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

alolywu wrote:

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?

Not enough external controls, lack of stabilisation with some of my lenses (primes), esp for video, and I had a terrible time getting used to the wheel on the back of the camera. As a matter of fact I never got used to it, I still hate it when I accidentally push a button.

And I keep replacing the focus point because my thumb touches the screen next to the crampy thumb rest.

Shall I go on?

The IQ is good, but the handling of my EM5 was better overall. Even the g7x might be better to my liking.

nejeime wrote:

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?

I wasnt talking about a specific lens when I mentioned DoF. I mean the EM5 allows for fast primes when you want more shallow DoF, such as the 45mm f1.8.

The g7x can sometimes struggle getting the focus right, especially in dim light. Didn't mention that, but the AF of the Olympus EM5 (I) is way ahead. The newer Oly cameras are probably even better. But the RX100 III is also better than the g7x.

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).

Did nobody mention the Panasonic TZ100yet? It sounds like a more versatile thing than the RX100, and it doesn't seem to be any larger than the other TZ models. The only disadvantages appear to be the "field-sequential" viewfinder (a regression compared to other recent models) and the non-manual zoom (if it's like the other TZ models). People were also complaining about the lens not being "bright" enough, but they probably want it all, anyway.

EarthQuake wrote:

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.

Thanks for documenting your experiences – I was particularly interested to hear about autofocus issues with these 1 inch sensor cameras (I think some have touched on this on this thread - I will get to these, thanks for your input). It sounds like they - RX100 & G7X - can’t quite compete with MFT there (although not sure why intrinsically that would be the case.)

Image quality sounds very acceptable for general use though, although not quite up there with, say, EM1 + premium zooms/ primes.

Ergonomics & adaptability are obviously way down, but that goes without saying (I imagine Panasonic’s LX100 has better ergonomics).

One aspect I have to question is your saying DOF is comparable to MFT + kit lens. Looking at this website:

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2.7x-30mm-f2-and-2x-30mm-f3.5-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

it’s apparent that a 1 inch sensor (2.7x) + f2.0 at 30mm (actually possible with the Canon G7x) will comfortably ‘out-blur’ MFT + kit lens. It’s this apparent fact which first made me think about these camera’s.

(to the person who mentioned premium zooms.. sadly my budget doesn’t stretch to sthg like an EM10 + 12-40 f2.8)

Thanks

The 12-40mm Olympus F2.8 pro zoom lens would give you what you are looking for perhaps...a lot heavier than a P&S camera though.  I find that using a neck strap to carry my cameras is best when with my kids, walking; etc., so camera weight isn't a huge deal.  If I carry my huge bag of Canon lenses, then the wright gets annoying though!

Or just use the Olympus kit zoom lens, it is very good actually.

Fri13 wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

What you are asking about is actually equivalence. A very popular, and detested by a few control freaks, subject in this forum. It is actually very useful though for comparing among formats. Read this:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

And then simply this:

http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

Yes, there is that, but there is an important difference. Richard Butler has got most of the technical stuff right. Jordan Steele has got most of the technical stuff wrong. So, if you want to learn, Richard's is the better bet. If you just want to reinforce your misconceptions, then by all means, look to Jordan.

Those that don't wish to discuss thing disagreeing with their own opinions, shouldn't read further. Those wishing me to justify my assessment of Jordan's piece might consider these little gems:

it’s the effective size of the (aperture) opening that determines the cone angle of the light rays entering the lens.

erm, no, the 'cone angle' of the light rays entering the lens depend on the subject distance and the absolute size of the aperture opening. That's simple geometry. In any case, that 'cone angle' is not of significance, except for macro work.

So, after all that drivel, what’s this aperture equivalence speak? Well, it refers entirely to the comparison of depth of field for a given sensor/lens combination.

erm, no. It refers to diffraction blur and number of photons projected onto the sensor as well as DOF.

However, this (total light) doesn’t work completely linearly in the real world, as smaller sensors are more light efficient than larger ones.

erm, and there are all those telling us that larger sensors are more 'light efficient'. In fact, there is no clear dependence on sensor size and 'light efficiency', it has much more to do with the generation of the technology than 'light efficiency'.

Compare different sensor generations and everything breaks down, though advocates of this equivalence never use the equivalence when comparing full frame sensors of different generations.

Sure, but that's also a pretty good argument why f/2.0 on an E-1 isn't 'equivalent' to f/2.0 on an E-M1, and I keep being told that f/2.0=f/2.0=f/2.0.

My whole point here is that the total light argument implies a direct 2x or 4x improvement in image quality with ISO.

erm. Exactly how does the 'total light argument' imply a direct 2x or 4x improvement in image quality with ISO? Do you expect a '2x' or '4x' improvement in image quality shooting with an E-M1 at 100 ISO versus 400 ISO? Exactly how are you quantifying 'image quality' anyway, that you could say that one thing has 2x or 4x of it?

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

This is a pretty interesting discussion for me, because I want to get a reasonably portable still camera with UHD video capability, which looks like either the FZ1000 or the G7. The FZ1000 gives me a 9.1-146/2.8-4.0 lens, which would be the equivalent of a 12-200/3.8-5.4 on the G7. If I got the G7 it would be with the 14-140/3.5-5.6 in the first place, so really, on that basis, the FZ1000 wins. In terms of absolute light gathering capability, the FZ1000 can eat an exposure of 91 ISO nominal, according to DxOmark, while the G7 (which I'm assuming is the same as the G7) does 108. 91 on the FZ1000 is the same amount of light as 165 on the G7, so in the end, the G7 can collect 2/3 stop more light. But then, I'm not sure absolute attainable image quality is an issue at large exposures for the sort of work I want to do with this (I have other cameras if that is the issue). In low light, it's likely that the FZ1000's BSI sensor will give it the advantage over the G7 with the 14-140.

Also, the FZ1000 is going to be quite a bit cheaper, so far as I can see. It's disadvantage is that the lens its fitted with is the only one it's ever going to have. Interesting conundrum.

If you do not pixel peep it will probably be pretty good in indoor low light also. Even my 1/2.3" sensor cameras do pretty well all things considered. My little Olympus XZ-10 is a great carry anywhere camera and often punches well above its weight.

This whole sensor size thing especially when a 1" compact with a 3x zoom glued on it sells for £759 is a bit of a joke really. More about profit margins and fashion than photography.

Yannis1976 wrote:

Although TZ100 seems very promising, I think it will have worse quality than RX100/G7X due to its slower and more zoom lens. I am expecting quite high ISOs and less sharp images compared to the other two. However if you don't pixelpeep and need a nice camera for day light, then could also be a very nice companion