Digital Photography Review

Resolution Chart Comparison (RAW)

On this page we're looking at Raw resolution for both the RX1 and RX1R. For a (more) level playing field we convert the files using Adobe Camera Raw (8.1 in this case).. Because Adobe Camera Raw applies different levels of sharpening to different cameras we use the following workflow for these conversions:

Load RAW file into Adobe Camera RAW (Auto mode disabled)
Set Sharpness to 0 (all other settings default)
Open file to Photoshop
Apply an Unsharp mask tuned to the camera, in this case 100%, Radius 0.6, Threshold 0
Save as a TIFF (for cropping) and as a JPEG quality 11 for download

Raw

RX1 (6000 x 4000) 5.2MB	RX1R (6000 x 4000) 5.4MB

Vertical resolution - RAW

RX1


RX1R

Horizontal resolution - RAW

RX1	RX1R

In RAW mode, the major difference in our resolution chart between the RX1 and RX1R is moiré, which is very apparent in images from both cameras but positively psychedelic in the case of the RX1R. As usual though, we've found that out in the real world, things are a little different. In everyday shooting, assuming you're not taking pictures for the sales brochure of a chain-link fence manufacturer, moiré is less problematic, and the RX1R does seem to offer a genuine (albeit not enormous) increase in resolution over the RX1. We'll be doing much more testing in the days and weeks ahead.

GearShop

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R Compact Camera●

$2,798.00

Buy on GearShop

Sony DSCRX1R/B 24MP Compact System Cyber-Shot Digital Still Camera with 3-Inch LCD Screen (Black)	$2,798.00
Sony DSCRX1R/B 24MP Compact System Cyber-Shot Digital Still Camera with 3-Inch LCD Screen (Black)	$2,798.00
Sony DSC-RX1/B Cyber-shot Full-frame Digital Camera	$2,798.00
Focus Camera Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100M2/B RX100M2 RX100M II RX100MII 20.2MP Wi-Fi Digital Camera with F1.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T Lens and Full HD 1080p Video at 60fps + Sony 64GB SDHC Class 10 Memory Card + Wasabi NP-BX1 Battery Pack + Sony Camera Case + Micro HDMI Cable + Focus Multi Memory Card Wallet	$748.00
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100M2/B RX100M2 RX100M II RX100MII 20.2MP Wi-Fi Digital Camera Bundle with Sony 32GB Memory Card + Wasabi Power Replacement Battery for Sony DSC-RX1 + Sony Black Carrying Case + Wrist Grip Strap + Camera Accessories	$768.00
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100M2/B RX100M2 RX100M II RX100MII 20.2MP Wi-Fi Digital Camera Bundle with Sony 32GB Memory Card + All-in-One Card Reader + Sony Black Carrying Case + Wrist Grip Strap + Camera Accessories	$748.00
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100 II Wi-Fi Digital Camera (Black) with 64GB Card + Battery & Charger + Case + Flash + Tripod + Accessory Kit	$799.95
Sony Cyber-shot Digital Camera RX1R RX1R/B RX1 DSC-RX1R/B 64GB Electronic...	$3,149.00
Sony Cyber-shot Digital Camera RX1R RX1R/B RX1 DSC-RX1R/B 32GB Deluxe Kit	$2,899.00
Sony Cyber-shot Digital Camera RX1R RX1R/B RX1 DSC-RX1R/B 64GB + Lenses Deluxe Kit	$3,049.00
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX100 II Wi-Fi Digital Camera (Black) with 32GB Card + Case + Battery & Charger + Tripod + HDMI Cable + Accessory Kit	$749.95

Show all listings (11) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 103

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.

0 upvotes

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

1 upvote

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!
tessar_man

0 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

Lens Mount: None

... and I'm outta here.

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

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!

0 upvotes

I bought both the new RX series cameras (nice summary here: http://www.squidoo.com/sony-rx100m-ii-and-sony-rx1r-price-and-review) 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

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?

2 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

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.

2 upvotes

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? ;-)

9 upvotes

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.

2 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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 ;-)!

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

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

2 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

@dimsgr
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.

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

$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.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=27604349@N03&q=RX1

3 upvotes

$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.

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

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:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/9205186430/sizes/o/in/photostream/

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 lens..is 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

0 upvotes

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!

3 upvotes

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

3 upvotes

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

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.

7 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

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.

4 upvotes

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

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

3 upvotes

".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.

0 upvotes

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

3 upvotes

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 ???

Thanks,

James

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

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

"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

5 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

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.

2 upvotes

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

"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.

0 upvotes

Beautiful form factor and ID. The lens is a disappointment...sharp 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.

0 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

huh?

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.

3 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

Okay, now that I've gone through the sample images, I see a lot of similarity between this camera and the D600. Gorgeous color. This is what full frame is all about. Nice job on the samples, DPR.

2 upvotes

Where are the moire and false color police?
D600 is easily best on the still life, not sure why. Better lens?
Anyway, a superb little camera from Sony again!

2 upvotes

Can someone tell me why the RX1R and older RX1 don't define the little black marks on the blue watch dials?

But some compacts like the LX7 do?

0 upvotes

These are just reflections on the metal surface.

1 upvote

Since the camera is a full-frame Sony, I should like to try it out with the 70-200mm f/2.8 G Alpha, or the wonderful Sony/Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8. Any reviews around the net using either of these lenses? Is it available without the kit lens?, I have not much need for the 35mm. One other thing, does the 2700 Quid include the bloody VAT?

Thanks so much.

0 upvotes

Are you serious? assuming you are, this camera has a fixed 35mm Zeiss lens, it is not an interchangeable lens system

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

This is a wonderful camera with only one problem for me, it lacks an OVF. Therefore, I vote for the X100s...

1 upvote

Looking at the images at the file size I commonly use, moire is hardly an issue. OTOH, moderate cropping would probably bring the moire out into the open. But, image quality is not the bottleneck for me here. A fixed 35mm FL is the problem. A 28mm lens would be better for my style but then, deeper cropping would be occasionally necessary which would tend to expose the moire and whatever noise that might be present more readily so, hmmm...

I agree with others on the price. It's a non-started for me. This cam vs a the price of a D800 (on rebate)? No contest.

I also agree with others concerning the size and weight. Sony has demonstrated that it is possible to get a FF sensor into a small package. One of the three, C&NorS, should design a FF DSLR for compactness of size and weight and see if it sells.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

comparing the two cams is the real problem here

while the D800 or D600 are cams u can change lenses with ..big cams the sony are anything but...
first the obvious ..no lens changes..second..they are small and meant to be very non obtrusive while providing with a leica like quality ...if u judge them by that they do a lot better then a leica and a whole lot cheaper ..not to mention the best fixed lens + D600 combo u can pit against them .

its all a matter of style...I for one do not have that style and in that price i most likely same as u would always opt for something with a non fixed lens .
\

1 upvote

Whats good for you is only of interest to your grandmother and your dog... who let you touch the keyboard anyway?

5 upvotes

Fuji X-Trans sensor is still sharper, and have less moiré ...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

6 upvotes

Total comments: 103