Any one got a Leica Q & RX1r II?

Making the statement "multiple reports" about poor low light AF with the RX1rIi is way over the top. I read lots of forum posts. Thus far, several dozen reports are showing just the opposite of being the truth. In fact, the FM referenced post is the ONLY one where I've seen this "issue" hinted at.

My own experience - the Sony does AF low light as good or better than any Nikon system I've owned.

I own the Q and rented the RX1Rii for a long weekend (with a view to buying it) but decided the Q was more suited to how I shoot. Neither is the better camera, they have different strengths and the choice is a personal one based on how important those areas are.

In my opinion the merits of the Q are:

• 28mm gives you a wider view that can be cropped to 35mm if needed
• Handling is much better (but does still benefit from the official grip)
• AF is very fast, noticeably quicker than the RX1Rii
• MF is much nicer
• EVF is fractionally better and always available
• A "purer" camera, it just makes you want to get out and shoot

The merits of the RX1Rii:

• 35mm is a more classic/familiar length
• 42MP gives much more room for cropping
• DR is a stop or so better in most cases
• Body is significantly smaller
• Significantly more features (if you intend to use them)

The actual output from both cameras is great, I think the Zeiss lens is probably better but I slightly prefer the final output from the Q. Frankly, neither camera is likely to limit any but the very best photographers when it comes to image quality.

From a technical standpoint I think the Sony is a pretty clear winner but the Q is (for me) more enjoyable to shoot with. If money was no object then I would have both!

Dandrewk said:

Making the statement "multiple reports" about poor low light AF with the RX1rIi is way over the top. I read lots of forum posts. Thus far, several dozen reports are showing just the opposite of being the truth. In fact, the FM referenced post is the ONLY one where I've seen this "issue" hinted at.

My own experience - the Sony does AF low light as good or better than any Nikon system I've owned.

Click to expand...

Why is it over the top? Like I said, I've read multiple reports. Here's another.

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2015/12/the-real-world-leica-q-vs-sony-rx1r-ii/

"Is it faster than the RX1 (a contrast detection mechanism)? Yes. But it’s still slow in low light "


"And the Q’s focusing is ridiculously fast. Even in low light, and especially with the AF Assist lamp. Comparing focusing speed with the Sony is apples and oranges. The Q is that much faster."

I could go on with posts from various forums but I don't see the point of wasting my/your time. I've tested the RX1R II myself and while it is ALOT faster than the original, it is similar to the A7R2 which is still quite slow compared to the faster mirrorless cameras (Olympus and Panasonic m43 cameras, Leica Q)

Sure, but the general trend of your posts in this thread, is that you really prefer, prefer and prefer the Leica. So ok. No problem, but it sounds (and I had the feeling in your other posts in other threads too) like you were overdoing (over-proving) it a little bit.

ricky1981 said:

I own the Q and rented the RX1Rii for a long weekend (with a view to buying it) but decided the Q was more suited to how I shoot. Neither is the better camera, they have different strengths and the choice is a personal one based on how important those areas are.

In my opinion the merits of the Q are:

• 28mm gives you a wider view that can be cropped to 35mm if needed
• Handling is much better (but does still benefit from the official grip)
• AF is very fast, noticeably quicker than the RX1Rii
• MF is much nicer
• EVF is fractionally better and always available
• A "purer" camera, it just makes you want to get out and shoot

The merits of the RX1Rii:

• 35mm is a more classic/familiar length
• 42MP gives much more room for cropping
• DR is a stop or so better in most cases
• Body is significantly smaller
• Significantly more features (if you intend to use them)

The actual output from both cameras is great, I think the Zeiss lens is probably better but I slightly prefer the final output from the Q. Frankly, neither camera is likely to limit any but the very best photographers when it comes to image quality.

From a technical standpoint I think the Sony is a pretty clear winner but the Q is (for me) more enjoyable to shoot with. If money was no object then I would have both!

Click to expand...

That seems like a fair comparison.

stkn said:

Sure, but the general trend of your posts in this thread, is that you really prefer, prefer and prefer the Leica. So ok. No problem, but it sounds (and I had the feeling in your other posts in other threads too) like you were overdoing (over-proving) it a little bit.

Click to expand...

And you probably prefer the RX2 which is OK. They both have their appeal. However I am not blindly biased. My opinion is based on experience handling both cameras, and also based on knowledge reading forums posts and reviews for countless hours. AF/MF focusing is a strength of the Q. It isn't for the RX2. I know that for a fact.

I know Huff said that about the Leica X Typ 113. True for that camera at close distance.

I certainly prefer Leica buttons and menu over other cameras.

The Q looks like a brilliant lust-worthy camera, and I'd love to try it. I didn't bother comparing it prior to purchasing the RX1RII, primarily because of the size and focal length difference.

