So if you go with this premise take a look a B&H for just one example. The worst someone can really complain about is the battery life. Which in my opinion is a stupid thing to complain about because you new the size of the battery before you bought it. If you want a small FF camera your going to have to compromise somewhere.
Is it a perfect camera. No. Is it a great niche camera if you want superior sensor and optics in a small FF package . Absolutely.

You are the only one claiming there are "poor optics" in this camera. New or older version. Show me all the complaints on the web about the "poor optics"?
You have come to the conclusion that all RX!R ii cameras have bad optics even though you don't even own the camera yourself!
As for your brilliant statement about using different lenses on the A7R ii . Really, didn't realize one is a fixed lens and one is not. (Sarcasm :) ). The RX!Rii is marketed toward different people. People who buy it are not looking for interchangeable lenses. They are looking for great FF sensor and optics in a small package. I have the A7Rii as well. If i put the 1.4 on there it is not something I am going to carry around.
Are you that poor a photographer that you have to reference DXO for everything (well you did buy a camera with a grip you hate) or can you not tell the difference in quality on your own? Oh wait, you don't own one so you should not be sharing your opinion on it.

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...

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. :)

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.

Milksto, you really need to stop looking at pixel peeping rubbish and, instead, stop guessing/ making stuff up. I own an RX1R ii and A7R ii and I can tell you that, wide open at f/2 (where the RX1R ii is optimised and matched to sensor to operate at), far outperforms the A7R ii centre to corner, and it is not until around f/5.6 that the A7R ii catches up. To call the optics of the Zeiss Sonnar poor is not knowing what you are talking about, I'm afraid. It is razor sharp on the 42.4 megapixel sensor!

"we use the a7R II as opposed to the RX1R II to demonstrate this because the RX1R II's subpar lens quality wouldn't yield a fair comparison in this off-centre section of our scene"

They are not impressed with the lens quality as they should be for the price, it being a fixed lens and all, meaning that there's not a whole lot to be done about it - for the money you'd have hoped for a (better) quality of lens.

This, the lack of 4k video, the loss of the image stabilisation from the a7R11, these then are three hurdles to parting with such a lot of cash as I see it. I appreciate some of the above items are not of interest for some, I for one have no idea what video is for, and yet I have held off buying this camera as I have a feeling it's sensor really needs better optics to break through to that next level.

A missed opportunity?

???
For me, the higher resolution doesn't bring any benefit (16mp is still more than enough for me - 24 is about the most I'd want). And the downsides are less tolerance for camera shake (the original was great for very steady shooting but also good for a more run and gun kind of street shooting that I do a lot of - 42mp is less forgiving for the latter), the heavy overhead for storage space and processing the raw files, and I gotta think all of that resolution and the processing needed to harness it has something to do with the even worse battery life than the original. Give me the 12mp sensor in the A7s or the new 20mp BSI sensor Nikon is putting in their D5 (assuming it's sourced from Sony???) or even the existing 16mp sensor from the current D4 / DF (not a Sony, though) in this camera and I'd be all over it. The 42mp BSI from the A7IIR, as technically excellent as it is, is actually a downside to me...

Camera shake remains exactly the same, it's only more noticeable if you zoom in to 100% on a 42MP compared to 100% with 24MP, for obvious reasons. So just set Lightroom to zoom to 50% instead, or whatever you're using. Or see it as a chance to up your game.

The processing power required is indeed a big downside, but one that can be overcome easily enough for most people. Processors double in power every two years, but i bet you could use an upgrade right now. ;-)

Storage space can be solved by losslessly compressing the Raws, that actually makes the 42MP files smaller than uncompressed Raws from a 24MP sensor. With DNG they can get as small as 40% of the uncompressed original (for the lower iso images). That's a 60% reduction in size. With simple lossless (not lossy) compression.

Alolywu: Exactly. Add the economic Sony 28mm f2, an excellent lens which is also very small...Or, if as Ray Sachs suggests, 24 mp is enough, then the A7ii with the 28mm f2; both have IBIS for hand held shooting; or, if you want half frame, the A6000 (now $500) plus the sony 28, even smaller (but no IS with this lens.)

