Canon lover switched to RX-100, and it was terrible! Need advice....

Started Feb 1, 2013 | Discussions
Nexu1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,746
Re: And the earth is flat too.
1

Andrew Butterfield wrote:

wazu wrote:

If you'd read the previous post you'd see that detailed measured reviews rate the RX-100 at 0.26 ms to acquire focus. That is not my result. I can attest to knowing the latency between the LX series and RX-100 certainly feels like the 1/4 second the review measurements show. Get your facts straight before you spout off.

All you have to do is look at the review at Imaging Resource. But to save you the trouble, their measurements of the RX100's performance are:

Flash (Full AF, Wide) 0.372 second

Continuous AF 0.314 second

LX5: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LX5/LX5A6.HTM

Full Autofocus, Wide 0.351 second

Full Autofocus, Tele 0.367 second

 Nexu1's gear list:Nexu1's gear list
Nikon D750
YiannisPP Senior Member • Posts: 1,621
Re: Cameralabs A/F comparison...
1

NIK11 wrote:

Let's agree they are both(LX7/RX100) quick for compacts, but as you can see one well respected reviewer thinks the LX7 is a tad faster and more dependable.

Nick

Of course we can agree on that. But can we also agree that just because one reviewer found the LX7 a tad faster (even if he's got it right), it doesn't justify calling the RX100 sluggish? What do you think? Can we agree that insisting on calling one of the fastest cameras in AF (according to all reviews) sluggish, can only mislead unsuspecting people and only reduces the value of this forum?

NIK11 Senior Member • Posts: 2,827
Re: Cameralabs A/F comparison...

YiannisPP wrote:

NIK11 wrote:

Let's agree they are both(LX7/RX100) quick for compacts, but as you can see one well respected reviewer thinks the LX7 is a tad faster and more dependable.

Nick

Of course we can agree on that. But can we also agree that just because one reviewer found the LX7 a tad faster (even if he's got it right), it doesn't justify calling the RX100 sluggish? What do you think? Can we agree that insisting on calling one of the fastest cameras in AF (according to all reviews) sluggish, can only mislead unsuspecting people and only reduces the value of this forum?

People regularly overstate matters in these forums, it's part of the 'perfectionist' language.

I have been researching various Review sites trying to find reliable information about which compact has the best A/F and continuous rates, and have been quite surprised at the variance in results with the same camera at different sites.

I can only conclude the variance has to do with different testing equipment, different lighting and how contrasty the subject matter is. Perhaps IR are testing in good conditions (where the RX100 does very well) whereas Cameralabs states categorically they compared the RX100/LX7 for example in a variety of circumstances.

Whatever the truth of confusing review results, I am wary about drawing a firm conclusion from just one site's results, and more inclined to listen to users or reviewers who have compared said cameras at the same time in the same (variety of) conditions.

Hope that helps.

Nick

marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Re: Canon lover switched to RX-100, and it was terrible! Need advice....
1

I've owned the RX100, and it's an excellent camera.  Great IQ, with excellent DR (probably the best DR of any compact ever, and also superior to the Nikon 1 cameras for DR).  Noise up to ISO 1600, possibly 3200, is not a problem at all.  Shot in RAW, and processed in LR, images from the RX100 as good as you'll get from a compact camera.  Video quality is also as good as it gets for such a camera.

The things I didn't like were mostly related to ergonomics and handling. For example, I always compare the RX100 to the Fuji X10 (one of my other favorite compacts) and I realize this is not fair as the X10 is significantly larger than the RX100, but I prefer the grip and the VF of the X10.

  • No VF - I don't enjoy shooting with any camera where I have to compose on the LCD.  And I don't like the P&S style stance with arms extended forward.  It's not stable, and it's too difficult to really examine the scene i.e., edges of the frame, bright light, etc. 
  • The macro performance was not what I expected, as the RX100 didn't focus very close at all (the X10 has a Super Macro mode down to 1 cm).  
  • Build quality was good, but it felt a bit fragile for the price it sells for, and especially in contrast to the all metal body of the X10/X20 (I've pre-ordered the X20, but I like all of the Fuji X series camerasl).  
  • AF performance was fine, not blazing like my Nikon V1, but good for a P&S
  • Lens was soft up close at f1.8

Anyway, these are all fairly minor points in comparison to the drubbing the OP gave the RX100.  Noise at base ISO was never an issue.  Files are not as clean at base ISO as the 1/1.7" CCD sensor of the Ricoh GRD (ISO 64) but noise at base ISO in the RX100 is virtually non-existent, and it takes extreme pixel peeping at 100% to see any at all.

I suspect there is something else going on in this post, i.e., buyers remorse related some other issue, as there is no way anyone can look at a properly shot image from the RX100 (or Canon S110 for that matter) and find fault in it.

As for which camera you should get, I have no recommendations as if you don't like the RX100 or S110, I'm reluctant to suggest some of the cameras I'm interested in (X20, MX-1, G15, etc).

Cheers, Markus

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
YiannisPP Senior Member • Posts: 1,621
Re: Cameralabs A/F comparison...
1

NIK11 wrote:

People regularly overstate matters in these forums, it's part of the 'perfectionist' language.

Calling Tyson Gay or Yohan Blake sluggish because Usain Bolt beats them to the line is not a case of "overstating matters". It's just BS.

Dimitri Khoz Contributing Member • Posts: 943
Re: Cameralabs A/F comparison...
1

YiannisPP wrote:

NIK11 wrote:

Let's agree they are both(LX7/RX100) quick for compacts, but as you can see one well respected reviewer thinks the LX7 is a tad faster and more dependable.

Nick

Of course we can agree on that. But can we also agree that just because one reviewer found the LX7 a tad faster (even if he's got it right), it doesn't justify calling the RX100 sluggish? What do you think? Can we agree that insisting on calling one of the fastest cameras in AF (according to all reviews) sluggish, can only mislead unsuspecting people and only reduces the value of this forum?

Actually,

he was absolutely right about slowness of RX100.

Here is comparison from one very reputable reviewer



S950 vs RX100 vs LX7

As one can see, RX100 speed did not improve much in comparison even to the old Canon 950S from 2007.

Still very similar AF times and much worse IS.

Latest 1/1.7' bright lensed cameras like Lumix LX7 are more than twice faster in snapping action.

Dimitri Khoz Contributing Member • Posts: 943
Re: Canon lover switched to RX-100, and it was terrible! Need advice....
1

marike6 wrote:

I've owned the RX100, and it's an excellent camera. Great IQ, with excellent DR (probably the best DR of any compact ever, and also superior to the Nikon 1 cameras for DR). Noise up to ISO 1600, possibly 3200, is not a problem at all. Shot in RAW, and processed in LR, ...

Right, it is one of the biggest problems with RX100.

It is RAW ONLY type of a camera.

JPEGs and Auto mode suffer from imperfect colors, excessive NR, and incorrect f-values and ISO used.

However, in good hands

using Manual mode, RAW + serious PP

pictures from 1' Sony sensor will shine, especially when downsized to the on-screen view sizes.

YiannisPP Senior Member • Posts: 1,621
No shame at all?

Dimitri Khoz wrote:

Actually,

he was absolutely right about slowness of RX100.

Here is comparison from one very reputable reviewer

As one can see, RX100 speed did not improve much in comparison even to the old Canon 950S from 2007.

I was wondering when will you show up to take the BS even further...

What may this "very reputable reviewer" be who disagrees completely with DPR?

Does this mean by implication that DPR is not really reputable? Because in the RX100 review in this here site we find in the RX100's pros: " Fast operation, including focus and Raw capture"

Are you calling DPR incompetent and misleading its readers? The RX100 is a premium compact camera of 2012. If it had "not improved much in comparison even to the old Canon 950S from 2007" as you're claiming, surely they wouldn't include its operation in its pros and call its focus fast right?!

Has Richard Butler lost it completely according to you?

For what it's worth, I have used the RX100 extensively and I never even noticed the AF time in WA, it's not anywhere near 0.5sec as your "reputable reviewer" quotes..

Dimitri Khoz Contributing Member • Posts: 943
Re: No shame at all?

YiannisPP wrote:

Dimitri Khoz wrote:

Actually,

he was absolutely right about slowness of RX100.

Here is comparison from one very reputable reviewer

As one can see, RX100 speed did not improve much in comparison even to the old Canon 950S from 2007.

What may this "very reputable reviewer" be who disagrees completely with DPR?

