Leica Q vs Rx1r II

[peterb]

I'd been considering the Leica Q and, of course, the Sony RX1r was just announced.

So I went on to Flickr (my go-to site for comparing lenses and cameras) to compare images and sensors. I looked at images produced by the Leica Q, the Sony RX1r (to mostly see how the 35mm f2 Zeiss fared on a AA-less camera), and the A7r II (to see how the 42 mp sensor stacked up). I also had files from when I went to the DC Leica store.

Is it my imagination or are images from the Leica Q simply better?

The images seem sharper and bokeh seems more velvety.

Peter

 

[Lucille]

I hope at some point to shoot with the Leica Q, I'll have to rent one or something.

I need to shoot with cameras and see the images in post for me to know if they fit my style of doing things, I can't always judge from the images of others, I need to see whats going on in my own monitor, if that makes sense.

Someway, somehow I want to shoot with the Q, I think it is lovely, I got to see one at B&C Photo in Vegas a month back.

I honestly don't think the Q will have better IQ then the Rx1R mII, but it might, and I would love to find out. I need to rent one.

Chances are, you'll love either camera.

the display at B&C:

 

[Vivek]

I'd been considering the Leica Q and, of course, the Sony RX1r was just announced.

Peter

Look forward to your images from the Q, Peter.

 

[Speedgraphic]

A 28mm lens will never be a 35mm lens, and a 35mm lens will never be a 28mm lens. Both lenses are of fairly equal quality, meaning top notch. The Q will work like you think a Leica should and the RX1RII will work as Sony's do. These are big differences in themselves, but don't lie to yourself by saying that the 28/1,7 is sooo much better than the 35/2. The Sony will be more useful where people are concerned, and the Leica will be more useful when you want a true wide angle. Even though I like the look of the Leica, and the way it controls, I am going with the Sony. A 35/2 cannot be denied. It's a perfect all rounder for me.

 

[peterb]

I didn't mean to imply that the f1.7 28mm lens on the Leica was better than the f2 35mm ZEISS lens on the Sony, they are two different lenses with two different perspectives. It's just that after staring at a huge number of images posted of the Q and then a huge number of images posted of the RX1R (sans AA) to give me a sense of the 'rendering' qualities of the Zeiss f2 and then staring at huge number of images taken by the A7r II (with the best optics available), it seemed that the Q simply 'drew' better images.

Both are great cameras. And the Sony is a grand less and offers a lot of features that the Q does not have. Likewise the Q offers features the Sony does not have.

Decisions. Decisions. But, for me, at the moment I'm leaning a little more toward the Q.

 

[Zony user]

I own both the original RX1 and Q. I'm definitely upgrading the RX1 to a RX1Rii, and I may end up selling the Q.

The lens rendition is subjective, but it's worth noting that the Sony sensor blows the Leica sensor to the curb. The JPEGs of the Q are horrible (see thecamerastore review in youtube) and the dynamic range is lacking. Also banding becomes quite evident when shooting in high ISO's or pushing the files in post.

As for the Q vs RX1Rii comparison, I think it ultimately comes down to what you value. If size/weight, tilting screen, and better files are important, the Sony wins. If ergonomics, AF/usage speed, and the Leica name are invaluable, get the Q.

But more importantly, do you prefer 28mm or 35mm?

 

[raist3d]

I think both are good cameras but I have two issues with the Leica Q- the first personal and the second quite objective

Personal one- its bit big for my taste. I prefer smaller and Sony does that. But again, that's just personal. I think the Q is well designed and Leica got the "fly by wire" right making it feel almost mechanical.

Objective - the Q sensor bands at over ISO 6400 (or pushed ISO 6400). If I am going to pay $4k+ USD for the privilege, I want a no excuses sensor. The Sony carries that sensor.

Other than that, I think both are pretty great.

- Ricardo

 

[jlindstrom]

Also one thing to consider is the megapixels..

First of all, does your computer have enough horsepower to handle 42mp files? If not, it's going to be a costly upgrade meaning the Sony could end up costing more.

Second, that Zeiss lens hasn't changed sonce original RX1. Can it really handle the increased pressure from sensor/megapixels? I know with Leica X1 & X2 many people were saying the increse was too much for the lens. Here the difference is much more.

Third, the sheer ammount of megapixels. The camera doesn't have any kind of stabilization system. I for one would not want to be handholding that beast. With my shaky hands, I'd end up screwing up 90% of photos with shutterspeeds less than 1/500..

So the Q wins FOR ME by just having a much more reasonable amount of megapixels. I can actually use the camera.. and if need be, it has OIS.

//Juha

 

[Zony user]

Also one thing to consider is the megapixels..

First of all, does your computer have enough horsepower to handle 42mp files? If not, it's going to be a costly upgrade meaning the Sony could end up costing more.

Second, that Zeiss lens hasn't changed sonce original RX1. Can it really handle the increased pressure from sensor/megapixels? I know with Leica X1 & X2 many people were saying the increse was too much for the lens. Here the difference is much more.

Third, the sheer ammount of megapixels. The camera doesn't have any kind of stabilization system. I for one would not want to be handholding that beast. With my shaky hands, I'd end up screwing up 90% of photos with shutterspeeds less than 1/500..

So the Q wins FOR ME by just having a much more reasonable amount of megapixels. I can actually use the camera.. and if need be, it has OIS.

//Juha

Your 1st point is reasonable for people with 5+ year-old computers. But they should be upgrading anyway.

Your 2nd point is also valid and we'll have to wait for samples but I am quite confident that the legendary Sonnar lens will perform even better.

Your 3rd point is ridiculous. 1/500? You must be trolling because I could shoot the RX1 handheld at 1/20. Besides, camera shake will affect a 42mp image just as much as a 24mp image at pixel level. In other words, if you resize the 42mp image to 24mp, and compare images with equal amount of camera shake, they will look identical. A blurry image is a blurry image, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Lucille]

Your 1st point is reasonable for people with 5+ year-old computers. But they should be upgrading anyway.

Your 2nd point is also valid and we'll have to wait for samples but I am quite confident that the legendary Sonnar lens will perform even better.

Your 3rd point is ridiculous. 1/500? You must be trolling because I could shoot the RX1 handheld at 1/20. Besides, camera shake will affect a 42mp image just as much as a 24mp image at pixel level. In other words, if you resize the 42mp image to 24mp, and compare images with equal amount of camera shake, they will look identical. A blurry image is a blurry image, no matter how you slice it.

On point number 3 I wouldn't say he is trolling, he admitted he has shaky hands so for him, He needs to use a faster shutter speed. For his needs the Q does probably make more sense, it is great that we all have options. I do agree with you that the original RX1 was rather easy to hand hold using some slow shutter speeds.

My question is how good does the stabilization really work on the Q, as this might not be so great. I really want to test one of these at some point.

 

[Tim]

Is it my imagination or are images from the Leica Q simply better?

I actually think the opposite. I don't own either but have enjoyed examining them. I think the RX1 has been the most natural rendering digital camera ever. Film like but perhaps even better to my eyes. I don't know why I don't have one.

Pricing for the RX1r II is probably too steep here in Australia, we still pay "Australia Tax" and we don't get things at the same price as the USA consumer. Maybe I'll try out a new old RX1r this time round.

 

[Viramati]

I have both the Q and the A7rII (same sensor as the new Sony) and I find the Q files to me much sharper straight of the camera and the Sony's files need more work. The Leica Q combination of the 28mm f1.7 lens and sensor gives gorgeous detail, colour and bokeh and of course you have the leica analogue like controls and the best EVF I have yet used in a mirrorless camera. The sony of course is smaller with more mp's and a 35mm lens and tilting screen (about the only thing I would like the Q to have). I also find the the manual focussing on the Q is excellent with a proper DOF scale and I prefer the way Leica have implemented the use of focus peaking. So unless you need 42mp or more importantly really prefer 35mm then I would go for the Q.

 

[uhoh7]

It's the files. One of those little details Sony can't be bothered to do properly.

The RAWS are a joke. But soon they have a new one, but I doubt they help original A7 owners.

That said the RX1r is highly regarded by many Leica shooters for it's image quality and especially bokeh. Everyone raves about the bokeh, which is so smooth.....I fall asleep

MF has no feel and does not stay at a constant speed. AF of the 1 is terrible. Sony menus.

But it's very small and can make superb images. Quiet. Good in the dim. If one prefer's 35 to 28 its a no brainer.

 

[Zony user]

On point number 3 I wouldn't say he is trolling, he admitted he has shaky hands so for him, He needs to use a faster shutter speed. For his needs the Q does probably make more sense, it is great that we all have options. I do agree with you that the original RX1 was rather easy to hand hold using some slow shutter speeds.

My question is how good does the stabilization really work on the Q, as this might not be so great. I really want to test one of these at some point.

I missed the shaky hands bit, apologies to Juha.

The OIS works quite good on the Q. I could shoot at 1/5 with it turned on, although I really don't find situations where I need such slow shutter speeds. Leica recommends to turn it off for better IQ, so I really never use it.

 

[ramosa]

Besides, camera shake will affect a 42mp image just as much as a 24mp image at pixel level. In other words, if you resize the 42mp image to 24mp, and compare images with equal amount of camera shake, they will look identical. A blurry image is a blurry image, no matter how you slice it.

