RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii

Started Jun 13, 2013 | Discussions
EthanP99 Senior Member • Posts: 2,436
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii

Don't buy the 5d If you don't like carrying your rebel.

Maybe a rx1 AND rx100 could suit your needs?

rx100 has lightning fast af

 EthanP99's gear list:EthanP99's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX1R Canon EOS-1Ds Canon EOS 5D Mark II Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 +21 more
DFPanno
DFPanno Veteran Member • Posts: 5,404
Re: DON"T BUY THE 24-70 !

halfmonkey wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

In my opinion the 24-70 is an overrated lens .. Way over-rated. Get the 24-105 kit and keep the difference or spend it on a RX100! (or get a 40mm STM)

Does this image look deficient to you?

I bought and then returned the 24-70 II. IQ was only slighter better than my 24-105 and then only at the corners. Slightly less distortion at 24mm. Slightly better contrast.

No disrespect but are you sure it's not user error or maybe you just got bad glass?

it's a lens; not a rocket ship.  That said I may have gotten a bad copy.  It also might be that I have an excellent copy of the 24-105.  Dunno but I sent the 24-70 back.

Keep in mind that the IS is very nice; especially for indoor family life.

From everything that I've read, if you compare Canon's 24-70 ii to other lens in that range, it's always comes out being the best. The biggest complaint that I hear is that although it is a great lens, people aren't sure that it necessarily worth the $1k more that it's asking over the 24-70 i.

OP halfmonkey Regular Member • Posts: 232
Re: DON"T BUY THE 24-70 !

DFPanno wrote:

halfmonkey wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

In my opinion the 24-70 is an overrated lens .. Way over-rated. Get the 24-105 kit and keep the difference or spend it on a RX100! (or get a 40mm STM)

Does this image look deficient to you?

I bought and then returned the 24-70 II. IQ was only slighter better than my 24-105 and then only at the corners. Slightly less distortion at 24mm. Slightly better contrast.

No disrespect but are you sure it's not user error or maybe you just got bad glass?

it's a lens; not a rocket ship. That said I may have gotten a bad copy. It also might be that I have an excellent copy of the 24-105. Dunno but I sent the 24-70 back.

Keep in mind that the IS is very nice; especially for indoor family life.

Yes, it is a lens and not a rocket ship but just like a wrench or an air gun, it is a tool and if you don't know how to use the tool, you're not going to get the result that the tool was designed to give.

From everything that I've read, if you compare Canon's 24-70 ii to other lens in that range, it's always comes out being the best. The biggest complaint that I hear is that although it is a great lens, people aren't sure that it necessarily worth the $1k more that it's asking over the 24-70 i.

 halfmonkey's gear list:halfmonkey's gear list
Sony RX100 V Sony Alpha a7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM
wazu
wazu Senior Member • Posts: 1,407
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii

Simple decision for taking family photos is RX-1

I own both RX-1 and 5d3 w 24-70 2.8II and will vouch for those who say you'll miss some due to slower focus on RX-1, but I think this con and the fixed 35 disadvantage is more than compensated for by the inobtrusiveness of the RX-1. The 5d3 is pretty quiet in silent mode, but the RX-1 leaf shutter is completely noiseless. Also the size of the 5d3 and enormous opening on lenes like the 24-70 2.8II are quite in your face. The RX-1 blends in more like compact or camera phone.

If you are a sport fanatic and want pics of your kids playing fast moving sports than by all means go for the 5d3 but get a longer zoom like 70-200. If you are planning on shooting lots of outdoor photos then the 5d3 will also be a wiser choice since it allows you to have some distance between you and subjects.

I really believe from personal experience that you'll have the RX-1 with you more often than a large dslr. I bought a D-tech neoprene case for mine that allows me to safely throw it in a coat pocket or backpack, wifes purse etc.

The 35mm will require you to get quite close for portraits if you intend to print large. Smalller print sizes like 8x10 can be cropped out of about 1/4 of the original 24mp image. It is a perfect indoor focal length and also for group or scenic photos outdoors.

The only negative with RX-1 that I have found is the poor battery life. I can shoot 1000 images on one battery with the 5d3 but get only about 175-200 using the RX-1. So now I have 3 batteries and an external charger for it and still wish for a couple more.

