Canon S95 vs Sony RX100 unscientific comparison

Started Jan 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
saudidave
Regular MemberPosts: 475Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon S95 vs Sony RX100 unscientific comparison
In reply to YiannisPP, Jan 4, 2013

YiannisPP wrote:

saudidave wrote:

YiannisPP wrote:

saudidave wrote:

If I were you I would trust your daughter's judgement. The GF3 with a power zoom lens does not "blow the RX100 clean out of the water".

You completely missed the point my friend. My daughters young eyes can perceive the difference between a compact and an enthusiast compact . Mine, aided by spectacles can only just -I'm 60 yrs old and they don't work as well as they did. It's all about personal perspective, choice, et al. If you want to throw away your cash spending twice as much for a 10 % pixel peep, then it's your choice to do so. As for RX100 @ £450.00 & GF3+powerzoom @£300.00 I'll retain my initial stance: no contest whatsoever. Amen

If all that matters is what you see then no problem. But if you also care what others might see then you could ask your daughter to have a look at imaging-resource comparison between the RX100 and the GF3 studio test shots at base and high ISOs and have her tell you if she really sees the GF3 blowing the RX100 clean out of the water. That's what I meant:)

Because it's simply not true. There are very close but the RX100 is slightly better for the most part. The GF3 has a previous generation 12MP sensor which is inferior to the RX100 20MP sensor. Only high ISOs are marginally better with the GF3 (1/3 of a stop if even that), everything else being clearly in favour of the RX100 (more than 2 stops greater DR and markedly higher resolution and colour depth). Have a look at DXOmark for a more objective opinion, at least on the sensor part. Sure the RX100 lens has its design compromises (for making a smaller package), but in most situations its shortcomings (distortion correction blurring the corners somewhat) are not enough to declare the GF3 a clean winner as you are claiming. The RX100 will at least match (and slightly surpass) the GF3 output in most situations.

What matters is the eye of the beholder. What they themselves see. Since my and your previous posts however I've revisited the comparisons on both this and other sites. I included my daughter in this exercise and we are both in complete agreement: above 800 iso the IQ of the GF3 does indeed blow that of the  RX100 clean out of the water and then some. It's a no brainer, the difference is so great even to my 60 y old eyes; sharpness, resolution, colour, noise the whole nine yards. I would add also that my daughter, is a very keen and accomplished photographer too. No doubt you'll defend your opinion but as I said, the eye of the beholder is the key to it all. The RX100, is in my opinion a very good camera but way overpriced  considering the moderate IQ. I've used one by the way - my brother in law let me borrow his and it didn't exactly blow me away.

 saudidave's gear list:saudidave's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS40 (TZ60)
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow