Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1RM2

[Addict]

Anyone using a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1RM2 . Is it worth it considering the cost? More sales? Better image?

[Steve F]

27 minutes ago, Addict said:

Anyone using a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1RM2 . Is it worth it considering the cost? More sales? Better image?

 

Hi Addict, I don't use it. But you might help someone else answering the question if you let us know what you're currently shooting with. Steve

[spacecadet]

I wouldn't doubt the quality but you would want to be sure that a fixed wide-angle lens suits your style of photography.

[Jill Morgan]

Just about to post when Mark beat me to it.  A lot of money for a fixed lens camera unless you do a lot of landscape photography.  The 42 MP would allow to crop tightly, but to me for an all around stock photography camera, it would be too limiting.

 

I have a Sony RX100m2 that is a great walkabout stock shooting camera that I can keep in my purse when I don't have my bigger Canon gear with me.

 

I am sure that the quality is probably amazing, but with the low fees these days, it would take years just to pay off the camera.

 

Jill

[John Mitchell]

I'm not familiar with this camera, but it doesn't appeal to me -- way too expensive, too many megapixels, and the fixed lens is too limiting. I'd say that the RX100 iii that you're considering would be a better bet, especially if you can find a used one. Personally, I've never felt that more expensive camera equipment makes for better pictures and more sales, at least not for general walk-around stock photography. Also, as Jill pointed out, there's no point in breaking the bank these days.

[Mr Standfast]

If you want a Leica...buy a Leica.

[wiskerke]

If you want super compact why not look at the brand new 7CR (launched last week) coupled with a 2.8/35mm Sony Sonnar. Or the Samyang 2.8/24mm or 2.8/35mm which are quite similar. (I own all 3.)

Weight: 18.2 oz or just over 500g.

Only 8 fps could nowadays be a deal breaker for me, but the rest of the specs look promising.

Price: just under US $3000,-

The RX1R II is still available new on Amazon US for US $3300 so that's about equal with one of the (discontinued, but still widely available) Samyangs.

 

If the RX1R II is an early used one, make sure it's outside the 6310198-6311127 range, or comes with proof that Sony has fixed the light leak.

 

wim

 

[John Mitchell]

The DSC-RX1RM2 sells for $4300 CAN (plus 12% tax in BC). For that kind of money, I'd want something with bucket seats. 🏎️

 

 

[Allan Bell]

 

This must say something when WEX have stopped selling this camera and are not ordering any more for stock.

 

For people over the pond WEX is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, photography retailer in the UK.

 

Allan

 

[Harry Harrison]

I think we need to know why you even think that buying that camera would increase your sales or produce 'better' images, that's going to depend upon how you intend to use it surely? For example is it because you would use it as a camera to have with you at all times to supplement the camera that you use already which you may not take out because it, together with its lenses, is just too bulky so it gets left at home?

 

I certainly would agree that a '35mm equivalent' fixed lens camera is good for that purpose, I'd recommend the Fuji 100V if it wasn't so hard to get hold of one, much smaller and more discreet than that Sony, significantly cheaper though prices thoughout the X100 range, right back to the original X100, have sky-rocketed apparently because social influencers have taken to them, proper dealers don't seem to have X100Vs new currently, a few find their way on to ebay but with a £400 or more premium on the dealer pre-order price.

 

In terms of better images, is that just because it has more megapixels than the camera you use at the moment? No doubt it has a very good lens but plenty of cameras do these days and they don't have to cost that much and 42.4MP is quite a lot of megapixels to process and store. I don't get the impression that more megapixels bring more sales on Alamy unless you have a particularly niche subject area. The highest image size filter threshold on the Alamy search is currently set to 70MB which equates to 24.5MP so maybe they don't think so either. Perhaps you are thinking that you can just crop in to remove the need for longer lenses, perhaps there is a kind of digital zoom to facilitate this as I think there is on the Leica Q cameras. If you sometimes want to go wider than '35' though, maybe to correct for converging verticals later.....?

Edited September 11, 2023 by Harry Harrison
42.4MP - not 61MP

[Jill Morgan]

3 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

he highest image size filter threshold on the Alamy search is currently set to 70MB which equates to 24.5MP so maybe they don't think so either. Perhaps you are thinking that you can just crop in to remove the need for longer lenses, perhaps there is a kind of digital zoom to facilitate this as I think there is on the Leica Q cameras. If you sometimes want to go wider than '35' though, maybe to correct for converging verticals later.....?

 

I would assume Alamy's image size filter is based on the size of the jpg they have on file, not the original RAW size of an image straight out of camera.  My Canon has 94MB RAWS but jpgs are usually 5-25mb depending on what is in the image.

 

Jill

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

I would assume Alamy's image size filter is based on the size of the jpg they have on file, not the original RAW size of an image straight out of camera.  My Canon has 94MB RAWS but jpgs are usually 5-25mb depending on what is in the image.

 

Jill

It will refer to the uncompressed file size, just as with minimum 17MB threshold.

[Jill Morgan]

6 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

It will refer to the uncompressed file size, just as with minimum 17MB threshold.

 

I do stand corrected.  The filter is for over 70MB.  And from testing, generally only 10% tend to be over 70MB. As cameras get keep getting higher MP sensors, they may have to add another filter later on.

 

Jill

 

[Harry Harrison]

8 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

As cameras get keep getting higher MP sensors, they may have to add another filter later on.

Yes, I suppose that this 'Image size' filter came in with the new AIM, I don't know if the previous search had these options as well. Back then it was only a few fairly exotic and expensive professional cameras that had over 24.5 MP, so the 36MP Nikon 800, 800E & Sony A7R and 50.6MP Canon 5DS & 5DS R, plenty more were soon to appear though.

I think for Alamy it would be difficult to know where to set this higher bar because it would imply that images below this threshold would be unsuitable and that might not be true in practice. One very major competitor just has '12MP and larger', '16MP and larger' and '21MP and larger' but another has a filter where you can enter the minimum pixel dimensions for both width and height. Personally I think that 'MP' is easier to understand than Alamy's uncompressed 'MB' file size but this has been discussed a lot with reference to the minimum file size.

[Flick Merauld]

I'm a bit late to the party with this, so you may already have decided. I tried a used RX1Rii I got at a bargain price on eBay, but I can tell you from experience that with those many MP, you'd better have a very steady hand. I couldn't get a good number of totally sharp shots from it, but I've got old lady hands, so maybe that's why. I have the previous version, the RX1R, the one without the bayer sensor, not the original version, and 24MP are more manageable, plus still plenty of room to crop as it's still full frame. I got it cheap on eBay, it's old and battered, but the lens is one of the sharpest I've ever used. It's not my main camera, but I sling it in a bag or my pocket when I want something more than my phone, but don't want to carry my Fuji XT5. I have to confess that 35mm is probably my least favourite focal length, but it's good for street photography and for tighter spaces. I wouldn't pay full price for it, especially with a fixed lens, but if you can get one on eBay, it may be worth it as a backup camera. I'm constantly astounded at the quality of the images it produces, and the camera is tiny, smaller than the Fujifilm X100v, which is the camera everybody raves about. There is no viewfinder though, and the screen is fixed, not articulated, so shooting from the hip is a bit hit and miss. One thing to be aware of, with that fixed lens, there is no way of cleaning the sensor. Mine definitely has dust or other gunk on it. Just to add, you also need a lot of batteries, as they are tiny and it chews through them rapidly if you shoot RAW.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Flick Merauld

[Jose Decio Molaro]

ometimes this page helps to clarify doubts or opinions from those who have the camera.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/rx1r-ii-review