MFT users: why not Sony RX100/ Canon G7X after Olympus?

I’ve had a lot of fun over the last year or so with my Olympus EPL-5 & have finally motivated myself to move beyond the auto switch and learn some photography! I think this was largely due to moving in to prime lenses (Sigma 19 & 30mm f2.8) and enjoying the greater creative potential given by increased DOF control and pin sharp photos. I’ve also really enjoyed using the ‘kit’ Olympus 40-150 – great images from this one.

I imagine like a lot of people who are short on time though, I do wish I didn’t have to be changing lenses all the time.. a lot of my photos are taken out and about with my family - changing lenses is, for example, especially inconvenient when trying to prevent a toddler from throwing himself in a lake/ road(!)

So i’m wondering what the drawbacks are of the likes of Sony RX100 iii or the Canon G7x (ignoring the telephoto & especially wide end for now)? From what I can see, equivalent aperture from these two would give a depth of field around about the same (if not more) than the two MFT Sigma’s (I’m aware, of course, that the Oympus 25mm f1.8 & 45mm f1.8, for example, would yield even more DOF).

But what about IQ though? Is the fixed lens combined with 1 inch sensor really competitive? And performance? A lot of my photo’s are taken indoor (again, as young family) – I’m wondering if I’m going to find these super-compacts somewhat sluggish?

Any thoughts from people who have experience of the two types would be much appreciated.

Cheers

nejeime wrote:

I’ve had a lot of fun over the last year or so with my Olympus EPL-5 & have finally motivated myself to move beyond the auto switch and learn some photography! I think this was largely due to moving in to prime lenses (Sigma 19 & 30mm f2.8) and enjoying the greater creative potential given by increased DOF control and pin sharp photos. I’ve also really enjoyed using the ‘kit’ Olympus 40-150 – great images from this one.

I imagine like a lot of people who are short on time though, I do wish I didn’t have to be changing lenses all the time.. a lot of my photos are taken out and about with my family - changing lenses is, for example, especially inconvenient when trying to prevent a toddler from throwing himself in a lake/ road(!)

So i’m wondering what the drawbacks are of the likes of Sony RX100 iii or the Canon G7x (ignoring the telephoto & especially wide end for now)? From what I can see, equivalent aperture from these two would give a depth of field around about the same (if not more) than the two MFT Sigma’s (I’m aware, of course, that the Oympus 25mm f1.8 & 45mm f1.8, for example, would yield even more DOF).

But what about IQ though? Is the fixed lens combined with 1 inch sensor really competitive? And performance? A lot of my photo’s are taken indoor (again, as young family) – I’m wondering if I’m going to find these super-compacts somewhat sluggish?

Any thoughts from people who have experience of the two types would be much appreciated.

Cheers

Why not widen it up to other cameras? Though I shoot with FF, when I want to travel really light I use a camera with a 1/1.7 inch sensor that has a 28-200mm F2-F4 lens and extremely effective stabilisation and a base ISO of 80. I can handhold this camera and get sharp shots at 200mm and 1/8th second. It's very competitive against many cameras, including m4/3's, it also has 11.7 stops of DR at base ISO, which in reasonable light is easily achievable. The lens is also crispy sharp and it has an EVF and fully articulating LCD. It also has 12mp which means you can print to a very decent size. I gave up using m4/3's and swapping lenses and just use this camera which is extremely versatile as it also covers macro and off camera flash. There are many cameras out there that are competitive as a lightweight substitute, I'm not a big fan of minimal controls so the RX100 series and the new dominance of touchscreens is not so good for me personally.

nejeime wrote:

Hi, thanks for your response.

I actually looked at the Olympus Stylus 1 which covers some of the points you mention (and looks like an excellent camera, for many people’s needs).

That camera is almost as big as a M4/3 camera, especially with the faux pentaprism hump.

The issue for me is that I take a lot of photo’s around the 30mm mark and like If you're looking some thin DOF at that range. I don’t believe I’d get sufficient subject separation and ‘pop’ for portraits (for my needs) with much less than a 1 inch sensor +f1.8 or MFT +f2.8.

