headofdestiny

I switched from LR to Aperture for my X100s, and, while the detail was much better, there were issues with artifacts. There is no free lunch with this sensor.

Really only the newer Leica designs at 50mm and wider, like the 50/2 AA, resolve highly and evenly across the whole frame, and I'm still not sure that it justifies $7K. Either way, what m4/3 tends...

Yeah, you maybe right about the D600.  Granted, even the D800E is a different animal, in that it has an AA filter that is "cancelled" by a second low pass filter, rather than removing the AA...

That's the point. When optimally sharpened, they'll both look similar. If an optimally sharpened RX1R is sharper than an optimally sharpened RX1, then one of them isn't optimally sharpened. :) That...

Agreed. The most telling thing about this DXO Mark lens comparison is that, even at f2, the relationship between center sharpness and edge sharpness doesn't improve with the RXR1 over the RX1, so...

Not for a long time. There is a nice PDF from Sony that talks about how important the fixed lens design is to image quality, and it also talks about things like AF motors. Apparently, the focusing...

Good points.  To take it a step further, the D7100 without an AA filter makes a little more sense, as that scales to a 56MP FF sensor, and you'd likely see little moire and artifacts.  The pixels...

That is exactly my point.  Once the file from the RX1 is tweaked a bit to look like the file from the RX1R, there is essentially no difference, so one has to wonder why someone would risk the extra...

I think it just comes down to raw converter settings.  The extra pop or sharpness people are talking about can simply be from artifacts. I noticed in one of Steve Huff's examples that there was...

The RX1R isn't a replacemt for the original. They're sold side by side. I'd still pick the original, if buying new today.

Exactly, Teseg. It's important for people to learn and understand the advantages and disadvantages of removing an AA filter, because there seems to be an increased interest in it, and the rush to...

The remarkable thing is that the RX1 is this close to the RX1R with the same sharpening settings.  To get a real sense of how these cameras would compare in use, one would sharpen each of them...

Yikes, I just looked at their examples on their website, and it's a bit terrifying.  That's a step too far, for me, but to each his/her own.

Whoops, that was intended to be a reply to the original post, in regards to question #4.

It really just depends on preference.  Lots of landscape shooters use standard and tele lenses, too.

First of all, the thing to remember about portrait distortion is that it is based on how far away you are from the subject, rather than being strictly based on the focal length that you use....

On the Japanese Sony site, there is mention of how they used a pretty advanced AA filter in the RX1, which, hilariously, is likely a pretty expensive component.  I think the RX1R is a bit of a...

Interesting point. An AA-filter does blur noise a bit. In fact, adding a little bit of artificial grain is all that it sometimes takes to make an AA'd camera look like an AA-less camera. The funny...

Here is what DSLR magazine thinks. You essentially get a few percent more detail, but with added moire and artifacts, and that's all using the same sharpening. Optimize sharpening for each, and...

Surely you wouldn't compare it to the cheap, collapsible Sony zoom?   There are much better NEX lens options. The bottom line is that essentially all Nex bodies are a better choice than the EOS M....