Merry Christmas II you: RX1R II sample gallery updated

I got same problem with 55 1.8 on A7RII. It's Zeiss.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Vanitas Photo

dcolak

It isn't a Zeiss but rather whoever manufactures the lens for Sony, Zeiss branded autofocus E and A mount lenses are Zeiss designed but not manufactured by them. Many point out that it could be Cosina (most likely)

It is like the Leica branded for Panasonic lenses, these aren't made by Leica, they are designed by them but manufactured by another party.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Sony E28mm f2.0 is an awesome lens. Barrel distortion? Yes, but I can live with it, I even like it. Colors? Perfect. Bokeh, just as I like it.

On the other hand 55mm 1.8, damn that lens can't shoot colors that resemble anything close to reality. Less 3D "pop" than E28. I have no idea what all the E55 reviewers were smoking when they wrote those stellar reviews.

Dec 20, 2015*permalink

Vanitas Photo

dcolak

The difference may be who manufactures those lenses, if Sony is using the ex-minolta tech and facilities then it is natural they have much better results (28mm f/2.0) than, say, Cosina (55mm f/1.8)

The problem with the Zeiss is brand hype you are not the first to say it and you wont be the last (and IMHO you are right)

Dec 20, 2015*permalink

olypan

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.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

PhotoRotterdam

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)

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Hugo808

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

Dec 20, 2015permalink

stormwatch888

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?

Dec 20, 2015permalink

AKH

My first reaction was that the images seemed to come from an RX100 on a bad day and I was quite shocked to learn that these images come the new Sony flag ship sensor and a high quality 35mm lens.

But I don't think this combo should be underestimated in the right hands and maybe mounted to a tripod 😉

Dec 20, 2015permalink

rkny

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.

Dec 20, 2015*permalink

fPrime

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.

Dec 20, 2015*permalink

Thematic

Wrong

Sony will sell every one they make. It's a limited production product anyway.

This isn't a "holiday stocking stuffer"

People who want it search it out.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

BigBen08

Well, when they search out these photos, they won't want it.

Dec 21, 2015permalink

To be fair, most of the green skin tones were NOT from the OOC JPEGs, they are from the RAW files that DPR touched up. It's also something that can be fixed trivially in post.

Dec 21, 2015permalink

Trivially? How? I use C1Pro. I don't ever get natural skin tones with E551.8 on A7RII.

Dec 25, 2015permalink

Well, for starters (at least in ACR), you can start by using the white balance tool and select the white of someone's eye. That should get you closer to where you to go. Then its just some slider pushing and pulling from there.

Dec 26, 2015permalink

AKH

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

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Jonathan F/2

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!

Dec 20, 2015*permalink

What 3D? My Helios 44m4 has more 3D.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Jim

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

Jim

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Aaron801

That seems like an odd comment as the RAW format is really meant to be developed into JPEGs (or whatever format you choose) by the user. Sharpness and other settings isn't applied at the RAW stage. it isn't really an either/or proposition just different stages in the process... or at least that's the way that I see it.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

meanwhile

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

Dec 19, 2015permalink

davids8560

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

Dec 19, 2015permalink

cinemascope

Dunno, the original RX1/R had a nice simplicity about it, a bit of soul perhaps. This one feels like another Sony gadget on steroids.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

Barney Britton

It's easier to use than the original RX1R, has more resolution, the AF actually works, and there's a built-in viewfinder. I'd take that over 'soul' any day.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

moranjr

You've traded your soul for a viewfinder? I think Robert johnson struck a better deal. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Johnson

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Barney Britton

If I could use a camera like he could play the blues...

