RX100 vs a6000 with kit lens

[tomtom50]

Which is sharper?

All taken at 45mm 35mm equivalent

RX100 f3.2 17mm (wide open)

a6000 16-50 f5 30mm

a6000 30mm Sigma f2.8 f5

The RX100 is definitely better than the 16-50 kit lens. The increased lens speed compensates for the lower sensor sensitivity.

The Sigma lens is superior to both, especially at the edges, but the RX100 and the Sigma prime are almost the same in the center.

Good showing for the RX100! At least at a mid-focal length it is more than a match for the a6000 with its kit lens.

 

[tomtom50]

RX100 at 27mm f4

a6000 with 16-50 at 50mm f5.6

a6000 with 50mm f1.8 OSS at 50mm f5.6

RX100 27mm f4 (75mm equivalent)

a6000 16-50mm at 50mm f5.6 (75mm equivalent)

a6000 with Sony 50mm OSS at f5.6 (75mm equivalent)

Same story as normal field of view. The RX100 is sharper than the a6000 with kit zoom and the lens is a stop faster so the a6000 low light advantage is nil. The very good 50mm prime lens shows what the a6000 can do with a good lens. The RX100 is closer to the prime than the 16-50, which looks downright milky even in the center.

 

[cchen2]

Interesting tests, thanks for posting!

Mike
--
Just one life, twill soon be past
Only what's done for Christ will last

 

[Pepe-Lepue]

Actually - From my testing the RX100 III outperforms the Zeiss 16-70 f4 lens on the A6000. Even though the A6000 outperforms the RX100 III in auto focus, outright speed, and low light.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

http://www.pbase.com/domotang/image/38368316/original.jpg

root by

www.pbase.com

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

I'm not surprised at all - a good copy of an RX100 beats many zoom lenses on APS-C sensors at low ISO. My RX100 Mk1 is sharper at wide angle than my Sony a77 + Sony 16-50 2.8SSM lens, and in the corners it blows the DSLR lens out of the water, even after distortion correction on the raws.

 

[Yehuda_]

I'm not surprised at all - a good copy of an RX100 beats many zoom lenses on APS-C sensors at low ISO. My RX100 Mk1 is sharper at wide angle than my Sony a77 + Sony 16-50 2.8SSM lens, and in the corners it blows the DSLR lens out of the water, even after distortion correction on the raws.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

I'm not surprised at all - a good copy of an RX100 beats many zoom lenses on APS-C sensors at low ISO. My RX100 Mk1 is sharper at wide angle than my Sony a77 + Sony 16-50 2.8SSM lens, and in the corners it blows the DSLR lens out of the water, even after distortion correction on the raws.

 

[123Mike]

It looks like the 16-50 is resolving more and is sharper at features *WAY* in the distance. The tree line of the distance hills, and features on the far away buildings for instance. And that's beyond the resolution difference I think. It's as if the focus of the 16-50 ended up being set just slightly *past* infinity, where actual infinity is included in the focused range, but that the moment you get a little closer, even at medium distances, it's already becoming out of focus. More so that the RX shot. This makes it *look* like the RX is superior, but I think it's possible that this is a matter of the focus not being set optimally.

 

[cllcanada]

I just about bought an A6000 with kit lens a few days ago... think I will stick with my RX100J

Nice to see these comparisons... thanks...

Question are these images RAW or JPEG? I might of missed that...

chd

 

[willk48]

Thanks for taking the time to post your comparisons. I'm your typical p&s amateur who now has a Sony Nex 5t with kit lense. My untrained eye doesn't see any real difference in these photos. All I know is that the RX100m3 is more pocketable (but you give up telephoto ability). I really hate using flash. I would really like to see a comparison done in low light.

 

[123Mike]

I just about bought an A6000 with kit lens a few days ago... think I will stick with my RX100J

Nice to see these comparisons... thanks...

Question are these images RAW or JPEG? I might of missed that...

How about the A6000 with a better lens, like the 18-55 which you can find for around $100 on the used market, if not better. Or a 18-105 or 16-70 lens? The A6000 has better IQ, and allows for different lenses. Why even compare?

 

[Yehuda_]

I just about bought an A6000 with kit lens a few days ago... think I will stick with my RX100J

Nice to see these comparisons... thanks...

Question are these images RAW or JPEG? I might of missed that...

How about the A6000 with a better lens, like the 18-55 which you can find for around $100 on the used market, if not better. Or a 18-105 or 16-70 lens? The A6000 has better IQ, and allows for different lenses. Why even compare?

Because most people who buy system cameras like the a6000 end up only using the kit zoom lens. This has been stated a lot for just about all brands and sensors of the cropped variety (maybe not so with full frames]
Thus this a valid and very relevant comparison.
--
Ignore my typos. Too lazy to correct when using my smartphone

 

[Pepe-Lepue]

Yehuda_ wrote

How about the A6000 with a better lens, like the 18-55 which you can find for around $100 on the used market, if not better. Or a 18-105 or 16-70 lens? The A6000 has better IQ, and allows for different lenses. Why even compare?

Because most people who buy system cameras like the a6000 end up only using the kit zoom lens. This has been stated a lot for just about all brands and sensors of the cropped variety (maybe not so with full frames]
Thus this a valid and very relevant comparison.
--

Darn right! Actually, my copy of the 16-50 performed just as well as the 16-70 at the same apertures and focal lengths. I'm not the only one to discover this. The 18-105 was too large and couldn't take advantage of the wide pdaf. Lens was full of distortions.

--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 

[123Mike]

I just about bought an A6000 with kit lens a few days ago... think I will stick with my RX100J

Nice to see these comparisons... thanks...

Question are these images RAW or JPEG? I might of missed that...

How about the A6000 with a better lens, like the 18-55 which you can find for around $100 on the used market, if not better. Or a 18-105 or 16-70 lens? The A6000 has better IQ, and allows for different lenses. Why even compare?

Because most people who buy system cameras like the a6000 end up only using the kit zoom lens. This has been stated a lot for just about all brands and sensors of the cropped variety (maybe not so with full frames]
Thus this a valid and very relevant comparison.

For the ones that only would use the kit lens, then the RX10 might be a better choice. Since they're shelling close a grand anyway...

 

[cxsparc]

You compare a kit zoom wide open with a prime stopped down two stops, seriously?
So The rx100 fixed lens is better wide open. Well, it has to because in lowlight there is no way to change to a better lens.

I use the 1650 in good light for convenience and stopped down. Show a comparison of those three lenses at f8 and then reassess what IQ is possible in real life with the three options.

 

[123Mike]

You compare a kit zoom wide open with a prime stopped down two stops, seriously?
So The rx100 fixed lens is better wide open. Well, it has to because in lowlight there is no way to change to a better lens.

I'm not the one comparing this at all. It's the others that are looking for reasons to feel good about their choices to spend money on expensive P&Ss. I say spend the money on good lenses. Not close to a grand second cameras.

I use the 1650 in good light for convenience and stopped down. Show a comparison of those three lenses at f8 and then reassess what IQ is possible in real life with the three options.

I made a similar point earlier. Shooting wide open for a landscape can spell trouble. Clearly, there are focusing not set right issues in these very tests. Use wide open for lower light conditions.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

You compare a kit zoom wide open with a prime stopped down two stops, seriously?
So The rx100 fixed lens is better wide open. Well, it has to because in lowlight there is no way to change to a better lens.

I'm not the one comparing this at all. It's the others that are looking for reasons to feel good about their choices to spend money on expensive P&Ss. I say spend the money on good lenses. Not close to a grand second cameras.

I use the 1650 in good light for convenience and stopped down. Show a comparison of those three lenses at f8 and then reassess what IQ is possible in real life with the three options.

I made a similar point earlier. Shooting wide open for a landscape can spell trouble. Clearly, there are focusing not set right issues in these very tests. Use wide open for lower light conditions.

Mike - I own a57 and a77 and lots of lenses - love those cameras. But just like David Kilpatrick, long-time Minolta and Sony pro, I find the Sony 16-50 on the E mount or the APS-C variant rather over-rated, and my copy of the RX100 MK1 is sharper at the wide end. The lens on a good copy of the RX100 really is rather special. And the MK1 RX100 is availabl ein the UK for around £350 UK sterling now. You can shoot the RX100 wide open at f1.8 and still get pretty sharp corners by the way - I can't get sharp corners on my a77 + Sony 16-50 2.8 until I stop down to f7.

 

[123Mike]

You compare a kit zoom wide open with a prime stopped down two stops, seriously?
So The rx100 fixed lens is better wide open. Well, it has to because in lowlight there is no way to change to a better lens.

I'm not the one comparing this at all. It's the others that are looking for reasons to feel good about their choices to spend money on expensive P&Ss. I say spend the money on good lenses. Not close to a grand second cameras.

I use the 1650 in good light for convenience and stopped down. Show a comparison of those three lenses at f8 and then reassess what IQ is possible in real life with the three options.

I made a similar point earlier. Shooting wide open for a landscape can spell trouble. Clearly, there are focusing not set right issues in these very tests. Use wide open for lower light conditions.

Mike - I own a57 and a77 and lots of lenses - love those cameras. But just like David Kilpatrick, long-time Minolta and Sony pro, I find the Sony 16-50 on the E mount or the APS-C variant rather over-rated, and my copy of the RX100 MK1 is sharper at the wide end. The lens on a good copy of the RX100 really is rather special. And the MK1 RX100 is availabl ein the UK for around £350 UK sterling now. You can shoot the RX100 wide open at f1.8 and still get pretty sharp corners by the way - I can't get sharp corners on my a77 + Sony 16-50 2.8 until I stop down to f7.

The A-mount 16-50 / 2.8 is in a way different league than either the E-mount 16-50, or the RX. The A-mount 16 -50 simply destroys them both, no ifs ands or buts about it. Across the board, period.

If your copy of the A-mount 16-50 wasn't so good, than you have this very rare copy that isn't made right. The A-mount 16-50 is a very very good lens. Just about as good as it gets, period. There isn't a way in hell the RX is going to touch that.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

You compare a kit zoom wide open with a prime stopped down two stops, seriously?
So The rx100 fixed lens is better wide open. Well, it has to because in lowlight there is no way to change to a better lens.

I'm not the one comparing this at all. It's the others that are looking for reasons to feel good about their choices to spend money on expensive P&Ss. I say spend the money on good lenses. Not close to a grand second cameras.

I use the 1650 in good light for convenience and stopped down. Show a comparison of those three lenses at f8 and then reassess what IQ is possible in real life with the three options.

I made a similar point earlier. Shooting wide open for a landscape can spell trouble. Clearly, there are focusing not set right issues in these very tests. Use wide open for lower light conditions.

Mike - I own a57 and a77 and lots of lenses - love those cameras. But just like David Kilpatrick, long-time Minolta and Sony pro, I find the Sony 16-50 on the E mount or the APS-C variant rather over-rated, and my copy of the RX100 MK1 is sharper at the wide end. The lens on a good copy of the RX100 really is rather special. And the MK1 RX100 is availabl ein the UK for around £350 UK sterling now. You can shoot the RX100 wide open at f1.8 and still get pretty sharp corners by the way - I can't get sharp corners on my a77 + Sony 16-50 2.8 until I stop down to f7.

The A-mount 16-50 / 2.8 is in a way different league than either the E-mount 16-50, or the RX. The A-mount 16 -50 simply destroys them both, no ifs ands or buts about it. Across the board, period.

If your copy of the A-mount 16-50 wasn't so good, than you have this very rare copy that isn't made right. The A-mount 16-50 is a very very good lens. Just about as good as it gets, period. There isn't a way in hell the RX is going to touch that.

Well David K and I will have to agree to differ with you on that one Mike. Remember I'm talking about the wide end only - my 16-50 2.8 at 16mm is down right soft until about f7. My RX100 is sharp at f1.8 at the wide end - this is fact. Now I posted about this on the alpha forum here at the time when I got the lens, and to be honest, no other 16-50 owners were able to post examples that suggested I had an unusually bad copy. Pretty much everyone who posted also showed examples where at 16mm the corners are pretty darn soft. David thinks the RX100 MK1 lens is better than the 16-50. Since he is a pro photog who has shot with Minolta and Sony for over 30 years I'm happy to find his findings in agreement with mine. But I hear you - you don't agree - that's fine, that's life, we're all free to differ.

 

[Yehuda_]

I just about bought an A6000 with kit lens a few days ago... think I will stick with my RX100J

Nice to see these comparisons... thanks...

Question are these images RAW or JPEG? I might of missed that...

How about the A6000 with a better lens, like the 18-55 which you can find for around $100 on the used market, if not better. Or a 18-105 or 16-70 lens? The A6000 has better IQ, and allows for different lenses. Why even compare?

Because most people who buy system cameras like the a6000 end up only using the kit zoom lens. This has been stated a lot for just about all brands and sensors of the cropped variety (maybe not so with full frames]
Thus this a valid and very relevant comparison.

For the ones that only would use the kit lens, then the RX10 might be a better choice. Since they're shelling close a grand anyway...

The RX10 is huge in all respects. I see zero inclination to buy one even if it was cheaper than the rx100.
--
Ignore my typos. Too lazy to correct when using my smartphone