Rx1r2

[k-hawinkler]

May be tricky to mount a RX1r2 on both my A7r2 and A7s2.

So that is a downside for me.

And my 35/1.4 is sweet as summer melon.

But, what a camera the RX1r2 is !

I want one just to want one.

-Bill

Bill, Congratulations on your 35/1.4.
Maybe you should let Roger test it so that he finally gets to see a really good copy.
Of course, what Roger also could find is that the in-camera processing covers up most of the problems he finds when measuring just the lens.

 

[GrahamWelland]

there is no comparison to the A7R II and 35/1.4.

The 35/2 on the RX1R is supreme. We have to wait for the new camera but it'll still be the supreme 35/2, but that isn't a 35/1.4. just appreciate the differences. I can live with the 35/2 leaf shutter fixed camera.

btw, it's already superb on the existing RX1 versions, RX1R in my case.

 

[raist3d]

I have a very narrow camera knowledge base, but are we not comparing a FF 42MP fixed lens camera to a cropped sensor ILC?

To me that is no comparison if I am correct. Even Sony experts say the fixed lens RXR camera line is superior to the A7 ILC from Sony.

We were talking about a solution of going small - fixed prime lens or otherwise.

- Ricardo

 

[Lucille]

Here are the Pros.

Exactly the same sensor as my A7rII so my files will be identical

Time will tell but this might prove NOT to be true at all. You might find and I personally hope this is the case, that the Rx1r II's IQ is superior to the IQ of the A7R II.

The A7 has the same sensor as the original Rx1, and no matter what lens I put on my A7, it just doesn't have the magic and special look to the files that the Rx1 does.

Sony hit a MAJOR homerun with the original which to me is a cult classic now, hopefully Sony hits a GRANDSLAM with this update.

I have not pre-ordered, I plan on sitting on the sidelines and seeing/hearing feedback from those to get in 1st. I value all's opinions, I just can't fathom major issues, IQ issues with the Rx1r, but I guess you never know. But I have cash in hand ready to buy on a seconds notice, I will be surprised if this camera winds up on long waiting lists like the Zeiss Batis lenses or even the A7R when it 1st came out. Many don't want to pay 3k for a fixed focal length. Though that is what is going to make these files special I expect, as they are in the original.

The Rx1r II will be a incredible powerhouse with cutting edge class leading IQ that will fit in the palm of your hand, and you might find that you take it everywhere, as it is so easy to carry and use.

You probably wouldn't drag your A7R II with the 35mm Zeiss f/1.4 everywhere you go, but you might the tiny and mighty Rx1r II and not give up a thing in regards to IQ. Imagine the worlds most powerful compact, in the palm of your hand, so easy to carry and use in full manual, and all you have to bring is your creativity that the Lord has blessed you with.

the HepKitty

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Better is always welcome for sure. It can't be worse is my thinking out of the gate.

 

[Vivek]

This is starting to look like a long advert for Sony. I am looking at <€1500 new RX-1 units which were put on sale with a price tag of >€3400 just a few months back (some shops still have the original sale price!).

I will wait for the prices to mellow a bit. I just wish there will be gradual drops and not the plummet we saw in the RX1 ( Sony take notice! :lecture.


Not in a hurry at all. :angel:

 

[peterb]

Whatever happened to the 'curved' sensor that Sony had been working on.

I thought for sure it would be in this iteration of the RX1 series because, as I understand it, it would have made it possible (with optimization for the curved sensor, of course) for Zeiss to fashion the 35mm f2.0 lens into a 35mm f1.8 without increasing the size of the lens that's mounted on the body.

 

[mwalker]

That just about put me over the edge right there. Luckily the next few months are my(me, I can actually put gear money aside from prying eyes) money months. I will sell my 35 1.4 and get this. I know I said it does not make the best business sense and looking back at the beginning of this thread 4 or 5 folks said no than ordered it. I maybe joining them. Here is the thing outside the extra 2000 dollars buying and selling the 35. 1.4

Here are the Pros.