The problem with very small sensor cameras is the LACK of depth of field. It's an advantage for macro and some other types of shooting, but you can essentially kiss creamy bokeh goodbye.

(I’m not currently interested in larger sensors incidentally – much as I’d love FF for home use, I value smaller, more discrete cameras out and about. That and the cost of FF!)

If you're looking for a smaller camera AND tissue thin DoF, why not take a look at the Panasonic GM5? Use your current lenses and get a fast prime for for all the subject separation you want.

Because I can't shoot what I want to shoot with those cameras.

nejeime wrote:

Hi, thanks for your response.

I actually looked at the Olympus Stylus 1 which covers some of the points you mention (and looks like an excellent camera, for many people’s needs).

The issue for me is that I take a lot of photo’s around the 30mm mark and like some thin DOF at that range. I don’t believe I’d get sufficient subject separation and ‘pop’ for portraits (for my needs) with much less than a 1 inch sensor +f1.8 or MFT +f2.8.

Yes that's a fair point, dof cpntrol does decrease, but I accept that as a trade off and the way I use that type of camera it's a positive for what I shoot.

(I’m not currently interested in larger sensors incidentally – much as I’d love FF for home use, I value smaller, more discrete cameras out and about. That and the cost of FF!)

Sure, it's always horses for courses.

jeffharris wrote:

nejeime wrote:

Hi, thanks for your response.

I actually looked at the Olympus Stylus 1 which covers some of the points you mention (and looks like an excellent camera, for many people’s needs).

That camera is almost as big as a M4/3 camera, especially with the faux pentaprism hump.+

I use the Nikon P7800, which isn't that big at all.

The issue for me is that I take a lot of photo’s around the 30mm mark and like If you're looking some thin DOF at that range. I don’t believe I’d get sufficient subject separation and ‘pop’ for portraits (for my needs) with much less than a 1 inch sensor +f1.8 or MFT +f2.8.

The problem with very small sensor cameras is the LACK of depth of field. It's an advantage for macro and some other types of shooting, but you can essentially kiss creamy bokeh goodbye.

Depends on the subject and how close you are too it, but yes, it has less dof control, which is a win lose scenario.

(I’m not currently interested in larger sensors incidentally – much as I’d love FF for home use, I value smaller, more discrete cameras out and about. That and the cost of FF!)

If you're looking for a smaller camera AND tissue thin DoF, why not take a look at the Panasonic GM5? Use your current lenses and get a fast prime for for all the subject separation you want.

For increased dof control that is a good option in m4/3's.

nejeime wrote:

I do wish I didn’t have to be changing lenses all the time.. a lot of my photos are taken out and about with my family - changing lenses is, for example, especially inconvenient when trying to prevent a toddler from throwing himself in a lake/ road(!)

So i’m wondering what the drawbacks are of the likes of Sony RX100 iii or the Canon G7x (ignoring the telephoto & especially wide end for now)? From what I can see, equivalent aperture from these two would give a depth of field around about the same (if not more) than the two MFT Sigma’s (I’m aware, of course, that the Oympus 25mm f1.8 & 45mm f1.8, for example, would yield even more DOF).

But what about IQ though? Is the fixed lens combined with 1 inch sensor really competitive? And performance? A lot of my photo’s are taken indoor (again, as young family) – I’m wondering if I’m going to find these super-compacts somewhat sluggish?

If changing lenses is a huge malus for you it makes absolutely sense to use a fixed zoom camera.

Every camera, from a cellphone cam to a that new Phase One 100MP medium format is a compromise between size, price, and IQ (to simplify, there are more factors like handling). Only you can decide which compromise is the one that works for you.

