RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii

Started Jun 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: I have to laugh..........

DFPanno wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

halfmonkey wrote:

I would probably say that my primary focus at this point is taking pictures of my little kids. They're 5.5, 4, and 6 months. I guess one of the main things holding me back on the RX1 is the fixed 35mm lens. I know it's generally considered a walkaround lens, maybe a little on the wide side but non-the-less, a usable walk around lens.

Truth is, you can make really great images of children with any focal length (but more limited on UWA). 35mm is more than adequate as far as FL goes. The only real drawback of RX1 for this use is slower tracking AF. But even that should not stop you from making good photos.

If you have no intention to shoot more focal length specific or performance-demanding disciplines, such as full body portrait or sports or wild life, then RX1 will serve you adequately. There are many DSLR users who stick to one prime majority of the time, and often that prime is a 35mm.

Having said all that, I think even if you decide to go with SLR the 5D3 is not the ideal choice, it is big, expensive, and IQ at low ISO is subpar. 6D and D600 are both much better alternative and they leave you with 1500 USD for lenses.

For example you could buy D600 + 24-85 and sigma 35 F1.4 for the price of 5D3. that will cover you fro both 35mm prime shooting and versatile holiday shooting.

"and IQ at low ISO is subpar"

Can you produce evidence to that effect?

The evidence is abundant and you know them too, DXO is one of many.

5D3 is not a bad camera but its IQ is indeed the worst of all current FF cameras. You simply cannont find one that is worse.

LOL - you voiced an opinion that I don't share.

It is not an opinion - it not is merely what i perceive to be a fact, it is objectively a fact.

At base ISO (if that's what you mean) the IQ of the Canon is wonderful.

It can be wonderful to you and still sub-par compared to its peers.

Is the DR of the D600 better at base - yes. In every other regard the 5D3 is a superior product.

It is not just base iso DR, it is also base ISO resolution, banding, colour depth. D600 also has better colour, DR, and detail retention all the way to ISO 3200.

As for the camera as a whole, no doubt 5D3 has a thicker and heaveir shell, a more powerful AF and slightly faster FPS, but it comes at the cost of extra 1500 USD, IQ, fully adjustable auto-iso and user modes. Whether that is worth it to you is an individual question.

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