Sony RX1 vs Sony RX1R

Sony RX1 vs RX1R: In-Depth Comparison of Two Full-Frame Large Sensor Compacts

In the domain of large sensor compact cameras, Sony’s Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 and RX1R models occupy a distinctive niche. Released within months of each other in 2013, both cameras share an impressive full-frame 24-megapixel sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.0 lens, targeting photographers seeking the image quality of a DSLR in a highly portable form factor. Yet subtle, technically significant differences - most notably the presence (RX1R) or absence (RX1) of an anti-aliasing filter - define their character and appeal.

Having subjected both cameras to rigorous hands-on testing across multiple photographic disciplines and environments, this analysis elucidates their critical distinctions and use case suitability. The evaluation hinges on technical specifications, real-world image quality, ergonomics, autofocus behavior, video capabilities, and value proposition.

Physical Design and Ergonomics: Identical Foundations with Nuanced Handling

Both the RX1 and RX1R employ the same compact magnesium alloy chassis measuring 113x65x70mm and weighing 482 grams with battery, making them highly pocketable full-frame cameras. Their size facilitates street and travel photography without burdening the user with DSLR bulk. The ergonomics are minimalist with limited but tactile controls, favoring aperture and shutter priority modes, supplemented by manual focus for precision work.

From the top-down view:

Sony incorporated a simple but effective control layout, including a mode dial, exposure compensation thumbwheel, and shutter release with a threaded cable remote socket. Neither model features touchscreen operation, relying on a crisp 3.0-inch fixed Xtra Fine TFT LCD without articulating capability.

During testing, the fixed LCD proved suitably bright and detailed for framing and review, though its lack of touchscreen or swivel functionality limits ergonomic flexibility in macro or low-angle shooting. Both cameras optionally support external electronic and optical viewfinders, but none are bundled, requiring additional investment for serious composing via a viewfinder.

In summary, physical design and ergonomics are effectively indistinguishable between RX1 and RX1R, making handling habits transferable. Users demanding more extensive grip or weather sealing will not find those features here, narrowing their scope primarily to controlled environments or fair weather conditions.

Sensor Architecture and Image Quality: AA-Filter Presence Defines Output Characteristics

At the core of both cameras lies a 35.8 x 23.8mm full-frame CMOS sensor with 24 megapixels (6000x4000 pixel resolution), ISO range 100–25600. The decisive difference: the RX1 includes a traditional optical anti-aliasing (AA) filter, whereas the RX1R omits this filter to maximize sharpness and resolution at the risk of moiré artifacts.

Anti-Aliasing Filter: Catalyst of the RX1R’s Distinctive Resolution

The AA filter, present on the RX1, reduces aliasing and moiré patterns by slightly blurring high-frequency detail at a microscopic level. Removing it, as Sony did in the RX1R, increases perceived sharpness and texture resolution but makes it more susceptible to pattern interference, particularly in fabrics or architectural subjects.

Our lab tests comparing identical scenes revealed that the RX1R demonstrates noticeably enhanced edge acutance and microcontrast - advantageous for landscape and architectural photography demanding maximum detail fidelity. The RX1’s images appear marginally softer but maintain a more uniform rendering in repetitive textures without moiré.

Dynamic Range and Color Depth

DXOMark scores affirm both cameras deliver elite image quality, with the RX1 edging slightly on dynamic range (14.3 EV vs 13.6 EV) and the RX1R marginally behind due to sensor modifications affecting tonal gradation. Both produce superb 25-bit color depth, ensuring rich and nuanced skin tones and landscape hues.

Low-Light Sensitivity

The low-light ISO performance is virtually comparable, scoring around ISO 2534 (RX1) and ISO 2537 (RX1R). Images retain usable noise levels up to ISO 6400, with manageable chroma noise beyond. In practical shooting, this translates to confident handheld shooting in dim interiors or evening scenarios.

Practical Impact: Which Sensor Suits Your Needs?

• RX1: Recommended for portraiture and general photography where moiré control is critical. The AA filter produces smoother rendition of skin textures and fabrics.
• RX1R: Favored for landscape, macro, and architectural shooting requiring maximum resolution and sharpness, with an understanding of occasional moiré risks to be managed in post-processing.

Autofocus System and Performance: Shared Limitations in a Compact Package

Both cameras rely exclusively on 25-point contrast-detection autofocus without phase detection pixels. The system includes center-weighted and spot metering, face detection, selective focus area, and manual focus assistance but no continuous AF tracking or animal-eye detection.

While adequate for still subjects and deliberate composition, autofocus proved slower and less confident on moving subjects during testing - unsuitable for dynamic wildlife or fast sports photography. The absence of on-sensor phase detection, common in newer mirrorless models, limits subject acquisition speed and tracking reliability.

Lens and Optical Performance: Single Fixed 35mm f/2.0 Lens

The RX1 and RX1R share the same Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm f/2.0 fixed lens, renowned for its exceptional sharpness, smooth bokeh, and minimal chromatic aberration. As a prime 35mm equivalent, it suits a breadth of photographic genres from street to environmental portraiture.

• Maximum aperture f/2 enables shallow depth of field and reasonable low-light capability.
• Close focusing distance allows modest macro work, though not true 1:1 reproduction.
• Lens sharpness peaks around f/4 and remains robust across the frame at all apertures.

Given the fixed lens design with no interchangeable capability, workflow centers around this focal length’s strengths and limitations.

Image Stabilization and Durability: Neither Body Provides In-Body Stabilization or Weather Sealing

Both cameras lack optical or sensor-shift image stabilization. Consequently, shutter speed must be balanced against handshake susceptibility, especially in lower light or telephoto applications (where lens extensions may be added using optional adapters). A tripod or external stabilizer often becomes necessary for critical sharpness.

Neither offers weather sealing, dustproofing, or shock resistance, signaling their usage is best confined to airborne environments or controlled conditions rather than rugged outdoor adventures.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Range: Modest Speed for Deliberate Capture

Both cameras achieve 5 fps continuous shooting, a reasonable rate for high-resolution single lens compact cameras but insufficient for intense sports or wildlife sequences, where double-digit frame rates are standard.

Shutter speeds range from 30 seconds to 1/4000 second, adequate for long exposure and daylight action freezes but without the extended 1/8000 second offered by some competitors. The limitation constrains shooting wide-open at f/2 in bright conditions without neutral density filtration.

Video Capabilities: Full HD with Basic Feature Set

Video recording is similar on both, offering:

• Up to 1080p at 24, 25, 50, 60 fps
• Other resolutions down to 640x480 at 25/30 fps
• MPEG-4 and AVCHD codecs
• External microphone input but no headphone output

The absence of 4K video, log profiles, or in-body stabilization places both cameras behind more recent models for video professionals or vloggers, but adequate for casual or secondary movie capture.

Connectivity and Storage: Classic but Limited Options

Both incorporate Eye-Fi card wireless support (via compatible SD cards) for basic image transfer but lack Bluetooth, NFC, or Wi-Fi integration standard on modern cameras. HDMI and USB 2.0 ports facilitate tethering and data download.

Single card slot supporting SD/SDHC/SDXC and Sony Memory Stick variants is present, adequate but not ideal for professional dual-slot redundancy workflows.

Battery Life and Storage

Both use the NP-BX1 battery rated around 270 shots per charge per CIPA standards. During real-world shoots, particularly when using live view and autofocus regularly, expect lower endurance, necessitating spares for extended sessions.

Real-World Performance across Photography Disciplines

Taking these cameras through their paces provides deeper understanding of their practical strengths and limitations:

Portrait Photography

• RX1 excels with the AA filter smoothing skin textures and reducing moiré on patterned fabrics.
• Eye and face detection autofocus is operational, though somewhat slow and requiring deliberate composition.
• The sharp 35mm lens delivers pleasing bokeh and subject isolation at f/2.

Landscape Photography

• RX1R edge in resolution is noticeable in fine detail reproduction of leaves, rock textures, and clouds.
• Both cameras benefit from full-frame dynamic range capturing shadows and highlights well.
• Absence of weather sealing demands caution in adverse conditions.

Wildlife Photography

• AF speed and tracking cannot keep pace with fast subjects; continuous focus modes are absent.
• Fixed 35mm lens limits reach, relegating these cameras to captive or approachable wildlife scenarios only.

Sports Photography

• 5 fps burst rate and contrast-detect AF system are insufficient for high-speed, unpredictable action.
• Not recommended for serious sports shooters.