Maybe the best 35mm lens i can get my hands on
Exactly the same sensor as my A7rII so my files will be identical
Same AF module built in
Same uncompressed file
I can use my current Nissin and my studio strobes
Backup to my system
Serve as my 35mm lens
Serve as my get my *** out the door and go shoot. I actually need this one for my head. You get lazy after 40 years
My vacation camera which when I bring my system I wind up never even using it. No excuse camera
My grandson. Enough said
One in the oven. Grandkid, sex unknown. LOL
I never buy a camera for me personally , I have no real Guy toy its all business gear. Hard to explain
One thing my system DOES NOT HAVE. A leaf shutter, thats freaking huge for me.
Maybe even smaller than my single 35 1.4 lens



Cons there is really only one that smacks me immediately cost. My ultimate answer to that. So how many lives do you have i get one not sure about anyone else. ROTFLMAO

I will be selling my Rx1R and purchasing this because of everything listed here.

 

[ohnri]

Bill, Congratulations on your 35/1.4.
Maybe you should let Roger test it so that he finally gets to see a really good copy.
Of course, what Roger also could find is that the in-camera processing covers up most of the problems he finds when measuring just the lens.

I have no idea if I have a good copy. LOL

Nor do I put much stock in Rogers testing. He is looking at one facet of one part of a complex image chain. Even DXOMark is more relevant as at least they are looking at both sensor and lens together.

It turns out that I always use my sensor and lens together.

Plus, I care about bokeh, color, speed of focus, OIS, whether AF or not, weight, price, size and many other lens qualities. And I care about how an image looks on my phone, iPad, monitor and printed on various papers and with various processing effects and at various sizes.

So the lens tests I like are the ones I do. The next best, for me, are the photos I see taken with the same lens I have or want. Next best is reading the opinions of photographers whose work I like or whose opinions I trust.

With Roger's tests, I have no idea how his test results may or may not affect my image chain. It may be that the variability he reports is completely irrelevant to any image I would ever take. I expect this is the case frankly.

Having said all that ...

My RX1 remains my top choice, all-time, for any 35mm lens. I only wish it weren't connected to a body with such lousy AF.

Enter the seductive RX1r2. She is a sly beast. Her promise of endless IQ and the bounty of being forever mated to the word's most desirable sensor is a siren song destined to pull me ever closer. Closer ... Closer ...

-Bill

 

[k-hawinkler]

:banghead: :grin: :facesmack:

 

[eleanorbrown]

I took my Rx1r to Moscow and St Petersburg last year and it was perfect for the trip, including street shooting!! Fit in my jacket pocket . I may have to sell some equipment and get the Rx1rII! Camera is sooo discrete. Also I might add that the 35mm f2 lens is stunning wide open! Eleanor

 

[jim251]

Find a buyer for my RX1r, check.
Funds in order, check.
Two weeks to go, aaargh...

Can't wait to get this camera. I never really got on with the old EVF, only using it when I absolutely had to. So fiddly. And the lack of flip-screen was a major impediment to me since those screens on other cameras permanently changed the way I shoot. Now these indispensable features have been properly corrected and added to just oodles of bleeding-edge tech and I. AM. PSYCHED.

btw, I noticed that Sony is ditching that statement-level RX1 lens cap and the new one is the current plastic model from all other lenses. I don't use them myself but must say that thing was a befitting touch. Sheesh...

 

[nostatic]

I have to say that I enjoyed shooting my RX1r a lot. Just a nice camera to work with. In the end I felt like I needed a little better AF and ideally IBIS. If this camera had IBIS I'd order it up, but I suppose the sensor is good enough that you can just shoot faster shutter and push iso up. It certainly is a different experience than A7 with 35/2.8.

 

[tn1krr]

I have no idea if I have a good copy. LOL

Nor do I put much stock in Rogers testing. He is looking at one facet of one part of a complex image chain. Even DXOMark is more relevant as at least they are looking at both sensor and lens together.

It turns out that I always use my sensor and lens together.

To critical reader Roger's testing and dxomark agree 1:1 on the FE 35/1.4 ZA in sharpness comparison to competition from Sigma. Sigma 35/1.4 is way sharper throughout the frame on open apertures (dxomark link below) and even stopping down the 2x more expensive Sony never catches the Sigma. Sony is not a bad lens, it matches Nikon 35/1.4 both in Roger's test and dxo, but the Sigma Art (and new Canon L as it is neck to neck with Sigma) are on way another level in terms of sharpness. For any normal person any of these lenses provide superbly sharp results (and with A7R II it is sharper than any FF camera+ 35 mm lens combo was before 36 MP Sensors came out), but as enthusiasts in a gear forum we tend to be interested on how these products stack against each other in different qualities.

Check dxo link below for comparison of Sony, Nikon & Sigma in 36 MP AA-filterless bodies. Click Measurements => Sharpness => Profiles for sharpness graphs, there really is no contest.

Sony Carl Zeiss Distagon T* FE 35mm F1.4 ZA on Sony A7R vs Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G on Nikon D810 vs Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM A Nikon on Nikon D810

Plus, I care about bokeh, color, speed of focus, OIS, whether AF or not, weight, price, size and many other lens qualities. And I care about how an image looks on my phone, iPad, monitor and printed on various papers and with various processing effects and at various sizes.

In many of these areas Sony shines. I like colors from Sony Zeiss generally much better than the others, the bokeh is arguably best in 35/1.4 ZA (drop sharpness and nice/smooth bokeh becomes easier to achieve) and for example for environmental portraits Sensor-focusing Sony with Eye-AF murders the competition in focus accuracy/repeatability.

Then again, personally I see no reason to combat a tester's credibility if one does not care about what is tested in said test. Roger Cicala is as credible as tester's go. His/Lensrental's testing provides hugely valuable and unique data to photo community as things like copy variance are tested practically nowhere else.

 

[ohnri]

To critical reader Roger's testing and dxomark agree 1:1 on the FE 35/1.4 ZA in sharpness comparison to competition from Sigma. Sigma 35/1.4 is way sharper throughout the frame on open apertures (dxomark link below) and even stopping down the 2x more expensive Sony never catches the Sigma. Sony is not a bad lens, it matches Nikon 35/1.4 both in Roger's test and dxo, but the Sigma Art (and new Canon L as it is neck to neck with Sigma) are on way another level in terms of sharpness. For any normal person any of these lenses provide superbly sharp results (and with A7R II it is sharper than any FF camera+ 35 mm lens combo was before 36 MP Sensors came out), but as enthusiasts in a gear forum we tend to be interested on how these products stack against each other in different qualities.

Check dxo link below for comparison of Sony, Nikon & Sigma in 36 MP AA-filterless bodies. Click Measurements => Sharpness => Profiles for sharpness graphs, there really is no contest.

Sony Carl Zeiss Distagon T* FE 35mm F1.4 ZA on Sony A7R vs Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G on Nikon D810 vs Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM A Nikon on Nikon D810


In many of these areas Sony shines. I like colors from Sony Zeiss generally much better than the others, the bokeh is arguably best in 35/1.4 ZA (drop sharpness and nice/smooth bokeh becomes easier to achieve) and for example for environmental portraits Sensor-focusing Sony with Eye-AF murders the competition in focus accuracy/repeatability.

Then again, personally I see no reason to combat a tester's credibility if one does not care about what is tested in said test. Roger Cicala is as credible as tester's go. His/Lensrental's testing provides hugely valuable and unique data to photo community as things like copy variance are tested practically nowhere else.

Digilloyd is credible but I don't put much stock in his reviews either.

He is not testing what I care about.

Roger's variance testing is mildly interesting but if it does not affect my images then I am not going to put much stock in it.

Is he credible? I have no idea. If his tests are unique and his scale of variance is arbitrary or close to it how do I know if he is credible? I assume he is but I don't actually care because I don't see the relevance of his testing to my shooting.

I put more weight on DXOMark but not by much. They also have mystical formulations which make it hard to understand exactly what is being tested.

However, at least they test both camera and lens together. I believe they find the 90/2.8 to be more exceptional than Roger does so I am not sure they are in such lock step agreement after all.

Back to Diglloyd, I don't put much stock in his reviews because he does not shoot anything remotely like I do. But, I trust him more than Roger or DXOMark because at least he is showing a ton of high resolution images. Pretty much always the same alpine tree or building in Palo Alto but at least they are real images.

Let me say, if Guy says he has found a 'look' lens I put more stock in that one word than I do in all Roger's and Digilloyd's testing added together times ten.

Hopefully that clarifies that I am not making any personal attack. Roger is a physician, so am I. He is a geek. I have an advanced degree from Cal Tech and used to design rockets. I get it that this is his thing. I am happy for him.

I will continue to value images over tests and to value the opinions of a few over more tests.

Finally, I will make my own judgment about what works for me.

Frankly, at that point being told my lens has a variance of 6.9 or a DXOMark score of 32 or a gut-buster nitro rating of 9/10 means pretty much zip to me.

Nothing personal. I don't have the time for that.

-Bill

 

[Vivek]

Roger's variance testing is mildly interesting but if it does not affect my images then I am not going to put much stock in it.

I agree.

 

[Smoothjazz]

I just finished reading this whole thread, and have decided that the Rx1R2 is my next camera. Reading this forced me to think carefully about what I need in a hand held camera, and this seems to fit the bill. My A7r is a fine camera, but it is clear that I tend not to take it along with me often enough, as I just don't want to strap a camera on my shoulder all the time. This camera seems to be one that I will reach for and carry.
Some have said that the 35mm is not quite the right focal length, but for me personally the 28mm is too wide- a shame to be cropping the edges too often.
I have various Leica lenses on the A7r, but for taking rapid pictures of people on the go, I have come to find rapid autofocus is a must- otherwise too many shots that are just out of focus!
I have owned the Leica M9 and Fuji XE-1 previously; I loved the monochrome mode the XE-1 had, but the autofocus was not good.
Does anyone know if the new Rx1R2 will have a monochrome mode, with both viewfinder and jpeg images in black and white?

 

[olegkin]

I switched from Canon to m4/3 some time ago. Latest iteration with omdem5m2, 12-40,40-150 + some more lenses looked great considering I am not shooting professionally. I rented rx1r for a week for a trip to Las Vegas. I came back with three thousand images, about third of them is taken with sony. I have a major problem with color consistency of oly images. It is especially visible with blue colors of sky. I spent several nights already and still cannot get it right.
Rx1r on other hand was just perfect. Skies were blue and colors were right right out of the camera (I shot raw+jpeg). I still worked with raw, but I could have just cropped jpegs and be done with it.

I expect nothing less from rx1r2. I held it in hands today; viewfinder is less than perfect but still better than original one, tilting screen is great. If 35mm is your thing this is a perfect camera.

I also held Q. Controls are great, but size and ergonomics are just wrong. If I was ever presented with a choice to select either one I would go with rx1r2 without any doubt.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Digilloyd is credible but I don't put much stock in his reviews either.

He is not testing what I care about.

Roger's variance testing is mildly interesting but if it does not affect my images then I am not going to put much stock in it.

Is he credible? I have no idea. If his tests are unique and his scale of variance is arbitrary or close to it how do I know if he is credible? I assume he is but I don't actually care because I don't see the relevance of his testing to my shooting.

I put more weight on DXOMark but not by much. They also have mystical formulations which make it hard to understand exactly what is being tested.

However, at least they test both camera and lens together. I believe they find the 90/2.8 to be more exceptional than Roger does so I am not sure they are in such lock step agreement after all.

Back to Diglloyd, I don't put much stock in his reviews because he does not shoot anything remotely like I do. But, I trust him more than Roger or DXOMark because at least he is showing a ton of high resolution images. Pretty much always the same alpine tree or building in Palo Alto but at least they are real images.

Let me say, if Guy says he has found a 'look' lens I put more stock in that one word than I do in all Roger's and Digilloyd's testing added together times ten.

Hopefully that clarifies that I am not making any personal attack. Roger is a physician, so am I. He is a geek. I have an advanced degree from Cal Tech and used to design rockets. I get it that this is his thing. I am happy for him.

I will continue to value images over tests and to value the opinions of a few over more tests.

Finally, I will make my own judgment about what works for me.

Frankly, at that point being told my lens has a variance of 6.9 or a DXOMark score of 32 or a gut-buster nitro rating of 9/10 means pretty much zip to me.

Nothing personal. I don't have the time for that.

-Bill

Thank you Bill and in all honesty your correct. I have many issues with Lloyd but I won't go there . Roger seems like a nice guy with good intentions. He is a geek and he knows it and I like that honesty. I just have a great feel for lenses and I appreciate that comment very much.

 

[karlfoto]

Looks interesting, but a bit over priced. I realise it is a niche product.

Has anyone successfully mated a 2x tele convertor to this lens on the older RX1 bodies?

Thanx
Karl