Dec 21, 2015permalink

forpetessake

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.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

turvyT

In real life, every camera acts according to the photographer who manipulates it. Even a 5Mp 1991 Ixus. Sad or frustrating, but true.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

If you're not interested in adjusting the colors and tonality to your individual liking, than maybe you don't need to be using a $3000 camera in the first place.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

watson076

Or one might argue that a $3000 camera should get things right in camera, but that's just me. I don't buy a BMW because I want to work on the engine ;)

Dec 19, 2015permalink

turvyT

Maybe you should buy a camera and a photographer with it. That way you wouldn't have to work on the camera at all, he would get things right for you.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

@watson Your analogy doesn't make any sense. Everyone sees color differently, and has different preferences in regards to color and tonality. You can automatically apply a preset to all of your images easily. Also, forpetessake has absolutely no reference what so ever as to what the actual colors were; so its safe to assume the colors he likes aren't based in reality and therefor will have to be altered in post anyways.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

"Or one might argue that a $3000 camera should get things right in camera, but that's just me. I don't buy a BMW because I want to work on the engine ;)"

Think of it this way... just because you buy a BMW (or Porsche, etc.) doesn't mean you know how to drive it.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

kodachromeguy

@String, you are right. A large number of the poseurs who buy BMW (for Porsche, etc) do not know how to drive them, let alone feed and maintain them ("Hey, this takes more maintenance then my old Toyota."). Oh, oh, sounds like the consumerists who buy monstrous DSLRs with big hulking lenses because now they will be like "pro" photographers.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Digital Suicide

You don't need to take "Jack Daniels Honey" with cola, just like you don't need RX1R-II.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

Since when does "need" have anything to do with DPR and cameras?

Dec 19, 2015permalink

PersonalTrainer

Price camera in my opinion is too high.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

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

Dec 19, 2015permalink

Obviously you don't

Dec 19, 2015permalink

Is that all you have to say? Elaborate then, I am willing to say I am wrong

Dec 19, 2015permalink

JF69

You are wrong because you simply can't buy a similar FF small/pocket camera with all those specs for $1000.

Dec 19, 2015*permalink

You can't buy a FF small/pocket camera with any specs for under $3000 let alone under $1000. The only thing that even comes within the ball park is the Leica Q and its not only bigger, its $1000 more expensive.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

Why would you want a $3,000 camera with a fixed lens. It will get stale that one time you can not get close enough or can't back off. Who cares that is is full frame means nothing.
Just like the Fuji X100T, except they make conversion lenses that does make it a small system.
You have to really committed to being stuck with one focal length if that is your only camera.
It is a novelty item.

Dec 19, 2015*permalink

Impulses

Evidently there is a market of buyers who do want a FF camera with a fixed lens for $3K, and more, not everyone wants or likes EXACTLY the same thing you do... Funny how that works.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

I think what you meant to say was that the $3000 gets you a $2200 camera and a $3500 lens that is 75% smaller than anything else comparable.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

@ Photography201 - And that tells me everything I need to know about you and your photography.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

@String, Why would I want to talk to you about CaMeRaS and FoToGrApHy

Dec 19, 2015permalink

@Everythinis1, if you are comparing a full frame sensor that has to be a p&s camera. It is a p&s camera that does not even fit in your pocket, then it would be worth it. Foto nerds

Dec 19, 2015permalink

@Impulses
I never said I did not like the RX-1. I said $3,000 for a p&s camera with no conversion lenses, no zoom, no expandability no system to speak of is nuts. If it did not have a FF sensor it would be a Fuji X100 knock off
SO after all that did you buy the RX-1 seeing how you take it personally.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

"@String, Why would I want to talk to you about CaMeRaS and FoToGrApHy"
Most people only discuss subjects they have knowledge in, so yes, I agree.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

@Photography201 i think you miss the entire point of this camera. I also take it you dont shoot primes. Some people prefer a compact fixed lightweight f/2 prime over a slower variable zoom that will be 4-5x larger permanently attached to this body. Also who says you cant own this camera as a compact portable camera alongside your existing full fledge dslr/mirrorless system?

Dec 20, 2015permalink

I have a issue with what you get for the price. I do not see it as a benefit just to get a FF sensor that is a p&s camera. If you have a DSLR why do you need or what is the purpose at this cost.

I think the cost does not equal what you get. If sony had conversion lenses like Fuji I would at least think Sony was trying to expand the system to make it something. $3k is allot of money to get locked into.
If you have money to burn great and like I have said if this is the best money you have spent great. Why do people spend $5,000 or a lot more on a swiss wrist watch when a $200 timex whatever tells the same exact time. It is all about ego and making yourself feel good and being a show off. I have to this day never seen a Pro photographer with the RX-1 on a job. Never happens. It is a gimmick camera that Sony can charge what they do only because of the sensor and you get nothing. I would expect a lot more

Dec 20, 2015permalink

>Why do people spend $5,000 or a lot more on a swiss wrist watch when a $200 timex whatever tells the same exact time.

Thats a flawed example. You can not get the same image quality, dynamic range, and dof control of the RX1rII on a $200 digital camera.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

I all looks the same on the computer screen. No one is looking other to know they like the picture and it is in focus.
It only matters to the one behind the camera and if you try to explain DR or DOF to anyone that is not interested it does not matter any more than me saying this watch has this many jewels and a sweeping second hand, only matters to the one that spent that money on top of that no one leaves the price tag I spent this amount on this camera as a brag. I think it is all self fulfilling prophecy

Dec 20, 2015permalink

@Photography201 You can definitely tell the difference in subject isolation when comparing a $200 point and shoot photo, where everything is in focus, and a photo shot at f2 on a full frame sensor. No need to explain the technicalities or have any technical understanding of photography, just use your eyes.

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Aaron801

I wouldn't necessarily buy this particular camera even if I had the money to drop on it... I like cameras with interchangeable lenses. Still, even if I'm not coveting the thing it isn't difficult to see the appeal of such a camera. I've seen lots of great photos taken with fixed lens, single focal length cameras and that's really the best testimonial...

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Would be a nice present under my Christmas tree :)

Dec 19, 2015permalink

justmeMN

I'm glad that the gallery included a Krampus. :-)

Dec 19, 2015permalink

huyzer

<3 II C creative titles like that. :)

Dec 19, 2015permalink

J A C S

What I see is quite mediocre for its price.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

You're right, anything other than a 5 year old camera used on a tripod is a waste of money.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

photomedium

my point was a lot of these pictures would have been more meaningful with more adequate depth of field. Just because it goes to f2 doesn't mean you should be there all the time.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

bakanecko

and what do you think of Leica Q?

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Mssimo

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

Dec 19, 2015permalink

Ridicolous price, IMO. Really.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

You would have had to have been a very very good boy this year for Santa to give you one of these. Have you been?
Edit: Only 6 sleeps to go so may be a bit late. I am sure I have no hope at all.

Dec 19, 2015*permalink

Yes, much better to have spent many thousands on a dead end 'system' camera instead.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

@abortabort
Is is not that any fixed lens camera is a dead end camera by definition and even more dead end than an ILC if the sensor gets crud on it.

Dec 19, 2015*permalink

Abort, for sure the rx has many lenses to chose from :-D

And it's so versatile with the many focal lenghts, lens types and its 4k video.. Ops, perhaps I wanted to write nx, not rx, sorry ;-)

Dec 19, 2015permalink

"Redicolous" comment, IMO. Really.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

bakanecko

hey, it's like bought a stripped a7rii and got a bonus zeiss 35mm/f2 which is a great lens

Dec 20, 2015permalink

Well a dead end system is expensive, even with bells and whistles.

Dec 27, 2015permalink

Abort: how can you "expand" the rx1??

Dec 27, 2015permalink

How can you "expand" a NX1?

Dec 27, 2015permalink

All the nx lenses. All the samyang lenses. All the legacy lenses. Many flashes. I'd say that even if no more lenses come, nx1 is much, much, MUCH more expandable than any fixed lens luxury p&s costing 3-4x more :-)

Dec 27, 2015permalink

A minivan is more expandable than a 911... so what?

Dec 27, 2015permalink

You would. I would say that the image quality from the 'luxury P&S' will be acceptable for a much longer period of time. NX1 might be a more flexible P&S with interchangeable lenses, but it is still a fixed 'system'.

Dec 28, 2015permalink

Abort, where is the real advantage in iq? What print size? May I shoot fast moving subjects indoor? And what about the fixed fl?

Dec 28, 2015*permalink

leowong

may I know what is the low pass filter setting in these photos?

Dec 19, 2015permalink

ProfHankD

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.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

As a M4/3 fanboy I really hate saying this but your comparison is seriously flawed. Comparing a fixed lens full frame camera to a M4/3 ILC is pretty much like comparing apples to oranges. If sensor size doesn't matter, then why stop at 4/3? You might as well compare the full frame Sony to camera phone, then declare the camera phone much cheaper.

There is ONLY one other camera in the same class as the fixed lens full frame RX1.... and that is the Leica Q. And that camera costs twice as much as the Sony does.

The Sony RX1R II is expensive and isn't for everyone. But if you want this sort of camera, it is the bargain camera in it's admittedly small class.

Dec 19, 2015*permalink

ProfHankD

Marty4650: Was that reply to me? Don't think so.... I was simply pointing out that DPReview is going out of their way to do with raw postprocessing something the same camera can do internally.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

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

My mistake. I was intending to reply to photog4u's comment about how expensive it was, and comparing it to an EM5 II with a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 lens.

Somehow I replied to the wrong person! As you correctly point out, my response has nothing to do with your comment.

Sorry. I just added a response to the right person. I hope I got it right this time!

Dec 19, 2015*permalink

belle100

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

Dec 19, 2015permalink

photog4u

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 ;)

Dec 19, 2015permalink

And think about NX500+30mm f2. I think you could find the combo for 500$.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

naden

I don't understand. Is this comment a joke ?

You are comparing a M4/3 to a Full Frame camera. And a camera that has the award winning, industry leading Sony sensor that was taken from the A7Rii. With a 35mm lens that is significantly better than that 20mm pancake lens.

The resolution and size of the photos from the RX1Rii means you can actually get 50 and 70mm crops that are still better than almost every camera out there.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

I think he is compering real life performance and what you may pay $ to get those results and even better, I think he is providing numbers here too

Dec 19, 2015permalink

The Sony may not be a good value for many people, but the RX1R II and EM5 II really aren't in the same class.

Full frame cameras cost more. And great lenses cost a lot too.

The appropriate comparison would have been with the Leica Q, which costs $7,500.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

RMGoodLight

It is not comparable. Not that easy. The Zeiss 35mm F2.0 is a great lens. You might consider the Voigtländer 17mm F0.95 to match it. That will cost you €1300, will be heavier, larger and not as sharp open as the Zeiss. You will lose AF too but gain equal lowlight abilities as the RX1RII. You still can shot 16MP only or have to rely on a monopod to shoot 40MP stills.

Wait a year and get it for 2500€ ;-)

Dec 19, 2015permalink

The RX line is a fixed lens cameras that makes it short in comparison with EM line not mentioning features... And to my eye the life performance isn't much of a difference.
I wouldn't compare it with Leica which is photography oriented brand since 1913. And the Q Type comes with 28mm f/1.8 lens for $4.300, not $7,500. and this is German made camera... People pay high price for Rolex made Switzerland..

Dec 19, 2015permalink

Derek Midgley

I'm fortunate to have used an E-M1 with a Pany 25mm F1.4 and also this new RX1 RII. This RX1 RII can achieve magic. The files (I always shoot raw) are unbelievably manipulatable. Which is great, because in the heat of battle I admit I don't always get everything 100% perfect "in camera". Yes it's expensive. But having used it for a couple of weeks, I have absolutely no buyers remorse at all. There's so much to like about it. The lens is incredible. The sensor is stunning. Build quality. Brilliant auto-iso implementation. Exposure compensation in manual mode so we can configure "manual" mode to behave just like TAV (Ricoh / Pentax fans). I'm loving it. However, I'm not selling EM-1 either. Paired with Oly's awesome 75mm f1.8 EM-1 is very special too. Of course I prefer Olympus colours "right out of camera". But with Sony just shoot raw and quick fix afterwards.

Dec 20, 2015*permalink

I can't say anything bad about this photo cam., just a bit expensive with a fixed lens, and for me it's out of reach. The Sony is a mighty corporation that capable of making one of the best electronics! But it is not classic in photography. Some people may look at it differently...

Dec 20, 2015permalink

photominion

The Leica Q is 4'000$ here.. And it has OIS, a faster and better lens, much better evf, better interface and much nicer haptics and handling.

Dec 21, 2015permalink

@Marty4650
The Leica Q is $4,250 retail on B&H. Where are you getting $7,500??

Dec 21, 2015permalink

You are probably the third or fourth person to tell me I had the price wrong!

I probably mixed it up in my mind with the Leica SL, which does cost $7,500. In any case, $4,250 for the Leica Q is still $1,000 more than the price of Sony RX1R II.

Dec 21, 2015permalink

I would not compare a German made tool with experience in photography since 1913 plus tons of optics, with a factory that just brought a fixed lens camera to the market. I'll pay a thousand dollar more for German made and experience... Can't get more reliable than that! No doubts.

Dec 22, 2015*permalink

@lem12

Well, sorry to burst your bubble but, the Leica Q (great camera), is likely as much Japanese as it is German. The reason it focuses so well? You can thank Panasonic for that. Also the touchscreen functionality and overall processing speed likely has more to do with the land of the rising sun than Germany.

Dec 23, 2015permalink

Then why Sony did integrate Konica-Minolta's knowledge and placed a Zeiss glass on their most expensive cameras.

Dec 23, 2015*permalink

photominion

Well, most of the Zony lenses are not built by Zeiss, rather simply "approved" by them.

Dec 23, 2015permalink

I'm not against cooperation or team work, I'm against disrespect and faulty definitions.
Zeiss is a culture and tradition, not just "Zony" lenses.

Dec 23, 2015permalink

At this price it should have image stabilisation, 4k video and an articulated screen.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

naden

The RX1Rii does have an articulated screen.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

For that price there is a camera with all those things - A7R II. What you misunderstand is 'for that size' they probably can't.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

Robert Tusquellas

I agree that this camera and the Leica Q are the new leaders in relatively small full frame. I have a rx100iii and a Fuji x100LE.
I find I use the rx100 most of the time except when I use the Fuji for 11x14 prints. If I had the budget, I would love to have make a choice between the Leica Q and the RX1rII. What a wonderful worry to to ponder!!!

Dec 19, 2015permalink

RMGoodLight

If the RX1RII had IBIS it would be larger and heavier. The same goes for 4K. I think Sony opt for the smallest package and so they left those features out. I would like IBIS too but when you have hold a RX1 in your hands you will understand the appeal of this small beastly camera. It is a very different creature as an A7RII or OMD EM5 II.

Dec 19, 2015permalink

Derek Midgley

I love that it does NOT have image stabilisation. I've compromised more pics leaving IS on (in other cameras) on tripods that i'd care to remember. Also IS messes with panning attempts. Panning must often happen at a moment's notice, unplanned, when a situation presents itself (ok i'm talking street photog here). I'd miss those moments while trying to change IS modes. Think the idea with this camera was for it to be as small as practical. I'd love a full frame as small as my Ricoh GR. That's not going to happen. So IMO Sony's made the next best thing.

Dec 20, 2015permalink