I think the lower pixel count is actually a benefit. 42MP is just kind of crazy for many applications.

But the primary feature I was looking for. The reason I sold my original RX1 and other stuff to get the mark II was the eye-AF. However fast the Q may be overall, I'm routinely getting a lot of shots that are continuously locked on the iris of the nearest eye in a face moving back and forth until I choose the decisive moment. And I'm finding it plenty fast enough.

This is a killer Sony feature. I just picked up a used Panasonic GX8, the exemplar of fast AF in the mirrorless world. Also with a very nice face-detect with crosshairs showing the eye its focused on. I'm finding the Sony is more reliable at finding and sticking to the eyeball. (I'll need more time learning my way around the GX8, however).

The other great thing about the Sony eye-AF is how it is effectively layered over two other focus area settings. There is the focus area that you set that remains active whenever you are not holding the designated eye-AF button, and there is also the fallback face detection for when you are holding the button, it recognizes a face but cannot lock on an eye. If face detection isn't working for you just let go of the button to rely on the underlying mode. This is much better than turning face-detect on and off, or otherwise switching modes.

So I wonder, when shooting people with the Q, how much would I appreciate the faster focus in light of this wonderful arrangement I described, now available on both the RX1RII and A7RII (and others)?

The eye-AF is a nice feature for sure but the Q's overall AF performance is better and unless I was shooting people almost exclusively then I wouldn't put too much sway into the eye-AF. Not to say I wouldn't love Leica to implement something similar though.

My wife has the GX8 and the AF system on that is very configurable (and clever), the Q's system is simpler which suits the overall nature of the camera. I'd struggle to separate them in terms of speed, the Q might be fractionally faster but that may just be because I use spot focus so it has less "decision-making" to do.

One other small thing is that the Q has OIS, I don't use this often but I did find it something I missed a bit on the RX1Rii purely because 42MP can be a bit unforgiving if you shoot anything slower than 1/100 handheld.

Yeah eye-AF is a killer feature for portraiture....I'm wondering how valuable it'll be for wide FoV's like 28 or 35.

For environmental portraiture, often times I have 4-5 people (even more) in the frame. How would the camera know which eye to focus on? And if the closest subject has sunglasses on?

SonyRX1 said:

Yeah eye-AF is a killer feature for portraiture....I'm wondering how valuable it'll be for wide FoV's like 28 or 35.

For environmental portraiture, often times I have 4-5 people (even more) in the frame. How would the camera know which eye to focus on? And if the closest subject has sunglasses on?

Click to expand...

This is where your perceived over-bias comes into play. How much time did you actually spend with the RX1rII? It really seems you are bending over backward to justify your purchase.

I have the camera, and eye AF works flawlessly. No problems with 35mm FOV.

If there are multiple "eyes", it chooses the closest one. If that's not what you want, I'd suggest taking your finger off the eye AF button and let it default back to face detect. Then you can easily select which "face".

Sunglasses? Really? Stretch much? In that case, it will pick the next closest eye.

A short time spent with the camera and/or the manual would have made all this clear.

I'm wondering - all the Q owners casting doubts on the usefulness of eye AF, instead extolling the virtues of the Q's AF system:

How many are you are standing on the sidelines of the NFL playoffs capturing action shots? How many of you are shooting birds-in-flight with that 28mm lens?

Just wondering...

Dandrewk said:

I'm wondering - all the Q owners casting doubts on the usefulness of eye AF, instead extolling the virtues of the Q's AF system:

How many are you are standing on the sidelines of the NFL playoffs capturing action shots? How many of you are shooting birds-in-flight with that 28mm lens?

Just wondering...

Click to expand...

You seem a bit over-sensitive, I said very clearly that I would like eye AF but the Q's AF is faster and more consistent in general shooting, if you have shot both then you will know that isn't up for debate.

Personally I find the Q's consistency and speed advantage more useful than eye AF because I don't shoot portraits in more than about 10% of my shots but if your ratio is higher then your preference might be different.

The cameras have different strengths depending on your usage. Someone who mostly shot landscapes ought to look at the RX1Rii without hesitation due to the higher MP and DR as well as the better panorama implementation (it's near useless for me on the Q).

To clarify, I am not saying the RX1Rii's AF is slow and it is very definitely a big improvement over the RX1 which I owned for just under 2 years.

I don't see what action shooting or capturing birds-in-flight has to so with the discussion since neither camera would be any good for those situations. That's like asking how I find my 60mm macro for astrophotography.

ricky1981 said:

Dandrewk said:

I'm wondering - all the Q owners casting doubts on the usefulness of eye AF, instead extolling the virtues of the Q's AF system:

How many are you are standing on the sidelines of the NFL playoffs capturing action shots? How many of you are shooting birds-in-flight with that 28mm lens?