Does this mean by implication that DPR is not really reputable? Because in the RX100 review in this here site we find in the RX100's pros: " Fast operation, including focus and Raw capture"

Are you calling DPR incompetent and misleading its readers? The RX100 is a premium compact camera of 2012. If it had "not improved much in comparison even to the old Canon 950S from 2007" as you're claiming, surely they wouldn't include its operation in its pros and call its focus fast right?!

Very reputable reviewer is one of the most renown european websites

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/

http://www.digitalversus.com/

And there is no need to defend RX100, because it focuses fast but not fast enough as LX7 due to the bigger sensor.

It is ok. Let's live with it.

Canon 950S was chosen on purpose. If you did not know, this old camera has very fast focusing even by today's standards.

Therefore, I'd suggest to do some research before blackmailing people who have hands-on experience with LX7 and older Canons which confirms that RX100 is actually slower that some other compacts.

Bluto Contributing Member • Posts: 692
Yep, it's noise reduction.

AdamT wrote:

Sony JPGs are glooped to death with NR at ALL ISOs so I class them as RAW only cameras ...

I confess, I haven't read this whole thing, and have never used an RX100 but ...

this is exactly what i was thinking as I read the OP. What he is describing it Noise REDUCTION, not NOISE. He is talking about the smearing of details that many digital cameras apply liberally. If he hasn't tried shooting RAW to compare the results, he should.

That said, It's rare that you need to use a picture at native resolution, i.e., pixel peeping. Unless you are printing poster size and viewing close up, it is very often not an issue. OP didn't say what size he prints at, so maybe his walls are filled with 24" x 36" prints and it is a bigger issue for him.

Nexu1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,746
Re: No shame at all?
1

Dimitri Khoz wrote:

YiannisPP wrote:

Dimitri Khoz wrote:

Actually,

he was absolutely right about slowness of RX100.

Here is comparison from one very reputable reviewer

As one can see, RX100 speed did not improve much in comparison even to the old Canon 950S from 2007.

What may this "very reputable reviewer" be who disagrees completely with DPR?

Does this mean by implication that DPR is not really reputable? Because in the RX100 review in this here site we find in the RX100's pros: " Fast operation, including focus and Raw capture"

Are you calling DPR incompetent and misleading its readers? The RX100 is a premium compact camera of 2012. If it had "not improved much in comparison even to the old Canon 950S from 2007" as you're claiming, surely they wouldn't include its operation in its pros and call its focus fast right?!

Very reputable reviewer is one of the most renown european websites

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/

http://www.digitalversus.com/

And there is no need to defend RX100, because it focuses fast but not fast enough as LX7 due to the bigger sensor.

It is ok. Let's live with it.

Canon 950S was chosen on purpose. If you did not know, this old camera has very fast focusing even by today's standards.

Therefore, I'd suggest to do some research before blackmailing people who have hands-on experience with LX7 and older Canons which confirms that RX100 is actually slower that some other compacts.

So that makes it OK to make blanket statements that say the RX100 is "sluggish"?  How about making a specific statement that the LX5 is faster than the RX100 (later proven wrong).

Autofocus wide: RX100 0.153, LX5 0.351, Canon G1X 0.695, LX7 0.241

Autofocus tele:  RX100 0.266, LX5 0.367, Canon G1X 0.681, LX7 0.228

Flash: RX100 0.372, LX5 0.562, Canon G1X 1.164, LX7 0.451

Prefocus: RX100 0.013, LX5 0.012, Canon G1X 0.094, LX7 0.010

The RX100 is pretty darn fast.

 Nexu1's gear list:Nexu1's gear list
Nikon D750
AdamT
AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,597
Re: Sony RX100 low ISO JPGs look pretty good.

Low ISO RAW conversions in general cannot really outclass the OOC jpegs as your statement below would seem to imply.

 

 

you either have low expectations or are using a RAW converter which adds NR behind the scenes because even at Base ISO the fine detail is smeared away (the NEX and Alpha series are the same) , in RAW it`s tack sharp . for the record I`d not shoot the S90 in JPG either for different reasons , the G1X is fine

-- hide signature --

** A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge **

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
AdamT
AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,597
20Mp is for Cropping with slow short lenses
1

That said, It's rare that you need to use a picture at native resolution, i.e., pixel peeping. Unless you are printing poster size and viewing close up, it is very often not an issue. OP didn't say what size he prints at, so maybe his walls are filled with 24" x 36" prints and it is a bigger issue for him.

the 20Mp of the RX100 is far more use for Cropping than anything else - the lens is horribly slow and not especially sharp at full zoom from the samples (rather like the S90/100) - it`d be better to use less zoom where its faster and sharper and crop than use all the zoom , more stable to hold too .

If you really don`t need 20Mp for cropping or big prints then to be honest the RX100 is wasted , a cheap S90/95/100 is the answer and it`s a lot more compact, smaller files, the S100 is wider too

-- hide signature --

** A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge **

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
Daniel Lauring
Daniel Lauring Veteran Member • Posts: 9,342
Re: 20Mp is for Cropping with slow short lenses
2

AdamT wrote:

the 20Mp of the RX100 is far more use for Cropping than anything else - the lens is horribly slow and not especially sharp at full zoom from the samples (rather like the S90/100) - it`d be better to use less zoom where its faster and sharper and crop than use all the zoom , more stable to hold too .

If you really don`t need 20Mp for cropping or big prints then to be honest the RX100 is wasted , a cheap S90/95/100 is the answer and it`s a lot more compact, smaller files, the S100 is wider too

The two comments I bolded are counter to each other.  If it isn't sharp, you can't crop.  The reality is the RX100 IS sharper than S100 and pretty much everything in it's size class.  If you pixel peep, it might look softer, but you can fix this quick by just downsizing to the same resolution as the other camera you are pixel peeping against.  Once you do that you will see better resolution from the RX100.  I have had multiple cameras in this size class, including the S100 and XZ-1, and LX7.  The only thing I really miss, with the RX100 is extremely close macro.  When it comes to IQ, the RX100 is a revelation.

NIK11 Senior Member • Posts: 2,827
Re: Cameralabs A/F comparison...

YiannisPP wrote:

NIK11 wrote:

People regularly overstate matters in these forums, it's part of the 'perfectionist' language.

Calling Tyson Gay or Yohan Blake sluggish because Usain Bolt beats them to the line is not a case of "overstating matters". It's just BS.

Your unfortunate use of Gay and BS in place of a well reasoned debate says it all. I made the mistake of assuming you knew something about A/F.

Enjoy your new toy.

Nick

Daniel Lauring
Daniel Lauring Veteran Member • Posts: 9,342
Re: Cameralabs A/F comparison...
2

NIK11 wrote:

YiannisPP wrote:

NIK11 wrote:

People regularly overstate matters in these forums, it's part of the 'perfectionist' language.

Calling Tyson Gay or Yohan Blake sluggish because Usain Bolt beats them to the line is not a case of "overstating matters". It's just BS.

Your unfortunate use of Gay and BS in place of a well reasoned debate says it all. I made the mistake of assuming you knew something about A/F.

Enjoy your new toy.

Nick

I think his analogy is a good one.  You wouldn't call a Mustang V6 sluggish because the V8 was 2 seconds faster 0-60.  Likewise, you shouldn't describe the RX100 as sluggish because there is a camera or two faster than it.  There are plenty of cameras deserving of the title, sluggish, but the RX100 isn't one of them.

NIK11 Senior Member • Posts: 2,827
Re: Cameralabs A/F comparison...

Daniel Lauring wrote:

NIK11 wrote:

YiannisPP wrote:

NIK11 wrote:

People regularly overstate matters in these forums, it's part of the 'perfectionist' language.

Calling Tyson Gay or Yohan Blake sluggish because Usain Bolt beats them to the line is not a case of "overstating matters". It's just BS.

Your unfortunate use of Gay and BS in place of a well reasoned debate says it all. I made the mistake of assuming you knew something about A/F.

Enjoy your new toy.

Nick

I think his analogy is a good one. You wouldn't call a Mustang V6 sluggish because the V8 was 2 seconds faster 0-60. Likewise, you shouldn't describe the RX100 as sluggish because there is a camera or two faster than it. There are plenty of cameras deserving of the title, sluggish, but the RX100 isn't one of them.

So you approve of citing 'Gay' in a photography forum as being what, 'unthinkable' perhaps? Think carefully about the preconceived disposition to make that example run. It is inappropiate IMO.

You need to follow this whole thread, I have already said the RX100 is fast for a compact, no question. Others issues arose when someone who has owned both RX100 and LX5 had the 'audacity' to suggest the LX5 was quicker. That poster described the RX100 as 'sluggish' in comparison to the LX. Not a word I would use, but it is his opinion and entitled to make it. Maybe he is a sports photographer who is used to handling the quickest DSLR's around.

The problem with your Mustang analogy is that it is easier to measure a straight line race (whether it be cars or people) than it is to interpret A/F performance in all light, all conditions, at all FL's and various apertures, in real  world use outside the studio. That's why I suggest any hands-on comparison is valuable, not something to be derided. Also, years ago I use to marshall at races and I well recall overhearing a famous racing driver coming back from practice run complaining to the mechanics that the car felt 'sluggish'.

Personally,  I really don't care which one is quicker, but I am suggesting it is not the simple issue some here would like it to be.

Nick

AdamT
AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,597
Re: 20Mp is for Cropping with slow short lenses

The two comments I bolded are counter to each other. If it isn't sharp, you can't crop.

You should have read the rest - you get to crop at a wider angle where its sharper also making the lens faster and the IS more effective as well .

The reality is the RX100 IS sharper than S100 and pretty much everything in it's size class. If you pixel peep, it might look softer, but you can fix this quick by just downsizing to the same resolution as the other camera you are pixel peeping against.

Negating the resolution advantage .......

BUT as it happens, at the wide end with the aperture faster than F5.6 it`s very sharp so the full 20Mp is an advantage . this is all in RAW of course, Sony JPGs are mushy unless resized to a quarter of the pixel count ..

-- hide signature --

** A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge **

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
Don Fraser Senior Member • Posts: 1,284
a slightly different way to put the issue...

and I'm really interested in the answer.

If you made a good 11 x 14 print from each (one of the S95/100/110 series, and RX-100), could you see the difference that the larger sensor in the Sony makes, at that size?

Not a lens question. Just whether there is a difference, whether it's a smoothness or sharpness, between the two prints, because of the larger Sony sensor. Not a scientific comparison by any means, but just whether you look at the two prints, and say, that that one must be from the larger sensor on the Sony.

That's the real world test I'm interested in.

YiannisPP Senior Member • Posts: 1,621
Re: Sony RX100 low ISO JPGs look pretty good.
1

AdamT wrote:

Low ISO RAW conversions in general cannot really outclass the OOC jpegs as your statement below would seem to imply.


you either have low expectations or are using a RAW converter which adds NR behind the scenes because even at Base ISO the fine detail is smeared away (the NEX and Alpha series are the same) , in RAW it`s tack sharp . for the record I`d not shoot the S90 in JPG either for different reasons , the G1X is fine

Adam,

I don't think you can say I have low expectations in general. You can of course say lower than yours. But my expectations in general are in line with DPR's reviewers for a camera of this class, which I think we can assume are not generally low. I quote from DPR's RX100 review:

"The RX100's processing isn't perfect - it looks a lot like some noise reduction is being applied and then the results sharpened, but the overall effect is a lot more pleasant, realistic and detailed....Having Raw mode on the RX100 means that you can achieve slightly better image quality than is possible from JPEG, although the increase in potential resolution is relatively subtle...there's not a lot of scope for digging out more detail by converting from Raw. That said, the ability to fine-tune the sharpening to match the subject matter is always handy...In general the RX100 does a fairly good job of using an appropriate amount of noise reduction at each ISO setting but obviously it can't tailor it to the subject....There's not a lot more detail to be gleaned from shooting in Raw...."

My findings largely concur with the statements above, so you see why I took exception at your bold statement "Sony JPGs are glooped to death with NR at ALL ISO".

I am using LR4.3 by the way (and used IDC). If these add NR behind the scenes then wow, didn't know that and that's bad. But whether this is or not the case, I'd really appreciate it if you could prove your point of how significantly superior the RAW conversion can be compared to the OOC jpeg at base ISO. Could you please post a comparison of the two for a good light, base ISO photo?

In your two hypothetical cases, you could've added a third one, i.e. "or your pp skills are not sufficient to get the most out of RAW", at which I wouldn't have taken exception, I'm always learning.

Personally I cannot really see a substantial benefit from converting from RAW in these conditions (low ISO, good light). Any minor (very) fine extra detail I can glean out is accompanied by also minor increase in fine grain. We're talking about very fine detail indeed and I fail to see under what conditions you'd see it in a final photo unless you crop at near 100%.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads