Sony RX100 IV vs Nikon DL18-50 vs Sony Alpha a6300

tearofs · Mar 20, 2016

Hello all,

I am having hard tme to pick one compact camera for shooting landscape. (Sony RX100 IV vs Nikon DL18-50 vs Sony a6300?)

The ideal would be

1, Compact

2, Exceptional image quality

3, Wide-angle if possible

4, Video quality is not number one goal, but still considered.

Any feedback/recommendation would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!

jbw28 · Mar 21, 2016

tearofs said:
Hello all,

I am having hard tme to pick one compact camera for shooting landscape. (Sony RX100 IV vs Nikon DL18-50 vs Sony a6300?)

The ideal would be

1, Compact

2, Exceptional image quality

3, Wide-angle if possible

4, Video quality is not number one goal, but still considered.

Any feedback/recommendation would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!

1. Sony RX100 IV

2. You'd have to think the a6300 due to sensor size but I've heard that the E mount lenses are less than ideal so that could impact it some but there a lot of 3rd party manufacturers of lenses out there.

3. The Nikon has an 18mm at widest - who knows how good it is (see above regarding a6300) and then the RX100 IV has a 24mm, still wide but not the widest.

4. They all shoot 4k video. The IV was released specifically over the RX100 III specifically for it's 4k shooting ability. Don't forget the class 10 speed on your memory card.

Basically it's hard to say which is best, 2 of these cameras are one's I'm interested in as daily walk around cams but my iphone has been serving me well. If you're interest is landscapes to me you'd be better off with the larger sensor for the better quality but it's hard to say how much the other factors affect your decision making process.

Digital Nigel · Mar 21, 2016

If you want wide angle lenses for landscapes, you really need an interchangeable lens camera, such as the a6000 or a63000. The latter has faster focusing, but that's not very relevant for landscapes.

I use my 10-18 (ie, 15-27 equiv) f/4 lens a lot with my a6000. It covers a range you can't do with any fixed lens camera such as the RX or DL cameras. If you need even higher quality, you can use any of numerous prime lenses, such as the Zeiss 24mm, though the very shallow DoF possible with an f/1.8 lens may not be needed for landscapes.

Here's some shots with the 10-18 lens (which has a 1.5 crop factor, so 10mm is equivalent to 15mm):

btwango · Mar 22, 2016

tearofs said:
Hello all,

I am having hard tme to pick one compact camera for shooting landscape. (Sony RX100 IV vs Nikon DL18-50 vs Sony a6300?)

The ideal would be

1, Compact

2, Exceptional image quality

3, Wide-angle if possible

4, Video quality is not number one goal, but still considered.

Any feedback/recommendation would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!

"Exceptional image quality" is subjective. We don't know what you mean by this but if you are wanting exceptional image quality it is mutually excluded from your criteria of compact. Best image comes from primes not zooms.

The DL18-50 has not been released as yet. It is an unknown quantity. No reviews, no tests, Zip,zero,zilch.

How much wide angle do you want? The Nikon is impressive for its wide angle lens but maybe 24mm equiv from the RX100 IV would be sufficient for you. There are wider primes available for the a6300.

Because compromise.

paperwastage · Mar 22, 2016

jbw28 said:
4. They all shoot 4k video. The IV was released specifically over the RX100 III specifically for it's 4k shooting ability. Don't forget the class 10 speed on your memory card.

You mean sdxc(>=64GB) and u3 , not class 10

Digital Nigel · Mar 22, 2016

btwango said:
tearofs said:

Hello all,

I am having hard tme to pick one compact camera for shooting landscape. (Sony RX100 IV vs Nikon DL18-50 vs Sony a6300?)

The ideal would be

1, Compact

2, Exceptional image quality

3, Wide-angle if possible

4, Video quality is not number one goal, but still considered.

Any feedback/recommendation would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

"Exceptional image quality" is subjective. We don't know what you mean by this but if you are wanting exceptional image quality it is mutually excluded from your criteria of compact. Best image comes from primes not zooms.

The DL18-50 has not been released as yet. It is an unknown quantity. No reviews, no tests, Zip,zero,zilch.

How much wide angle do you want? The Nikon is impressive for its wide angle lens but maybe 24mm equiv from the RX100 IV would be sufficient for you. There are wider primes available for the a6300.

And zooms, including the excellent 10-18.

jsaras · Mar 22, 2016

For most landscapes a 24mm field of view is plenty wide. Set the aperture to f8 and set the focus point to the most distant object that you need to have in focus. Easy peazy.

jsaras · Mar 22, 2016

Here's a link to a landscape that I photographed with my RX100iii using precisely that technique:

https://flic.kr/p/DkUdBV

Digital Nigel · Mar 22, 2016

jsaras said:
For most landscapes a 24mm field of view is plenty wide. Set the aperture to f8 and set the focus point to the most distant object that you need to have in focus. Easy peazy.

If you're going to use f/8, there's not much point in choosing an expensive prime lens like the Zeiss 24mm; a zoom will be more versatile, will have IS and may even be cheaper. BTW, a 24mm lens on APS-C has a 36mm field of view, which is often not wide enough for landscapes.

In practice, I tend to use a combination of my a6000 with 10-18 lens and FZ1000. The combination gives me continuous coverage from 15 to 400mm equiv. Here's an example of the two used together at the same time and location:

The whole, huge mural, which needs a very wide angle lens (15mm equiv)

Now let's zoom in on a detail, using a different lens/camera:

Zooming in on one of the maintenance cradles (400mm equiv)

jsaras · Mar 22, 2016

The techique I described is the shorthand version of using the hyperfocal distance for "infinite" landscapes. The subects you've posted are eseesntially flat and wide where wider appertures are certainly more appropriate.

tearofs · Mar 22, 2016

jbw28 said:
tearofs said:

Hello all,

I am having hard tme to pick one compact camera for shooting landscape. (Sony RX100 IV vs Nikon DL18-50 vs Sony a6300?)

The ideal would be

1, Compact

2, Exceptional image quality

3, Wide-angle if possible

4, Video quality is not number one goal, but still considered.

Any feedback/recommendation would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

1. Sony RX100 IV

2. You'd have to think the a6300 due to sensor size but I've heard that the E mount lenses are less than ideal so that could impact it some but there a lot of 3rd party manufacturers of lenses out there.

3. The Nikon has an 18mm at widest - who knows how good it is (see above regarding a6300) and then the RX100 IV has a 24mm, still wide but not the widest.

4. They all shoot 4k video. The IV was released specifically over the RX100 III specifically for it's 4k shooting ability. Don't forget the class 10 speed on your memory card.

Basically it's hard to say which is best, 2 of these cameras are one's I'm interested in as daily walk around cams but my iphone has been serving me well. If you're interest is landscapes to me you'd be better off with the larger sensor for the better quality but it's hard to say how much the other factors affect your decision making process.

I already own a Canon 6D with 17-40. Trying to find "compact version" of that same setup. Its hard to pick. Right now I am toward RX100IV, if DL18-50 end up better i will switch i guess

tearofs · Mar 22, 2016

btwango said:
tearofs said:

Hello all,

I am having hard tme to pick one compact camera for shooting landscape. (Sony RX100 IV vs Nikon DL18-50 vs Sony a6300?)

The ideal would be

1, Compact

2, Exceptional image quality

3, Wide-angle if possible

4, Video quality is not number one goal, but still considered.

Any feedback/recommendation would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

"Exceptional image quality" is subjective. We don't know what you mean by this but if you are wanting exceptional image quality it is mutually excluded from your criteria of compact. Best image comes from primes not zooms.

The DL18-50 has not been released as yet. It is an unknown quantity. No reviews, no tests, Zip,zero,zilch.

How much wide angle do you want? The Nikon is impressive for its wide angle lens but maybe 24mm equiv from the RX100 IV would be sufficient for you. There are wider primes available for the a6300.

Because compromise.

I have a Canon 6D with 17-40 as my heavy setup. The wider the better, but obviously image quality is my primary pick.

On the other hand, I am wondering whos better in terms of image quality, a6300 with 16-50 or RX100IV (Since DL18-50 isn't out yet)?

tearofs · Mar 22, 2016

Digital Nigel said:
jsaras said:

For most landscapes a 24mm field of view is plenty wide. Set the aperture to f8 and set the focus point to the most distant object that you need to have in focus. Easy peazy.

Click to expand...

If you're going to use f/8, there's not much point in choosing an expensive prime lens like the Zeiss 24mm; a zoom will be more versatile, will have IS and may even be cheaper. BTW, a 24mm lens on APS-C has a 36mm field of view, which is often not wide enough for landscapes.

In practice, I tend to use a combination of my a6000 with 10-18 lens and FZ1000. The combination gives me continuous coverage from 15 to 400mm equiv. Here's an example of the two used together at the same time and location:

The whole, huge mural, which needs a very wide angle lens (15mm equiv)

Now let's zoom in on a detail, using a different lens/camera:

Zooming in on one of the maintenance cradles (400mm equiv)

I would love to know the differences between a6300 (with 16-50) and RX100IV in terms of image quality.

Digital Nigel · Mar 23, 2016

tearofs said:
Digital Nigel said:

jsaras said:

For most landscapes a 24mm field of view is plenty wide. Set the aperture to f8 and set the focus point to the most distant object that you need to have in focus. Easy peazy.

Click to expand...

If you're going to use f/8, there's not much point in choosing an expensive prime lens like the Zeiss 24mm; a zoom will be more versatile, will have IS and may even be cheaper. BTW, a 24mm lens on APS-C has a 36mm field of view, which is often not wide enough for landscapes.

In practice, I tend to use a combination of my a6000 with 10-18 lens and FZ1000. The combination gives me continuous coverage from 15 to 400mm equiv. Here's an example of the two used together at the same time and location:

The whole, huge mural, which needs a very wide angle lens (15mm equiv)

Now let's zoom in on a detail, using a different lens/camera:

Zooming in on one of the maintenance cradles (400mm equiv)

Click to expand...

I would love to know the differences between a6300 (with 16-50) and RX100IV in terms of image quality.

I suspect that the RX100 would win. If you're only going to use the kit lens with the a6300, you'd be better off with a fixed lens compact. The a6300 wins if you use any of the primes, or good zooms like the 16-70, or lenses with shorter or longer focal lengths (such as the 10-18 I used in the first of those two images). The RX100 has a smaller sensor, but a much faster, higher quality lens than the kit zoom.

But note that neither of the pics I posted could be taken with any of the current RX cameras.

Foto4x4 · Mar 23, 2016

FWIW, I recently posted about my conversion from using either my A6000 or A7 which is mated to the Zeiss 24-70 to compacts for travel. I just returned from a 6 week trip to Tasmania and I'm totally satisfied with the images I have from my RX100ii supplemented by a HX90v for superzoom shots.

So satisfied in fact I've bought a RX100iv and selling my RX100ii and my A6000 plus its lenses. Can't part with the A7 just yet.

So my suggestion definitely leans toward the RX100iv. It's a great camera!

Adzor · Mar 23, 2016

Since the DL isn't out yet, what about an N1 J5 plus 6.7-13mm (18-35mm equivalent). Small, light, good quality, great VR, can even add a small cheap zoom lens that bets you to 300mm equiv.

Foto4x4 · Mar 24, 2016

One more thing... Just looked at the Nikon DL and noticed it has neither a VF nor built in flash. I find the EVF on both the Sonys as indispensable in any kind of sunlight. After using the EVF on my HX90v it was a principal reason to upgrade from the RX100ii to the IV.

alextardif · Mar 27, 2016

I extensively use a rather complete Emount system with several bodies. I don't consider any of the a7 systems all that compact, as even the smallest combo requires a bag to carry stuff around. I'm one of those people who alway brings a camera with me whenever I leave the house and for the longest time it was RX1 if I didn't want to lug around my big A99 or A7Rii or carry a bag. When it was time to give it up I still wanted to have an ultra compact option and RX100iii was the answer. Not once have I regretted the image quality from that 1" compact and I'm pretty fond of working with the A7Rii files! Recently my 2yr old decided to drown the RX100iii... I've been contemplating the new RX1R2 or A6300 and in the end I'm settling on the RX100iv that I just ordered from B&H this morning.

I firmly believe that when it comes to "unmatched IQ in a compact" there simply isn't anything else out there that can touch the RX100iv. It's truly in a league of its own. Always with you always fun to use always great images... $1K well spent

--
Alex

lancespring · Mar 27, 2016

tearofs said:
I have a Canon 6D with 17-40 as my heavy setup. The wider the better, but obviously image quality is my primary pick.

On the other hand, I am wondering whos better in terms of image quality, a6300 with 16-50 or RX100IV (Since DL18-50 isn't out yet)?

.

Both cameras have outstanding image quality in decent light. The a6300, though, will have an advantage when shooting at real high ISO. Do you shoot much indoors or at night?

If video is not that important to you, you should also consider the a6000 and the RX100 III, and consider saving some money by getting one of them. Both of those cameras remain outstanding choices for still photography.

Digital Nigel · Mar 27, 2016

lancespring said:
tearofs said:

I have a Canon 6D with 17-40 as my heavy setup. The wider the better, but obviously image quality is my primary pick.

On the other hand, I am wondering whos better in terms of image quality, a6300 with 16-50 or RX100IV (Since DL18-50 isn't out yet)?

Click to expand...

.

Both cameras have outstanding image quality in decent light. The a6300, though, will have an advantage when shooting at real high ISO. Do you shoot much indoors or at night?

That's true, but the RX100's much brighter lens will mean that in any given situation, it needs a much lower ISO than a camera using the 16-50. So the slow lens largely nullifies the benefits of the a6300's larger sensor.

lancespring said:
If video is not that important to you, you should also consider the a6000 and the RX100 III, and consider saving some money by getting one of them. Both of those cameras remain outstanding choices for still photography.

Sony RX100 IV vs Nikon DL18-50 vs Sony Alpha a6300

Member

Member

Forum Pro

Attachments

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Member

Member

Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts