![]() The only competitor for the Q is the Sony RX1RII. Oh, and above you reference a reference to the RX1 that's a camera that only shoots lossy raws. But the noise thing is hardly just a sensor issue. ![]() I don't doubt that the Sony's sensor has bit more DR. No one who cares about sensor performance treats what DXO has to say regards sensors seriously. Was I happy with many of the Q images? Absolutely, but the overall experience of editing Q RAW files and the number of images rejected due to a lack of depth in the data was dispiriting.' Working with the files felt like I was a generation behind – I don’t like going backwards. With the Q files I simply could not recover to the same effect and it wasn’t really close. With over 14 stops of dynamic range, the Sony RX1 dominate when it comes to shooting in challenging light conditions where one would desire to recover highlights or pull detail from shadows. Dynamic range was relatively anemic (Ming Thein quotes 12.5-13 stops in his detailed review of the Q) and color balance was erratic in cloudy weather. 'I’m not going to be subtle about this, the Leica Q produced files that disappointed compared to the output from my Sonys. "Claiming the Sony sensor has a half stop advantage in noise is simply untrue."
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |