The value of fast lens and hence RX100 superiourity over Panasonic GM1 is not true for a lot of people.1. for daytime landscape photo you need small aperture for more DOF2. in real low light situation, GM1 is still very good at ISO 3200 and can easily handheld to 1/10 second which will cover almost all reasonable shooting conditionOn paper a fast lens is better than slow lens but for most people in most used shooting condition, is that really true? I said no
Jefftan: People who are interested in RX100 IV should seriously consider GM1, this is written by a happy new owner
way exceed my expectationsharp lens, excellent IQ, fast auto-focus, good image stabilization,fast operation
Mainly because of the great sharp lens, to my great surprise IQ even beat my NEX-5N with Sony 10-18mm F4 lens (already much better than the garbage 16-50mm kit)
why by this overpriced camera? just for being a little bit smaller?
And tolerate lower IQ and much more expensive? It is your money but I really can't understand
"You clearly have a broken NEX!"
Do you said this base on real experience? I have both camera and use both extensively during my last trip. I admit I don't do detail scientific comparison so only general impression
GM1 focuse faster, make less metering errors than NEX-5N(I suspect NEX takes longer to meter and I fire too fast) ,seem sharper (but I up the shaprness setting 1 level in color setting "standard")
and most important point is although MFT is supposedly behind NEX in noise for ISO 3200 but for practical use when I try to take a pic of something very dark at ISO 3200 in a temple, I can't hold my NEX still enough for blur free photo but not very difficult for GM1.
Therefore GM1 has better real life low light performance because of better image stabilization(or easier hand holding due to lower weight)
One more practical concern is if you shoot Jpeg, they have very different interpretation of green color, depend on your preference you may not like either one
Jennyhappy2: Sorry, but unless you plan on changing lenses, the RX100 III surpasses the GM1 and GM5.
"Sorry, but unless you plan on changing lenses, the RX100 III surpasses the GM1 and GM5"
I disagree with you. It all depend on your use.
For me a mostly daytime landscape photographer. I use low ISO and prefer more not less DOF (smaller aperture). Which camera is better is obvious.
Jefftan: Anyone care to compare with Panasonic GM1 which I just got in Japan for about US$380
In RAW both in ISO 100 and ISO 3200, IQ simply much better for GM1, very obvious
Really don't understand the excitment for this overpriced $1000 camera
By the way GM1 is very good, a greatly under appreciated camera
"F1.8-2.8 vs F3.5-5.6 in short compare Sony at ISO 400 vs the Panasonic at ISO 1600."
I understand your point. It really depend on your use. For me a mostly daytime landscape photographer. I use low ISO and prefer more not less DOF (smaller aperture)
Which camera is better is obvious. May not be the same for other types of photographers
It is easily pocketable in a jacket pocket
I will correct what I said above"Mainly because of the great sharp lens, to my great surprise IQ at least equal and may even beat my NEX-5N with Sony 10-18mm F4 lens"
People who are interested in RX100 IV should seriously consider GM1, this is written by a happy new owner
Anyone care to compare with Panasonic GM1 which I just got in Japan for about US$380
$1000 for RX100 IV? Sony are you serious?way overpriced
G7X is a much better deal. 4k maybe the only justification for price but how many people even have TV/monitor to view 4k now?
nice future proof feature but mostly useless for now
low ISO remove NRHigh ISO use DXO Prime NR
Significant IQ improvement with RAW
Giklab: Now the whining about these cameras not offering RAW can finally be replaced with whining about how the RAW files are sh*t.
I don't think so low ISO remove NR High ISO use DXO Prime NR
Significant IQ improvement
Jefftan: Anyone got SH-1?is the 5 axis IS really better than others like Panasonic or not?thanks
Really?Do you own SH-1?2 stops is a lots, will be a better camera than ZS50 if true
Jefftan: very good for small sensor especially ISO 800 IQ
I will buy it and would ask the camera community to support Panasonic decision to lower MP to 12MP from 18MP
This is extremely important, unless people buy it to support it , other companies will not get the message
today announced Olympus SH-2 is 16 MP, others even worse with 18 MP 20MP, totally insane
We all should support company that listen to photographers. in my opinion 10 MP is even better
cainn24may I ask what version of DXO optics you are using? Do you use the latest version with PRIME NR
"I have provided proof that it is true in the case of the 18MP ZS40 vs the 12MP ZS50 at the link I posted earlier. Here it is again: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55438424"Thanks for that detail post. I just check and that is my personal opinion. At ISO 100 there is very little extra detail in ZS40 that is not worth the deteriorating high ISO IQ.Also the high ISO sample is shot in good lighting, the difference in low light high ISO is likely much worse that your samples shown
"You'll typically get more detail when shooting JPEGs too because the noise difference at low ISOs is next to negligable therefore more aggressive noise reduction is not even necessary"With respect I don't agree with you that noise at low ISO is negligable especially for small 1/2.3 sensor and crazy high MP like 18/20. At 20MP there would be so much noise that even RAW can't restore lost detailbut even if what you said is true, is that little extra detail that is probably hard to be seen (maybe useful for cropping) worth destroying high ISO IQ?low light IQ is very important to most people, at even ISO 400 ,high MP small sensor can't compare with 10/12 MP
cainn24 "but at lower ISOs more pixels will *always* resolve more detail assuming that everything else is equal"what you said is only true with RAW, in jpeg because extra pixel will create more noise, heavier NR is needed which destroy detailactually it may not even be true for RAW if MP become too extreme like 20MP for 1/2.3 sensor, in that case there are so much noise which destroy detail that even RAW processing is useless and there would be less real detail than 10/12MP
there should be no argument but established fact that for same generation and same sensor size, the more MP will1. at low ISO you get more detail with RAW but probably not with jpeg especially for 1/2.3 small sensor because of default heavy NR2. at even ISO 400 and up, the more MP the more noise and less detail
"In a nutshell my 18MP TZ60 is resolving slightly more detail than my 12MP TZ70, and this is not an isolated finding either"really? unless you are processing RAW, the NR in jpeg would destroy all extra detail even in base ISOI have 16MP Sony HX9V with backlit sensor, at even base ISO has lots of NR noise smearing, actually less detail than 12/10MPand high ISO is of course uselessA 12MP 1/2.3 sensor with RAW is probably useable at least up to ISO800
keep good care of it, these low MP 1/2.3 sensor is like dinosaur that go extinctnot too long ago i still can buy a 12MP tough small sensor TG-2, now it become a useless 16MPI still upset that i drop a 10MP tough small sensor Sony TX5 to the sea, the current generation is a garbage 20MPHard to believe but is true, these small sensor are getting worse not better.That's why I hope more people like me will buy ZS50, that would send other camera manufacturers the message
Anyone got SH-1?is the 5 axis IS really better than others like Panasonic or not?thanks