Reading mode: Light Dark

RX10 or NEX-7 w/18-200?

Go to last post
V

V Ahrlenz

Leading Member
Messages
825
Reaction score
48
Location
Podunk Falls, US
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?
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I'm not 100% positive how much better the RX100 II is than the RX100 original. To me it wasn't worth the difference, so I didn't upgrade.

But as far as RX100 vs R1 - I'm not sure why you dismiss the difference so easily just because it's an older camera. The sensor size is still APS-C, so according to this "equivalence rule" - the R1 should be better than RX100?

In any case, at this point it's all just a speculation for now, since the RX10 isn't out yet. And I'm speculating that the RX10 will be superior to the NEX7 with that lens. At least for myself, I know which camera I'm buying, and it's not the NEX7
 
nevercat said:
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).
Click to expand...

I agree with you there - there's not much sense to upgrade from NEX7 to RX10. I guess I was trying to make a point for someone who's deciding between these two cameras.
 
It depends what you mean by superior.

I shoot the Nikon V1 (which also has a 1" sensor ) as well as the NEX7.

Both are great cameras which produce great images. But the DOF and bokeh on the NEX7 is far superior - because of the large sensor.

Without doubt the RX10 will be inferior in this respect too....although I believe it will be a fine bridge camera and one I may well purchase sometime to complement my NEX7.
 
Sonyshine said:
I am saying you will get better bokeh and less noise, it's the advantages of ten larger sensor in the NEX7. IMHO!
Click to expand...

I think it would depend on which focal length a picture is taken at. NEX7 might have better DOF at wide angle, and RX10 might have better DOF at full zoom.

As far as noise, I use superzooms at concerts a lot, and for me to be able to zoom in all the way and stay at 2.8 means I can use much lower ISO and faster shutter speed. For example, if I use 2.8 aperture and 1/200 shutter speed and ISO 400 with RX10 at 200mm, then NEX7 would have to be around ISO 1600 or so. Which camera would take better pictures is unknown at this point, but I think RX10 would be better.
 
vladi1234567 said:
To be honest, I'm not 100% positive how much better the RX100 II is than the RX100 original. To me it wasn't worth the difference, so I didn't upgrade.

But as far as RX100 vs R1 - I'm not sure why you dismiss the difference so easily just because it's an older camera. The sensor size is still APS-C, so according to this "equivalence rule" - the R1 should be better than RX100?
Click to expand...
The R1 is 8 years old now. The sensor is a APS sensor, but it is CCD, modern sensors are all CMOS. So the larger size sensor was nice then, but is not as good now in low light that is. Things like DOF control is still way better on the R1 then on a Rx100...
Member said:
In any case, at this point it's all just a speculation for now, since the RX10 isn't out yet. And I'm speculating that the RX10 will be superior to the NEX7 with that lens. At least for myself, I know which camera I'm buying, and it's not the NEX7
Click to expand...
Well what camera you buy is completely up to you, but look at my reaction to the OP befor buying...
Member said:
--
D700, RX100, D800
www.vnkphoto.com
Click to expand...
 
vladi1234567 said:
To be honest, I'm not 100% positive how much better the RX100 II is than the RX100 original. To me it wasn't worth the difference, so I didn't upgrade.

But as far as RX100 vs R1 - I'm not sure why you dismiss the difference so easily just because it's an older camera. The sensor size is still APS-C, so according to this "equivalence rule" - the R1 should be better than RX100?
Click to expand...
Equivalence is about putting the cameras on a level playing field so you can compare the performance. I was only debunking the myth that the RX10 has a faster lens than the 18-200. Sensor performance is a separate issue, but the tech improved a lot more in the (much longer) period between the release of the R1 and the RX100 than it did between the release of the NEX7 and the RX10.
 
vladi1234567 said:
nevercat said:
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).
Click to expand...
I agree with you there - there's not much sense to upgrade from NEX7 to RX10. I guess I was trying to make a point for someone who's deciding between these two cameras.
Click to expand...
 
vladi1234567 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
NexOffender said:
vladi1234567 said:
To be honest, I'm not 100% positive how much better the RX100 II is than the RX100 original. To me it wasn't worth the difference, so I didn't upgrade.

But as far as RX100 vs R1 - I'm not sure why you dismiss the difference so easily just because it's an older camera. The sensor size is still APS-C, so according to this "equivalence rule" - the R1 should be better than RX100?
Click to expand...
Equivalence is about putting the cameras on a level playing field so you can compare the performance. I was only debunking the myth that the RX10 has a faster lens than the 18-200. Sensor performance is a separate issue, but the tech improved a lot more in the (much longer) period between the release of the R1 and the RX100 than it did between the release of the NEX7 and the RX10.
Click to expand...

The lens on the RX10 is 2.8. 2.8 is 2.8 - if you can prove otherwise, let's sue Sony for false advertisement - and make some serious money :)
 
vladi1234567 said:
NexOffender said:
vladi1234567 said:
To be honest, I'm not 100% positive how much better the RX100 II is than the RX100 original. To me it wasn't worth the difference, so I didn't upgrade.

But as far as RX100 vs R1 - I'm not sure why you dismiss the difference so easily just because it's an older camera. The sensor size is still APS-C, so according to this "equivalence rule" - the R1 should be better than RX100?
Click to expand...
Equivalence is about putting the cameras on a level playing field so you can compare the performance. I was only debunking the myth that the RX10 has a faster lens than the 18-200. Sensor performance is a separate issue, but the tech improved a lot more in the (much longer) period between the release of the R1 and the RX100 than it did between the release of the NEX7 and the RX10.
Click to expand...
The lens on the RX10 is 2.8. 2.8 is 2.8 - if you can prove otherwise, let's sue Sony for false advertisement - and make some serious money :)
Click to expand...
 
vladi1234567 said:
NexOffender said:
vladi1234567 said:
To be honest, I'm not 100% positive how much better the RX100 II is than the RX100 original. To me it wasn't worth the difference, so I didn't upgrade.

But as far as RX100 vs R1 - I'm not sure why you dismiss the difference so easily just because it's an older camera. The sensor size is still APS-C, so according to this "equivalence rule" - the R1 should be better than RX100?
Click to expand...
Equivalence is about putting the cameras on a level playing field so you can compare the performance. I was only debunking the myth that the RX10 has a faster lens than the 18-200. Sensor performance is a separate issue, but the tech improved a lot more in the (much longer) period between the release of the R1 and the RX100 than it did between the release of the NEX7 and the RX10.
Click to expand...
The lens on the RX10 is 2.8. 2.8 is 2.8 - if you can prove otherwise, let's sue Sony for false advertisement - and make some serious money :)
Click to expand...
Yes 2.8 is 2.8, but a 24-200mm eqivalent lens is in reality a 8,8-73,3mm lens on a 1" sensored camera. The equivalent of the 18-200mm lens on the Nex 7 is 27-300mm. So when you compare both cameras, you will see that the RX10 has a 24-200 mm EQ lens and the Nex 7 has a 27-300 mm lens. A big difference.

And then the apperture equivalence. The apperture number is based on the next calculation: FL/lens diameter. that will end up in a fixed number. That is the actual apperture.

The equivalent apperture is the f number you will have to use on the lens on the RX10 that will show you the same DOF as the lens with the same equivalent FL would give on a FF camera. The reason these things are different is this. The DOF is generated by two factors: real fl of a lens and apperture of the lens. The smaller the FL (the morte Wide angle the lens) the more in the pictrure is sharp. That is why on a picture taken with a Cellphone everything looks sharp, but when you take a picture with a FF camera only the subject is sharp and everything else is blurred.

So as the FL of the RX10 is just 8.8 to 73.3 mm more of the picture will be sharp then when you use a real 18-200mm lens on the Nex 7. To get the same DOF you have to use an apperture more then 2 stops smaller then the apperture on the RX10...
Member said:
--
D700, RX100, D800
www.vnkphoto.com
Click to expand...
 
Sonyshine said:
You need to understand equivalence. F2.8 lens on a 1" sensor is about the same as f5.6 om APSC..... Someone else can do the maths!
Click to expand...
Well, then we agree to disagree, and I guess I'll be using the RX10, and you will be using the NEX7 with 18-200 - either way, Sony would get some much needed cash from us to develop their next generation of cameras, which is a good thing for everybody - regardless of equivalence
 
Yes, but I'm not talking about DOF - I'm talking about shutter speed. I would never use a APS-C camera when I want DOF - I have my full frame Nikons with 1.4 primes for that.
 
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...
Are you really sure. Do you not remember hand held light meters. Surely they set focal ratio not absolute aperture. Surely the whole point of f-stops is that they are transferable



I think you are confusing a measure of f-stop and sensor size combined. Or may be you've taken lots of picture of stars where it is indeed aparture that matters
 
Yes he is correct. Camera manufacturers are a bit naughty as they like to quote equivalent focal lengths but go all quiet when it comes to equivalent aperture etc!
 
V Ahrlenz 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...
Having been all round the houses on this one I would still change the lens....
 
Sonyshine said:
Yes he is correct. Camera manufacturers are a bit naughty as they like to quote equivalent focal lengths but go all quiet when it comes to equivalent aperture etc!
Click to expand...
But those ARE equivalent apertures. If you need to use, for example, shutter speed 1/200th, ISO 400 and aperture 4.0 - that would be the same exposure for 1 inch sensor, APS-C sensor and FF sensor. It's only DOF that would be different.
 
vladi1234567 said:
Sonyshine said:
Yes he is correct. Camera manufacturers are a bit naughty as they like to quote equivalent focal lengths but go all quiet when it comes to equivalent aperture etc!
Click to expand...
But those ARE equivalent apertures. If you need to use, for example, shutter speed 1/200th, ISO 400 and aperture 4.0 - that would be the same exposure for 1 inch sensor, APS-C sensor and FF sensor. It's only DOF that would be different.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top