Does the Sony RX100IV have great quality in a small package? Yes. Does the Panasonic GM1 with a 15 mm f1.7 have better IQ. Also Yes, but you have to compromise on size and zomm vs. prime. The price for both is actually about the same.

nejeime wrote:

I’ve had a lot of fun over the last year or so with my Olympus EPL-5 & have finally motivated myself to move beyond the auto switch and learn some photography!

I imagine like a lot of people who are short on time though, I do wish I didn’t have to be changing lenses all the time.. a lot of my photos are taken out and about with my family - changing lenses is, for example, especially inconvenient when trying to prevent a toddler from throwing himself in a lake/ road(!)

So i’m wondering what the drawbacks are of the likes of Sony RX100 iii or the Canon G7x (ignoring the telephoto & especially wide end for now)?

But what about IQ though? Is the fixed lens combined with 1 inch sensor really competitive? And performance? A lot of my photo’s are taken indoor (again, as young family) – I’m wondering if I’m going to find these super-compacts somewhat sluggish?

So, you want a smaller camera, more convenience in terms of cutting down on lenses swapping WITHOUT losing image quality or the ability to play with depth of field. Right?

First, get one of the M4/3 10x superzooms. The Panasonic 14-140mm II is the best of the bunch, but the Oly 14-150mm II is supposedly okay. That alone will cut down on lens swapping tremendously!

The EPL5 is quite small, but you may prefer a smaller camera body. If that's the case, take a serious look at the Panasonic GM5. It's tiny, has a built-in viewfinder and all the other M4/3 goodness. Keep the superzoom on one camera, a small, fast prime on the other.

Options are always a good thing!

Take only one lens w you and you won't have to worry about swapping lenses.

At the lake or picnic or whatever outing, you'd use the 14-150 II (splash Proof) to give you plenty of range.
Indoors maybe the 17/1.8 would be sufficient. Or stick w your 19mm and bump up the ISO if needed.

Now Olympus also makes a very nice 2.8 zoom (12-40) if that would work better for you.

Just remember that owning multiple lenses doesn't mean taking them all with you.
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

Art_P wrote:

Take only one lens w you and you won't have to worry about swapping lenses.

At the lake or picnic or whatever outing, you'd use the 14-150 II (splash Proof) to give you plenty of range.
Indoors maybe the 17/1.8 would be sufficient. Or stick w your 19mm and bump up the ISO if needed.

Now Olympus also makes a very nice 2.8 zoom (12-40) if that would work better for you.

Just remember that owning multiple lenses doesn't mean taking them all with you.
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

Invariably the one you left at home will be the one you really needed, that's one of the reasons I like fixed lens compact cameras, if your shooting isn't critical they are great "Swiss army knife" options.

papillon_65 wrote:

Art_P wrote:

Take only one lens w you and you won't have to worry about swapping lenses.

At the lake or picnic or whatever outing, you'd use the 14-150 II (splash Proof) to give you plenty of range.
Indoors maybe the 17/1.8 would be sufficient. Or stick w your 19mm and bump up the ISO if needed.

Now Olympus also makes a very nice 2.8 zoom (12-40) if that would work better for you.

Just remember that owning multiple lenses doesn't mean taking them all with you.
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

Invariably the one you left at home will be the one you really needed, that's one of the reasons I like fixed lens compact cameras, if your shooting isn't critical they are great "Swiss army knife" options.

And how's that work when you find you needed fast glass?

Martin.au wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Art_P wrote:

Take only one lens w you and you won't have to worry about swapping lenses.

At the lake or picnic or whatever outing, you'd use the 14-150 II (splash Proof) to give you plenty of range.
Indoors maybe the 17/1.8 would be sufficient. Or stick w your 19mm and bump up the ISO if needed.

Now Olympus also makes a very nice 2.8 zoom (12-40) if that would work better for you.

Just remember that owning multiple lenses doesn't mean taking them all with you.
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

Invariably the one you left at home will be the one you really needed, that's one of the reasons I like fixed lens compact cameras, if your shooting isn't critical they are great "Swiss army knife" options.

And how's that work when you find you needed fast glass?

Personally I find F2 to be pretty fast.