X20 Full-size ISO 400 images

Started Feb 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
2eyesee
Senior MemberPosts: 1,678
Like?
Re: RX100 - owned for few months and sold.
In reply to Absolutic, Feb 24, 2013

Absolutic wrote:

i used to own RX100 and sold it after couple of months of use. My primary disappointment with the camera was portraits in low light, because for portraits, I need to use longer focal length than 28mm (where 1.8 is) and on RX100 - that 1.8 ends very quickly and F/4.9 starts rather quickly and that F/4.9 totally distroys any ability to have any depth of view isolation of your subject. Also Sony menu is idiotic to get to some logical things I had to change often, I had to browse to 3 pages of menues (illogically set up) and you could not assign them to be on any of the assignable buttons.

So I got great landscape photos with RX100 but my primary use which is portraits of my wife, and her friends, and my child, that looked like portraits, it did not excel it.

Another problem with RX100 for me was a lack of hot shoe, at least with a hot shoe I could have installed a Sony flash and tried to take some low light portraits at F/4.9 with a flash.

X20, from what I see, with F/2.8 (although on a slightly smaller sensor than RX1) gives me that ability to isolate a main subject (obviously not on m43 or aps-c or full frame level) that is workable and it has a hot shoe. And I see that it took a chapter from Olympus book (supermenu) with its quick menu where I can change things I need to change on the spot quickly.

You also have phase AF with X20 which means continuous AF (during day at least) is actually useable.

The person who owns X20 in JAPAN, a big question, HOW IS AF SPEED IN LOW LIGHT? IS IT BETTER THAN ON X10?

That makes at least 3 former RX100 owners on this thread - you, me and Markus (marike6)! You did better than Markus and myself though. I got to 6 weeks, Markus got to 4 weeks if I recall correctly.

To be honest, I wouldn't have thought there would be much difference in subject isolation when you compare a 2/3" sensor at f/2.8 and a 1" sensor at f/4.9. Even though you have 1.5 stops wider aperture then sensor is half the size.

If you're serious about shallow depth of field I really think you need to go APS-C with a fast prime.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
NRNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow