RX1R II vs Leica Q & RX1R

[GrahamWelland]

Finally my RX1R II turned up at my dealer and I'm about to bite the bullet. However, from when I ordered it the Leica Q has become mainstream and I was wondering what other folks had decided to do.

Keep the RX1R and get the wider Leica Q, keep both RX1R variants (unlikely) or just jump in to the RX1R II.

thoughts?

 

[ecsh]

:watch: :ROTFL:

 

[stephengilbert]

Threads with "vs" in the title rarely turn out well.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Personally I would go with the Sony. Reasons being Price, MPX ,focal length and given its the same sensor to my A7rII I could be consistent with the whole line of other lenses in file. It would certainly be part of my system and I could eliminate my 35 1.4 and fit this right in that slot. For me it's a no brainier and the Leica would really make no sense at all given my primary is Sony. Now if the Leica had 42 MPX than I could crop more but given its smaller MPX it would make cropping tougher. That's me though. YMMV

 

[Paratom]

I am a Leica guy but I prefer 35mm FOV so I would probably get the Sony if the decision was just between those 2 cameras.
The only thing is I wonder how solid that articulating viewfinder is.
For me, as a Leica M owner both options are too close in size to a Leica M, and with the M I can choose whatever focal length I like.
As a pocket camera I thing x1/x2/NikonA or GRD are the way to go, only DX sensor but still very good IQ and they fit in a pocket.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I never had a issue on any of my Sonys articulating arm. But I can see it as a worry item. Seems to hold up pretty well so far on all my A7xx series cams

 

[GrahamWelland]

Threads with "vs" in the title rarely turn out well.

Indeed

It would also be a different discussion depending upon which forum I posted in.

 

[thedigitalbean]

I think it depends largely on your preferred angle of view. If you like the 35 then the Sony is the obvious answer, if you like 28 then its worth considering the Q. For myself, I've found over the years that I weigh ergonomics and my connection to a camera more than things like resolution or absolute image quality. So in that regard the Q delights me and its the camera I tend to reach for over the other cameras I have (oh and I'm really digging the 28mm angle of view too).

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Indeed

It would be also be a different discussion depending upon which forum I posted in.

My answer would be the same regardless. I am far from brand agnostic.

 

[Vivek]

Had I known what I know now a couple of months ago, I would have decided differently.

Wait for the Fuji medium format camera.

 

[Zony user]

If the question were Q vs RX2 it would be a tough choice. But if you are keeping the original RX1R (like myself) I would stick with the Leica Q and RX1R combo. If you aren't using 42MP on a regular basis the IQ is pretty much identical to the original.

 

[Lucille]

Keep all three of them, and use all three of them.


There, problem solved.

 

[dandrewk]

There was a massive thread on DPR about this subject.

From memory, the biggest differences are:

Leica:
Better AF
Easier user interface
Touch LCD monitor
?Better ergonomics, but larger

Sony:
Smaller form factor
Articulating LCD
Larger sensor, better low light
Cheaper

There was also a lot of chatter regarding best straight-out-of-camera results. It's hard to make comparisons, because RAW convertors all have default settings, and Leica (apparently) bakes adjustments into its RAW files.

Ultimately, the MAJOR choice is the focal length.

 

[iiiNelson]

Re: RX1R II vs Leica Q & RX1R

I agree that the biggest question is focal length then if you can afford both. If you can answer that then the rest is easy. Menus become second nature once you own a camera or get used to a brands way or organizing. Leica's and Panasonics are similar so there wasn't a major learning curve. The NEX was similar to Sony TV's media menus and the PlayStation 3's XMB system as well. The FE line is similar to the Alpha SLT line so the learning curve was short there as well if you understand a brand familial ecosystem.

I know some despise this and would organize differentlywhich I can understand. I found Nikon's menu difficult at first coming from Canon and the lens controls were all backwards for me as well. It's all a matter of getting used to a system. I'm sure after a few weeks of exclusively using a Nikon it would all be second nature.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that the biggest question is focal length then if you can afford both. If you can answer that then the rest is easy. Menus become second nature once you own a camera or get used to a brands way or organizing. Leica's and Panasonics are similar so there wasn't a major learning curve. The NEX was similar to Sony TV's media menus and the PlayStation 3's XMB system as well. The FE line is similar to the Alpha SLT line so the learning curve was short there as well if you understand a brand familial ecosystem.

I know some despise this and would organize differentlywhich I can understand. I found Nikon's menu difficult at first coming from Canon and the lens controls were all backwards for me as well. It's all a matter of getting used to a system. I'm sure after a few weeks of exclusively using a Nikon it would all be second nature.

 

[Vivek]

There was a massive thread on DPR about this subject.

From memory, the biggest differences are:

Leica:
Better AF
Easier user interface
Touch LCD monitor
?Better ergonomics, but larger

Sony:
Smaller form factor
Articulating LCD
Larger sensor, better low light
Cheaper

There was also a lot of chatter regarding best straight-out-of-camera results. It's hard to make comparisons, because RAW convertors all have default settings, and Leica (apparently) bakes adjustments into its RAW files.

Ultimately, the MAJOR choice is the focal length.

I am not questioning your recollection but the claims of "better AF" (Q) is highly questionable.

Check here: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/01/30/using-the-leica-q-for-street-photography-by-stephen-swain/

Granted sometimes it focuses on the “wrong” face, but this is a price worth paying for when it works as you wish.

There has got to be a clear difference between PDAF (of RX1R II) and CDAF (of Q).

Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

Q.E.D

 

[dandrewk]

I am not questioning your recollection but the claims of "better AF" (Q) is highly questionable.

Check here: Using the Leica Q for street photography by Stephen Swain – STEVE HUFF PHOTOS


There has got to be a clear difference between PDAF (of RX1R II) and CDAF (of Q).


Q.E.D

On the mentioned thread, those who have both cameras or have tried both cameras generally agree the AF with the Leica is better.

Then there is this comparison:
The Real World: Leica Q vs Sony RX1R II | PhotoShelter Blog

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.

Huff also did a side by side:
VIDEO: Side by Side: Sony RX1RII and the Leica Q. Which would I buy? – STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

All this said, I have zero issues with the speed and accuracy of the RX1rII, even in low light. I can't imagine anything being measurably better.

Which brings me to another huge advantage of the RX1rII - Eye AF. Once you use it, it's hard to be without.

 

[Vivek]

Too fiddly (eye AF)and impractical for me. The q may focus fast but may be locking on to the wrong face which makes it not useful.

The Q undoubtedly has a decent battery performance.

 

[harmsr]

I have both cameras and shoot in AF with focus point moved by me. Honestly, I've had very few missed focus shots with either camera. Speed of use for moving focus point is hands down better on the Leica. The AF speed of the Leica is a huge jump better than the Sony. It reminds me of the Nikon D810 system that I finally bailed out of, just because of size and what I shoot.

 

[iiiNelson]

Had I known what I know now a couple of months ago, I would have decided differently.

Wait for the Fuji medium format camera.

The prospect of what it could be is certainly nice. It's something I'm keeping my eyes on as well. If priced correctly it could be a hit. I'd keep it just as a photography camera and save the video features if it meant keeping the price down.

 

[Tim]

Finally my RX1R II turned up at my dealer and I'm about to bite the bullet. However, from when I ordered it the Leica Q has become mainstream and I was wondering what other folks had decided to do.

Keep the RX1R and get the wider Leica Q, keep both RX1R variants (unlikely) or just jump in to the RX1R II.

thoughts?

I wish I could afford any of them, but that don't answer your question. :facesmack:

Has the RX1R ever left you wanting more, either detail, AF speed, the EVF etc?
To me the RX1R nuance IQ is pretty much the same as the RX2. Likely the RX2 would enlarge more, would you need/use that?

The Q is a bit larger - Compact Camera Meter
The image sharpness and definition is sublime on the Q.
What job will the chosen camera mostly do?

Its a tough choice. Rock, Hard Place and another Rock MkII.