That explanation makes sense, and considering such a huge pixel count (very small pixel size), any minute oscillation will be captured (which leads blurring edges and ghosting)

Sony have always stated in their manuals that Steady Shot should be switched-off when you use a tripod so I think this side effect is known.

It is well documented that IBIS damages bokeh. @rhurani's comment above that nothing comes without s price is correct.

The double image you're describing (dopplegänger outline) is called camera shake. Sony knows about it. We all do. Except you guys.

I much prefer analog buttons over touchscreen.
For me, touch screen goes out the window in daylight, constantly having to turn the brightness up & cover it so I can see.
i also prefer the feel of an analog button- I know when I push it and don't have to look twice to make sure I didn't miss it or hit the wrong button.

Personal preference I guess...

It's an interesting point, because I'm sure a lot of people would like to use this as a street-shooter at night, for example, and a sensor that dense isn't necessarily ideal.

Fantastic sensor, wonderful lens, but the compact body is less useful when people start worrying about whether they need a tripod to exploit them as soon as the sun goes away slightly.

Too tiny? Olympus OMD cameras are 1/2 the size of the RX1, and they still manage to fit 5-axis stabilization. The is really no excuse.

@ captura: none of the Olympus OMD cameras has its body smaller than RX1 (you can check by yourself on camerasize.com). Besides, the sensor size isn't the same at all.

Facts @captura - the Olympus OM-D E-M10 II was the last OMD reviewed by DPR and it has 5-axis IBIS but the body dimensions ( 120 x 83 ) are bigger than the RX1R/II ( 113 x 65 ). The one before ( Olympus OM-D E-M5 II ) is 124 x 85mm.

More to the point, IBIS requires motors to move the sensor on both the X and Y axes to compensate for camera shake and the sensor size makes a huge difference to the power and space needed. The Olympus 4/3 sensor has an area that is 26% the size of the Sony FF sensor and I think it is safe to assume that the weight differential is similar. Of course, inertia is determined by an object's mass.

You are comparing chalk and cheese ; both whitish but that's where the similarity ends.

@Dynaxx darn you and your facts, interfering with a good complaint ;)

Photographers used 35mm full frame cameras for decades without IS. Produced some pretty good pictures too.

More facts @captura - the RX1R/II has an integrated lens so the 70mm body thickness given by DPR ( mistakenly ? ) in their review specifications, includes the lens. The camera body is 30mm deep compared to 44.5mm for the E-M5 II. Measure the OMD with a 35mm lens attached for a proper comparison.

Time to withdraw that comment about IBIS.

p.s. the RX1R/II would weigh more because of the complex Zeiss glass and metal lens plus the best all metal construction that money can buy.

Why is IS such a big deal on a full frame sensor? It's much more important on a small sensor body where you'll want to keep the ISO low. But a full frame doesn't have that worry, and you can easily bring it up to ISO 6400 and it will still look reasonably good. And secondly, with a 35mm lens, what are the odds that you'd be shooting below 1/40 but not actually intended to take a slow shutter shot?

I wonder if Sony should offer a derivative that uses the A7S sensor instead, but then a lot of people are going to complain that 12 megapixels aren't enough for them.

@ captura - just like dynaxx has pointed out, those figures include the lens in RX1, while the OMD's are bodies only. If you compare the bodies, RX1 is actually smaller and lighter. So for reasons dynaxx mentioned earlier I can understand it's not trivial to put a IBIS into RX1. That said, if it had IBIS and weather sealing I woudl buy it straight away.

I would prefer the 18MP 50mm crop of the Sony to the ~6MP crop on the Q. The Sony will do 70mm crop as well at ~11MP which again is more useful IMO. But the Sony won't do 28mm.

@abortabot I was really interested in the Leica Q until I saw it was 28mm. Had it been 35mm I'd have got one.

This Sony really interests me now though, so I look forward to seeing some real world samples.

The Ricoh is good but slow lens and only APS-C sensor.

FF with lens for $700? Are You kiddin'?

Ricoh GR II would be fine option if the lens was bigger; APS-C is not bad but the lens is. bigger lens at the expense of WiFi and NFC (both are useless anyway). i believe many people would welcome a camera with only photography-related options paid for, i.e sensor, lens, flash, essential functions. non-related extras we should not pay for include WiFi, NFC, tilting LCD, touch LCD, EVF, GPS

And tell me, what mount has sony abandoned?

@darngood,
That's exactly what I'm telling. In this case, they can't abandon a mount, as there is none.

@Ethan,
They didn't release any APS-C E-mount lenses in 2 years, no new bodies in more than a year.
A-mount DSLRs - completely abandoned
A-mount SLTs - no new bodies in 1.5 years.

Yet you omit the fact 4 a mount lenses have been released in the past year

Sony hasn't abandoned any mount.

They currently offer more than 30 lenses for A-mount which was created by Minolta in 1985. That's the legacy support of the century.

With E-mount they also support Nikon and Canon lenses that even Nikon and Canon don't support - such as Canon FD and Nikon rangefinder.

Their strategy is so far away from abandoning the user it's not funny - every single A-mount lens can be used on E-mount - even screw drive ones and the mount's fully electronic.

Which is why I can't understand why they didn't include IBIS.

This is clearly a camera for street and walkaround. The EVF is perfect for that. Nobody is going to use this camera in a studio only.

@nikon power - As a lifelong SLR/DSLR user who now uses both a Fuji X-E1 and Sony A6000 (both with left-side viewfinders), I now love having these viewfinders on the far end of the camera. First of all, the "same line of sight as the lens" comment is ridiculous because regardless of where the EVF is located on the camera, what you're seeing in the EVF is straight down through the line of sight of the lens anyways! What the lens sees is what is shown in the EVF, plain and simple. But the benefit of having an offset viewfinder is that my nose is no longer pressed up against the back of the camera like on my DSLRs. I also like being able to open my left eye and see the world around me or the broader scene in front of me, while still being able to keep my right eye to the viewfinder. Can't do that on my DSLRs. I've found this to be particularly valuable for street and travel photography (in less-than-safe places) because it allows me to maintain "situational awareness"...

...of what's going on around me. It's a safety issue. I find that when you use a DSLR where all your attention is through the viewfinder, you can get "tunnel vision" because your whole face is behind the DSLR and your only view is through the viewfinder. But with a side-located viewfinder, you just open your left eye and you see the world around you, not just the tunnel vision of the viewfinder. The camera is off to the side of your face, not directly in front of your face like with a DSLR. It also allows me to see things not yet in the frame of the lens (much like with a rangefinder). So firstly, I think it's helped my photography because I can see things besides what's in the viewfinder, and secondly I think it keeps me safer when traveling. I just took a trip to India, and I found the side-located viewfinders extremely valuable for these reasons. I hope both Sony and Fuji never stop offering side-located viewfinders in at least some of their models! Give us the choice!

@ Nikon Power, the EVF may be off the lens axis but what you see is what the lens see.

Even if the actual view was off center, I have had many cameras through the years that had off center viewfinders and it never posed a problem.

@s_grins - it's not about how hard you press your eye to the viewfinder. It's about the viewfinder being the sole focus of your attention. Your mind becomes trained to just focus solely on the viewfinder, because after all there is no point in opening your other eye when using a DSLR. But with a side-located viewfinder, when your other eye opens, it's rewarded by a normal, unobstructed view of the world.

BTW, it's hard to "keep a small clearance" between the eye and the viewfinder. It reduces camera stability because obviously many of us use that viewfinder contact point with eye as a point of stability. It also helps keep light from getting into the viewfinder, too. And it's just more comfortable to rest that viewfinder against your eye! I've tried hovering my DSLR slightly in front of my eye, but it's just not something that is comfortable or natural. The rubber eyecup is there for a reason: to go against your face.

The RX1RII looks like a sweet camera, but one can invest in the A7 system for much less money. A7II + 55mm + 28mm is still less than the RX1RII with its fixed lens. Besides, every camera has an uncertain future, including the RX1RII.

That combo is much larger, the RX1 is as deep as the A72's body and grip, which is the point. You buy the RX1 if you want a smaller camera than what a body and prime can do.

Sony's philosophy is that if it has a viewfinder, it doesn't need a touch screen.

Personally, I couldn't care less.

Agree, a well implemented touch screen makes certain functions faster and easier.
All Sony has to do is copy some excellent Smarphone Apps that have taken a new approach to camera UX.

My Olympus E-M1 has touch screen, I just do not care too much about it.

I can't imagine a touchscreen for focussing being usable others than on a tripod. That looks as retarded and impractical for moving subjects as it is on smartphones...
Then picture review is also much faster with a scroll wheel and zoom wheel. Maybe pinch and zoom multitouch would be of some benefit. But how often would you accidently touch the screen while carrying this little camera around...
I am with Sony there. EVF > no touchscreen needed

What's a relation between EVF and a touchscreen? EVF doesn't replace a touchscreen. Why Samsung NX1 and NX30 have both of them, and Sony doesn't?

There are a couple of cameras that let you move the focus point with the touchscreen while you have your eye to the viewfinder. Its a good implementation of the tech and much faster than pressing d-pad buttons.

If I could have only one and had to select between an articulating screen and touchscreen it is a no brainer to pick the articulating screen.

Coolpix 'A' $365.

Yea... except that every 24mp APS-C sensor has a higher pixel density making it physically harder to achieve per-pixel sharpness than 42mp FF.

Seems like lots of people buying FF these days simply have no idea how to properly hold a camera.

Photato, that of course matters on shutter speed. If you have enough light to pick whatever shutter speed you need, you should not have any trouble capturing well beyond 24mp. The angular movement of the sensor in 1/4000s for example is pretty small.

I would think hand-holding 42mp at 35mm is about the same as hand-holding 5mp at 100mm, no?

Yeah, tripod, flash, or broad daylight. And yet, if I said that 5mp was overkill for handheld 100mm without IS, I'd be chased out of here with pitchforks and tar.

You don't need tripod if you keep shutter speed higher than 1/35. which should be no problem with this sensor given ISO performance.

Are you speaking for experience or just speculating? There is absolutely no reason why you can't take sharp images with if you are using faster shutter speeds.

Photato, you have been posted idiotic comments all day. Are you retarded or something? Photographers have been taking photos without tripods for decades. Are you telling us you can't take sharp photos without a tripod?

There's a difference between "sharp" (as in, looks sharp when you view the image from a normal viewing distance) and "pixel sharp" - when during exposure, the image doesn't move more than 1/2 a pixel.

An image looks sharp if the smear is under 1/1500 of the image diagonal. That's about 2MP, give or take.

For pixel-level sharpness, the more pixels you have, the less smear you can tolerate.

To take pixel-level sharp 42MP image without any kind of stabilization, your exposure time would need to be about five times shorter than what you'd need for a sharp-looking picture, and about two times shorter than what you'd need for a pixel-level sharp 10MP.

"Sure, except that FF sensors of this kind of resolution have existed just for a few months."

I will ask you again. Are you speaking for experience or just speculating? The pixel density on 42 MP FF is same as 18 MP APSC

"The pixel density on 42 MP FF is same as 18 MP APSC"
It's not the pixel density, it's how many pixels you have across the field of view. A 42 MP sensor puts about 1.5 times more pixels across the FOV.

If you need 1/2000s to get a pixel-sharp shot on a 18MP sensor, you'll need 1/3000s on a 42MP sensor (assuming equivalent focal lengths).

"If you need 1/2000s to get a pixel-sharp shot on a 18MP sensor"

Yes, but you don't need 1/2000s on 35mm eqv lens. You need 1/35sec, which isn't a problem.

"You need 1/35sec, which isn't a problem"
1/35sec will only give you a sharp-looking image. It looks sharp at normal viewing distance, but if you zoom in, you'll see the motion blur.
Pixel-level sharp image doesn't show motion blur when you zoom in all the way to 100%. It requires a (much) shorter exposure time, or a much sturdier tripod.

[edit]Now that I though about it, to get a pixel-sharp 42MP, all you need about 1/200s. So it's not really a huge deal.

Photato, you are making claims even though you really don't have any practical experience with the camera. It's funny coming from Canon fan like you as none of Canon 35mm prime lenses are stabilized. I guess you can never use a Canon camera without a tripod. Better switch to A7RII with IBIS

Speaking from experience pixel level sharpness for me from a Nikon A is 1/80 minimum. I am a fairly talented endurance athlete with a HR of around 40bpm,I don't believe I have overly shakey hands, 1/focal length worked great in the film days. Maybe you can handhold 42mp at 1/focal length but that is quite exceptional

Photato, you really never answered my question. Let me try again. Given Canon doesn't have stabilized 35mm prime, are you telling us Canon DSLRs are unusable without a tripod? When are you switching brands?

"Increasing resolution doesn't increase camera shake. Camera shake is exactly the same wither you are shooting 4 megapixels or 40 megapixels or 400 megapixels."

