Reading mode: Light Dark

RXm2

Go to last post
citrin said:
Funny, I actually think that's the plan. I think thats why they called this the RX1R II.

If I was guessing, and that's all iI'm doing here- I'd say the next gen 24mp backlight silicon simply isn't ready yet. I expect we'll see it soon- first in an A7III, and shortly after, in a $2800 RX1 II.

Or is that just what I hope... :-)
Click to expand...
It's a good point; you may well be right. The only niggle is that the only reason there was an 'r' variant before was because they took the low pass filter out. Whereas in the A7/A7r, there were other significant differences between the 'r' and non-r version, in the RX1, it was just the presence of the filter. Now that they have a filter you can turn on or off (and heck even on high and on low) Sony may not see the need for a second version.

It's also still an incredibly niche product. One that probably doesn't make commercial sense even with just one version of it (but they do it because it showcases their technology and gives them a platform on which to recoup some of the R&D cost of minituarisation that is then passed on to the A7 platform). Japanese companies are very good at doing this kind of thing and making it pay in the long run (for interest, Japanese business strategy tends more towards maximising market share than it does maximising profit but that's a different story).
 
[No message]
 
jpr2 said:
a very obvious next step for S. would be to offer a true RF-like MILC akin to the RX2 esp. with a pop-up VF, and with a good set (i.e. Leica-like, small but excellent) line of interchangeable glass !!!

Then an APS-C version (for masses) should be only a matter of time :D

However, BOTH such highly desirable cameras will unfortunately N-E-V-E-R happen! :(

jpr2
Click to expand...
 
SonyRX1 said:
For those of you that prefer 24MP over 42MP, is it for storage and processing reasons? If you had the latest MacPro with 10TB of storage, would you still feel the same way?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would feel the same way. Because the larger, faster computer would reduce or eliminate the downsides of storage and processing speed. But I still don't see any upside that would make me want a sensor with that kind of resolution. And until I see a LOT of images from the new camera, I won't have an idea of how good the new sensor is in low light - not just in terms of noise (which I assume can be downsampled to the point it's barely visible) but in terms of color fidelity, DR at higher ISOs, etc.

Between the 24mp sensor in the RX1 (and the D610 / D750) and the 16mp sensor in the Nikon DF, there are real tradeoffs in terms of DR at base ISO and resolution (advantage to the 24mp chip) and color fidelity and DR at higher ISOs (advantage to the 16mp chip). There are slight differences in high ISO noise as well, but with downsampling of the 24mp images, it's pretty minimal. I like both of those sensors pretty well, but ultimately prefer the 16mp sensor in the DF - I suspect I'd feel similarly about the 12mp sensor in the A7S. Comparing the 36mp sensor in the A7R and D810, there's obviously greater resolution and a tiny bit more DR at base ISO, but not enough to matter to me, and no upside anywhere else. Unless the 42mp sensor is miraculously better in low light (not just in terms of noise, but also color accuracy, WB, and DR at high ISO), there's just no upside for me over the 24mp sensor.

So, no, not until I see a lot of images, at which point I MIGHT change my mind, but very well might not. I'm open minded, but I'm not into more resolution beyond where we are today unless and until the sensors are better for my uses in significant ways...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
www.flickr.com

Ray

Explore Ray’s 2,013 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Ray Sachs said:
SonyRX1 said:
For those of you that prefer 24MP over 42MP, is it for storage and processing reasons? If you had the latest MacPro with 10TB of storage, would you still feel the same way?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would feel the same way. Because the larger, faster computer would reduce or eliminate the downsides of storage and processing speed. But I still don't see any upside that would make me want a sensor with that kind of resolution. And until I see a LOT of images from the new camera, I won't have an idea of how good the new sensor is in low light - not just in terms of noise (which I assume can be downsampled to the point it's barely visible) but in terms of color fidelity, DR at higher ISOs, etc.

Between the 24mp sensor in the RX1 (and the D610 / D750) and the 16mp sensor in the Nikon DF, there are real tradeoffs in terms of DR at base ISO and resolution (advantage to the 24mp chip) and color fidelity and DR at higher ISOs (advantage to the 16mp chip). There are slight differences in high ISO noise as well, but with downsampling of the 24mp images, it's pretty minimal. I like both of those sensors pretty well, but ultimately prefer the 16mp sensor in the DF - I suspect I'd feel similarly about the 12mp sensor in the A7S. Comparing the 36mp sensor in the A7R and D810, there's obviously greater resolution and a tiny bit more DR at base ISO, but not enough to matter to me, and no upside anywhere else. Unless the 42mp sensor is miraculously better in low light (not just in terms of noise, but also color accuracy, WB, and DR at high ISO), there's just no upside for me over the 24mp sensor.

So, no, not until I see a lot of images, at which point I MIGHT change my mind, but very well might not. I'm open minded, but I'm not into more resolution beyond where we are today unless and until the sensors are better for my uses in significant ways...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/
Click to expand...
OK that makes sense. But we already know what this new sensor is capable of. We are essentially comparing the A7 sensor to the A7R II sensor, which has the best DR and ISO performance on the market.



