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

Started Jun 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,794Gear list
Like?
LX5 vs. Nex-7?
In reply to lenshoarder, Jul 7, 2013

lenshoarder wrote:

telefunk wrote:

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.

What about the Sony 10-18? In the daylight, the 16mm pancake isn't so bad, IMO, but I wouldn't blame someone for wanting more.

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:

and here the 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.

Your photos just don't seem to make the LX5 look that good to me, though. Downsized, the Nex-7 loses its resolution advantage, but with these photos, the Nex-7 photo has better color. The LX5 one looks washed out, with a bit of a "glow" to the bright areas which seems to me like that isn't an improvement. (Maybe it was simply overexposed due to the darkness in the rest of the frame.) Even without the resolution advantage, the Nex-7 one looks better. What am I missing?

Earlier, the LX5 photos even looked poor, with some sort of pixellation that occurred on the way to posting on the web. I just don't think it's enough to convince Nex owners that the LX5 is about as good.  But, when viewed on a monitor, photos taken in good light with many small-sensor cameras will look good.  The problem comes mostly when light is not quite ideal.  With the case of my newest P&S, I did a comparison in late afternoon light, and by ISO 400, the HX5V used heavy NR and the Nex-5 photo had a ton more low-level detail.  Printed at 4x6 would I tell the difference?  Maybe, but the differences would probably be subtle.  If I only printed at 4x6, or for the web, I think the Nex might be overkill.  Had the RX100 been available several years ago, I'd probably have really been interested.  As it happened, though, while the LX series got accolades, I passed it up for the Nex.  I went to a larger sensor for the improved quality, and I didn't want to go back.  Do I make use of the larger sensor?  My first thought was maybe not often, but then, I do often take photos in lower light, and even at high ISO, it looks fantastic in small prints.  Even "crappy lenses" are going to look fantastic printed small.  I have a couple of larger prints from the 16mm that makes me think that some people are a bit obsessive; yeah, some lenses are better than others, but you should be able to get good results out of the Nex and even the lowly 16mm.

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 :-(.

The RX100 compares pretty well with the Nex with a kit lens so it's an option, but I'm not sure that it should help at the moment if you already have the Nex....

As with your first post, I don't see what you are seeing in this post. A few problems.

1) They aren't at the same FOV.

2) They aren't at the same exposure. ISO 1600 for the NEX. ISO 400 for the LX5.

The lenses have different max. apertures, so the ISO needs to be different to get a proper exposure. Even so, ISO 1600 on the Nex should be noticeably superior to 400 on the LX5. I'd be more concerned that the LX5 was allowed to have a faster shutter speed, allowing more light in; if there's an unfair advantage testing with low-light, that would be it.

3) They weren't taken at the same time/date. Was the moon out one night? Was it not the other?

Yeah, you really need to keep parameters the same, otherwise there are too many factors that can come into play.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 +10 more
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