Why is my NEX not as good as RX100 or even LX5?

Started Jun 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
telefunk
Regular MemberPosts: 421
Like?
Re: OP is useless speculation
In reply to kam_wa, Jul 6, 2013

Aha, this is the crux of the problem. My Nex 3n with kit lens is SLIGHTLY better than my LX5 up to 400 iso. The RX100 is miles ahead of both, right into Nex 7 territory. Of course the Nex 3n would perform much better with a good lens, but I can't find a good 16mm (24mm equiv FF) as I stated before.

Want some real pictures and not a screenshot? OK, I'll show you a more extreme comparison. Nex7 (with crappy 16-50 kitzoom) vs LX5 at midnight. The Nex7 is better, but not earth-shatteringly so. I mean: the Nex 7 is supposed to be the ultimate machine, the LX5 a good P&S with a shitty little sensor, right? When I forked out many rubles to purchase the Nex7, I expected it to completely grind my old LX5 into the dust. Well it wasn't that clear to me... so here goes folks:

Nex 7

and here the LX5

LX5

With that kind of huge sensor & megapixel count, I expected an improvement in the magnitude of a Sigma DP2Merill. But it is nowhere near a huge improvement in noise or definition. But the Nex3N I bought afterwards makes even less of a difference. Hence the suggestion that the RX100 provides the best bang for your ruble, except it doesn't have a wide enough angle lens for my needs :-(.

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