The RX100 VI versus the ........

Digital Nigel said:

My experience with it is better than yours, though the edges are certainly mushy at the wide end, particularly wide open. But then, you can afford to crop a bit, as the wide end is closer to 21mm than 24mm equiv,

Click to expand...

it was like the G1X Mk2 and FZ1000 (like looking down a toilet roll uncorrected) if I remember rightly as well , doesn`t do a lot for edge performance even if the lens is optically good .. Sample variation in lenses has been a constant bugbear regardless of camera / camera system or price for decades ..

I thought of trying the G7X-II when I got this RX but after trying the G7X and G5X in their days and seeing how sharp the RX100 M3 was end to end edges and all (Inc 21mm at 24mm if you go 16:9 ratio) , I went that route .. the Canons aren`t much longer and couldn`t put up with the compromise . I could put up with the slow aperture compromise of the Mk6 but not the crazy UK price . one to look out for in years to come

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

AdamT said:

Adam-T said:

My experience with it is better than yours, though the edges are certainly mushy at the wide end, particularly wide open. But then, you can afford to crop a bit, as the wide end is closer to 21mm than 24mm equiv,

Click to expand...

it was like the G1X Mk2 and FZ1000 (like looking down a toilet roll uncorrected) if I remember rightly as well , doesn`t do a lot for edge performance even if the lens is optically good .. Sample variation in lenses has been a constant bugbear regardless of camera / camera system or price for decades ..

I thought of trying the G7X-II when I got this RX but after trying the G7X and G5X in their days and seeing how sharp the RX100 M3 was end to end edges and all (Inc 21mm at 24mm if you go 16:9 ratio) , I went that route .. the Canons arent much longer and couldnt put up with the compromise . I could put up with the slow aperture compromise of the Mk6 but not the crazy UK price . one to look out for in years to come

Click to expand...

Here's a set of pictures I took in New Orleans Aquarium with the G7X. All shot RAW, processed using DxO:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157702239624881

Or here's a set at New Year's fireworks, Venice:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157679309385556

I took these in the Berlin Reichstag:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157668432486544

These were taken in Christchurch, New Zealand, looking at the aftermath of the earthquake:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157664515652662/

These were in the Buena Vista Social Club concert, Havana (where the extra zoom and faster lens made it more useful than any RX100 model):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157662641848801

And these were over a meal in what is currently ranked as the world's best restaurant:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157667519683205/

you certainly got some memorable images there - the Mk3/4/5 would have been great in the low llight ones , the difference between 70 and 100mm isn`t that great (I had a RX Mk1 which was 100mm and don`t miss it ) and the RX MK3 onwards lens is superb wideopen at F2.8 and the AF as good as it gets in low light for a compact .. as I say, for me the G7X is too much of a compromise - Dunno about the RX Mk6, depends on if the IS is good enough at 200mm

How do you find the Original RX10 ? compared to the likes of the Mk6 ? .. and did they improve the zooming action in firmware later on (originally it was dealkillingly slow and unresponsive - I`m sure they sorted it in the Mk2/3/4

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

AdamT said:

you certainly got some memorable images there - the Mk3/4/5 would have been great in the low llight ones ,

Click to expand...

Actually, probably worse than the G7X, which has a faster lens, and probably better IS, too. Neither, of course, has a lens as sharp as the RX10M3/4.

Here's some tests I did:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157678189974530

Adam-T said:

the difference between 70 and 100mm isn`t that great (I had a RX Mk1 which was 100mm and don`t miss it ) and the RX MK3 onwards lens is superb wideopen at F2.8 and the AF as good as it gets in low light for a compact ..

Click to expand...

How can you say that the RX100M3 has "AF as good as it gets in low light for a compact" when the RX100M5 is so much better? Clearly the RX100M1-4 have much worse AF than the M5 onwards. I don't think the older RX100s have any better AF-S than the G7X.

For me, the 70mm limit was too low, so I didn't consider the RX100M3-M5. I'm happy that my G7X has a wider, longer and faster lens than those RX100 models. I don't think its AF is any worse than the CDAF RX100s (ie, up to the M4).

Adam-T said:

as I say, for me the G7X is too much of a compromise - Dunno about the RX Mk6, depends on if the IS is good enough at 200mm

Click to expand...

Yes, it's good. It's better than any of the previous RX100 models.

Adam-T said:

How do you find the Original RX10 ? compared to the likes of the Mk6 ? .. and did they improve the zooming action in firmware later on (originally it was dealkillingly slow and unresponsive - I`m sure they sorted it in the Mk2/3/4

Click to expand...

