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

nejeime wrote:

Hi Henry, thanks for this - I’ve actually seen the article and have looked at equivalence. There’s a great website charting DOF against various sensor sizes & apertures somewhere too. Blur your background or something along those lines.

In this instance though, I’m more interested in the performance – autofocus speed & accuracy - as well as people’s more subjective interpretation of image quality of these cameras..

Okay, I am sorry if I misunderstood, but this is what you wrote:

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?

Everything you wrote except the last phrase of the very last sentence concerns equivalence.

Good luck with whatever you choose!

nejeime wrote:

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.)

AF performance on my RX100 seems pretty good for a compact camera. It's not very fast and it struggles in low light, but it's generally accurate. I wouldn't use it for tracking/action, where my EM1 is very good. Changing the AF point requires a bit of menu digging as well.

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

Yes, IQ is absolutely fantastic the size.

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 RX100 III at the long end will provide a little bit more blur than an M43 camera with the 12-32mm. Your numbers aren't quite right here though, the long end of the RX100 is 26/2.8, while the 12-32 would be 32/5.6. See this link: http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2.8x-26mm-f2.8-and-2x-32mm-f5.6-and-2x-45mm-f1.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

Saying that, the difference is pretty small, about 1 stop in real use (the RX100 III DOF on the long end is about the same as 35mm 4.0 on M43, or 70mm 8.0 on FF). Basically, neither lens/camera combination will provide particularly narrow DOF, the RX100 III will simply be slightly more narrow. Either will provide a bit of background blur for a tightly framed headshot if the background is far enough away, neither will blur the background for a full body shot unless the BG is REALLY far away. I wouldn't pick either kit over the other for ability to create subject isolation/background blur, as something like the small, light and relatively inexpensive Olympus 45/1.8 (can be found on eBay for $250 if your budget is tight) will work much better for this purpose.

The 12-40/2.8 would give a bit shallower DOF than the RX100 III, but again this isn't a lens I would grab if narrow DOF was my goal, I would use my fast primes instead.