Of what?

You can´t possibly complain about a full frame + lens that weighs a third of many lenses? Physics matter, it´s not bloody fairy land where Gandalf/Dumbledore traipses around and on a whim and a wave of the hand can create unicorns farting rainbows.

God, there are a lot of (envious?) whiners here!

(Btw, what FF DSLR comes even close to being the size of this one - please show me, I´d be very interested.)

Note: RX1R II is a FULL FRAME camera

You don't call Chevy Tahoe "a compact" simply because it's smaller than the Suburban.

I still think it's flying way over your head, but keep the ridiculous comparisons coming.

I think you're an incredible jerk, so keep your ridiculous insults in your very lonely self.

True. Not many are able to figure how that plays into their intended uses (the crop potential, the lack a need for a larger tripod or pano rig, good light hand-held pano technique, or even no support at all for dark objectives - all too confusing to contemplate). It's not a camera for just anyone.

You don't need a heavy tripod. What is the rule of thumb? It's something like your tripod needs to be twice the weight of your camera? But because the camera is so light you can use one of the smaller carbon fiber tripods like a baby Gitzo and a lighter ball or gear head from someone like Kirk or RRS. If you're trekking, you could also stabilize it using a bean bag or shot bag that you fill with river sand at your destination.
Use the remote shutter release and the result will be some very serious, high-resolution photos. No stress at all!

I personally find touch screens annoying, a joy stick control maybe, but that also might get in the way. I have no issues with using the control wheel.

@landshark

I agree, the wheels on the Ricoh GRD are fast and responsive. Touch screen are fiddly. I would not like to see them replace tactile electro-mechanical controls. I feel that listing them as 'con' will slowly help pressure camera manufacturers to adopt them wholesale.

Thank you for answering, i saw the studio comparisons, real world may be different. I will like to see in some comparisons a portrait for skin tones, a close-up/macro for details, a high contrast scene for shadows, a low light for noise...
And maybe to put there Sony 7RII, Canon 5DSR and Nikon D810 to see what you miss if you have a compact FF camera.
This way everyone will know what camera to buy according to their needs.
Anyway you dont have any real world comparisons and i dont know why.
Some nice comparisons may be between the top cameras from every range. Like 7RII vs RX1RII vs RX100IV.

Barney:
The comparison tool results are shocking. To my eye, the Leica seems the best while the A7rII is clearly the worst of the four.
Makes me think if you dialed up a little more sharpness and contrast on the A7rii you might have a completely different story. Maybe I am a little defensive, but the lack of clarity in your A7Rii shot seems quite inconsistent with the incredible clarity I get, daily, with mine, hand held, though admittedly I don't have side by side compare shots.
The point about using a tripod, puts focus on a very real issue about this camera: The reason you get a camera this small is to avoid bulk. If you need a tripod, what's the point? With this many pixels, it should have IBIS or lens based IS so hand held results could consistently utilize the capability of the camera. When you do a gallery of shots, I think they should be mostly hand held. If it doesn't cut it hand held, it doesn't cut it period.

"counts only amongst a fov for the old film masses of years gone past"

If you are referring to the supposed ideal focal length for a "normal lens" then neither 35mm nor 50mm fits the bill.

A "normal lens" is one that doesn't distort perspective when viewed at a normal viewing distance. Your 24mm doesn't qualify because it does just that.

35mm is also slightly too wide and 50mm slightly too long because the focal length should be equal to the diagonal dimension of the format, so something like 43mm.

That has nothing to do with the "the old film masses of years gone past" but is just how it is. If you don't find 35mm wide enough that is just your personal preference.

My personal preference would be a 43mm F2 lens. 50mm has always been too long for me but 35mm and wider means if you move close to the subject then if the subject is people the perspective isn't very good with lenses of 28 and 24mm.

The current fashion for fixed wide angle lens camera don't do anything for me.

