E-m5 vs. Sony Rx1

They're such dramatically different cameras in literally every way that I'm not sure how you could even begin to rank them on any technical basis. If you're lost between the two, you need to step back and assess what it is you actually use a camera for.

A similar discussion was already held on the NEX forum and the conclusion was that in no way the RX-100 was comparable to the newer NEX cameras.

If you want to compare E-M5 to a NEX, I suggest the NEX 6 or the 5R.

Why not grab a e-pm1/2 as a second body?  With the 20mm mounted it will be smaller than the RX1.   Selling all your current stuff will still leave you about $1000 short of the RX1, you could pickup a second body and another lens for that money.

OP said RX1 not RX100.

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm acutally not lost. I have pretty well-defined needs.

I use a camera for many things. When I want to shoot long distance, I use a Panasonic 45-175. When I want to go into a P&S mode, I use the e-m5 with one of these three lenses (20,25 or 45).

But it is really not small enough.  Though the image quality is very good with any of them. However, since I want smaller, and I see the RX1 has a full frame sensor, the question was how much better the IQ would be.

No, none.

You can find comparable samples for both cameras, including raw files, here:

Sony RX1

Olympus E-M5

Anyway, I am not seeing a 17mm lens in your µ4/3 set. The 20mm is kind of in the ballpark, and the other two lenses are significantly longer. Are you sure that this is the focal length that you want to use?

Vlad

It's a very nice camera but do you need full frame?

A couple of my friends have bought them ... and sold them.

They cite lack of a built in viewfinder and poor focussing in low light.

Im going to get a X100s as my new toy

The RX1 handles very differently from the EM-5, and I do not think that the size difference is that great between them, either.  While the body of the RX1 might be a touch smaller and lack the viewfinder hump, the lens is much wider and protrudes way more than the 20, 25 or 45 on the EM-5.

Check out the DigitalRev video review of the RX1.  You'll get an idea of how much the lens sticks out (in Kai's pants).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iEy-S3LAE8

People compare the image quality of the RX1 very favourably with the Canon 5D Mark III, and for me, my 5D Mark II is considerably beyond the EM-5 in this department.  I think you'll be very pleased if image quality is your primary criterion.

--
Archiver - Loving Every Image Captured Always
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archiver/

Have a look at the Fuji x100 or x100s.

Oops, talk about missing the point!  But now that I get it, I see the RX1 vs the E-M5 as being an apples and oranges comparison. On the other hand, the new NEX'S, the GH3 and the E-m5 are very much more comparable.

If money is not primary consideration, this is a great piece of engineering.

If money is a consideration, why not put a 1.4 prime on Olympus or Fuji? You lose one stop or none. Arguably not much portability.

Rumors go there will be a mirroless FF system (Sony or Samsung?) within a year. Putting close to $3m into a new system like this seems a better investment IMHO.

Dmitry

You said you were planning to post this discussion on the NEX forum but you must know, the RX-1 is not a NEX. It is a very fancy point and shoot designated by DPR to be in the Sony Cyber-shot Forum.

I view the RX-1 as an experiment, a learning experience for them until their FF MILC is introduced later this year. The NEX-7, a failure in a number of ways, was also sort of an experiment. But the NEX-6 and the 5R are their best offerings to-date.

RX100 is the only pocketable camera here.  IQ is pretty good.

Fuji X100S, is going to be the one to beat, dedicated lens, Fuji WB, colors.

Fuji X20 super sexy with info in the glass OVF

Leica X1 $ 795 refurbs, the best IQ on this page

Leica X2 more toys

PL5 with 20mm 1.7 all anybody needs

Looking at DXO : it has a superb sensor, but no E-VF. Unless you can add an external VF, I won't go for it. Other drawbacks : it only has a fixed LCD ?  Why so ? Without E-VF a fixed LCD is a real pain in sunny environments.

It is an interesting proposal, but I don't like fixed lenses cameras. I'd wait rather wait for them to issue one model with intergeangeable lenses.

--
rrr_hhh

My two cents:

I can't see any reason why a full frame sensor is desirable or necessary when paired with a 35mm lens. It doesn't make sense.

Full frame shines when you want to create shots with very shallow depth of field. You won't be doing that with the RX1. You will not be doing that with a 35mm lens. In fact, the traditional use for this focal length is to portray subjects within their surrounding context.

If you need full frame sensor then you need it on portrait lenses and/or telephoto lenses for sports and wildlife, shots where DOF matters.

The other possible reason I can think of is for landscape shots that will be displayed at very large sizes - in this case you will probably want to use a wider focal length.

Its also worth pointing out that the RX1 isn't really much smaller than the EM5 at all, especially not once you add the viewfinder: http://j.mp/12V2xtO

After using the E-M5 since May and the RX1 since Xmas I feel they are complementing each other quite well. The IQ of the RX1 is a bit better than the Canon35 1.4L on my 5D2, plus it's half the size.

The 35mm on the RX1 would be best to compare with the Oly 17 1.8 on the E-M5 however I don't own that lens since I'd always prefer using my RX1 for that focal range. Where I. would use the EM-5 is when I methodically want to shoot wider with the Oly 9-14 or longer with the Oly 45/75 or Panasonic 100-300

I still don't have the EVF for the RX1 and am really missing it. Hand holding and composing with arms outstretched even at 1/80 (which is it's preferred    shutter speed) has resulted in blurry photos. Plus I still find it easier to fine tune composition with a VF

The RX1 is a great street and social event camera that has great DOF control and pleasing bokeh. It simplifies the dilemna when packing a MILC deciding what lenses to take. The E-M5 now gets used when I know I'm going to want wider or longer FLs. And I keep all my Canon bodies and lenses since neither of these two camera are any good for AF tracking fast moving subjects.

That said if I only could keep one camera it would be the RX-1

--
There is a crack in everything That's how the light gets in. - Leonard Cohen

You say the reason is to have something pocketable with large pockets. I use the E-M5 with Pana 20mm f/1.7 as a pocketable camera for large pockets. Works pretty well. No zoom but the Sony also has no zoom. And you could even get the Pana 14-42PZ at pretty much the same size as the 20mm f/1.7 and have a zoom in the pocketable setup.

--
Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

I own a RX1 and a GX1.

I used to have a bunch of m43 lenses for my GX1, including the 12/f2 which I used a lot for indoor shots.  After acquiring the RX1, I sold most of them and got a 35-100/f2.8 instead.  Now I only have a 45/f1.8, 7-14/f4 in addition to the 35-100/f2.8.  I use the RX1 as my primary camera, and only shoot UWA and telephoto with the GX1.

If you are used to the image quality on the OMD, then the RX1 will blow you away.  The RX1 images are very solid, sometimes even look 3D, and always carry lots of details.  The color out of the camera is accurate and the bokeh is very smooth.  In the short time I have had mine (since mid Dec), it has yielded many mesmerizing photos, including some very low light indoor shots where my GX1 + 12/f2 combo would have failed me.

If you need flexibility as well as high IQ, I would suggest adding the RX1 and keep the OMD for UWA and telephoto shots.

Good luck.

Blue