Street Photography

• Compact size and discreet mechanical operation make both models excellent for candid street work.
• Low-light focusing is competent but slow; manual focus can be used creatively.
• RX1’s AA filter can handle textured clothing better without artifacting.

Macro Photography

• Limited magnification and lack of focus stacking limit macro potential.
• Close focusing is acceptable for detail and tabletop work.

Night and Astro Photography

• High ISO capability extends usability to night street scenes.
• Manual exposure tools permit long exposures up to 30 seconds.
• The AA filter on RX1 produces slightly smoother star rendition; RX1R’s sharper sensor can reveal sensor noise more prominently.

Video Use

• Basic 1080p video with mic input is serviceable for casual footage.
• Absence of stabilization and professional features limits practical viability for dedicated video shooters.

Travel Photography

• Compact dimensions and 35mm versatility make both excellent travel companions.
• Battery life requires spares for extended days.
• Lack of weatherproofing demands care but manageable in temperate climates.

Professional Workflow Suitability

• Raw support and USB tethering cater to professional editing pipelines.
• Single card slot and limited AF speed restrict usage in fast-paced assignments.
• Lens aperture and fixed focal length require selective, intentional shooting.

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

Performance by Photography Type

• Portraits: RX1 favored for smoother rendition
• Landscapes: RX1R excels in sharpness
• Wildlife & Sports: Both limited
• Street: Equally matched by size and stealth
• Macro & Night: Slight edge RX1R visually but user dependent
• Video/Travel: Equivalent, though travel needs may encourage RX1 for generalist adaptability
• Professional Use: Both require compromises due to fixed lens and AF constraints

Image Quality Gallery

Sony RX1 front Sony RX1 screen back Sony RX1R front Sony RX1R screen back

The above gallery illustrates real-world image comparisons highlighting the RX1R’s enhanced texture resolution versus the RX1’s more forgiving treatment of problematic patterns and skin.

Final Recommendations: Matching Cameras to User Profiles

1. Serious Enthusiasts and Professionals Needing Maximum Resolution and Edge Detail
   The Sony RX1R’s AA filter removal will deliver marginally sharper images with greater microcontrast, ideal for landscape, architecture, and fine art photography where moiré can be managed post-capture. Be prepared to invest time in image inspection and occasional artifact mitigation.

2. Portrait and Generalist Photographers Prioritizing Skin Tone Rendering and Workflow Consistency
   The Sony RX1’s AA filter provides smoother skin rendition and fewer textural distractions caused by moiré. Its more conservative approach optimizes reliability and reduces post-processing complexity, desirable in commercial and event scenarios.

3. Street and Travel Photographers Seeking Compactness and Stealth
   Both cameras are superbly pocketable with the same physical profile and lens, allowing confident inconspicuous shooting in varied environments. The choice here centers on image fidelity preferences described above.

4. Video or Action Photographers
   Neither camera strongly suits video professionals due to limited specs and lack of stabilization. Action photography demands are unmet by their modest frame rate and AF performance.

5. Budget-Conscious Buyers Considering Longevity
   Both originally priced identically (~$2800) upon launch, availability now is mostly limited to used or grey market. The RX1R commands a slight premium in resale. Evaluate your priorities carefully before investing.

Concluding Expert Commentary

Sony’s RX1 and RX1R represent pioneering attempts to miniaturize full-frame imaging with a premium Zeiss lens, achieving class-leading image quality in a compact body. Their subtle differences pivot largely on the AA filter, influencing sharpness and moiré susceptibility.

From extensive hands-on use, I can attest that neither camera is designed for mass versatility or high-speed demands, but both excel as deliberate tools for photographers who emphasize image quality and optical performance in a small form factor.

The decision between RX1 and RX1R should be guided primarily by subject matter, post-production tolerance to moiré, and personal preference for micro-detail rendition versus smoother tonal portraits. Understanding this trade-off and the inherent autofocus and video limitations will ensure satisfaction with either model.

For those seeking a modernized alternative, Sony’s successors in the RX1R II or other full-frame mirrorless bodies offer updated features, but few match the RX1 series’ unique combination of size, sensor performance, and lens quality even a decade later.

This thorough comparative review aims to provide clarity and actionable insights for enthusiasts and professionals contemplating these two flagship large sensor compacts from Sony. The integration of our technical evaluation with multi-genre real-world experience is designed to empower data-driven purchasing decisions based on your photographic ambitions and workflows.