Are we sure that this site is run by Englishmen? It's horde.....hoard is to selfishly accumulate...

After seeing these photos I'll keep my Kodak.

I'm surprised by all the chromatic aberration and the really rather poor focus. I expected the results from this camera to be nothing short of superb.

Take my advice you guys, just think for a moment...these are extremely high ISO 42MP files shot on a cloudy day you are looking at 100%! What did you expect exactly, that Santa dropped by mistake a camera from the future whose 42MP pics shot at ISO 5000 on a cloudy day look great at pixel level? Wake up!
And Merry Christmas!

The camera used for those photos are broken, the sensor is one of the best in the market, the Zeiss lens also should be up to expectations, why those pictures are not even close to 10 yrs old Canon 5D?
Do those guys even checked the pictures before they put it online?
Only a few pictures is enough to realize that there is something wrong with this copy of the camera, or did they shoot in 5mp low quality JPEG?

MY GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CAMERA, yes the photos are beyond bad, an uninspired mess of reckless snapping ,but im seeing 5 mp cell phone level detail and grain from 2003 wtf???!!!!

insanely bad image quality, as other observers have noted ....im sure you will explain this bizarre situation in a follow up article of....... apology ?

The photography is so awful, it's hard to judge the camera.

I know the sample galleries aren't supposed to be art. But come on... Thirty photos of hipster santas, and then the rest of that garbage that made me want to see more santas.?

At least make an effort dpr. Especially for your chosen brand.

default jpeg looking better in the color dept, green-yellowish skin tones are rather distracting in the edited ones.

Images look great until you view them full size.
For example, look at image #7, then click on the 12.3MB JPG image (in the right pane), and click to magnify to full size after the image finishes loading.
Unbelievable, horrible image quality. It is not just this image. You can see the same horrible result starting with image #1.
It reminded me of the one-half MP cameras of the mid 1990s.

I could be missing something here, but there is something wrong going on. These cannot be images from a $3,000 plus camera, or even from a $100 camera. Is it the camera? Is it the lens? Something has gone terribly wrong here and I have no clue what it is, but it is not the Sony image quality I know of.

I don't see the greenish tone on people's skins, but there is a greenish tone all over many other images (and I'm looking at images with an ultra high resolution, 24" monitor).
I think Sony engineers (and probably DPR) will be busy reviewing what went wrong here, at least I hope so.

ISO 1600, ISO 3200, ISO 5000 for day light shots...LOL!

At all those people disliking the IQ of the RX1mII:

According to sonyalpharumors, Sony has reportedly halted RX1m2 production due to (yet unknown) issues.
Stevehuffphoto.com reports stellar IQ and points out that there might be some serious sample variation issues, if other users experience bad performance issues.
That being said, the current results may NOT be reflecting what the RX1R2 is truly capable of, but rather be skewed by some technical problems that may vary between different body samples.

In-camera Jpegs of the Santas look almost like duo-tone treatments and when adjusted to taste, from Raw, green casts hijack the whites, making for some really strange skin color tones.

This for 3,000+...?

Someone should warn Sony that this particular "give us good money, we'll give what we can" spot in the photography marketing space is already taken.

Thanks for confirming large sensor cameras are irrelevant for all except dentists and public sector management. The contrived shallow depth of field gimmick just looks bad.

For a next time: tag along some other camera's and shoot with them as well, so you have some nice comparisons. I'd be curious what a Fuji camera and something as "old fashioned" as a Canon 6D or the latest rebel series would have made of it (their onboard JPEG engines).

The red colours are not feeling right, but if the ambient light is greyish/blueish it might confuse the cameras. We have that kind of light also in this part of Europe often, and it are days you'd rather not be shooting (and instead curl up under a blanket with a bottle of booze)

Wow, those colours sure don't like to be pushed do they!

This small luxurious toys are always trying to catch up with the DSLR, and they cost 3x times and more than the (APS-C) DSLR which wipes the floor with them. What is this? It's costly, it's IQ sucks, and what is the point of it anyway?

Half the comments say it's too expensive. The other half say the IQ sucks.

If the camera were (impossibly) priced at $500, ALL the comments would be positive.

People here seem to only respond to breathtaking post card photos taken with dirt cheap cameras with hyper real jpeg engines. Everything else supposedly sucks.

The fact remains, as it did with the original RX-1; a full frame compact with a fast Zeiss lens for $3K is a BARGAIN. On the other hand, if all you shoot is cats and rainbows for Facebook, of course it will seem overpriced, because anything larger than a 1" sensor with an f3.5 mega zoom lens is completely overkill for you.

To me these images, banal as they may be, look like 35mm Ektachrome 100 slides from 20 years ago, which is about the highest compliment you could pay to a jpeg in 2015.

Generally terrible greenish skin tones and lots of harsh, unflattering contrast. If I were a Sony exec I'd be calling Dpreview to deep six these images lest they impact last minute Christmas sales.

Sorry to say, but most of those images look so, so in my opinion.

Awesome photos! Definitely camera of the year!

The sample photos show awesome DR and something about the images just look so 3D...must be that Zeiss magic oozing out all that perfection!

Overall, I seem to like the JPG images better than the RAW ones.

Jim

Thank you for including the work of three photographers in the samples. Makes a big difference.

All the flagpoles are straight up and down in the wide angle photo of the museum. Big +1

What's wrong with the red color? Those blooming reds are in such a contrast to generally subdued if not to say flat other colors. It produces an impression of selective (red) color filter. And I must say it's quite unpleasant.

I agree with those who say that there is no other camera so small with such good specs, but when it comes to image quality, in particular colors and tonality, this camera is rather underwhelming.

Price camera in my opinion is too high.

Now I see what a $3,000 point and shoot gets you.. $1,000 camera for $3,000 what a deal...

Would be a nice present under my Christmas tree :)

What I see is quite mediocre for its price.

Seems like the RAW overlay is on camera JPG vs ACR. Use filenames to see what is in camera or ACR for now.

Ridicolous price, IMO. Really.

Doesn't this have the usual Sony DRO modes? The gallery seems to be chock full of slightly-to-wide-DR images rendered as blown JPEGs paired with their reprocessed raws, but in truth I suspect that the in-camera DRO could actually have done at least as well (and maybe better) producing the JPEGs with zero hassle. I get that it's nice to show what can be done with raw processing, but it is good not to forget that the camera itself also has options to automatically take advantage of the same great raw DR.

If the rumor is correct, Sony had stopped the production of this camera.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-rx1rii-production-halted/

I'm just not as enamored with this camera as I thought I would be. That $3,300 price point is just way to high today. For example; an OM-D E-M5II with a Panny 20 1.7 is just $1,117. The combo is every bit as pocket-able as the RII for $2,183 less money and you get tons more versatility and IBIS. Heck you could add a Nocticron if shallow DOF and creamy bokeh is your thing, and still have $800 in your pocket ;)