It matters if you want pixel-level sharpness. Looking at a 40 MP image at 100% means you're using about 3x the magnification of a 4MP image.

The same camera motion that blurs a 4MP image by 1 pixel, will blur the 40MP image by about 3 pixels, and the 400MP image by 10 pixels.

Photato , even your buddy here BorisK1 said the max shutter speed you need (for pixel level sharpness) is 1/200. This isn't a problem on high ISO sensor. I am pretty sure most people would be happy with sharpness they see even at 1/35 sec.

No, you don't need a tripod with RX1RII

I didn't know Canon now has 35mm OIS. Do they have 50mm OIS prime?

But that blur will look exactly the same in the photograph. If you are comparing 1 pixel of blur vs. 3 pixels of blur, then you are comparing a smaller image to a larger image, but the degree of blur *within each image* is exactly the same.

And if you are actually seeing 1 pixel of blur, then you must be viewing an infinitesimal portion of the photo under a microscope. A typical print has 90,000 pixels per square inch, so if you can see 1 pixel in that print, you are literally using a microscope.

Or you are viewing house-sized prints. If someone is planning house-sized prints, a tripod would be advisable regardless of the camera resolution. The degree of any blur from camera shake is the same. Resolution doesn't increase blur.

To state the problem correctly, you would say that magnification magnifies any blur. Resolution doesn't. The reason you might claim more blur for 42mp image is not that it has 42mp (vs. some lesser mp), but that you are printing or viewing it much larger. But then *any* camera of *any* resolution will also appear to show more blur when its images are printed/viewed larger. That's because magnification magnifies any blur. Resolution doesn't.

says the guy with 4 camera bodies lol

Nokia beaten themselves out of the Market couple of years ago!

To me it comes down to which focal length you prefer. I like Sony's 35 mm choice better. Both will turn out marvelous images.

I agree about dynamic range and low light capability over resolution but I have to say, after having the A7RII (this sensor) for a few weeks, it seems you really can have it all.

I think this sensor is a significant jump from my 5D Mk III. The only thing it is missing, from a working photographer's point of view is the 5D MKIII's sensible resolution. When you are shooting hundreds of raw files a day, the file handling time and drive space really starts to add up and your clients won't pay extra for that. This camera, however, is unlikely to be used for professional volumes of shooting, so it is actually a good implementation of a high res sensor. Apart from the cost, the limitation for me would be the fixed 35mm lens. It's not a very interesting focal length.

I'll take the moderate size and weight hit and use my A7RII with small lenses for street work. It can still be a very compact setup compared to the DSLRs many of us are used to.

It might be $1000 less, but comparing to Leica Q it should be 1800-2500 less so effectively Sony is just too expensive. It looks like a plastic toy.

@Nick932 You've obviously never held a RX1, its all metal and feels pretty heavy in hand with all the glass in the lens. Its solid. Leica Q owners are reporting a rattle in the camera (which Leica claims is the OS, but none of my OS lenses rattle, SMH), you'll get none of that in the RX1.

@Chris Joy
I never had one. Maybe one day I will get one. I am tempted for A7RII which also looks plasticky and cheap. It is smaller than the D810 and I can mount many more lenses. The closest I have come is to use for a couple days was the A7. It looked plasticky and cheap and still does. RX1RII still looks plasticky and cheap...sorry... If I would compare them to my M7 and M-P240 as build then there is no comparison. I see nothing wrong that they look plasticky...they are just cheap...they cost less what do you expect....

Sorry, Nick932, but to me the Leica 'looks' more plasticity of the two.
So my personal judgement is that the Leica Q should cost $1000 below the RX1RII so its currently overpriced by about 2 grand!

This might not sound too scientific, but if we are going to work out the value of these cameras by looking at them, that's how it looks to me.

All recent Leicas look plasticy.

We're talking about paint here - the RX1 exterior is all metal - so is the lens. Calling it plasticky based on web images is ridiculous. Go to a shop and pick one up, nothing plastic or cheap feeling about it.

Geez.

Nick932 wrongly expressing his opinion for the current A7RII, based on handling the original A7, which is a totally different camera and indeed had some plastic in it.

He fails to remember that the A7 was released as a 'budget' product at £1300, half the price of the current A7RII (£2600) and a fraction of Leica bodies cost.

He's attributing the 'budget' quality of A7 to the A7RII and implies they refer to one and the same product, which of course is wrong.