Not really. Camera shake is innately a greater concern as pixel count increases. The need for exactness in focus (in lay terms) is simply greater when increased pixels. Thus, while a person may not have needed OIS on the RX1(r), he/she may have a greater need for it on the Rx1r II given its greater pixel count (i.e., 42.4 mp). This difference may not be problematic for some photographers, but it can be for others.

I'm not saying that makes the Rx1r II a bad camera or better or worse than the Leica Q.

While I had the Rx1r, I wasn't super comfortable with the Sony approach to menus and some oddities with firmware, which Sony should have corrected (e.g., inability to increase minimum exposure from 1/80 when using aperture mode, inability to save focal setting when powering up after sleep, which are both problems for street/social doc photography). Sony has corrected the first problem with the Rx1r II, but such small problems should IMO have been corrected a couple years ago with the Rx1r. I don't need 42.4 mp, don't like Sony's menus and approach to firmware fixes, and really find the Rx1r too small. When I had the Rx1r, I actually used a half-case simply to give it more bulk.

In total--and I hate to say it--I fear neither the Q or Rx1r II can fill my needs. If the Q had an FOV of 35mm, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. But I'm sure one of these cameras can make lots of others darn happy--and that's a good thing

 

[Zony user]

Not really. Camera shake is innately a greater concern as pixel count increases. The need for exactness in focus (in lay terms) is simply greater when increased pixels. Thus, while a person may not have needed OIS on the RX1(r), he/she may have a greater need for it on the Rx1r II given its greater pixel count (i.e., 42.4 mp). This difference may not be problematic for some photographers, but it can be for others.

Why "not really?" If you are resizing the images to 24MP in post, the results will be the same as shooting with the original RX1/R.

 

[ramosa]

Why "not really?" If you are resizing the images to 24MP in post, the results will be the same as shooting with the original RX1/R.

Ming Thein well explains the "not really" here: Clearing up the myth of higher resolution, shot discipline and image quality once and for all ? Ming Thein | Photographer

But, again, as I tried to stress previously, it may be a problem for some, but not for others. Most camera characteristics are pretty subjective and personal, as, for example, some can certainly handhold better at slower exposures than others.

 

[ramosa]

All,

Well, I finally got on a waiting list for the Leica Q. (I’m sure there’s a long wait ahead, which will give me time to sell off a few camera items.)

Over the years, I have shot both Leica Ms and the Sony RX1r.

In comparing the Leica Q to the Sony RX1r II, the Leica should be as good or better FOR ME in pretty much every way. Simpler function (with less need to enter menus and use preset function buttons), better haptics, better EVF, OIS when needed, and better autofocus and manual focus. Both cameras have great sensors, but I do NOT need—nor even want—more than 24MP. While some may prefer the smaller size of the RX1r II, I do not. For me, the Sony RX1r was too small, even when sheathed in a Gariz leather halfcase. Also, I really don’t like Sony’s tradition of being super sluggish when it comes to firmware fixes. (Sony may be turning a new leaf in this regard, per its provision of the new firmware with uncompressed raw for the Sony A7R II, but I wouldn’t bet on it.)

If there were a true 35mm Leica Q, I’d get it instead, but I do shoot a good amount at 28mm (with a Ricoh GR) and can, at worst, crop down to 35mm when needed (though I wouldn’t feel comfortable cropping further to 50mm).

Anyway, both cameras are excellent. It really comes down to personal preference.

 

[Zony user]

Ming Thein well explains the "not really" here: Clearing up the myth of higher resolution, shot discipline and image quality once and for all ? Ming Thein | Photographer

But, again, as I tried to stress previously, it may be a problem for some, but not for others. Most camera characteristics are pretty subjective and personal, as, for example, some can certainly handhold better at slower exposures than others.

That was a good read, but I still feel that camera shake will affect both a 24mp and 42mp image equally. Ming goes on to talk about the "potential" issue with the difference in pixel pitch when resizing, but I've never noticed it in practice.

And while we're on the subject of the Q, don't forget that IBIS/OIS will degrade images even worse than the theoritical issues that Ming talks about. I never use OIS on my Q because it is very noticable. Also, banding is a real problem at any ISO for the Q, versus the exceptional Sony sensor. So I feel the Q offers no real-world advantages over the RX1 when it comes to capturing clean images.

Lastly, as a 35mm shooter myself, I'd like to warn you that the Q's actual focal length is much closer to 24mm than 28mm. I end up cropping the images ALOT. I love the handling of the Q but there are too many compromises for me to keep it any longer. So it will go when the RX1R II comes.

 

[algrove]

To be sure I have this correctly in my mind

What is the pixel pitch for the Q and what is it for the Sony RX1R2 or the A7R2? TIA.