Previous news story    Next news story

Sony Cyber-shot RX1R Samples Gallery Expanded!

By dpreview staff on Aug 19, 2013 at 21:57 GMT
Buy on GearShop$2,798.00

We've just expanded our gallery of real-world Samples from Sony's Cyber-shot RX1R. The RX1R is essentially the same camera as the older RX1, but without an AA filter on its 24MP full-frame CMOS sensor. We've been shooting with it since we received a production-quality sample and recently took it on a camping trip here in Washington State. We've added 35 images from that trip to our original gallery of real-world samples, including a handful of Raw conversions 'to taste', to give you an idea of what the camera can do. 

65
I own it
163
I want it
5
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R

Comments

Total comments: 70
UnitedNations
By UnitedNations (8 months ago)

As a Fuji x100 owner I had high hopes for the JPEG files of the RX1r.

Well, I am disappointed. Something about the 'aesthetic quality' of the files in terms of color, grain, & an emotional feeling of natural flowing effortlessness & moving power in the images seem to be missing. Something half cooked in the images... not resolved enough...(?)

Maybe it's a personal thing that only I am feeling. But if JPEG quality from the RX1r is like this, then I may have to stay within the Fuji X family & consider getting the X-E1 or X-E2 when it later comes out.

It seems the dpreview JPEG ratings which shows Fuji's superiority over the RX1 are correct, & the results here support those findings.

I also just realized how shockingly good my Fuji x100 is already bcus it can take much more impressive moving pictures than these generally mediocre results from the RX1r shown here.

Anyways, this is just my personal point of view & I thank dpreview for this wonderful review of the Sony RX1r images!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
photobeans
By photobeans (8 months ago)

A lot of complaints about image quality here. Let's keep this in perspective. First, these are snapshots. Second, the lighting and selection of scenery is poor. Third, it's a 35mm lens. Fourth, taking portraits with a 35mm lens is no better than using a small sensor camera when you don't pixel peep.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Quote: ". Third, it's a 35mm lens. Fourth, taking portraits with a 35mm lens is no better than using a small sensor camera when you don't pixel peep."

What planet are you living on?

0 upvotes
photobeans
By photobeans (8 months ago)

I live on Earth like you. I meant to say "Third, using a 35mm lens for portrait is really no better than using a small sensor camera when you don't pixel peep". It's true, look at it on your computer and it doesn't really look much better when not viewing at 100%, as compared to a decent small sensored camera. I can look at this gallery and someone could've told me it was shot with a cannon s100 and I would believe them.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

photobeans--

Um, there's more to photos than looking at them on monitors. Just for starters: Many compacts don't shoot raw, need better lighting than the RX1r, and don't have lenses close to the optical quality of this Sony.

The Canon S100 is a fine small camera, but it's lens doesn't equal this Sony's and one can tell--even with a decent monitor. The Canon isn't particularly good at high ISOs either.

Then what DPReview posted here are jpegs, no one draws general camera conclusions about a raw capable camera from jpegs.

0 upvotes
PenGun
By PenGun (8 months ago)

Takes ugly pictures. Lots of the new cameras do. The Sony's are particularly bad.

I'm not sure whether it's the photographer, poor eyesight, or just the processing.

Nothing here even threatens my Fuji X-E1, why is that?

2 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (8 months ago)

My dad can beat your dad...

6 upvotes
PenGun
By PenGun (8 months ago)

My dad is long dead. I however am not.

To be fair, I think it's colour rendition and perhaps the lenses that throw me off.

i only recently started with digital imaging. I come from a 4x5 and film Nikons before that. I am very picky and ended up souping _all_ my own film because I did not like what the lab did to it. I aim to print so I need certain things from an image.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

PenGun:

These samples are jpegs, no one with this level of camera would draw general colour or image quality conclusions from jpegs.

And remember the Fuji XE1 has a very good reputation for jpegs.

Nikon never made a lens equal to the optical quality of this Sony's lens, nor the XE1's Fuji lens options either.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
photobeans
By photobeans (8 months ago)

Ridiculous. The gallery is just a collection of quick snapshots. A good photographer can take compelling photographs with just about any camera, including cell phone cams.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

You know, I interviewed a photographer once who worked for National Geographic as his main gig, and he told me that if he got one great picture in a year, that was a good year.

5 upvotes
PenGun
By PenGun (8 months ago)

Actually the Zeiss lenses that we have seen for the Fuji X cameras do not compare all that well to the equivalent Fuji lenses.

It's largely bad photographs but even the converted RAW are not at all impressive.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

PenGun:

The Zeiss Touit lenses aren't full frame and I haven't seen raws from them, I don't use DXO scoring, so I won't make guesses about them until I have raws shot with them. (And as it stands now I'm not very interesting in the Fuji X system, so I'm not going to ask if BH has those Touits on display. Perhaps Fuji will fix the X system bodies this fall, like next month.)

No, I don't think this Sony's Zeiss is the greatest lens out there, but it's plenty good and better than Fuji X lenses.

0 upvotes
PenGun
By PenGun (8 months ago)

The Fuji lenses are among the finest there are. I come from large format and Fujinon lenses are among the finest available. A very large part of broadcast TV runs on Fujinon lenses and they also are very well represented in many movies. Fuji makes some of the finest lenses in the world easily as good as anything Zeiss produces.

It's one of the main reasons I bought the camera, I know how good their glass is.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (8 months ago)

DPR is indeed a forest thick with trolls, and it takes a very, very brave man or woman to stand withstand the abuse after posting even one photo.
So Mr. Barney Britton, please accept from a grateful nation the O.B.E.....if DPR were still in England it would be the Order of the British Empire, but since you're bivouacked here in the colonies it is the Order of the Burning Eyeball, given in recognition for the sacrifice of your eyesight during the days you spent squinting into the viewfinder while shooting and then staring at a screen while you processed all these wonderful photos.
Arise Sir Barney, go forth and may the light be ever in your favor!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
PenGun
By PenGun (8 months ago)

Oh Lord. The entire point of this exercise is to show off the camera.

This was done badly and people have noticed.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

@PenGun - I think you've made your point (repeatedly, I see) but you're wrong, actually. You're new here though, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and offer an explanation.

For your information, we're not in the business of 'showing off' cameras, we use them like enthusiast photographers would, we carry them around and document our experiences, our families and our surroundings, we let the camera do the thinking, some of the time, to see how it's been designed, and then we write about it.

If we wanted to 'show off' we'd hire a studio, shoot everything with big lights at F4-8, and process the raw files to all hell, but that's not what we do, and we never have.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
PenGun
By PenGun (8 months ago)

You treat a high end camera like a point and shoot. Do you not understand who will buy a thing like that? Not people like the guy who did the shoot that's for sure.

I was trolling as I know how good that camera is and this is ridiculous. Here ya go:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/Images41/bike-by-thumb.jpg

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

@PenGun–

No good Fuji lenses don’t really come close to well done Leica or Zeiss full framed lenses. The Fujis lack something in colour, they’re plenty good lenses, but not extraordinary. They’re not even as good as well done Samsung NX (Optron) or Olympus 4/3s system lenses.

The Fujis produce a sharp well shaded yet dead image. Really good lenses don’t do that. (No, and only going by jpegs which breaks my rule about using raws, those Zeiss Touits aren’t particularly exciting lenses and in fact in some situations the Fuji X lenses appear to be better. But I want raws from the Touits, before being sure.)

Claiming good quality for "broadcast" misses a few points: video is much lower resolution than still photography, many times broadcast uses special lighting, also it's a very rare broadcast that has high colour quality--with the exception of TV shot on film.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mailman88
By mailman88 (8 months ago)

Just think, in 5 years or less....you'll be buying this camera or something similar under $1200.00 or about half the price of the RX1R.
So just wait...

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

Price seems high but I'll wait.

0 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (8 months ago)

yup, just wait to buy this camera in 5 years... a 5 year old model... just you wait, it will be awesome!

1 upvote
d3xmeister
By d3xmeister (8 months ago)

Not really impressed. I have cheap DX lenses with better CA performance, and my D5100 is almost matching this camera's high iso performance. When I'll see clean ISO 6400 I'll be impressed.

2 upvotes
_vlad
By _vlad (8 months ago)

Weird JPG colors, poor per-pixel sharpness, lots of LOCA W/O, frequently missed focus and unbelievable noise - maybe I am blind

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (8 months ago)

You said it, you are blind

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
_vlad
By _vlad (8 months ago)

I would really like to see what you see

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (8 months ago)

Open your eyes

0 upvotes
Walsh_uk
By Walsh_uk (8 months ago)

Nothing 'pops' in any of these images.. I like this image DSC01625 as its nice composition yet its flat :/ ... maybe its my monitor?

1 upvote
olypan
By olypan (8 months ago)

Don't you mean "thanks for showing me these". I will sleep easy as an E-M5 owner tonight.

3 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (8 months ago)

Argh. Don't show me these right as I'm trying to justify moving to m4/3.

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (8 months ago)

just look at the price. problem solved.

3 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

the price is ok, some pay 3200$ for a similar lens only, in M-mount. The problem for me is that for the price we pay, we get a bitty of camera and a lot of lens, good shots, and still no VF. If you want a VF for it, it costs hella lot more. For me, an EVF and 10% bigger in size had done the job, even for the price it costs. But, on the end, you only have a P&S for tourists, with all the disadvantages of those cameras, and the sole advantage of a good sensor and good shot. If that is worth the money you pay, is up to you to decide. As you said, just look at the price, problem solved.

2 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (8 months ago)

Funny. I can't see a similar quality with my D800e and high end lenses...and you're comparing it to a D5100. Really fun. I don't think you've ever used an rx1r....

1 upvote
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

The question remains AF. The previous version had tomorrow's sensor and yesteryear's AF. Less "nostalgic" AF and it's a contender really.

0 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (8 months ago)

Is the exclamation mark a new feature in DPR's headlines?

7 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (8 months ago)

It's an old feature... Expanded!

2 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (8 months ago)

A reasonably good selection of shots in a variety of situation. Keep it up for other camera reviews like the coming 70D.

A good pocketable camera for travel but the price is rather expensive.

I am using a similar setup for travel; using a Zeiss ZE 35mm f/2.0 on the Canon 5D MkII. Seems to get better results.

Maybe DPR should do a comparison, if not with the 5D MkII then with the 5D MkIII with a Zeiss ZE 35mm f2.0 lens. If the result is on par or better then this IS the camera to go for if one want to travel light.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mg_k
By mg_k (8 months ago)

I just had a look at the samples too, pretty impressive, but I think my 5D3 + Sigma 35 combo is sharper.

I know it's a different beast, but just sayin...

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
wazu
By wazu (8 months ago)

I have compared my 5D3 and 35/1.4L against the RX1 and even the AA filtered Sony puts the Canon combo to shame in color, sharpness and most of all wieght.
I am more than satisfied with the AF, so I don't understand why people are complaining. It's definately not a sports camera so why go there. It has focus peaking (albeit at 5x magnification only) and is very accurate even in low light situations

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Don't be surprised, despite DXO score quoters, any good newish full framed Zeiss lens will easily exceed in optical quality any "ED" lens made by Canon or Nikon.

It's pretty clear that the better lens makers have a different understanding of colour than Nikon and Canon.

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (8 months ago)

@ HowaboutRAW Interesting now you are saying Sony does not suck

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Boerseuntijie:

I never said Sony sucks, I said many of Sony's Nex system lenses aren't very good. The sensors in that system are fine, though no the one in the Nex7 aint great at high ISOs. And I like the Nex7 and Nex5 bodies well enough--it's just that there are so many mirrorless camera systems with good to extraordinary native lenses, none of which are Sony.

Personally, I've had a few too many Sony products break early in life. But their prolevel stuff is made a bit better.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (8 months ago)

I have to say nice snaps; can we challenge the camera a bit; this is a very expensive camera. It probably is best camera for IQ of all and I want to see pitfalls, but an acknowledgment of its quality.is important to buyers.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (8 months ago)

Here's a pitfall for ya - pretty well all of the low-light shots were manually focused, by necessity.

7 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

Argh I was afraid of that... Dare I ask: how's tracking?

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (8 months ago)

Are you planning to use this camera in a sporting event, well that's not what it's made for, use the best tool for the job it was designed for and there is not one camera out there that is perfect and can do everything if you think this camera should achieve that then keep on dreaming

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

Sporting events only. The rest is done. What? A pile of rocks with snow and a bunch of clouds? Or, to quote multimedia artist, Brett Bouchette, "a shoe... a doggie... a bowl of fruit?..."

No. Still life = still boring.

A small FF and simple camera for paddocks, lockers, pit boxes etc would be brilliant. Even there though it needs to AF in low light and track. Different slightly in use to a second slr body but somewhat overlapping too at times.

This may not be it I'm sad to hear.

1 upvote
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

Sorry second post.

I do agree with the OP, challenge the camera. Nobody's buying it for shooting passport photos here right?

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (8 months ago)

How good does a Leica M9 Auto focus? this is the kind of camera market this camera was made for and it does a good job I think.
Many of my friend that use Leica got this camera and they love it.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

The Leica is not an autofocus FF camera.

It is therefore not relevant.

The question is, HOW WELL does this Sony AUTOFOCUS camera focus?

Say hi to your friends.

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (8 months ago)

I WILL THANKS

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Assuming this is a production version of the camera, are there raws for download some where?

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-cyber-shot-rx1r-sample-photos-22526

you can down raw files there

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Shamael:

I found some through ISO 3200 that I'd downloaded from Imaging-Resource in early July, but thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Not sure that ephotozine link has the deep shadowed high ISO samples that I seek.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Vladik
By Vladik (8 months ago)

Pretty amazing photo quality. I want one :)

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Vladik:

I'd wait until Sony fixes the high ISO banding of this sensor and adds on sensor phase detect AF.