I don't have the original RX10, just the original RX100. I was always happy with it, but wanted the faster lens of the G7X. I'm happy I bought it.

The RX100 was the only camera I took with me to North Korea, as we were warned not to bring a long lens camera. Here's some pics I took there:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/collections/72157633470282496/

Digital Nigel said:

Actually, probably worse than the G7X, which has a faster lens,

Click to expand...

its the same F1.8-2.8 and sharp edge to edge wideopen

Digital Nigel said:

and probably better IS, too

Click to expand...

the RX100 Mk3 has way better IS than the Mk1 which almost had none at all (Remember the Canon S90 - that was the same) . I was well impressed being able to handhold the Mk3 at 1/3 of a second .

Digital Nigel said:

. Neither, of course, has a lens as sharp as the RX10M3/4.

Click to expand...

I`m sure . the bigger Mk3/4 are as big as a D750 with a decent standard zoom attached but you cant argue with 600mm, I`ve always liked superzooms , never liked electric zooming on them though ,, liked the old Sony R1, the various Fujis etc for their manual zooms . I could put up with elecrtic zoom again if it was responsive enough the (RX10 mk1 was far from it)

Digital Nigel said:

I don't have the original RX10, j

Click to expand...

Ahh, thought you had one sorry

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

Digital Nigel said:

AdamT said:

you certainly got some memorable images there - the Mk3/4/5 would have been great in the low llight ones ,

Click to expand...

Actually, probably worse than the G7X, which has a faster lens, and probably better IS, too. Neither, of course, has a lens as sharp as the RX10M3/4.

Click to expand...

The RX100 Mk3/4/5 have the same aperture range, f1.8-2.8, as the G7x

tbcass said:

Digital Nigel said:

AdamT said:

you certainly got some memorable images there - the Mk3/4/5 would have been great in the low llight ones ,

Click to expand...

Actually, probably worse than the G7X, which has a faster lens, and probably better IS, too. Neither, of course, has a lens as sharp as the RX10M3/4.

Click to expand...

The RX100 Mk3/4/5 have the same aperture range, f1.8-2.8, as the G7x

Click to expand...

Yes, with a much smaller zoom range. At every focal length between 24mm and 50mm, the G7X lens is faster, sometimes much faster, than the RX100M3-5, just as I said. They're about the same above that, till the RX100 runs out of zoom at 70mm. Try looking at this chart:

https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/5774593979/images/Equiv_Ap.png

AdamT said:

Adam-T said:

Actually, probably worse than the G7X, which has a faster lens,

Click to expand...

its the same F1.8-2.8 and sharp edge to edge wideopen

Click to expand...

No, it's not sharp edge to edge wide open, though it is better than 24mm than the G7X. All of these compacts have severe lens distortion and vignetting at the wide end. Correcting that always smudges the image edges.

Adam-T said:

Adam-T said:

and probably better IS, too

Click to expand...

the RX100 Mk3 has way better IS than the Mk1 which almost had none at all (Remember the Canon S90 - that was the same) . I was well impressed being able to handhold the Mk3 at 1/3 of a second .

Click to expand...

Yes, I know the RX100M3-5 has better IS than the very poor IS in the original RX100. But I think the G7X is better, as is the RX100M6.

Adam-T said:

Adam-T said:

. Neither, of course, has a lens as sharp as the RX10M3/4.

Click to expand...

I`m sure . the bigger Mk3/4 are as big as a D750 with a decent standard zoom attached but you cant argue with 600mm, I`ve always liked superzooms , never liked electric zooming on them though ,, liked the old Sony R1, the various Fujis etc for their manual zooms .

Click to expand...

I agree, but all these video-oriented bridge cameras have power zoom. But when I really need manual zoom, I use my A6500 with a manual zoom lens, such as my 10-18, 16-70 or 18-200.

Adam-T said:

I could put up with elecrtic zoom again if it was responsive enough the (RX10 mk1 was far from it)

Adam-T said:

I don't have the original RX10, j

Click to expand...

Ahh, thought you had one sorry

Click to expand...

No, I preferred the Panasonic FZ1000.

Interesting and eye opening. Here's what DPR said in 2014;

"At this point in time, the G7 X has one direct competitor, and that's the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III (and arguably its predecessor). While both cameras do a great job at stills, the G7 X has a longer zoom and a bit more control over depth-of-field, so portrait and landscape photographers may find it to be the more appealing of the two. If capturing fast action is important to you, the Sony wins hands-down in all areas (it's vastly superior in terms of battery life, as well). Video shooters will also find the RX100 III to be the better of the two cameras. Handling is more subjective. Some photographers will like the exposure compensation and 'clicky' dial of the G7 X, while others will prefer the smooth dial and tilt-down LCD on the RX100 III."

--
Tom

tbcass said:

Interesting and eye opening. Here's what DPR said in 2014;

"At this point in time, the G7 X has one direct competitor, and that's the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III (and arguably its predecessor). While both cameras do a great job at stills, the G7 X has a longer zoom and a bit more control over depth-of-field, so portrait and landscape photographers may find it to be the more appealing of the two. If capturing fast action is important to you, the Sony wins hands-down in all areas (it's vastly superior in terms of battery life, as well). Video shooters will also find the RX100 III to be the better of the two cameras. Handling is more subjective. Some photographers will like the exposure compensation and 'clicky' dial of the G7 X, while others will prefer the smooth dial and tilt-down LCD on the RX100 III."

Click to expand...

Yes, that all seems fair and accurate. The last two points were addressed in the G7X Mk 2.

One other weakness of the original G7X, fixed in the Mk II, was the very slow continuous RAW shooting rate.

As an aside, the G7X Mk II had a lot of worthwhile, detail improvements, but no fundamental changes in technology: neither the lens nor the sensor were updated. The Mk 2 was released three years ago, and despite various rumours, there haven't been any updates since. This contrasts with Sony's relentless pace with the RX100 series, where every new model has either a new sensor or new lens, along with detail improvements, and there's a new model almost every year.

JeremyB2 said:

....... Canon G9X II, the Canon G7X II, the Lumix TX/TZ100 and the Lumix TZ200. I currently have a Canon SX50 which is good for outdoor shooting in good light. I'm looking for a significantly smaller 1" sensor camera with better performance in lower light conditions.

I fall into very much an amateur category. I enjoy taking photos but have no pretensions towards taking 'great' photos. My viewing is virtually all done on a good quality 30" monitor. If I do print, it is only to A5 size.

For the purpose of comparison at this stage please ignore price (obviously a big differential between the Sony and the others), the zoom range, size and weight. These are all factors that will influence my decision but I'm looking for feedback from those who may have experience of the Sony compared with one or more of the others in terms of ease of use, flexibility, JPEG quality (I'm not taking RAW into account at the moment), and anything else you might consider to be helpful.

Comments much appreciated. J.

Click to expand...

I had a similar interest as you -- I was looking for a compact that was versatile in terms of a decent zoom for outdoors and decent in low light for indoors stuff. I first bought the Sony RX100v, but was put off by the handling and the sticky lens cover, particularly for such an expensive camera. It was decent for indoor shooting, but not much if any better than my iPhone for the kind of stuff I do. I sold the Sony and then bought the ZS200. I initially really liked that camera, but ultimately found it to be soft at maximum zoom with a lack of contrast, and indoors it was not particularly good, although with the flash it produced beautiful snapshots indoors. Ultimately, however, the iPhone won out in that case too, at least for snapshots for me.

AdamT said:

I`ve been using various M43 bodies for years as a small personal camera , mainly because the size to performance ratio is superb (thinking GM1/GM5 until their sensors got too mucky inside) , also the Panasonic lenses are fantastic edge to edge even wideopen including the 12-32 kit lens and the 14-140-II Superzoom (APS-C SZs are desperate let alone full frame)

...........But I`ve just got an RX100 M3 (its the sweet spot for price / performance in the UK) and in RAW it`s only hair behind the best current 16Mp M43 bodies for high ISO noise , Dynamic range etc (and the RX bests them for resolution and sky noise as it does a very Dynamic ISO80) and of all, only the £1500 EM1-II seems to beat it all round by a useful margin ! .. so the GX80 (my current M43 body) is relegated for when I need the 14-140 . if I need anything more serious than the RX, I`ll just grab a work DSLR ..

Click to expand...

Yep, like I said. Thank you sir.

Smallpox said:

tbcass said:

May a pox befall you for such a rude reply!

Click to expand...

May you be less lazy next time

Click to expand...

I think you have me mixed up with the OP.

tbcass said:

Smallpox said:

tbcass said:

May a pox befall you for such a rude reply!

Click to expand...

May you be less lazy next time

Click to expand...

I think you have me mixed up with the OP.

Click to expand...

You told me I was rude. And you didn't do your homework...

????????????????????????

Canon G5x...... ?

Whatever you do... do not choose the G9X II. Great build. Great size. Great sensor. Great touch controls. Bad lens away from its centre.