Previous page Next page

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R Specifications

Body type
Body typeLarge sensor compact
Max resolution6000 x 4000
Other resolutions6000 x 3376, 3936 x 2624, 3936 x 2216, 2640 x 1760, 2640 x 1488
Image ratio w:h3:2, 16:9
Effective pixels24 megapixels
Sensor photo detectors25 megapixels
Sensor sizeFull frame (35.8 x 23.9 mm)
Sensor typeCMOS
Color spacesRGB, AdobeRGB
Color filter arrayRGB Primary color
ISOAuto, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 25600
White balance presets9
Custom white balanceYes (1)
Image stabilizationNo
Uncompressed formatRAW
File format
  • RAW (ARW2.3 Format)
  • JPEG
Optics & Focus
Focal length (equiv.)35 mm
Optical zoom1×
Maximum apertureF2.0
  • Contrast Detect (sensor)
  • Multi-area
  • Center
  • Selective single-point
  • Tracking
  • Single
  • Face Detection
Autofocus assist lampYes, built -in LED type
Digital zoomYes (9.1x)
Manual focusYes
Normal focus range25 cm (9.84)
Number of focus points25
Screen / viewfinder
Articulated LCDFixed
Screen size3
Screen dots1,229,000
Touch screenNo
Screen typeXtra FineTFT LCD
Live viewYes
Viewfinder typeElectronic and Optical (optional)
Photography features
Minimum shutter speed30 sec
Maximum shutter speed1/4000 sec
Exposure modes
  • Program Auto
  • Aperture Priority
  • Shutter Priority
  • Manual
  • MR (Memory Recall) 1 / 2 / 3
  • Movie
  • Sweep shooting
  • Scene Selection
  • Intelligent Auto
Scene modes
  • Portrait
  • Landscape
  • Sports
  • Sunset
  • Night Portrait
  • Night Scene
  • Hand-held Twilight
Built-in flashYes (Pop-up)
Flash range6.00 m
External flashYes (via hot-shoe)
Flash modesAuto, On, Off, Slow Sync, Rear Sync, Wireless
Drive modes
  • Single-frame advance
  • Continuous advance
  • Continuous adv Priority AE
  • Speed Priority Continuous
  • Self-timer
  • Self Portrait Self-timer
  • Continuous Self-timer
Continuous drive5.0 fps
Self-timerYes (2 or 10 sec)
Metering modes
  • Multi
  • Center-weighted
  • Spot
Exposure compensation±3 (at 1/3 EV steps)
AE Bracketing (3 frames at 1/3 EV, 2/3 EV steps)
WB BracketingNo
Videography features
Resolutions1920 x 1080 (60, 50, 25, 24 fps), 1440 x 1080 (30, 25 fps), 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30, 25 fps)
Videography notesAVCHD: 28M PS (1920×1080, 60p/50p), 24M FX (1920×1080, 60i/50i), 17M FH (1920×1080, 60i/50i), 24M FX (1920×1080, 24p/25p), 17M FH (1920×1080, 24p/25p)
Storage typesSD/SDHC/SDXC, Memory Stick Duo/Pro Duo/Pro-HG Duo
USB USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec)
HDMIYes (Mini)
WirelessEye-Fi Connected
Remote controlNo
Environmentally sealedNo
BatteryBattery Pack
Battery descriptionLithium-Ion NP-BX1 battery
Battery Life (CIPA)270
Weight (inc. batteries)482 g (1.06 lb / 17.00 oz)
Dimensions113 x 65 x 70 mm (4.45 x 2.56 x 2.76)
Other features
Orientation sensorYes
Timelapse recordingNo
Previous page Next page
I own it
I want it
I had it
Discuss in the forums


Total comments: 120
Tactical Falcon

I originally wanted this camera. But the A7 models blur my focus on this one. I might just get an A7


I used to do ships’ photography for some 25 years with analogue/professional Cannon equipment, but got fed up about the whole stuff, heavy, expensive, temptin for thieves, etc. Interrupted action for some 10 years and now decided to return with the Sony RX100 and the RX1. I hereby wish to say that I see so much of polemics about the RX1 but frankly speaking, this camera is exactly what I wanted, irrespectively of its price. Most people won’t be able to afford that? Clear, but don’t blame Sony. You buy what you want as long as your money allows you. Besides that, it’s simply talk, talk, talk, but completely unjustified. The RX100 is a great camera, but the RX1 is much better and that’s unquestionable when you evaluate it all!


lol, really? still a preview?

1 upvote

Still no conclusion a year later ... DP really are **** these days/years!


I don't know anyone who thinks this camera needs a built in flash. Everyone wants a built in view finder. I hate it when companys trying to milk you by buying essential "optional accessories", as if the camera wasn't expensive enough! Do the right thing and fix it Sony.


this review is taking forever to conclude. I wonder why.

1 upvote

Sony, do the sensible thing and replace the silly flash with a viewfinder on RX1, RX100. You have just come up with Alpha a7 without a flash. How many $500-$600 accessory viewfinders are you selling? Be a good boy!


any updated opinion on the camera now that the a7 and a7r are announced? :)

my personal opinion? having a fixed lens is not significant consideration to me, nor the lack of a built in EFV. I personally like the 35mm choice, and the ability to simply attach an EFV when preferred.

However, I would've loved to have the RX1 with an articulated screen, and WiFi capabilities. Those two features I truly miss. Yet still were not dealbreakers then when I was going to make the purchase.

1 upvote

The EVF gets you the articulating screen
Eyefi gets you wifi
I live the option to have the rx1 really small, but gariz and EVF it up when I need to. And the silent shutter really seals the deal.
I think this is complimentary to the A7

1 upvote

I appreciate very much your reply! thank you very much. :)

Good logic. I agree. :)


Coming from a traditional MF background, I'd prefer to get rid of the whole annoying LCD screens and to have a Leica-style rangefinder built right into the body. THEN the RX1R would be almost perfect!

Paul Richman

Why not compare this to the Leica X Vario? I've looked closely at the output from both, and the Vario is hands down a better camera, and at the same price point. The Vario offers a 24 - 70mm (35mm equiv) lens for much more versatility, and in nearly the same size and weight package. The Vario produces much sharper images, and the images are tack sharp corner to corner, even wide open. Much better than the RX1 or RX1R. Further, you get the rich colors Leica is known for, again better than the Sony.


To Siff: Buy the RX1. I own this camera and it has better resolution and sharpness than any other camera I have ever used (and I've used a lot of them). Thus, the anti-aliasing filter is a plus and it's absence will make no real world difference.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting

What Sony should be doing is converting the RX1 into a digital full frame body for Carl Zeiss for the ZM Zeiss lenses not this useless and overpriced thing!

Doug Garton

Old guy here.. I have had so many cameras I can't remember them all.. however the Sony RXx1r is the finest camera I have ever owned for a fixed lens camera. style, build quality, size, lens, and IQ..
When I walk out the door in the morning I grab it on the way out the door..


I could really love a camera like this. I'd be happy with a full frame mirrorless with a fast fixed lens, but the focal length is way too wide for my tastes. I'm mostly a people photographer. I love faces, especially eyes. I wouldn't want anything wider than a 50mm on a full frame sensor.

I have the equivalent with an APS-C size sensor: a Samsung NX100 with a 30mm f/2 pancake lens. It's very compact and the only thing that really bugs me about it is the lack of a viewfinder. But I wouldn't want anything wider for a walkaround lens for my purposes.


If money is not a problem for you. maybe this cameras is good.
But if money need to consider, you can consider cheaper cameras.
and also no Zoom is not good for many people.


Maybe a Canon S110!


Lens Mount: None

... and I'm outta here.


Lens Mount: Yes would have been a completely different camera as it's FF. Although I'll never find the funds to get this one, I'm so happy there's at least some one other than Leica trying to compactify the FF format.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 55 seconds after posting

Question: Is it possible that Sony may add the Image Stabilization feature with a firmware update?

1 upvote

I hope they would consider OIS in next version.


The removal of the AA filter is very apparent especially on the little globe on top. Center "INDIAN" and you'll see the difference in details between RX1R and RX1.

Now here's my situation. I've actually decided to buy this camera. Now whether if you agree with me on whether if it's worth it or not is not the issue. Putting it's price vs value aside, which one would you recommend me buying? Which one would you recommend for me, and everyone else who's buying this camera? I'm very curious in the community's opinion. Thank you very much in advance.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

My opinion would be to buy RX1, so with the AA filter. I should mention I am not a professional, so it might diminish the validity of my answer here. However, I think that resolution is not that important. It's already high enough with most of the digital cameras today. If you do want good pictures without pixel peaking I'd really go with the filter. Moiré is a bit problem as repeated patterns are quite ubiquitous. Clothing, furniture, animals. Just my opinion.

1 upvote

I would go with the RX1R as the red R is so cool and not having an anti aliasing filter is just so now and the thing of the moment and makes it just a bit special.


This throws me, why is it that the DPR; NEX 7 image sample blows away the RX1r sample. In fact that NEX 7 sample blows away just about every studio sample - even the 800e?

I almost qualified the NEX 7 for purchase just for this reason, but the real world of the NEX just didn't stack up. Did DPR just get everything right in the NEX 7 studio test? They really botched the FUJI X's in that case.

NEX vs OMD vs FUJI X... You guessed it. I'm very astounded by the IQ of my X-E1. I'll "Keep the Change!"

Portable "Red Dot" I.Q., for allot less "M"oney!


You are right - the Nex 7 blows everything away in this comparison - I only say this here, because I wanted the Sony Rx1r, but now after looking at the comparison shots in the test ??

Added later: But try to look not just at the comparison, but also the sample gallery as I just did after this post - the RX1(r) has a character that the Nex-7 does not have - there is a certain "touch" I like.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting

I bought both the new RX series cameras (nice summary here: initially intending to just see if I can manage to use the RX1/R and the more I read the more excited I am to learn to get great shots from it.

1 upvote
vladimir vanek

Nice cam, looks cool and handy. But I consider the price off the hook. You lay out $2800+$250 for some strange thumb-grip+another $450 for a VF...Why would one buy such camera over a nice and pleasurable FF compact DSLR, say 5DMk3+EF35/2 IS USM, which is nearly the same money (€3100 for Sony vs. €2600+€700 for Canon5D+EF35 combo) (and doesn't need this ugly thumb-thing to be held comfortably). I believe this combo would perform better in all situations. Yeah, we want it compact, but do we really for such money?


This version should have been called the Landscape RX1.
But unless you have need to put photos up online untouched: 30 seconds of Lightroom 5 or even iPhoto could produce the same details.
However, the RX1 is no point and shoot and takes some learning.
A fixed lens is a strict mistress and the new version will not change the fact that it has limits which you must learn. The RX1R now adds another lesson with moire- artifacts, other reviewers of the RX1R, who are not savvy ran into trouble very quickly. Since most serious hobbyists and professionals use some software to crop or enhance I am baffled by Sony's tiny Side-grade: in most situations you'll not notice the difference.
Some customers upgrading from a PAS, will not be happy with the RX1R. It will be even harder to use than the RX1, both should come with Lightroom 5. I love using a full framed sensor with a great lens but buyer beware Auto is a mess the RX1R will only make this worse. The RX1/R are not for family snapshots.

Tord S Eriksson

Not only Sony RX1 has expensive lens hoods - many of the Olympus MFT lenses are equally expensive when it comes to lens add-ons.

Other reviewers have found a noticeable IQ difference between the RX1 and the RX1R, but that seems not to be the case here. Odd.

1 upvote

What aperture do they use for the resolution charts? Anything above 5.6 would level the playing field. I'm sure if they used f22, most camera from the last 10 years would be "equal" in terms of resolution due to diffraction.


Olympus OM-D gradation set to "auto" and the Sony set to 3, the Olympus goes 2 stops deeper in to the black and matches the Sony on the white. So I'm still looking for a reason this thing is worth $2800.

1 upvote

Well, maybe you should look at pictures? ;-)


This reminds me of the old stereo receiver/amp/pre-amp crap, when you had to look at an oscilloscope to see any differences. To the human ear, there was no difference between .0001% distortion and .0002%, just as to the human eye, at the size you're actually going to be viewing photos, there is no discernible difference between these two cameras and a dozen others out there.


I don't know - the pics look very good. Clarity, detail and color saturation look great.

1 upvote

Not going to comment on the R/non-R image comparisons but I can tell you that this model is an absolute delight to own and to use.

It is not the machine gun that SLRs are but if you have just half a second more for your images you will be delighted with it.

I thought 35 would be too narrow for me as a prefer 28mm FOV but two mini-steps back and.................

If you are blessed enough to be able to afford this camera I would take a very hard look at it.

Happy 4th to the Americans here.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
Tord S Eriksson

I am sure you're right about 'this model is an absolute delight to own and to use'. Seems indeed to be the case!

I'd love to own a RX1, maybe God is in a good mood one day!

Big sensors (physical size, not MPs) perform best with wide lenses (to get enough DOF to be practical - for instance, a 800mm lens is very tricky to use on a Hasselblad, unless you're gazing out into space), and the reverse is equally true, small sensors can be amazing when used with long focal length lenses (again, enough DOF to be practical - a 800mm lens on my V1 is very useful, as the DOF isn't leaf-thin any longer).

Thus 35mm on the RX1 is probably close to being the ideal compromise on a FF camera ;-)!


$2800 and no way to stably frame a shot? How is that delightful?

Rod McD

Not seeing too much advantage of the 'R' over the standard RX1 model. But this isn't what holds me back from either - it's the inflexibility of one FL. (Yes I have lived with a one lens camera for months on the road. I know that I prefer a small suite of FLs and I'm not alone). And a built-in EVF please. If Sony made a similarly small FF body, a little taller to accommodate the BIEVF, gave it a grip and a suite of lenses of say 24/35/50/90mm, they'd be rushing out the door if the body price was contained to the same as a 6D/D600. Those who want a single prime aren't compelled to buy more than one lens. Just do it.


Where's the advantage of this camera over the D600 in IQ? The samples show better detail in favor of D600. Maybe the fixed lens is not so good. I think a fixed lens camera for this price should have just the best lens in the world.


The trouble with the Sony the lens is just not good enough to warrant removal of AA filter. Sure it's a little better, but it's not pulling out anymore detail, just a tad sharper and you could equalise the RX1 and RX1R with some judicious sharpening. The D600 with AA filter and good glass is much better, and as you can see D800E is noticeably better than D800 with good glass.

1 upvote

Uh, the fixed lens is about as good as it gets at 35mm. At F2 it even beats the legendary Sigma for corner sharpness.

You do realize there's a DOF and curvature difference because the RX1 was shot much closer to the scene (35mm vs 85mm)? Have a look at the Queen card.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

in contrary, I believe a lens on a non AA camera should be less sharp, in order to help avoid moire . . . .


I partially agree with you. A soft lens acts as an AA filter if its resolution is lower than the "raw" sensor resolution, but a good FF lens is sharp when stopped down at F8 or F11. If it is soft here, then it is crap IMHO.
When designing a fixed lens for a given sensor, lens designers could "choose" a resolution that prevents the use of an AA filter. But then it would not be to enhance the global resolution of the camera, but for the sole purpose of (small ?) cost reduction.
So, removing the AA filter is only interesting for the photographer if the lens is sharper than the sensor. Maybe fixed lens camera designers should build an AA filter the same way an ND filter is implemented in some cameras.Then the photographer could choose to use it or not according to the risk of moiré.


Very interesting choice of jpeg tone curve, a lot of HL range, would make shooting high DR scenes much easier.

Kinematic Digit

$3000 does seem like a lot. Sony gave me the opportunity to shoot with it for a day and I racked up a thousand shots on it. I'm very impressed with it on so many levels.

Considering what it produces both from the lens and the sensor is very commendable. The quality is far better than what I've seen on even more expensive combinations, including an SLR with a 35mm lens.

Does it seem expensive, yes it does. But once you use it for it's intended purposes and compare it to things like even my X-Pro1 with a 35mm, or using a Leica with a 35mm, this blows it away and fits perfectly in a pocket.

Here's my set of images from the non R version.

Jonathan F/2

$3000 and the Sony RX1's C-AF is nowhere near my bargain basement priced Nikon V1. Wake me up when the rest of mirrorless world actually gets decent continuous autofocus.


I agree, the new Canon AF or the Nikon 1 AF on a nice APS-c or FF ML. The pricing is ludicrous.


well, how often is efficient AF tracking needed with a 35mm lens? It's probably not going to be used for action shooting very often, if at all.
But I agree that $3000 is way over the top. A D600 with a Sigma 35/1.4 would actually be cheaper, can take other lenses, and has better AF tracking.


I was with Sony at the NYC CEA Line show where UHDTVs and Blu-ray discs were available with xvYCC color space - the same enhanced color that Sony UHD 4K movie downloads will come with. I asked which cameras will capture xvYCC and was told to wait 30 days for an announcement.
Look at the fine print and you will see that the RX1r specs state a variant on xvYCC - this should be seen on new Sony displays with such capability.
The Blu-ray discs with expanded xvYCC are excellent - and the 1st offering beyond ITU Rec 709 color
I will of course reserve final judgment until my camera arrives - but Sony should be congratulated for pioneering expanded color space in TVs, movies and now cameras.

1 upvote

moire moire moire - do you people shoot charts and brick walls? Go out and shoot the real stuff not this masturbation exercises :)

1 upvote

Some moiré in real life shooting:

1 upvote

I don't find that there is such a big difference between the two in contrast and sharpness - just a bit if you pixel-peep - but I'm not sure it's worthy of a second model, at the expense of occasional moiré.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote

This camera represents PURE profit. The only expense they have is for royalties to Zeiss to use their name on this camera. They make the sensor, and who actually makes the it Cosina? This camera looks like a Toyota car from the 1970's.....with badges and decals stuck EVERYWHERE...ultra tacky for the price point.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting

This camera needs: To have the price of the camera go down, to about 2k and the finder with mail in rebate of $200.00.
Fix the 1/80 of sec. and put a real sutter dail on top.
Offer a good grip.
Sony makes cameras like Walkmans. Sony make cameras like cameras. Not electronic wiz-bangs. Photoprahy should be fast and painless. For everyone, from
point and shoot to Pro!


The Walkman was a huge success for Sony. Over 200 million units sold and on Time's list of most influential gadgets.


This seems a pointless excercise by Sony for such marginal gains when the existing RX1, while very good, still has irritating minor issues such as no peaking in non-magnified view and a default 1/80th sec shutter speed in auto ISO when in A priority mode, (which should be user assignable so you could choose a higher or lower default shutter speed). It would be far better for existing users if Sony had fixed these issues in firmware updates, rather than rush to issue a new model, (with the same problems), in such a short timeframe.

1 upvote

Shoot M - problem solved.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jun 29, 2013)

You are better off with a Sigma DP1 or 2 Merrill series camera for the low ISO range and something else for high ISO shooting and you'll have plenty of cash left over. For the low ISO shots you'd have by far much better image quality with the Sigmas. It's stunning and shameful how DPPreview ignores the newest Sigmas.


that's my setup - DP2M + Fuji X-Pro1. But I am thinking about RX1R but I'm yet to see the true benefits over X-Pro1, let's be honest, I'm not sure it's that much better (I'm not denying that it's not).

1 upvote

Except they (the Sigmas) have high read noise and thus far less shadow range.


I wish I had the funds to purchase this beauty.
Everything I have always wanted in a camera.
Alas, single parent with 2 children… I am lucky if I get new underwear and socks.


Ricoh, Fuji, Samsung, Sigma, Panasonic, Olympus make RX1R and RX100 II Sonys overhyped products of the year. truth make Sony cuckoos very mad.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jun 29, 2013)

It's a nice camera but extremely overrated and overpriced. My Sigma DP1 and 2 Merrill cameras absolutely destroy that $3000 Sony camera in image detail, but then that goes without saying for the Sigmas against any other cameras at low ISO.

1 upvote

I own both the RX1 and a DP2m, and prefer the Sony overall. It delivers impressively natural results, and produces great images in a wide variety of lighting conditions. Both cameras deliver great colour, though the Sigma loses out in poor light. Sure, the DP2m is super-sharp and detailed, but its high (exaggerated?) micro-contrast often produces rough skin tones, making it a mixed success for people photography. Agreed, the Sony sports a high price tag, but it's not unreasonably expensive when you consider the quality/speed of the lens, and the fact that it has a full-frame sensor.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting

".Sure, the DP2m is super-sharp and detailed, but its high (exaggerated?) micro-contrast often produces rough skin tones, making it a mixed success for people photography."

I beg to differ. It captures what's there, you are just not used to see so much detail from Bayer based cameras - that's all it is.


There's a difference between sharpness created by high resolving power, and sharpness based on high acutance. Much of what's offered today as 'sharpness' is actually exaggerated acutance. For me, the Sigma's eye-popping detail is created by its exceptionally crisp micro-contrast. This makes it good at reproducing the granular texture of (say) a stone wall. But it's much less satisfactory on skin tones because it exaggerates things like pores and blemishes. The Sony RX1 offers a smoother kind of sharpness, which (to me) looks truer and more natural. Fine detail has an 'effortless' medium-format look - it doesn't scream DETAIL at you. Interestingly, the high acutance 'Sigma look' can be convincingly recreated in images from Beyer sensor cameras by the use of post-processing programs such as Nik Color Efex and Silver Efex. Okay - everyone now shout and yell, and tell me I'm misguided or wrong. But it's true! And I say this as a 'fan' of Sigma and the Foveon sensor.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
James First 007

Goog morning Barney (DP Review),

I would love to see the same pictures taken a few second apart at the same ISO and aperture with the RX1 and the new RX1R.

Portrait and people as well as a few landscape.

I am incline to believe, base on the pictures I have reviewed that the RX1 after a bit of PP is already, once enlarged to size like a 24 x 36 are as sharp as the new RX1R is capable of producing (without the moirer...) ?

Would love to see this confirm or ???



Comment edited 16 seconds after posting

Diffraction kicks in around f5.6-f8 on a 24MP sensor. No wonder it does not look very different at f11. Why not just compare the images at f22. At some point, a iphone will look just as good.

Barney Britton

The reasons for shooting our current test scene in the way that we do are pretty well-recorded. Basically, we choose apertures (per format) for a decent compromise between depth of field and uniform sharpness. If this really really offends you, you'll be pleased to know that the resolution chart was shot at F4.5, and the real-world images on the final page were both at F8.

1 upvote
ABM Barry

"At some point the iPhone will look just as good!" MMMmm Yes, at
f128 with a dob of lard of the lens in a dust storm! LOL


After searching the trest chart high and low in jpeg and RAW it makes almost no difference, basically looks like the RX1 with a bit of sharpening applied with radius 0.3-0.4 say. It might be the lens holding it back, since the D600 results are much crisper. So to see the best from this sensor sans AA filter you would need better glass, so I'd say unless it's the same cost, get the RX1, and even then if the IQ is basically a wash I'd get the RX1 and have to deal with moire less often.

D800E on the other hand shows real improvement over D800, but you can select the best glass freely.


Obviously, the NEX 7 w/50-f1.8 is far superior and half the price, including an EVF.

1 upvote

Yeah, but with the NEX 7 you don't want to go over ISO 400. At ISO 100-200 it's certainly capable of excellent detail. The RX1 will obliterate it at higher ISO.

Create Dont Imitate

The end of the AA filter... finally.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote

I'll take the AA filter, please. The reduction in resolution is minor.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jun 29, 2013)

"I'll take the AA filter, please. The reduction in resolution is minor."

The reduction in resolution is not minor if it is noticeable at 100% and it encompasses the whole image, unlike what the AA filter is there for.


Beautiful form factor and ID. The lens is a in the center, soft on the edges and corners. All it take is a comparison of the Nikon D600, Ricoh GR and the Pentax K5IIs. They all clearly are superior in the corners and as an example check out the smearing of lettering on the batteries in the lower left hand corner vs the others or the watch face on the opposite corner. At higher ISOs the Nikon and Pentax are also significantly less noisy. It continues to amaze me that Nikon and Pentax do a superior job of implementing SONY sensors.

Douglas F Watt

Where are you getting your information about the lens on the RX-1? Testing by DxO shows the lens to be as sharp or sharper than any 35mm F2 lens, including the razor sharp Sigma that just got an 89 and a Gold award in DP testing. And where are you getting your information on noise? Obviously you don't own and haven't really had any experience with the product.

Richard Spangler

Its made in Japan not China.

1 upvote

I'm not surprised that people will pay this much, for this level of image quality in a small package. But I am surprised they will pay this much for a fixed, 35mm lens.

1 upvote

Not much different in RAW, however quite significant improvement in JPG, I am waiting for a new firmware update from SONY RX1 with the new JPG algorithm....instead of RX1R replacement.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote

Made in China ! I'll stick to my LX7


Doesn't matter where each camera was made, comparing an LX7 with the RX1R is just pathetic.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting

Not much to choose between the two (RX1 vs. RX1R) both produce superb images. Great samples, thanks Dpreview.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote

All the ACR shots appear weaker than the jpegs.



curious to see how it outperforms "smaller " sensors, like the Ricoh GR with an APS-C.

And how surprised i am to see that even in the corners, like the watch, the brushes, fine font at bottom, the Ricoh outperforms both the RX 1 and the RX1R.(by quit a bit too)

What is wrong here?

Please DPR, i think you need to do this fotoshoot for both the sonys again to give them the honour they deserve.

1 upvote

You have to understand that test scene for the studio tool appears to be a fairly close subject, many cameras (like X100s) might not be ideal shot so close.

The RX1(r) will have 1.25 stops added flexibility on the GR, it is the nature of full frame. Not everyone needs that added flexibility.


It seems the focus is at a different point for different cameras in the studio scene making comparisons difficult. In some places the X100s look sharper. The resolution chart shows a clear advantage to the RX1r over the RX1. Anyway real world images are where it really counts.


hell i just love my little prints beautifully at A3 and my walls are adorned with my photos and my friends think im a photography master lol.

So all this talk about filters and pixels and resolutions etc etc really arnt all these cameras were talking about brilliant in there own right. I mean unless your walking round with a magnifying glass arn""t we getting a bit picky?

Total comments: 120