Just wondering...

Click to expand...

You seem a bit over-sensitive, I said very clearly that I would like eye AF but the Q's AF is faster and more consistent in general shooting, if you have shot both then you will know that isn't up for debate.

Personally I find the Q's consistency and speed advantage more useful than eye AF because I don't shoot portraits in more than about 10% of my shots but if your ratio is higher then your preference might be different.

The cameras have different strengths depending on your usage. Someone who mostly shot landscapes ought to look at the RX1Rii without hesitation due to the higher MP and DR as well as the better panorama implementation (it's near useless for me on the Q).

To clarify, I am not saying the RX1Rii's AF is slow and it is very definitely a big improvement over the RX1 which I owned for just under 2 years.

I don't see what action shooting or capturing birds-in-flight has to so with the discussion since neither camera would be any good for those situations. That's like asking how I find my 60mm macro for astrophotography.

Click to expand...

Eye AF in continuos AF is nothing short of miraculous. Ever try and capture a toddler in motion? It's a bit more than a portraiture feature.

There's good AF, and there's great AF. Just like some here have said several times the RX' AF is good if you do landscape, I'll say it's good enough for just about every situation OUTSIDE of fast action shots. I've had the camera since it was released, and it's every bit as good as my A7rII.

Similar to what you said, if I did need to do action or wildlife shots, I won't be reaching for the RX OR the Q. But for every other situation, the AF in the RX is more than adequate.

BTW, I'm not denying the usefulness of the Q's features over the RX for yourself or anybody else. If it works for you, congrats and more power to you!

Dandrewk said:

SonyRX1 said:

Yeah eye-AF is a killer feature for portraiture....I'm wondering how valuable it'll be for wide FoV's like 28 or 35.

For environmental portraiture, often times I have 4-5 people (even more) in the frame. How would the camera know which eye to focus on? And if the closest subject has sunglasses on?

Click to expand...

This is where your perceived over-bias comes into play. How much time did you actually spend with the RX1rII? It really seems you are bending over backward to justify your purchase.

I have the camera, and eye AF works flawlessly. No problems with 35mm FOV.

If there are multiple "eyes", it chooses the closest one. If that's not what you want, I'd suggest taking your finger off the eye AF button and let it default back to face detect. Then you can easily select which "face".

Sunglasses? Really? Stretch much? In that case, it will pick the next closest eye.

A short time spent with the camera and/or the manual would have made all this clear.

Click to expand...

Hmm? Not sure how bias has anything to do with my question? When I shoot portraits, or my kids for that matter, I shoot with my A7II with either the FE55 or 90AA, which are good to excellent focal lengths for portraiture. I would think most people prefer longer lenses for flattering portraits, no? And with very shallow DoF's of short tele's wide open, eye-AF would really be effective. I get that.

With a 28mm or 35mm lens, I would imagine face-detection (even though I never use it) would be sufficient for most shots, unless you're really close to the subject going after a shallow DoF, creating tons of distortion to the face.

Again, how is my question biased? I have to agree that you are being overly defensive. I am just questioning the perceived value of eye-AF with a wide-angle lens, because for environmental portraits, the entire face is in focus even wide open. I think it's a legitimate question.

And to answer your question I had the RX1R II for 3 days, and I admit I didn't use eye-AF, along with some other features that I felt I had no need for.

You say : "unless you're really close to the subject going after a shallow DoF, creating tons of distortion to the face".

Using the RX1RII since one month and half, I can tell you that the "wide angle-not enough dof for portrait" argument is beside the point : unless you shoot at 5.6 you have very little dof without having to be too close to your subject.

stkn said:

You say : "unless you're really close to the subject going after a shallow DoF, creating tons of distortion to the face".

Using the RX1RII since one month and half, I can tell you that the "wide angle-not enough dof for portrait" argument is beside the point : unless you shoot at 5.6 you have very little dof without having to be too close to your subject.

Click to expand...

Well with a 35/2 lens wide open, and your subject 5 feet away, the DoF Is 0.46 feet, which is enough to cover the entire width of a normal human being's face. If you regularly shoot closer than 5 feet, which will undoubtedly distort a face, I can see how eye-AF is advantageous over face-detect AF.

Again, I've never used eye-AF before so this based on assumption. Perhaps you can explain how it is beneficial to your shooting style.

Since I've been shooting the original RX1, due to its fixed length I often shoot from a 50mm or even 85mm vantage point and just crop later. (Zooming with the feet is a bad option for portraits, as you've noted.)

Now with 42MP, why wouldn't I do the same? So the eye-AF is very key to a lot of my shooting, even at this focal length.