@ MikeManr

That's the problem. A camera with a removable lens can easily have its sensor cleaned, even at home. A fixed lens camera, by contrast, can basically never have it's sensor cleaned. Dust particles are really small, and manage to sneak into everything...

Wouldn't dust on a small, high pixel density sensor cause the loss of more pixels than a large lower pixel density sensor.

I haven't heard that dust on the sensors of fixed lens cameras is a major issue.

Are you honestly implying that anyone that buys this camera has so much money that $250 is irrelevant?

Seems like a logical conclusion to me.

$250 is not irrelevant. It's overpriced.
Sorry, my comment was not clear enough.

I agree, this could/should be included.

As far back as glass plates or sheet film, there's always been a market for high-end, fixed-lens compact cameras. And because the engineering challenges are steep and the market is relatively small, they've always commanded a price premium over mass-market point-and-shoot and SLR cameras.

If you really need or want such a camera you'll be willing to pay more, and manufacturers will make them for you. If you don't, you won't, and they won't. Everybody gets what the want. That's the magic of a free market.

Androole;

I would say the IQ difference between a smart phone and an RX100 is far greater than the IQ difference between the RX100 and the RX1Rii. This camera doesn't even do 4K video!!! The RX1Rii might be great for 4'x6' prints but how many of us do that? Of course that doesn't address the limitations of a $3300 fixed lens camera compared to the A7Rii. It's just way too much money for what it is. If everybody would refuse to pay these exorbitant prices then the cost would come down but there's a sucker born every minute.

What are you calling IQ? An RX100 has about 2 stops better low-light image quality and dynamic range compared to a top-end smartphone, and has 25% higher resolution. The RX100 sensor is about 5x larger.

An RX1R II has about 2.5 stops better low light image quality and 1.5 stops better dynamic range compared to an RX100 IV, and 110% higher resolution. The RX1R II sensor is 7.5x larger.

So that's settled...

As far as the overpricing part - it's basically a $3200 A7r II in a smaller form factor with a $1000+ Zeiss 35mm/f2 lens glued onto it. When you look at that way, just compare it all the other 42MP BSI full-frame camera bodies that fit into a jacket pocket that you can find on the market for $2000. Clearly overpriced, yes?

No, it doesn't have 4K video. But a smartphone does, just like your $1000 (!) RX100 IV...

I would gladly trade the RX1 for a nice Wide Rolleiflex with the fixed 55mm Distagon and a gallon of D76. The pictures would be much more compelling than anything a Sony camera could ever produce.

People are not giving themselves enough credit. I worked in the industry for a long time and yeah, top management is often clueless. This is accentuated by cultural differences and a saturated market. The results of this can be seen in boutique cameras, retro cameras, limited editions, etc. Some of these are quite nice but most are just darts thrown at a board.

Many of the "experts" who could run a camera division are not even photographers. You can tell by the inane comments and criticisms, or the peculiar comparisons.

Similarly if I had a nickel for every time I saw a comment like yours..suffice to say I could easily afford a Leica M240!
By the way speaking of right - you seem to own that.. it doesn't mean you are always right does it?

It's pretty hard to say that people balking at the price of a $3300 camera need to "look at the bigger picture" or "live in the real world."

The people you are describing are the 1%. They are not the real world. They live in an insulated bubble where a $3300 handbag or a $5000 watch is acceptable.

Plenty of people on this very forum buy $3000 FF cameras. You don't have to be rich. Save 10% of your income for a year and see how easy it is to afford minor luxuries.

Simply not true. The Quattro images are higher contrast, easily matched by the Nikon 810a, Pentax 645z, A7rII by tweaks in post. Nothing special about the Quattro images and in fact by ISO 800 they are a disaster. The Foveon sensors, at this stage of their development, are far too limiting. As for the RX1R-II in this review, it is a disaster as well. The images seem obviously mis-focused. It's hard to believe DPR would have posted this review with images from the review sample that are so incredibly poor.

FWIW, there are sensor technologies under development that may well leave CMOS and Foveon technologies in the dust.

Try the Sigma with anything that moves, or in low light, and get back to us.