RX10 or NEX-7 w/18-200?

I have exactly the same dilemma. I have compared the weight of the RX10 with the Nex7 and original 18-200 and it works out to be within 20g so more or less equal.
I figure I gain f2.8 throughout but lose the APS-C form factor and 200-300mm focal length.

With smaller sensor there should be not much chance of overheating during video.

I pre ordered the RX10 because that way I wouldn't be tempted to bring other lenses like my Zeiss 24f1.8 (for low light situation) etc. Unfortunately I also bought the Touit 12mm.

davids8560 said:

I mostly use my NEX-7 with Sony's first version 18-100mm lens. This camera/lens combo cost me about $2,000.

So I'm thinking, maybe the 24-200mm RX10 for a total of $1300 would better suit my purposes, albeit with some image quality compromises. Maybe. Just how much I don't know. I'm pretty sure that f/6.3 18-200 lens doesn't really let my NEX-7 really shine. But I need some reach for what I like to shoot.

The RX10 is probably smaller altogether than the NEX-7 + 18-200. And it has a much faster lens with just as much reach. And it's weatherproofed. A lot of times I don't bring my NEX-7 because of the weather. And honestly, it's kind of bulky and heavy with that 18-200 lens. And, you know, all things considered, that pricey Sony 18-200 is a measly f/6.3 on the long end!

So I'm thinking, maybe I should dump my RX100 for $400, put a fast prime or better quality small zoom lens on the NEX-7, and use it in place of the RX100. With a small lens, the NEX-7 still wouldn't be as small as the RX100, but it would be pretty small. Much smaller and lighter than it is with the 18-200. And probably yield even better results than the RX100.

What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

An interesting question. I might keep the NEX-7, and get a small fast normal lens for it. Then dump the RX-100. And get either the RX-10 or the new smaller Olympus Stylus superzoom.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/1/5...-announces-stylus-1-superzoom-point-and-shoot

these are from the camera size comparison web site the first shows a top view with the 18-200 on the ned -7, the second is a front view with no lens on the ?NEX-7 (they only allow lens view with a top view)









from what I can see the slight advantage the RX10 would have in depth compared to the ned-7 with the 18-200 is lost to the advantage the ned-7 has in height - - add to that you lose the APS-c sensor and personally I just don't know. sure you get f/2.8, but you can also never change lenses

its your choice, but personally I think getting a smaller / faster lens for the ned-7 might be a better option

--
NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
HVL-F20AM Flash

I don't think you have much to gain by getting the RX10, certainly not enough to justify the cost. It's not really any smaller and it's f2.8 is equivalent to f5.0 on the NEX, so it's only 2/3 stop better at the long end and a stop worse at the wide end. For the same money you could complete a nice kit of lenses for your NEX with the option to go smaller than the RX10 when you don't need the reach.

Don't listen to those people - 2.8 is 2.8 regardless of sensor size.

In low light at full zoom you would be able to use a much lower ISO than NEX7. Instead of ISO 6400 - ISO 800 or so. Which is perfect for concerts and travel. I'm sure for some other applications as well - my Nikons would be used much less after I get one...

I think it sounds like a good idea what you want to do

The RX10 max zoom is 200mm equivalent and the 18-200 is 300mm equivalent. If you compare them both at 200mm the 18-200 is F5.6 so the RX10 could use ISO 1600 instead of 6400 on the NEX.

But if you are trying to compare low light performance you need to compare equivalent apertures, which means the same diameter instead of the same f-number.

The RX10's equivalent aperture is F5.0 so in terms of light gathering it is only 1/3 of a stop better, but only at it's long end. The 18-200 is still better at the wide end and is has 50% more reach at the long end.

the rx10 is 200mm equivalent. something to consider.

Using a 18-200 range lens on the Nex7 is like walking around with bad eyewear. You're not seeing half of what the nex7 sensor can deliver. Put it on a Nex3 and your results will be similar.

Since the lens/software of the RX10 are optimized, I would put a pretty penny on that combo delivering overall better IQ than the nex7 with the 18-200.

I have been very impressed by the lens from samples taken with RX10

I have generally been using the NEX 5 series with the original 18-200mm (along with the RX-100), but I'm planning on getting the RX-10. I would expect that for video, the RX-10 will be far superior due to no line skipping.

Terry

I've used my NEX-6 (and formerly NEX-7) with both the original 18-200mm and then the newer 18-200mm LE, the last for a little over a year before selling it. I found that neither lens balanced well on either camera and, therefore, I only used them reluctantly. I would expect that the overall balance of the RX10 would be better, judged from the previews I've been reading.

NexOffender said:

The RX10 max zoom is 200mm equivalent and the 18-200 is 300mm equivalent. If you compare them both at 200mm the 18-200 is F5.6 so the RX10 could use ISO 1600 instead of 6400 on the NEX.

But if you are trying to compare low light performance you need to compare equivalent apertures, which means the same diameter instead of the same f-number.

The RX10's equivalent aperture is F5.0 so in terms of light gathering it is only 1/3 of a stop better, but only at it's long end. The 18-200 is still better at the wide end and is has 50% more reach at the long end.

Click to expand...

Judging by how my RX100 works - it's a 3X zoom, but if I use it in 10MP mode - it becomes a 10X zoom. The RX10 will be the same, so I would be able to zoom much more than 200mm - all at 2.8 aperture.

As far as "equivalent apertures".... If you think about it - RX100 and RX100MKII have the same size sensor, but MKII is almost one stop better in low light. They have the same diameter.

Another example - RX100 vs. R1. My RX100 at ISO 6400 is about as good as my R1 was at ISO 1600 - despite the bigger sensor. The sensor size is not everything - you can't just compare diameter without considering all the other factors.

In this case we're talking about NEX7 (old sensor) vs RX10 (smaller modern sensor). In my opinion, RX10 might equal NEX7 low light performance - plus give it the advantage of 2.8 aperture. When people *upgrade* - they upgrade from their old camera with old tech to a new camera with new tech - and the equivalent apertures "science" does not take the improved sensor and electronics into a consideration.

The "equivalent apertures" thing might apply when people upgrade from one camera made in 2010 to another camera made in 2010 - but it's not the case here.

And last but not least - the lens on RX10 is going to be better than the superzoom slow lens on NEX7 - giving the RX10 yet another advantage. So between NEX7+18-200 and RX10 - I think the RX10 is a clear winner.

Don't let nobody tell you what is best, only you can decide what is best for you!

First: Start by looking at the pictures you took with the Nex7 and the 18-200 lens. Look at the IQ: Are YOU pleased with it. If the IQ is good enough for you The IQ question is not important for you. If you are not pleased with the IQ why not? Not sharp enough? To much camera shake? just not sharp?

Second: Look again at your pictures and take a look at the EXIF data. At what FL did you realy shoot? Is it often at more then about 135mm real FL or 200mm EQ FL? Then you should remember that the 200mm lens on the RX10 is a 200mm EQ lens.

Pros for keeping the Nex 7 with the 18-200:

- Better EVF (2.3M dots vs 1.4M dots)
- Better sensor (larger and more pixels)
- Higher maximum ISO (16000 vs 12800)
- Has Bulb vs no Bulb 30 sec is the longest exposure time...
- Faster (1/4000 vs 1/3200sec ) shutter speed
- Better zoom range (from 27-300mm(11x) vs 24-200mm (8x)) with 18-200mm lens
- capable of changing lenses, so way more versatile you can put on a f/1.8 lens...
- No learning curve as you know this camera by now...
- Slightly smaller camera (but not by much)
-Manual zoom vs motor zoom (the zoom ring activates the zoom motor)

Pros for going for the RX10:

- f/2.8 lens for the whole zoom range
- Standard hotshoe
- Better LCD 0.9 vs 1.3 M dots
- Better video (uncompressed HDMI out)
- Headpohone jack
- WIFI and APS
- Oldfashion menu
- Nice dials on top with second LCD
- 2 memory slots for much used settings
- Apperture ring by lens (without or with clicks for video use

So you have to decide what is more important to you. Personaly I think the Nex 7 will delever slghtly better IQ in the end, but the RX10 will not be far behind...
When you keep the Nex 7 I see no good reason for buying the RX10. I think the RX10 is a good camera for those who want the 18-200 as only lens on a Nex camera. For people who have the Nex camera will gain not to much in real life with the RX10, unless video is important to you and you are not sattisfied with the video of the Nex 7...

kblaw said:

I have generally been using the NEX 5 series with the original 18-200mm (along with the RX-100), but I'm planning on getting the RX-10. I would expect that for video, the RX-10 will be far superior due to no line skipping.

Terry

Click to expand...

So good in fact that I'd like to see it compared to the GH3.

ichatpatrick said:

I've used my NEX-6 (and formerly NEX-7) with both the original 18-200mm and then the newer 18-200mm LE, the last for a little over a year before selling it. I found that neither lens balanced well on either camera and, therefore, I only used them reluctantly. I would expect that the overall balance of the RX10 would be better, judged from the previews I've been reading.

Click to expand...

The 55-210 is a smaller/lighter alternative for the NEX, and a good lens.

First impressions of the RX10:

http://petapixel.com/2013/11/03/road-first-impressions-sony-rx10/

You will definitely get sharper more detailed IQ from the Nex7, better bokeh, nice shallow DOF and less noise.

Having said that I dislike the 18-200 lens due to its bulk, I prefer to use the 55-210 lens which is nice and sharp and well balanced on the NEX7.

The RX10 does look like a great camera in its own right and one that I may be tempted to buy - but it would replace my Panasonic FZ200 if I go that route.

Sonyshine said:

First impressions of the RX10:

http://petapixel.com/2013/11/03/road-first-impressions-sony-rx10/

You will definitely get sharper more detailed IQ from the Nex7, better bokeh, nice shallow DOF and less noise.

Having said that I dislike the 18-200 lens due to its bulk, I prefer to use the 55-210 lens which is nice and sharp and well balanced on the NEX7.

The RX10 does look like a great camera in its own right and one that I may be tempted to buy - but it would replace my Panasonic FZ200 if I go that route.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting overview. But I don't see anywhere that he says NEX7 would deliver better bokeh and less noise than RX10. He compares it to full frame A7 - not NEX7.

Member said:

Judging by how my RX100 works - it's a 3X zoom, but if I use it in 10MP mode - it becomes a 10X zoom. The RX10 will be the same, so I would be able to zoom much more than 200mm - all at 2.8 aperture.

Click to expand...

That's just cropping the image, any camera can do that. In 10MP mode you aren't using the whole sensor so if it becomes a 10x zoom, it doesn't keep the f2.8 aperture. To keep a constant f-number, the physical aperture must increase as you zoom.

Member said:

As far as "equivalent apertures".... If you think about it - RX100 and RX100MKII have the same size sensor, but MKII is almost one stop better in low light. They have the same diameter.

Click to expand...

I haven't heard that. Most say that the RX100MKII is only 1/3 stop better in low light.

Member said:

Another example - RX100 vs. R1. My RX100 at ISO 6400 is about as good as my R1 was at ISO 1600 - despite the bigger sensor. The sensor size is not everything - you can't just compare diameter without considering all the other factors.

Click to expand...

The R1 is a much older camera.

Member said:

In this case we're talking about NEX7 (old sensor) vs RX10 (smaller modern sensor). In my opinion, RX10 might equal NEX7 low light performance - plus give it the advantage of 2.8 aperture. When people *upgrade* - they upgrade from their old camera with old tech to a new camera with new tech - and the equivalent apertures "science" does not take the improved sensor and electronics into a consideration.

Click to expand...

Right, equivalence is all about apertures. I was responding to yourself and others in this thread who claim that the RX10 has a faster lens because it has a lower f-number. The sensor tech is another issue but the difference in sensor performance between these two sensors is not enough to bridge the gap in size.

Member said:

The "equivalent apertures" thing might apply when people upgrade from one camera made in 2010 to another camera made in 2010 - but it's not the case here.

Click to expand...

No, neither camera was made in 2010.

Member said:

And last but not least - the lens on RX10 is going to be better than the superzoom slow lens on NEX7 - giving the RX10 yet another advantage. So between NEX7+18-200 and RX10 - I think the RX10 is a clear winner.

Click to expand...

You did it again, you called the 18-200 slow when in reality it is only 1/3 stop slower at 200mm equivalent and is actually faster at most focal lengths.

Member said:

--
D700, RX100, D800
www.vnkphoto.com

Click to expand...

vladi1234567 said:

NexOffender said:

The RX10 max zoom is 200mm equivalent and the 18-200 is 300mm equivalent. If you compare them both at 200mm the 18-200 is F5.6 so the RX10 could use ISO 1600 instead of 6400 on the NEX.

But if you are trying to compare low light performance you need to compare equivalent apertures, which means the same diameter instead of the same f-number.

The RX10's equivalent aperture is F5.0 so in terms of light gathering it is only 1/3 of a stop better, but only at it's long end. The 18-200 is still better at the wide end and is has 50% more reach at the long end.

Click to expand...

Judging by how my RX100 works - it's a 3X zoom, but if I use it in 10MP mode - it becomes a 10X zoom. The RX10 will be the same, so I would be able to zoom much more than 200mm - all at 2.8 aperture.

Click to expand...

This is called cropping it can be done with any camera, the Nex 7 will be a bit better as it will zoom in more as you got 24 MP to zoom to 10MP...

Member said:

As far as "equivalent apertures".... If you think about it - RX100 and RX100MKII have the same size sensor, but MKII is almost one stop better in low light. They have the same diameter.

Click to expand...

Well not realy, according to DXO marks. The RX100 got a low light score of ISO 390 the RX100mKII got 483 that is not one stop. one stop would be ISO 780 so it is more like 1/3 of a stop better.

Member said:

Another example - RX100 vs. R1. My RX100 at ISO 6400 is about as good as my R1 was at ISO 1600 - despite the bigger sensor. The sensor size is not everything - you can't just compare diameter without considering all the other factors.

Click to expand...

First the R1 has a CCD sensor, compared with a CMOS sensor that is used in modern cameras. Then the R1 is 8 years old now, so things has been getting better lately...

Member said:

In this case we're talking about NEX7 (old sensor) vs RX10 (smaller modern sensor). In my opinion, RX10 might equal NEX7 low light performance

Click to expand...

Well the sensor of the RX10 will be the same as the RX100, in that case it around ISO 400 the score for low light for the Nex 7 (with the "old" sensor) is still 1016 that is about 1.5 stops better!

Member said:

- plus give it the advantage of 2.8 aperture. When people *upgrade* - they upgrade from their old camera with old tech to a new camera with new tech - and the equivalent apertures "science" does not take the improved sensor and electronics into a consideration.

Click to expand...

Well see the scores above... The lens of the RX100 is a very nice lens and it will do a lot of good, and I think the IQ of the RX10 will be very good, maybe even close to the performance of the Nex 7. But don't tell things that are so easely been busted.

Member said:

The "equivalent apertures" thing might apply when people upgrade from one camera made in 2010 to another camera made in 2010 - but it's not the case here.

Click to expand...

Well in fact the equivalent apperture has to do with DOF and so it does apply to the lens/sensor size, not to light gathering power...

Member said:

And last but not least - the lens on RX10 is going to be better than the superzoom slow lens on NEX7 - giving the RX10 yet another advantage. So between NEX7+18-200 and RX10 - I think the RX10 is a clear winner.

Click to expand...

Well to start with, the 18-200 (27-300mm equivalent) is a very good lens for a superzoom. The lens is not fast, but taking very good pictures. It is manual zooming verses motor zoom (the "manual ring" on the lens is a way to activate the motor) it has a wider zoom range and it is allready on the camera of the OP, so for the OP that makes it a winner, not the RX10 (what is a great camera, no doubt).

Member said:

--
D700, RX100, D800
www.vnkphoto.com

Click to expand...

I am saying you will get better bokeh and less noise, it's the advantages of ten larger sensor in the NEX7. IMHO!