@Dan, we've only had the camera a few days so expect plenty more. I, like you, am curious how this will shoot on the streets, and the sun just came out of hiding again yesterday. From experiences so far, I suspect it should be a real treat on the streets. Also, many thanks for the compliments.

That would be a cat ash trophe!!

I finally created a dpreview login specifically to commend you on this pun.

More than 40 mp and a wide ange at f:2- what do you expect? There has to be some abberations in and out of focus, and some curvature too. Guess what will happen then ...

you can crop in lightroom/acr and save that as a preset, so you dont need to do the manual crop everytime.

doesnt show the cropped image when shooting on camera though....

@Barney Britton please tell Sony and advertise this as a real missed opportunity. Raw shooters--especially with this crazy resolution--also deserve the ability to do in-camera cropping to 50mm or 70mm, even for full size raw files with the cropping specified (which I believe is how aspect ratios also work). There is no substitute for in-viewfinder visualization at the time of capture. After-the-fact cropping makes post processing that much more onerous.

i can only speak for the a7 and a7II, works for both stills and video, its for when you use crop lenses but you can turn it on manually if you want to on any lens.

I am referring to these images:

http://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9715246082/sony-cyber-shot-rx1r-ii-sample-gallery/5463951162
http://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9715246082/sony-cyber-shot-rx1r-ii-sample-gallery/8897777058

Both images have been made at "landscape settings" (iso 100, f/6.3).

Don't you agree that those images do show high fringing and bad corners?

And these:
dsc00648_acr.jpg (even though edited to remove CA)
DSC00650_ACR.jpg (even though edited to remove CA)
DSC00376.acr.jpg (plane of focus? cannot see "legendary Zeiss" acuity)
DSC00425.jpg (again, focus of plane issue of less than sufficient performance away from center?)
Some photos may be slightly out of focus, that may be the reason of corner/overall performance or CA problems but then, is there a focus issue with this camera under low light?
Anyway, I think the camera performs well but not under all conditions based on these photos. It may be the camera, it may be the technique, it may be the weather conditions though..

Neither of these images show edge softness, even at 3:1. Both images are jpeg only and have huge dynamic range. Both were underexposed by nearly two stops.

Of course there will be purple fringing, as it would be with ANY lens under these circumstances. The fringing disappeared with about 15 seconds of work in Lightroom.

Why are all these phantom "issues" being posted from users who don't own a single Sony camera? Coincidence?

@ozturert - Adobe has terrible CA corrections in their lens profiles. The purple fringing easily fixes with manual correction. I'm betting DxO's profiles will solve this entirely.

The other two "soft" images are anything but. Looking at them 1:1 on my Retina monitor and they are tack sharp edge to edge. I don't see what you are seeing.

open your eyes and watch the sample man!! these looks like samples from a kite lens...no softness? the fact are two

1- you lie to yourself
2- you have never managed to use a sharp lens.

in my opinion 42 millions pixel and such a design cannot produce shape results. the 35 mm with the technology current and miniaturization of the lens will produce these results always, then manufacturer rely on software correction ( the problem is when manufacturer thinks software can correct everything...in this case not...the fringing is terrible for a lens like this, it's a 35 f2 one of the most common design since photography is born). probably they should have stick with a 35 2,8 producing a much smaller camera and easier to make sharp.

Dandrewk, are we looking at the same images?
And ACR's CA module is really good.
My point is, I expect edge-to-edge sharpness at those aperture values AND price (talking about the files I mentioned).

@OP - You want something for nothing. You are getting a best in class full frame state of the art sensor with a Zeiss lens design in an ultra compact body with built in EVF. How much is a Full Frame body alone with a good lens?

Each one of these cameras is finished by hand in Japan ( most of the Sony's are made in Thailand ) and the sensor/lens alignment is perfect on every one .... and you @Neal Hood think it should be cheaper ?

Labour may be marginally more expensive in Germany but getting an RX1R II that matches the Leica construction standard so much cheaper than a "Q" is a bargain.

Just hold one in your hand and try spinning a dial.

Why is more MP a bad thing? We've established in our testing that this 42MP sensor is actually better at ultra high ISOs in poor light than the 12MP sensor of the a7S.

Are you having problems with too large files? Then just switch the in-camera resolution to lower setting. I'm sure this camera just like every other has a few menu selections for output resolution.

Barney - to be fair, too many mps puts w workflow bottleneck for some jobs regardless of the whole "just get a faster computer"

I am interested in this case in more only because it's a fixed lens and it allows for a virtual zoom while keeping redo able pixel count.

Being a fixed lens camera I think it is quite good 'future proofing' that it has so many MP. It also enables crop modes with very reasonable resolution still, again a real plus for a fixed prime camera.

Shop for a new computer this Friday or Monday if you're in the U.S. You can get a new Windows10 desktop with enough power and space to spare to process the files for less than 1k. Someone who can afford a 3.2k fixed lens camera should not have a problem with getting a computer to suit.

Power bank can charge it while carrying around in a bag and even while using it. Obviously bigger battery would be nice, but for the size.

Someone should develop a battery plate that goes on the bottom that is basically all battery, offering about 4x the standard battery.

I didn't notice you said RX1. 24mp vs 42. Even more so. How could you expect a dramatic improvement in noise? It doesn't make any sense.

Thank you! Great information.

I'd love some detailed feedback on why the viewer is 'a nightmare'. If you tell us what doesn't work for you, we can see if it can be addressed.

Barney, I LOVED the old sample pages. I keep thinking I am doing something wrong because I cannot view the photos full screen. The loupe would be handy but it is slow and it's kinda hard to tell where in the photo I am with it, as stated above it takes too much space. It would be awesome to have the option to use the old viewer as that one was fast and a great way to view photos full screen. If needed to pixel peep we could always download the photo.

And, once more, this new viewer does not work with iPads. It's very confused there, and gets worse if you try to use what there is.

The old one did work fine, even if I've forgotten it ;)

@Barney, people complained before. So yes, it takes ages before the loupe or 100% start working. The Loupe is a small square good for nothing and 100% is just slightly bigger. Before you just click once on full size and you had a picture over the whole screen.

Not really usable on a android tablet.
If you try to get the picture as big as possible at resizes to a quarter of the screen.
A fullscreen mode where you can go from picture to picture would be very good.

Barney, just try it on an iPad, it doesn't work at all, we just see a part of the picture.

>>I'd love some detailed feedback on why the viewer is 'a nightmare'

Nightmare is too harsh, but I think there are 3 things that would improve it.

1. The sidebar showing EXIF info has an" X" at the top, but doesn't close on Chrome. Anyway I think the sidebar must go. We don't need ~300 x 1000 pixels to present a little bit of text. Just make a discreet overlay that only appears when you hover the mouse over it.

2. Rather than a loupe, you should have a navigator. So you see the image at 100%, and then there's a small inset version of the pic with a little highlight box that can be moved. Much easier than big sweeping click'n'drags on a 100% version. Basically what they do with the dpreview studio scene.

3. Load time is a bit slow, probably because I'm downloading an 8-10 meg JPEG. we're used to loading these JPG's locally and having them pop right up. Maybe there's some way to preload the gallery? Like start downloading the next JPEG while I'm busy pixel peeping the current one?

You should no longer see any .xmp files - sorry about that.

There are no river shots at F8.

Don't feed the troll.

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS5304x7952~sample_galleries/9715246082/8396089042.jpg

troll?
f8...ok i mistake..no over but tons of fringing not even a 40 years old on a medium format at f8 give this results...and most of all i looked other photos and not even the level of sharpness i would have expected from a 4000 camera...leica q less pixel but not comparable as far as as sharpness...