I don't even have the EVF yet since it adds bulk and is very costly, but ai've seen the price come down recently so when it reaches a reasonable $200 I'll buy one for those moments when I want to try more advanced magic moment capturing.

I haven't spent a great deal of time with either cameras video features but wtih the little I did and the continuous focus advantage of the RX-1 and similar IQ I think the Sony will be sufficiant in this area as well. It doesn,t allow for stabilization so you will really want the EVF for video unless you opt for some kind of stabilization rig.

good luck with your decision and one more thing...

There are definately a lot less accessories to the RX-1 than the 5D3. You'll likely buy a lot of L glass and camera bags and flashes and tripods etc for the latter which will ultimately make it a much more expensive choice

-- hide signature --

There is a crack in everything That's how the light gets in. - Leonard Cohen

earful Senior Member • Posts: 1,170
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii

halfmonkey wrote:

I completely understand what you're saying and I agree that it's not going to be the best camera to take pictures of my little kids.

But that's where the compromise comes in and the difficulty that I'm having comes into play. I can have the camera with me at all times and not get some or even most of the shots that I take of my kids with the RX1 OR I can get zero shots with the 5D iii because of the better AF that I will not be taking it with me at all because of the size and weight.

To counter agrue that point, I could say that I can get the 5D iii and use it on special occassions or where it would make sense to bring the camera and have my S95 do daily duty in my wife's purse or in my pocket. I can still take some good shots with the S95 and something is better than nothing in that regards but then I go back to thinking, the whole point of even looking at the RX1 was I can upgrade to FF instead of using the S95 for daily shots.

Wish I could just get both the RX1 and the 5D iii but money doesn't grow on trees.

pm sean lancaster, who went through this ordeal. i think he ended up with a canon 6d after first thinking he was going to go with a nikon instead. or hang on a bit longer. sonyalpharumors is claiming there will be a variant of the rx1 announced in august and stevehuff is claiming there is some exciting stuff in the sony pipeline - people are speculating it will be a ff nex (though i'm not certain that would resolve the consistently reliable af issue some have with the rx1). i'm not a great believer in waiting for the next best thing, but it might be the wiser choice in this instance.

wazu
wazu Senior Member • Posts: 1,407
Re: DON"T BUY THE 24-70 !

halfmonkey wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

In my opinion the 24-70 is an overrated lens .. Way over-rated. Get the 24-105 kit and keep the difference or spend it on a RX100! (or get a 40mm STM)

Does this image look deficient to you?

I bought and then returned the 24-70 II. IQ was only slighter better than my 24-105 and then only at the corners. Slightly less distortion at 24mm. Slightly better contrast.

No disrespect but are you sure it's not user error or maybe you just got bad glass? From everything that I've read, if you compare Canon's 24-70 ii to other lens in that range, it's always comes out being the best. The biggest complaint that I hear is that although it is a great lens, people aren't sure that it necessarily worth the $1k more that it's asking over the 24-70 i.

The 24-70 2.8II is far better than the 24-105! First look at the busy bokeh in the image from the 24-105. Then consider the exceptional sharpness corner to corner and this at wide open 2.8. Lastly the distortion on the 24-105 is terrible. The only thing the 24-105 has going for it is IS, which in my opnion is moot since the extra stop with the 24-70 and the better sharpenss more than make up for the lack of IS.

While I will concede the 24-105 is better value for the money and suits better for casual walk-around photography where the extra reach may result in having to crop for framing.

Since I do have both lenses I sometimes also use the 24-105 for a mid-tele zoom on an APS-C DSLR. If you are mainly interested in getting the best IQ the 24-70 wins hands down.

-- hide signature --

There is a crack in everything That's how the light gets in. - Leonard Cohen

DFPanno
DFPanno Veteran Member • Posts: 5,404
Let's carry your analogy a step further

halfmonkey wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

halfmonkey wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

In my opinion the 24-70 is an overrated lens .. Way over-rated. Get the 24-105 kit and keep the difference or spend it on a RX100! (or get a 40mm STM)

Does this image look deficient to you?

I bought and then returned the 24-70 II. IQ was only slighter better than my 24-105 and then only at the corners. Slightly less distortion at 24mm. Slightly better contrast.

No disrespect but are you sure it's not user error or maybe you just got bad glass?

it's a lens; not a rocket ship. That said I may have gotten a bad copy. It also might be that I have an excellent copy of the 24-105. Dunno but I sent the 24-70 back.

Keep in mind that the IS is very nice; especially for indoor family life.

Yes, it is a lens and not a rocket ship but just like a wrench or an air gun, it is a tool and if you don't know how to use the tool, you're not going to get the result that the tool was designed to give.

That's right; it's just like a wrench or an air gun which is to say a pretty simple piece of equipment.  Sure, there are variations on the theme, but most seasoned mechanics will pick that up pretty quicky.

I started in with a Kodak Monitor in 1962 so I have had my hands on a good bit of equipment over the years  I personally didn't find that the 24-70 II required any particular insight or technique.  It is a very simple garden-variety zoom.

If you can shoot a 50 1.8 you can shoot the 24-70 II.

From everything that I've read, if you compare Canon's 24-70 ii to other lens in that range, it's always comes out being the best. The biggest complaint that I hear is that although it is a great lens, people aren't sure that it necessarily worth the $1k more that it's asking over the 24-70 i.

It has the best IQ but a more limited range.  And no IS.  If money is no object and you don't need the range or IS then go for it.

Remember we're all just trying to help YOU.

cptrios Senior Member • Posts: 1,352
Re: Let's carry your analogy a step further

The RX1 is a very tricky proposition, I think. In many ways it's quite a bit better for kid shots, as some have already mentioned; unobtrusiveness, quiet shutter, take-everywhere size, etc. But, again as others have already mentioned, the ability of the AF to keep up with active children isn't even close to that of the 5D3. Still...I'd wager that if you took an RX1 and a 5D3 with the 24-70, any given shot with nailed focus at 35mm is going to look better coming from the RX1 (or in the very least have a bit less noise and a lot more DR).

The toughest thing about the RX1, though, is the price and its attendant poor value as an investment. There's no lens to sell once the body becomes out of date - the whole thing just depreciates as one. Average used prices for the RX1 are already down around $2200-2300, and as soon as there's a successor they'll fall even further. If you buy a 5d3, the camera will obviously depreciate - but the lenses you buy for it won't.

Can I assume, by the fact that you're looking at a 5D3 and 24-70 ii, that you've got around $5000 to spend? Or let's say $4000 factoring in used purchases? If so, I'd strongly suggest you A) consider the Tamron 24-70 over the Canon and B) go for a used 6D instead of a 5D3. If $5000 is your budget, you may actually be able to squeeze a 6D, Tamron 24-70, and RX1 in if you buy them all used!

L Copps Senior Member • Posts: 1,562
Re: RX1, RX100, Canon 6D, Nikon D800

The RX1 has only a fixed lens, but it has enough pixels to sufficiently crop great photos from its 24MB shots.  So you can do your zooming at the computer.  If you are looking at full size DSLRS, I might even consider the Nikon D800 with 36MP and a 50mm or 80mm prime lens.  The D800 is much less expensive than the Canon 5D with nearly twice as many pixels.  Some compare it with medium format cameras.  But you need a good computer to crunch its big pictures.  You would also be able to crop a 1/3 of the picture and still have over 10 megapixels.  For me I think the RX1 is too expensive for me to spend on a fixed lens camera. But it is more portable than a DSLR.

The Nikon D800 with a prime lens is easier to carry around than a 5D III with a 24-70 zoom lens.  DSLRs are big and hard to carry with you all the time.  For shooting kids, you should consider the RX100 which is pocketable and shoots stunning 20MP pictures for a point and shoot. And you can have it with you all the time.

If you are intent on Canon, I would seriously consider the 6D.  It has geotagging and WIFI which the 5D III does not have.

 L Copps's gear list:L Copps's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +10 more
GeorgeP256 Junior Member • Posts: 28
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii

halfmonkey wrote:

Funny how you were in the same boat. I really didn't think anybody else would compare these two cameras.

You mentioned that you mostly shot at 35mm anyways. Was that 35mm after the conversion since you were shooting on a crop camera or was it 35mm as stated on the lens but without converting by 1.6 since you shot on a crop camera? Before the conversion, it would amount to shooting at 56mm.

Do you find that you miss the zoom much? I know we can just use our legs to "zoom" in and out but do you find yourself saying that you wish you could just zoom in from where you're standing or sitting very often?

35mm after conversion. The lens I used the most was the 17-55mm EF-S 2.8 (27 - 88 equivalent), which I typically shot near the wide end. I do miss the zoom a bit though. You often cannot "zoom" with your legs at a recital, for example. What compensates a bit is the fact you can crop a lot with this camera because of the sharp, fast lens, and high resolution sensor.

albertTD Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii

5Diii...

pros:

1. interchangable lens - allwos for flexibility

cons:

1. heavy and large - there not as portable as I'd like. Can't just throw in a bag or wife's purse or pocket

Why not just get a 6D with a pancake 40mm F2.8, that solve the weight issue and if your wife got a big purse, you can just wrap it in a cloth and toss it in

taken from whatdigitalcamera.co.uk

albertTD Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: DON"T BUY THE 24-70 !

it's a lens; not a rocket ship. That said I may have gotten a bad copy. It also might be that I have an excellent copy of the 24-105. Dunno but I sent the 24-70 back.

Keep in mind that the IS is very nice; especially for indoor family life.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfpanno/

I've compared the 24-105 and 24-70 I, and I'd say there's quite a difference in IQ, and I'll vouch for 24-70 as being a better choice if you're much concerned about IQ than focal length. The price difference at that time was only about $300, on that price, the 24-105 wasn't a good choice for me considering cost vs performance.

Having said that, you should know I'm kind of a pixel peeper, my current lens line up is all primes and some manual focus, so... I might be too picky on IQ

cosmonaut
cosmonaut Senior Member • Posts: 2,223
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii

I would go with an SLR but probably not Canon for my own reasons. I would think the RX1 while a romantic idea to shoot a fixed focal length long term isn't the way I would go. It's far to limiting. With a full size rig and a couple of lenses you can do everything from landscapes to portraits and sports.

The a99 without the grip is really a small camera in contrast to cameras from the past. I could never complain that's it's to heavy or bulky. That theory doesn't fly with me.

-- hide signature --

www.gregmccary.com

DFPanno
DFPanno Veteran Member • Posts: 5,404
There is a context to that recommendation
1

The OP seemed to be concern about money.  The 24-70 is (mostly) abetter lens but the 24-105 is a better value (from some perspectives).

Horses for courses.

Richie S Contributing Member • Posts: 502
Re: There is a context to that recommendation

ascolas others have said there's a lot of choices available within the budget. Maybe start with the RX1 with the proviso that you still have budget for a 6d Or D600 kit.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii

halfmonkey wrote:

I would probably say that my primary focus at this point is taking pictures of my little kids. They're 5.5, 4, and 6 months. I guess one of the main things holding me back on the RX1 is the fixed 35mm lens. I know it's generally considered a walkaround lens, maybe a little on the wide side but non-the-less, a usable walk around lens.

Truth is, you can make really great images of children with any focal length (but more limited on UWA). 35mm is more than adequate as far as FL goes. The only real drawback of RX1 for this use is slower tracking AF. But even that should not stop you from making good photos.

If you have no intention to shoot more focal length specific or performance-demanding disciplines, such as full body portrait  or sports or wild life, then RX1 will serve you adequately. There are many DSLR users who stick to one prime majority of the time, and often that prime is a 35mm.

Having said all that, I think even if you decide to go with SLR the 5D3 is not the ideal choice, it is big, expensive, and IQ at low ISO is subpar. 6D and D600 are both much better alternative and they leave you with 1500 USD for lenses.

For example you could buy D600 + 24-85 and sigma 35 F1.4 for the price of 5D3. that will cover you fro both 35mm prime shooting and versatile holiday shooting.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: DON"T BUY THE 24-70 !

DFPanno wrote:

In my opinion the 24-70 is an overrated lens .. Way over-rated. Get the 24-105 kit and keep the difference or spend it on a RX100! (or get a 40mm STM)

24-70 is an expensive lens and it is arguable that it is a bit too expensive. But "overrated" implies it is not as good as it is perceived to be. Can you produce evidence to that effect?

I bought and then returned the 24-70 II. IQ was only slighter better than my 24-105 and then only at the corners. Slightly less distortion at 24mm. Slightly better contrast.

24-70II is a true F2.8 lens at T3.0, while 24-105 is somewhat like a F4.5 lens with T5.1, that is a massive difference. Most sample image, test image, and reviews also show a clear IQ difference between the two.

But I do agree that for most people, 24-70II's money can be better spent on other lenses. get 24-70II only if you must have both high performance and zoom convenience at the same time.

L Copps Senior Member • Posts: 1,562
Re: RX1 vs. Canon 5D iii
1

The RX100 also stores faces, is a lot more portable (pocketable), great IQ, and a lot less money than the RX1.

 L Copps's gear list:L Copps's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +10 more
DFPanno
DFPanno Veteran Member • Posts: 5,404
Re: DON"T BUY THE 24-70 !

ultimitsu wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

In my opinion the 24-70 is an overrated lens .. Way over-rated. Get the 24-105 kit and keep the difference or spend it on a RX100! (or get a 40mm STM)

24-70 is an expensive lens and it is arguable that it is a bit too expensive. But "overrated" implies it is not as good as it is perceived to be. Can you produce evidence to that effect?

I think you should re-read the preface to my statement:  "In my opinion".  That third word is critically important.  In the context of my opinion it is overated.  Other people will have different opinions and that is OK too.  See how that works?

I am not as interested in test scores as other people.   I have an excellent pair of (trained) eyes and I judge images on two of the finest monitors available.  (I don't print so I can't comment there).

I bought and then returned the 24-70 II. IQ was only slighter better than my 24-105 and then only at the corners. Slightly less distortion at 24mm. Slightly better contrast.

24-70II is a true F2.8 lens at T3.0, while 24-105 is somewhat like a F4.5 lens with T5.1, that is a massive difference. Most sample image, test image, and reviews also show a clear IQ difference between the two.

I am extremely familar with the optical characteristics of both lenses but thanks for the refresh.

But I do agree that for most people, 24-70II's money can be better spent on other lenses. get 24-70II only if you must have both high performance and zoom convenience at the same time.

Here we agree.  I think it is a poor choice for the OP given that he is clearly concerned about money.

I also think that for general shooting IS is a wonderful feature.  In fact if a 24-70 II IS is released I will take a hard look at it.

DFPanno
DFPanno Veteran Member • Posts: 5,404
I have to laugh..........

ultimitsu wrote:

halfmonkey wrote:

I would probably say that my primary focus at this point is taking pictures of my little kids. They're 5.5, 4, and 6 months. I guess one of the main things holding me back on the RX1 is the fixed 35mm lens. I know it's generally considered a walkaround lens, maybe a little on the wide side but non-the-less, a usable walk around lens.

Truth is, you can make really great images of children with any focal length (but more limited on UWA). 35mm is more than adequate as far as FL goes. The only real drawback of RX1 for this use is slower tracking AF. But even that should not stop you from making good photos.

If you have no intention to shoot more focal length specific or performance-demanding disciplines, such as full body portrait or sports or wild life, then RX1 will serve you adequately. There are many DSLR users who stick to one prime majority of the time, and often that prime is a 35mm.

Having said all that, I think even if you decide to go with SLR the 5D3 is not the ideal choice, it is big, expensive, and IQ at low ISO is subpar. 6D and D600 are both much better alternative and they leave you with 1500 USD for lenses.

For example you could buy D600 + 24-85 and sigma 35 F1.4 for the price of 5D3. that will cover you fro both 35mm prime shooting and versatile holiday shooting.

"and IQ at low ISO is subpar"

Can you produce evidence to that effect?

LOL - you voiced an opinion that I don't share.

At base ISO (if that's what you mean) the IQ of the Canon is wonderful.  Is the DR of the D600 better at base - yes.  In every other regard the 5D3 is a superior product.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads