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

I have both an extensive m43rds set a canon g7x, that I bought as a compact take-along camera for my wife. She never liked to work with my m43rds gear. As a result I have sometimes tried to leave my m43rds cameras at home and use only the g7x and see how that works for me. I also tried the sony RX100 line a few times.

For me personal, these are the things I learned (in random order)

- The g7x/rx100 cameras are just too small for comfortable shooting. Heavier cameras with lenses you can hold on to are easier to keep stable.

- The IS of the EM5 (and later) is far superior over that found in these cameras.

- The g7x/rx100 are very easy to take along, and very nice for family trips where small cameras with quick acces are great to have.

- The video quality of the 1 inch sensors with fast lenses is quite good. Put a zoom on the Oly m43rds cameras and video quality is somewhat equal, also in lowlight.

- The image quality of the 1 inch sensors is very good in good light. The Olympus cameras are better in low light/high ISO situations.

- The RAW files of the 1 inch sensors are a little less forgiving on heavy manipulating

- 20MP is nice, but not a big deal for me. There is more fine detail in many shots taken with my EM5 and a good lens (pana 12-35mm for instance)

- If shallow DoF is important to you, stick with m43rds or bigger sensors. A prime and bigger-than-1inch-sensor is the way to go.

- The zoom lens of the g7x is not that sharp at its tele end. I tend to avoid it, especially for images (video is more forgiving due to its lower res)

- I miss a viewfinder on the g7x. The Sony has one, but its not as nice to use as that of the OMD line. But its there if you need it.

- Battery life of the 1 inch cameras is even worse than that of the Oly cameras

In the end I find myself taking the g7x along when I am with family or friends and don't have a specific goal or do not expect to take many pictures. And I tend to shoot more video with it.

I use the EM5 for more challenging and more important situations. Its lens lineup gives a lot more versatility. Most of my best shots are not taken with the most used lens on the camera, the 12-35mm f2.8. Images that stand out (for me) are often UWA, shallow DoF portraits, or compressed tele work.

In the end they both serve us well, I wouldn't want to choose one over the other. I tried to go with the GM1 (as something halfway between small and capable) but it was one of my few big purchase errors when it comes to cameras.

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

In the end they both serve us well, I wouldn't want to choose one over the other. I tried to go with the GM1 (as something halfway between small and capable) but it was one of my few big purchase errors when it comes to cameras.

Have to ask, why didn't you like the GM1?

Gravi wrote:

I have both an extensive m43rds set a canon g7x, that I bought as a compact take-along camera for my wife. She never liked to work with my m43rds gear. As a result I have sometimes tried to leave my m43rds cameras at home and use only the g7x and see how that works for me. I also tried the sony RX100 line a few times.

For me personal, these are the things I learned (in random order)

- The g7x/rx100 cameras are just too small for comfortable shooting. Heavier cameras with lenses you can hold on to are easier to keep stable.

- The IS of the EM5 (and later) is far superior over that found in these cameras.

- The g7x/rx100 are very easy to take along, and very nice for family trips where small cameras with quick acces are great to have.

- The video quality of the 1 inch sensors with fast lenses is quite good. Put a zoom on the Oly m43rds cameras and video quality is somewhat equal, also in lowlight.

- The image quality of the 1 inch sensors is very good in good light. The Olympus cameras are better in low light/high ISO situations.

- The RAW files of the 1 inch sensors are a little less forgiving on heavy manipulating

- 20MP is nice, but not a big deal for me. There is more fine detail in many shots taken with my EM5 and a good lens (pana 12-35mm for instance)

- If shallow DoF is important to you, stick with m43rds or bigger sensors. A prime and bigger-than-1inch-sensor is the way to go.

- The zoom lens of the g7x is not that sharp at its tele end. I tend to avoid it, especially for images (video is more forgiving due to its lower res)

- I miss a viewfinder on the g7x. The Sony has one, but its not as nice to use as that of the OMD line. But its there if you need it.

- Battery life of the 1 inch cameras is even worse than that of the Oly cameras

In the end I find myself taking the g7x along when I am with family or friends and don't have a specific goal or do not expect to take many pictures. And I tend to shoot more video with it.

I use the EM5 for more challenging and more important situations. Its lens lineup gives a lot more versatility. Most of my best shots are not taken with the most used lens on the camera, the 12-35mm f2.8. Images that stand out (for me) are often UWA, shallow DoF portraits, or compressed tele work.

In the end they both serve us well, I wouldn't want to choose one over the other. I tried to go with the GM1 (as something halfway between small and capable) but it was one of my few big purchase errors when it comes to cameras.

Hi Gravi, thanks for your comparison. Interestingly, f2.8 on MFT at 30mm appears to give less DOF than a G7X would - see below:

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1x-50mm-f1.4-and-1x-85mm-f1.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

You are probably using one of the F1.8 (or wider) primes on your EM5 though.

Just wondering how the performance of the G7X stacks up vs the EM5? Is it fast/ accurate enough?

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?

Hi Martin.au, I believe the Canon G7X + Sony RX100iii would be no more than f2.0 at less than 30mm, so they are clearly pretty adaptable in that department.

Thanks

ThePalindrome wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

It's quite simple, my camera has a sharp 28-200mm F2-4 lens with very effective VR, an EVF, an articulating LCD, full external controls, it takes filters easily, it takes superb macro, it has flash sync speeds to 1/2000th, it has a built in ND filter, it can take an external flash, it takes full HD video, it has a black and white mode which you can adjust on the fly, it has panorama sweep and assist at 180 and 360 degs, portrait and landscape mode, it can control flash externally as well as having built in flash and I can carry it in a jacket pocket - why on earth would I leave it behind?

If it works for you have fun with it. Everyone has to choose their own compromise. For me the small sensors (1/1,7'' on you P7800) was too limiting (I had an XZ-1 which has a sliightly larger sensor with a slightly faster lens). But then the 135 system people would say the same about my GM1 and the Pentax 645Z people would say the same about a Sony A7.

There is no objective truth here that can be found, only subjective preferences.

very true (subjectively speaking 

The logistics of having multiple cameras (a fixed lens swiss army knife + a ILC) would be much more undesirable to me than those of multiple lenses but other might feel differnetly and that's OK.

Sony RX100 + Olympus Stylus.. Might be a good combination!

nejeime wrote:

ThePalindrome wrote:

There is no objective truth here that can be found, only subjective preferences.

very true (subjectively speaking

The logistics of having multiple cameras (a fixed lens swiss army knife + a ILC) would be much more undesirable to me than those of multiple lenses but other might feel differnetly and that's OK.

Sony RX100 + Olympus Stylus.. Might be a good combination!

If I hated changing lenses so much I would rather have two GM/Pen-bodies; one with the 14-140 and one with the 15 mm lens. Same batteries, same menues, etc.

Sorry if you've said this already, but why do you find the Panasonic superior to the fixed lens options? (Taking adaptability out of it, as you appear to have?)

Have a look around the Cameralabs.com reviews as they probably have the nearly 4/3 LX100 vs 1" G7x/RX100 side by side photos as they are good on showing comparative photos demonstrating relative bokeh. Also it shows how ghastly those greenish Sony colours are for portraits when viewed side by side with any other make. The Sony ones you can tell straight away as they are the people that look seasick.

nejeime wrote:

Thanks for the above. I’m aware of the abilities of the RX10’s (too bulky for me), RX100’s & LX100 (the latter would be almost perfect, but the lack of tilt screen is a deal breaker for me. Are you listening Panasonic J?)

I’m really just interested in hands on experience of performance and IQ for RX100’s/ Canon G7X vs the mid-range MFT camera’s using prime lenses within comparable equivalent focal length (ie. about 24-100mm – I know RX100s has < zoom than the G7X).

Thanks

nejeime wrote:

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..

Both the pany 12-35 and the oly 12-40 make an excellent one lens solution.  Changing lenses can be very inconvenient, but either of these two lenses is very versatile.  I have the 12-35 and it's enough for me in most situations, especially around family.

Dan

All enthusiastic photographers that I know have several cameras. Right tool for the right job.

I use an EM5, a Fuji x100s, an epm1, and an Canon dslr. I used to use a Canon Elph until I lent it out and then it got run over by a bulldozer.

So for most photography I liked the Elph.
For street photography the Fuji.
For social and people, probably the Olympus.
Nudes, definitely the Olympus. The Olympus can identify and focus on faces better than any other camera I use.
For outside like the zoo, the Canon.
Most of these cameras do movies, but the Olympus does them best.

But I think the compact camera like the Elph gets the most use, since it is always with you, and quick and disposable (as in getting damaged) in the way no cell phone nor camera is.
--
"It's" is the contraction of "it is".
"Its" is the possessive pronoun.
Example:
The camera and its viewfinder. Correct!

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(!)

My default lens is usually a zoom that goes from wide to short telephoto so I don't find myself changing lenses a lot in response to a quickly changing situation (usually).

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).

I have the RX100 II.  Its image quality is very good but I do see a difference between its files and the ones I get from my GX7 and EM5 II.  Beside noise differences at higher ISOs, the raw files are also more limited in their dynamic range.

The handling is also something that really annoys me with the RX100 II.  It's not particularly ergonomically friendly IMO.  Its autofocus is so-so and it's slow to operate due to its control layout.  But I don't think that is a given for all compact cameras.  My LX3, for instance, was much better in that regard.

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?

For indoor photography, I'd much rather have a current M43 body with a fast prime than a 1" sensor camera.

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

I have the RX100 III, and two EM1s and a half dozen or so lenses (7-14/4, 12-35/2.8, 25/1.4, 42.5/1.2, 75/1.8, 7.5/3.5).

The main advantage of the RX100 III is the size. If I want something genuinely pocketable none of my 43 gear suffices. Even a GM1 would not comfortably fit in my jeans pocket as the RX100 barely does. As far as image quality goes, the RX100 has a smaller sensor, but faster lens, which means it's roughly on par or a bit better than a M43 camera and the slow kit ~4-5.6 kit zoom lenses. This is impressive for the size, but not especially impressive if we're comparing directly to larger cameras with high quality lenses.

When I use my M43 gear with fast zooms/primes, the image quality is noticeably better, more control over DOF, lower ISO means more DR, less noise, etc. I also can't use my 7-14/4 or any telephoto on the RX100, so it has a pretty limited use for me.

Ergonomics with the RX100 are quite poor as well, the small size is a double edged sword, great for portability, bad for practical use. It's hard to hold, even with the add on grip. The controls are limited. The electric zoom is annoying. The pop up EVF is brilliant but a pain to pop up when needed and pretty small. There are a variety of other small operational concerns that I won't bother to type out. These are compromises I begrudgingly live with in a pocket camera but would never accept in a system camera.

Overall the RX100 is a fantastic pocket camera, and if that's all you're looking for it's perfect (assuming you can afford it) but it doesn't stack up well to an interchangeable lens camera system in most criteria outside of size/weight.