Impressive AF and frame-rate, but:- LCD is very low-res.- Flash sync limited to 1/160th.- No touch-screen- Battery life is too low. Should be at least 600 shots.- No mention if the 14 bit RAW is lossy or lossless compressed.- No mention if the menus have been re-arranged to make them easier to navigate and quickly find what you're looking for.- No IBIS like in the A7r mk2.- $1000 for the body is a little expensive.
All in all, the camera should be fun to use, but too many negatives to really want one.
Eric Glam: Better to buy a Dic&Mic P303c. 175cm extended height, Carbon Fiber legs, ball head that's rated for up to 15Kg, and much more. $188 shipped.
James,I'm happy for you. You made a good decision.
Eric Glam: The lens is such a disappointment!Every (p)review I've read so far praised how good the fixed lens is and how sharp it is corner to corner. So not true!!! People can compare the photos but they pay more attention to the words, which are so misleading.
I've compared photos both here on DPreview and on Imaging Resource, and the conclusion is that the fixed lens on the Sony RX1r mk2 is NOT good enough. From about 75% and outwards, the photo is fuzzy and blurry.The good news is that the sensor produces excellent blacks, and noise performance is also excellent. But the lens is simply not up to par.
0lf,Yes. For example, open the Comparometer and put the still life shot @ 6400 ISO next to the A7R mk2 with the same still life shot@6400 ISO.The shot from the RX1R mk2 has fuzzy/blurry edges.
Rishi,When I say that I compared photos, I meant that I compared high ISO (3200, 6400, 12800, 25,600) RAW shots in the low light scene. It is here that blacks get affected by all kinds of weirdness: Chroma noise, Luma noise & brightness shift. The RX1r mk2 seems to hold blacks very well.
I don't believe you have a faulty unit with regards to lens softness, as I saw the same thing with the previous RX1R.
As someone who only shoots RAW and spends an awful lot of post-time in ACR and PS, I can tell you that holding the blacks is very important, and so does color-separation, for that matter. Sure, you can move a slider or stretch a curve, but the starting point on this camera should be great to begin with.
zodiacfml,For the price of this camera, I expect Otus-like performance (or at least Batis). It's fixed and cannot be replaced, so if your're going to be "stuck" with it, it better be top-notch. For now, an A7r mk2 coupled with a Batis 25mm or the FE 55mm 1.8 would be a better combo.
The lens is such a disappointment!Every (p)review I've read so far praised how good the fixed lens is and how sharp it is corner to corner. So not true!!! People can compare the photos but they pay more attention to the words, which are so misleading.
babola,The best Benro Travel Angel II has a max height of 165cm.The P303c is similar in design, but is higher (175cm).
Better to buy a Dic&Mic P303c. 175cm extended height, Carbon Fiber legs, ball head that's rated for up to 15Kg, and much more. $188 shipped.
Eric Glam: I'd like to express my thoughts on this new camera, based on specs alone:1. Shutter limited to 1/4000 sec. They could easily offer 1/8000 sec.2. Still no optical zoom. Not even x1.5. And no, cropping won't get you the same quality you'd achieve with optical zoom.3. No touch-screen, so no touch-focus and no touch-shutter and no quick menu adjustments.4. $3300 USD!! insane.5. Battery life is pathetic.6. Video limited to 1080p60. Bitrate limited to 50Mbps. In this day & age? really??7. No weather sealing. Why not?8. EVF with XGA resolution. Nice to have the EVF, but why limited to XGA (1024 x 768)? That's less than 1MP. I would have liked to see an EVF with 1.92MP (1600x1200) which can refresh at 120Hz. 9. Only 25 Contrast-detect AF points. They should at least double that.10. 42MP is way too much. 33MP would have been more welcome. larger pixels, smaller files, faster writes to card, better low-light high ISO shots.
I think I said enough.
Thanks for tip about the Yashica, but aperture is a little limiting.Also, I do want AF & IS/VR, especially with a zoom lens.Good option none the less.Cheers.
vscd,I don't care how big the camea+lens combo would get.If I'm going to be "stuck" with one (admittedly great) camera, it better have some zoom capability.Believe me, I've been using a Nikon D5300 with just a fast prime - a 35mm f/1.8 lens, for about 2 years now. Often times I wish I could zoom in or out, but I was stuck at 35mm (50mm equiv.). Sure, I have 24MP to work with, which is a lot. I often crop a shot if needed. The result is OK, but not great.As you can probably guess, I put a lot of emphasis on quality and results. I only shoot 14bit RAW and process. And I don't like switching lenses, for various reasons.
Well, I ain't having it no more with one stinking focal length.If I were to choose the RX1R mk2, it would only be if it had a zoom, preferably a 28-50 f/2.0. That's not practical, I know. Doable? You bet'cha. And like I said - I don't care how large/heavy that would get.
marc petzold,Almost everyone here is saying "if I could afford it".This only tells you that the starting price of this camera is way too high. Price will drop over time, as almost all cameras, but it would take a long time for it to fall to a more affordable price point. I'd say $2499 would have been very fair to start with.
vscd/hippo84,you probably don't wanna push companies to offer you what you want.Sony/Zeiss are fully capable of offering, say, 35-50mm f/2.0 lens with the same fine optics as this fixed prime. It would make the package slightly bigger and heavier, but so much more capable, and so much more desirable.
Too bad folks like you are willing to accept handicapping. Camera companies take advantage of this "acceptance" and offer less for more money. And you'd still be willing to buy it. That's just too bad.
I'd like to express my thoughts on this new camera, based on specs alone:1. Shutter limited to 1/4000 sec. They could easily offer 1/8000 sec.2. Still no optical zoom. Not even x1.5. And no, cropping won't get you the same quality you'd achieve with optical zoom.3. No touch-screen, so no touch-focus and no touch-shutter and no quick menu adjustments.4. $3300 USD!! insane.5. Battery life is pathetic.6. Video limited to 1080p60. Bitrate limited to 50Mbps. In this day & age? really??7. No weather sealing. Why not?8. EVF with XGA resolution. Nice to have the EVF, but why limited to XGA (1024 x 768)? That's less than 1MP. I would have liked to see an EVF with 1.92MP (1600x1200) which can refresh at 120Hz. 9. Only 25 Contrast-detect AF points. They should at least double that.10. 42MP is way too much. 33MP would have been more welcome. larger pixels, smaller files, faster writes to card, better low-light high ISO shots.
Thanks for the app!!Works with my D5300 and Windows 7 x64.
Would it be possible to add an option to auto-download every time a new file is captured on the camera's card (instead of pressing the big "Start Download" button)?
I really liked No. 13 - the horse shoe.
I like this camera a lot, but can't help thinking about some of the handicapping Sony did:
1. The NP-FW50 battery is just not good enough (300 shots and its empty).2. There's no Touch-screen, so no options of touch-focus & touch-snap.3. Minor quibble, but the flash sync speed could have been a bit faster than 1/250 sec.4. It's not weather-sealed, so no promises here in harsh conditions.5. Price is a bit high ($3199)...I was hoping they'd start at $2399.
Anadrol: The RX1 does enter a large jacket pocket, the RX2 should even be smaller...
The Leica Q is too big to enter a pocket, what's the advantage then to have a fixed lens ???
Actually, I wouldn't mind a fixed lens, as long as there was at least x3 optical zoom. You wouldn't carry the RX1 in your pocket either...it'd go in your bag, around your neck or on a belt holster.
Nice camera, but not for me, I'm afraid...
1. LCD doesn't tilt/swivel - very important for various situations
2. Being stuck on a single focal length is VERY limiting (I should know, I only have a 35mm f/1.8G Nikon lens).
3. Something is very wrong with the way the Q renders Reds - it's like the RED slider was pushed to the left in LightRoom, but here it happens in-camera.
4. In these modern times, I need good video as well. They should have offered at least 2560p @ 60fps. Hey, they don't even mention bitrates, so no go for video here.
5. No headphone jack and no Mic jack. Important stuff for video which sadly is missing here.
6. Compared the studio shot (in RAW, low light) to the D750. The D750 takes the cake.
7. Sony RX2 just around the corner!!
8. PRICE. 'Nuf said.
PureShot: This morning i will try this new firmware, i am very exiting about better AF In studio at 100 iso with Dynalite SH2000 head flash, the combo NX1 16-50mm F2-2.8 produce a better image quality vs my Canon 6D - 50mm Sigma Art and i don't understand why !After few weeks with the NX1 in my studio, i love this camera, now is time to order the 50-150mm.
It seems very unlikely, but let's see if I get this right:1. You setup a sturdy tripod on a set distance from your subject.2. You shoot the 6D at base ISO with the 50mm Sigma Art at 20MP RAW.3. You shoot the NX1 at base ISO with the 16-50mm at 35mm at 28MP RAW (35mm so that the tripod doesn't need to be moved).4. You then process the photos with a similar workflow.5. You down-res (Bicubic Sharper - Reduction) the NX1's 28MP photo to 20MP, so that it has equal dimensions as the 6D's photo.6. The photo from the NX1 looks better??
Hard to believe, but if so - the NX1 is a winner...
I own a D5300, and I can tell you with 100% confidence:Don't buy this D5500. It is now a dinosaur amongst the new crop of mirrorless cameras.The physical upgrades over the D5300 are just the touch-screen and newly-designed (single) control dial. You can basically create a flat picture profile on your own.So many things here that Nikon has done to handicap the 5-series:- missing front control dial- no real live-view- no aperture control during live-view- the Fn (ISO) button is still small and easy to miss- battery not as good as the 7-series- video is still capped at 1080p60 @ 36Mbps- no PGS time-code in video- 14bit RAW is lossy compressed (they don't even tell you that)- flash cannot act as trigger....and so on.
Much better options over at the Sony and Panasonic camps. I'm disappointed.