His memory is a bit selective as this is the only way to make his favourite Leicas sound relevant.

Next thing is to compare them to £60 W800 or whatever Sony's current P&S cameras are called.

@Everlast66
All of what you say is news to me. I just did not see any of your claims on the window display. But it is great that you agree that it is a plasticky product. Any of these new A7xx looks plasticky as before.

Per your remarks it would have been better that they would have produced a more solid product from the beginning. So you are correct. I have not had the chance to look A7xx up in person because of my past experiences with previous products. You should blame the company I am just a consumer. I and everyone else are possible buyers do not harm them from making fictions.

I do not defend other brands; As a matter of fact I have purchased brands other than Leica prior to purchasing Leicas because they work very well. A7xx just looks plasticky sorry I did not do this design. If you like to make up stories is your right and the wrong opinion.

I am not quiet sure what you are referring to. In Leica Q It is already embedded in the camera. As a photographer, this little periscope it seems like annoyance and extra thing to do (popup it|) rather than been available to me. It seems the other way around that Sony likes to provide things that might break or not work very well or require extra work or all of the above. May be this is the pattern to tell people look we are doing things for you....

Leica doesn't need to add a pop-up EVF, because it already has a much higher-res EVF (2.4M on the Sony, 3.6M on the Leica). If it realy is the same EVF from the RX100, the Q's will be much higher quality as well.

Quite a misconception that the Q is "only" larger. You are considering things in one dimension. What you have to understand is the difference here needs to be aggregated through three dimensional difference:

130 x 80 x 93 /(113 x 65 x 72) = 1.82 or 82% more

The Q is almost twice the "bulkiness" of this RX.

Yes. It is larger, but you are being purposely misleading by using the depth without the understanding that cameras are not a box shape.

The is wider and taller, but the body is not that much thicker so it will not feel much bulkier in hand. And if you have larger hands you will appreciate the extra size. The Q's lens is deeper because it has a zone-focusing scale and a macro switch.

Of course, if you want the smaller camera, the Sony wins, but this link to camera size gives an accurate comparison.

http://j.mp/1KcbZhb

The Leica is also f1.7 while the Sony is f2.

Actually the Q is box shaped.

@quangzizi
You have ommited the evf-periscope height and the hood that it takes on the perscope which adds more height and more depth.Which would make the difference much smaller.

@Mike Fewster
This is a misconstruction of what is said about the looks.
However, Sony RX1Rii still looks more plasticky.

@quangzizi
I do use Leica and I like Sony. So the original opinion is unbiased you make it biased. Then what makes you think that your opinion is correct and unbiased?
It seems that you like to accuse other's opinion as biased.

I no longer have the paper I wrote the numbers on and honestly I don't care enough about it to recalculate. The Leica is bigger than the Sony, you can compare the sizes for yourself if the difference is big enough to disregard the better EVF in the Q and the zone focusing marks on the lens, both of which contribute to the Q's increased size. But if you want the smallest of the two, get the Sony.

For the Leica q it is to early to tell what price it has in 2 years. But have you seen the Leica m7 prices?
You can get one round 1600 dollars. How much did it cost new?
The sony rx1r, from 2013, 2 years old already, was listed for 2799 dollars new. I have seen prices on eBay round 1600 to 2000 +.
That's not half the price like you said a year later.
Easy to bash Sony but keep your facts true please.

Welcome to the digital age.

It's not true that Leica's modern cameras retain their value, its their old mechanical bodies that were keeping their value because they had little electronics in them. Now the prices of their new cameras fall as most other cameras, some even faster than Canon/Nikon 'pro' bodies.

UK price statistics for several Leica bodies.
Please note these are NEW cameras, not used bodies, the used ones would be selling much cheaper:

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Leica/Leica-T-System-Cameras/Leica-T-Compact-System-Camera-Body

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Leica/Leica-M-System-Cameras/Leica-M-Monochrom-Digital-Rangefinder-Body

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Leica/Leica-Compact-Cameras/Leica-X-Vario

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Leica/Leica-M-System-Cameras/Leica-M-Typ-240-Digital-Camera-Body

Jonny you clearly have never held an RX1 or followed them and their prices. The RX1s are all hand assembled and individually calibrated to tolerances way beyond factory assembled cameras. Second hand their value recently has actually been increasing. My biggest regret about the new model is that the used prices will probably start to fall now and I will have to sell mine to get the new model.