I do agree that the merits of having more pixels are limited. The obvious one is cropping. You could crop to 55mm and still have 18MP. That is pretty useful I'd say.
 
Just want to say.... SONY IS KILLING IT!

Making well thought out products for every category and for enthusiasts that REALLY love photography/videography!

I would LOVE to hear what Canon and Nikon CEO's are saying in their meetings about

Sony's onslaught-fullpress in the camera world! I'd say they are moving up from that #3 position they held awhile back in the day.

Oh how I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall the hour after Sony makes an announcement

on a new camera.

Who's next, what category will Sony attack in the video/image capturing world!

Enjoying this Sony success!

Bravo Sony!

(not just a fan-boy either)
 
JKPinPDX said:
Just want to say.... SONY IS KILLING IT!

Making well thought out products for every category and for enthusiasts that REALLY love photography/videography!

I would LOVE to hear what Canon and Nikon CEO's are saying in their meetings about

Sony's onslaught-fullpress in the camera world! I'd say they are moving up from that #3 position they held awhile back in the day.

Oh how I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall the hour after Sony makes an announcement

on a new camera.

Who's next, what category will Sony attack in the video/image capturing world!

Enjoying this Sony success!

Bravo Sony!

(not just a fan-boy either)
Click to expand...
Not sharing your enthusiasm, but I agree Sony is on a roll now. A7rII was well received and now this one looks super sexy.

I even was approached by my cousin a few weeks ago, when he saw my A7 with a Nissin i40 on top, and he (owns a big DSLR) was pretty surprised Sony could fit a FF sensor inside ;)

Anyway - for me the big question now are the lenses. If Sony would provide a few affordable, decent quality primes soon, and keep offering A7 at its current price, they could win some serious market share. Fingers crossed, both for Sony and my wallet :)
 
Hello Everybody, I greatly respect Rays and other peoples views on this super forum. For me the real advantage of the RX1R ii would be for shooters of landscapes. 42MP enabling one to squeeze every ounce of detail from the image. I like the idea of the ability to choose the strength of the A/A filter or to discard it completely. Furthermore, the ability to bracket using this function is awesome.

I do have a query. As we know the RX1R II is a 35mm f/l. Assuming one chooses to "crop" an image to reveal a 50mm and 70mm view - What amount of MP would these respective f/l's produce ?

This is an enticing prospect - All in a small package.

I guess the other alternative is the Sony A7R II with a quality 35mm prime however this would produce a piece of equipment that is more bulky than the RX1R II.

Be good to have your views on this.

Adam.
 
adam10 said:
I do have a query. As we know the RX1R II is a 35mm f/l. Assuming one chooses to "crop" an image to reveal a 50mm and 70mm view - What amount of MP would these respective f/l's produce ?
Click to expand...
According to my calculations:

50mm - ~20.5 Mpix

70mm - ~10.5 Mpix
 
geetee1972 said:
SonyRX1 said:
For those of you that prefer 24MP over 42MP, is it for storage and processing reasons? If you had the latest MacPro with 10TB of storage, would you still feel the same way?
Click to expand...
No; it's more about how unforgiving 42mp sensors are of either technique or shooting constraints. I'm sure the lens is up to the job, but the size and packaging of this camera mean it should be targeted at street photography or genres where discretion is really important, like candid shooting at a wedding. With such high resolution, you'll need to shoot at a higher shutter speed to be really sure of getting things sharp and be really accurate with focus. Both those are hard to achieve when you're trying to capture a single moment and have little time to steady and compose yourself before you release the shutter.
Click to expand...
What you're saying is true if the two different res cameras are compared at the sensor pixel level, but if both are res'd to the same size, the higher res camera is no more unforgiving, and offers relative diminution of Bayer artifacts too boot.

Jim
 
JimKasson said:
geetee1972 said:
SonyRX1 said:
For those of you that prefer 24MP over 42MP, is it for storage and processing reasons? If you had the latest MacPro with 10TB of storage, would you still feel the same way?
Click to expand...
No; it's more about how unforgiving 42mp sensors are of either technique or shooting constraints. I'm sure the lens is up to the job, but the size and packaging of this camera mean it should be targeted at street photography or genres where discretion is really important, like candid shooting at a wedding. With such high resolution, you'll need to shoot at a higher shutter speed to be really sure of getting things sharp and be really accurate with focus. Both those are hard to achieve when you're trying to capture a single moment and have little time to steady and compose yourself before you release the shutter.
Click to expand...
What you're saying is true if the two different res cameras are compared at the sensor pixel level, but if both are res'd to the same size, the higher res camera is no more unforgiving, and offers relative diminution of Bayer artifacts too boot.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
SonyRX1 said:
JimKasson said:
geetee1972 said:
SonyRX1 said:
For those of you that prefer 24MP over 42MP, is it for storage and processing reasons? If you had the latest MacPro with 10TB of storage, would you still feel the same way?
Click to expand...
No; it's more about how unforgiving 42mp sensors are of either technique or shooting constraints. I'm sure the lens is up to the job, but the size and packaging of this camera mean it should be targeted at street photography or genres where discretion is really important, like candid shooting at a wedding. With such high resolution, you'll need to shoot at a higher shutter speed to be really sure of getting things sharp and be really accurate with focus. Both those are hard to achieve when you're trying to capture a single moment and have little time to steady and compose yourself before you release the shutter.
Click to expand...
What you're saying is true if the two different res cameras are compared at the sensor pixel level, but if both are res'd to the same size, the higher res camera is no more unforgiving, and offers relative diminution of Bayer artifacts too boot.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought too. Camera/hand shake would affect both 24MP and 42MP equally, unless comparing at pixel level. A blurry image is blurry regardless of the amount of pixels. The images would look the same when resized to 24MP.
Click to expand...
Just so, if you ignore demosaicing, which favors the higher res camera. And I meant "to boot" not "too boot". Oops.

Jim
 
JimKasson said:
SonyRX1 said:
JimKasson said:
geetee1972 said:
SonyRX1 said:
For those of you that prefer 24MP over 42MP, is it for storage and processing reasons? If you had the latest MacPro with 10TB of storage, would you still feel the same way?
Click to expand...
No; it's more about how unforgiving 42mp sensors are of either technique or shooting constraints. I'm sure the lens is up to the job, but the size and packaging of this camera mean it should be targeted at street photography or genres where discretion is really important, like candid shooting at a wedding. With such high resolution, you'll need to shoot at a higher shutter speed to be really sure of getting things sharp and be really accurate with focus. Both those are hard to achieve when you're trying to capture a single moment and have little time to steady and compose yourself before you release the shutter.
Click to expand...
What you're saying is true if the two different res cameras are compared at the sensor pixel level, but if both are res'd to the same size, the higher res camera is no more unforgiving, and offers relative diminution of Bayer artifacts too boot.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought too. Camera/hand shake would affect both 24MP and 42MP equally, unless comparing at pixel level. A blurry image is blurry regardless of the amount of pixels. The images would look the same when resized to 24MP.
Click to expand...
Just so, if you ignore demosaicing, which favors the higher res camera. And I meant "to boot" not "too boot". Oops.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
SparkleHedgehog said:
The dimensions are virtually identical to a Sony a6000 with the pancake power zoom kit lens fitted.

--
Sony A7ii
SEL55F18Z
SEL35F28Z
SEL28F20
SEL2870
Click to expand...
I think he meant a comparison of FF cameras rather than cross platform/sensor size comparisons.

The 6000 is neither a FF camera nor is the power zoom comparable to the Zeiss.
 
JKPinPDX said:
Just want to say.... SONY IS KILLING IT!

Making well thought out products for every category and for enthusiasts that REALLY love photography/videography!

I would LOVE to hear what Canon and Nikon CEO's are saying in their meetings about

Sony's onslaught-fullpress in the camera world! I'd say they are moving up from that #3 position they held awhile back in the day.

Oh how I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall the hour after Sony makes an announcement

on a new camera.

Who's next, what category will Sony attack in the video/image capturing world!

Enjoying this Sony success!

Bravo Sony!

(not just a fan-boy either)
Click to expand...
And what about Leica? The new Sony compact is going to do heavy damage to the Leica Q. It would seem to be a better camera in just about every way and at a lower price. I suppose if you prefer 28 to 35mm, the Q would be a better choice, but beyond that, it's hard to see a justification for buying the Q other than the Leica name.

Rob
 
JKPinPDX said:
Just want to say.... SONY IS KILLING IT!

Making well thought out products for every category and for enthusiasts that REALLY love photography/videography!

I would LOVE to hear what Canon and Nikon CEO's are saying in their meetings about

Sony's onslaught-fullpress in the camera world! I'd say they are moving up from that #3 position they held awhile back in the day.

Oh how I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall the hour after Sony makes an announcement

on a new camera.

Who's next, what category will Sony attack in the video/image capturing world!

Enjoying this Sony success!

Bravo Sony!

(not just a fan-boy either)
Click to expand...
Kafka would have been a cockroach in this case.
 
SonyRX1 said:
For those of you that prefer 24MP over 42MP, is it for storage and processing reasons? If you had the latest MacPro with 10TB of storage, would you still feel the same way?
Click to expand...
Well, I try to live by the words of the great philosopher, Chico Marx, who said: "Enough is enough, and too much is too much." As the megapixel race continues unabated, people seem to have lost sight of the fact that 24MP provides tremendous resolution. In my work, I find it to be more than adequate. However, I do understand the advantages of even more resolution and greater DR, and I expect that if I owned a camera with the Sony 42MP sensor, I would probably decide that it is just right. But I do not really need it.

Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top