But yes it's a great camera; particularly if you don't need extreme high ISOs--like above 10,000.

2 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (8 months ago)

No banding here... ;-)
Most amazing camera ever owned

8 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (8 months ago)

Howie,

Can you show an example of banding?

Thx.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Pat Cullinan Jr:

That sensor bands at ISOs above 10,000. It does it with the Nikon D600 and the Sony A99, this is a problem with Sony sensors–it’s worse on the A99. (Also other sensors do it too; the Foveon sensor in the Sigma SD1 starts to do it at ISO 800 when shooting into grey shadows, but say the sensor in the Nikon D4 doesn’t really do it.)

It’s not the normal “banding” you think of, the breaking of detail in bands; it’s magenta and cyan bands of uneven colour, it’s particularly evident in shadows.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Federico:

And you’re shooting above ISO 10,000 into shadows I assume. Simply asserting without saying that you’ve recreated the conditions isn’t much of a claim. To be very clear: The banding is cyan and magenta at high ISOs in shadows–most evident say on a dark gray background. It’s an easily recreated problem for this sensor.

Absolutely, through ISO 8,000, this is a great camera, presuming you don’t need fast autofocus.

Then Federico: Where did you get your RX1ii, it’s not available in the USA at least, is it for sale in Europe?

(Yes I admit I’m commenting on banding with the RX1; and that’s why I want raws from this new version. Perhaps Sony has done something to fix the problem.)

0 upvotes
Chris Crevasse
By Chris Crevasse (8 months ago)

How, can you show us an example of this easily-recreated banding?

0 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (8 months ago)

I've pre ordered it some time ago here in Italy. A few days ago I've got my camera. I've compared it with my D800e and it's really great. If you're interested I'm going to try your test above 10.000 ISO. Anyway I've shot a couple of pictures at 12.800 ISO. I've printed them ( with my Epson 4900) and the results are amazing. About a couple of months ago a thief broke my original Rx1, while trying to steal it. I'm impressed with the difference I'm seeing between the Rx1 and the RX1r.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Federico:

Right the D800 has similar problems. (Though no I've not tested the D800e for this problem, because my local store doesn't have one on display, and anyhow it's not a camera that interests me because it's not particularly good above ISO 3200--noisy shadows.)

Now remember the banding is most evident in dark grey shadows. Not bright light.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Chris--

It's easy to do if you read what I wrote, the D800 has similar problems as does the Sony A77. You'll have to use a camera, or search around on line, I won't be sharing my files and anyhow they'd be very big for upload.

So get camera and repeat test. NB: I genuinely hope Sony gets its act together on this problem. But it's not in dispute that it exists for this sensor at high ISOs--above 10,000.

The way to test high ISO image quality is NOT in bright light.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
photogeek
By photogeek (8 months ago)

Needs EVF, phase detect autofocus, articulated screen and lens mount. But other than that, it's OK I guess. :-)

0 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (8 months ago)

I think it's almost perfect as it is. I would add Just an hibryd AF system...but I usually shot in manual focus mode, 'cause any kind of AF is way too slow for street photography. I won't change its small size for an integrated EVF/ articulated screen, or the perfect sensor/lens optimization for a lens mount. Otherwise would be a different camera... The point of this camera is very different...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

photogeek–

There aren’t really lenses to “mount” on this body, it’s not a simple matter of using Sony or Minolta SLR lenses.

And of course an articulated screen would add bulk and complication. AMOLED screens have a much wider angle of view, so that will help with future versions of this camera. Except for the not great slowish AF, this is an excellent camera, certainly for high ISO shooting much better than the only competitor, the Leica M.

0 upvotes
Chris Crevasse
By Chris Crevasse (8 months ago)

How, I have used the RX1 since January, including in dim-light, high-ISO situations. I've never noticed the banding of which you speak. My internet searching also failed to uncover samples of the banding or even mention of it in any of the many RX1 reviews. If such banding is easily created and undisputed, one would think there would be evidence of it somewhere. But if there is, I can't find it.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Chris–

Take the picture I suggest at an ISO above 10,000 and look–it is not simply “dim light”. If in fact you own the camera, such a test is easy. This sensor has that problem. (No it’s not a huge deal if you stick to ISO 8,000 and below.)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Chris--

I rechecked my ISO 12,800 sample and the problem is there, but yes it's slight and the image is perfectly useable. This problem starts out looking like cyan and magenta blotching then turns into bands.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 70